Micheal Moore Hates America

Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

I think I'd be more interested in seeing a conservative film which supports every move Bush has made than attacking the maker of the anti-Bush polemic. The title alone "Michael Moore Hates America", need we know more about a film which has made its mind up so fast that its title is a snappy knee-jerk conservative reaction?
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=Michael_Lieberman link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=30#40 date=07/08/04 at 11:27:47]I think I'd be more interested in seeing a conservative film which supports every move Bush has made than attacking the maker of the anti-Bush polemic. The title alone "Michael Moore Hates America", need we know more about a film which has made its mind up so fast that its title is a snappy knee-jerk conservative reaction?[/quote]

Well, the movie appears to be not about Bush or his policies, which I could care less about in a small documentary (lots of big one do that) but about the ethics of Moore. The Guardian was very critical of Moore's method of doing things even while supporting his message in general. The movie title is no more over the top than Bowling for Columbine? After all, Moore named that movie after series of events that turned out to not even be true.

In the long run, intellectually, the title is the thesis statement of the documentary (at least in this case). The issue will be, when watching the movie, does he support his thesis statement with facts?
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

This is a quote from a post on this topic I made earlier – “Michael Moore’s movie in general relies no less than fiction on the shaping of ideas and information. That which he selects as truths; the portion of events he chose to emphasize; the quotes, the interviews, the “experts” he included as representative of situations, the settings, the graphics, the sounds and even the background music – all of these elements determined the shape and meanings of this movie.

Its interesting that someone else wants to produce a movie, the same way that Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 were produced, about Michael Moore and he wants nothing to do with it. For good reason, he is going to be killed! Not because he “lied” about anything but because he knows that any idiot with a camera can produce this kind of movie and spin it any way they want.

As a filmmaker, what annoys me about Michael Moore is that he has hijacked an art form in much the same way that fundamentalists have hijacked a religion. By labeling this film a documentary implies a certain “truth” giving it some level of credibility that it does not deserve. Now studio pin heads are going to look at Fahrenheit 9/11, see that it made $60+ million and want to jump on the bandwagon producing movies for political pundits who wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them in the ass! I hope that this movie, “Michael Moore Hates America” will see the light of day and expose Fahrenheit 9/11 for the crap that it is, not for what it says, but for how it said it, and studio executives can get back to producing Die Hard 103…

I know that politics has always had a role to play in media production and maybe I’m naïve to think that filmmakers can be objective, but Michael Moore crossed an ethical line where pretty soon a portion of the box office receipts will be going directly to the candidate that produced the movie.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

By the way, thank you all for calming down and returning to the adult discussion of this film. People with opposite views can have adult conversations, as shown here, if they show some civility.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=ChuckS link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=30#42 date=07/08/04 at 12:07:10]By labeling this film a documentary implies a certain “truth” giving it some level of credibility that it does not deserve.[/quote]
Moore doesn't call it a "documentary". He calls it an "op-ed piece", implying that it's his form of a newspaper editorial.

Others call it a documentary, that is true, but I don't believe Moore has ever called it that, has he? I call it propaganda, which is another way to say that it is opinionated and one-sided, which even Moore admits that it is.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

What, you don't want to kick my ass?


Ok, Ok, that's just a joke - I know I shouldn't, but I couldn't resist. After yesterday I didn’t think anyone would reference one of my posts as an adult conversation…

~bad attitude

PS. Sllapgragon, did you ever read the article I quoted in the FCP post? If so what do you think?
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=30#44 date=07/08/04 at 12:16:18]
Moore doesn't call it a "documentary".  He calls it an "op-ed piece", implying that it's his form of a newspaper editorial.

Others call it a documentary, that is true, but I don't believe Moore has ever called it that, has he?  I call it propaganda, which is another way to say that it is opinionated and one-sided, which even Moore admits that it is.[/quote]

Yes, Moore has labled his work as three different things at different time. It was "the whole truth in documentary form" at Cannes. During the New York Times interview, and after the Ebert article which gave it a fair rating for a documentary, he claimed it to be a new style of work, an "op/ed documentary", or a documentary - presentation of fact which is also an advocacy for a position. Several times he has also, for legal protection, labelled his work a "comedy". Political comedy enjoys a great deal of protection from rulings of expropriation of creative content, and Moore faces a fairly serious and potentially financially devestating charge of plagarism on F911.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=ChuckS link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=45#45 date=07/08/04 at 12:18:33]What, you don't want to kick my ass?


Ok, Ok, that's just a joke - I know I shouldn't, but I couldn't resist.  After yesterday I didn’t think anyone would reference one of my posts as an adult conversation…

~bad attitude

PS. Sllapgragon, did you ever read the article I quoted in the FCP post?  If so what do you think?
[/quote]

No, I am an idiot. I saw it, put it on my to read list, and lost it again, and this morning I searched but did not find. If you repost it, I promise to read it and reply by tonight.

Steve
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

Actually Barry it was positioned in the same way as his earlier films, the concept of calling it an op-ed came later during an interview and it stuck.

Regarding the positioning of this movie here's the rest of the quote that Iused from an earlier posting " This movie conveys “truth” only within Michael Moore’s ability to communicate, I don’t know (any more or less than Moore) what is true. Moore has had a lot of opportunity to distinguish the difference between truth or non-fiction and fiction; this is clearly a work of fiction and it is my opinion that he has positioned this movie in a way to cause controversy to sell tickets. I do not have a problem with that, smart marketing. However, in his prior movies he rails against this kind of capitalism. He likes to point out the evils of American Corporations yet he is upset when Disney refused to distribute his movie. By his own definition, Disney is the “mother” of American Corporations. It is this kind of hypocrisy that erodes his credibility."

I actually like Moore (not that that means anything) he seems to have struck a nerve that truly reflects the tortured polarization of our times. That fact that he's making a boatload of cash doing it - good for him. Now we will all have to wait and see what, if any effect this will have on future film production and distribution. Personally I don't look at this as a positive event.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=45#49 date=07/08/04 at 12:30:59]Races to the bottom are all too common.[/quote]

Not to my bottom, my wife is very much like Lorena Bobbitt in some ways.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=ChuckS link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=45#51 date=07/08/04 at 12:33:53]No worries Steve here's the link.

http://industryclick.com/magazinear...aseid=6524&magazinearticleid=107804&siteid=15

This is the sort of production discussion I like to have, most people don't really want to get into it that deeply but you seemed to be interested, at least as it relates to motion.  [/quote]

The title had me interested. I am going to the library anyway, so I am going to take this article and do some research on the concepts. Tonight I will post a section under directing.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

Every documentary is subjective and has a point of view. Why do you think PBS calls their indie-doc series POV? Sometimes the POV is explicit like Moore and sometimes it's implicit, but it's always there. There are so many decisions that are made--what to shoot, how to edit. B-roll footage can be an American flag waving or a homeless person--for the same interview.

Michael Moore docs are about Michael Moore as much as anything else--this seems pretty obvious. But he is provocative and his films generate a lot of thought and discussion--not a bad thing for a film. Chuck--*all* of the films you see at your local multiplex have been "positioned" to sell tickets. Slap--do you really want to mention Riefenstahl in comparison to Moore? It doesn't have any more credibility than those ridiculous Bush=Hitler stickers. My rule of thumb is to never use analogies to anything related to Nazi Germany--it doesn't say much for an argument.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=Slapdragon link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=45#50 date=07/08/04 at 12:32:33]

Not to my bottom, my wife is very much like Lorena Bobbitt in some ways.[/quote]

Hmmm. That's more the "scratch your head" kind of funny than the "laugh out loud" kind of funny, IMBSB. :o
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=Barry_S link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=45#53 date=07/08/04 at 14:33:49]Slap--do you really want to mention Riefenstahl in comparison to Moore? [/quote]

Well, I do, but I feel that people do not understand what Riefsenstahl did. I do not think Moore = Riefsenstahl the person. Clearly there is a disconnect there. But I do believe that, using Bowling for Columbine, both Moore and Riefsenstahl, in terms of directorial vision, are in the same house.

In both docus cases, objective truth that can be proven and discussed, takes a back seat to form and expression of a single side of an argument that allows for no "fair hearing" for the other side. Both sets of film in fact present a view of "what's true" that attempts to eclipse out any rationalistic understanding of truth itself. Each use disconnects between images and sound, and disconnects between idea and image, to build an argument around a thesis. Neither truly explore their subject in an objective way. Truth is arrived at by taking cunningly chosen glimpses of the world and combining them in such a way that 1+x appears to equal 10, although never once do they ever try to define x.

If we try to develop a linean understanding of film, to place films in categories by family, genus, and species, Moore really cannot go in with a documentary such as "Vernon, Florida" or "The Selling of Eileen Wournos." It cannot safely be called ethnographic, although it is reflexive, movies like "Dead Birds" discard all style for bleak truth to reach the pinnacle of ethnographic. It is close, but not too close, to a World War Two John Ford Docu, but if you watch some of the John Ford movies (I am thinking of a very disturbing Italian campaign one) Ford not only humanizes the enemy but also shows death and failure on the allies side.

We are left, in trying to compare Moore's work, with Riefsenstahl. This is not to say Moore is a NAZI, but that his techniques are those that Riefsenstahl pioneered.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=45#54 date=07/08/04 at 14:41:46]

Hmmm.  That's more the "scratch your head" kind of funny than the "laugh out loud" kind of funny, IMBSB.   :o
[/quote]

Humor should also be complex. The best humor makes you laugh the next day.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=Slapdragon link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=45#56 date=07/08/04 at 14:50:57]

Humor should also be complex.  The best humor makes you laugh the next day.[/quote]

Ah.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=Slapdragon link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=45#55 date=07/08/04 at 14:46:57]In both docus cases, objective truth that can be proven and discussed, takes a back seat to form and expression of a single side of an argument that allows for no "fair hearing" for the other side.  Both sets of film in fact present a view of "what's true" that attempts to eclipse out any rationalistic understanding of truth itself.  Each use disconnects between images and sound, and disconnects between idea and image, to build an argument around a thesis.  Neither truly explore their subject in an objective way.  Truth is arrived at by taking cunningly chosen glimpses of the world and combining them in such a way that 1+x appears to equal 10, although never once do they ever try to define x.[/quote]

Ah. Like Colin Powell's presentation of WMD evidence to the U.N.? ;D
(p.s. - nothing in that statement is intended to be taken as a position statement or indication of political leanings, it is merely a "cheap shot" at humor, taking advantage of the convenient word usage of our beloved SlapDragon).
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

It seems a bit Quixotic to try to apply some fine-grained taxonomy to documentary films. Your own line of thought connects Riefenstahl to Moore, but it's by no means obvious. Also, I'm not buying the fact that you're ignoring the connotative value of Riefenstahl when you make your analogy. She iconically represents the sacrifice of human values for art and a mouthpiece for unspeakable evil. That's what comes to mind when you casually mention Riefenstahl.

"Neither truly explore their subject in an objective way.  Truth is arrived at by taking cunningly chosen glimpses of the world.."

You're making some assumptions that this is different from other documentaries--I'm not sure it is. Every documentary filmmaker makes a series of conscious and unconscious decisions that shape the final film. If anything, Moore is forthright, not cunning, because you know where he's coming from. He's not an unseen presence manipulating the viewer by sleight of hand--he's up there on the screen.

Riefenstahl remains controversial to this day because her motives and beliefs are still open to some question. They'll never be fully elucidated. I don't think there's much question of Michael Moores beliefs and motivations. It seems to me Moore's lineage lies a lot closer to 60 Minutes than Riefenstahl. Call it ambush journalism if you like, but don't try to cloak an inference that links Moore to Nazi Germany.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top