Flipside Movie Emporium

Truthseeker · Grip Joined: 24 May 2004 Posts: 1

FORTE EST VINUM, FORTIOR EST REX, FORTIORES SUNT MULIERES:

SUPER OMNIA VINCIT VERITAS.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

the night watchman · Posted: 05.24.2004 9:34 pm Post subject:

Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg

beltmann · Posted: 05.24.2004 11:29 pm Post subject:

the night watchman · Posted: 05.24.2004 11:38 pm Post subject:

Michael Scrutchin · Posted: 05.24.2004 11:57 pm Post subject:

The Hardy piece is old news (I started getting spam with links to it when Bowling won the Oscar). There are at least a couple of essays arguing from the other side you should also read:

-----------------------

A Defense of Michael Moore and Bowling for Columbine

"This is an open letter to David Hardy, author of "Bowling for Columbine: Documentary or Fiction?", probably the most comprehensive among many rebuttals of the Oscar-winning documentary. Critics have now gone so far as to call for the revocation of the award. Their chances are small, however, as their arguments rely on polemic, exaggeration and misrepresentation -- in other words, on the same techniques which they accuse Moore of using." (read more...)

-----------------------

Michael Moore also has a piece on his own site:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

But his site seems to be down right now.
_________________
Michael Scrutchin
Flipside Movie Emporium
www.flipsidearchive.com

beltmann · Posted: 05.25.2004 12:00 am Post subject:

[quote="the night watchman"]

Danny Baldwin · Posted: 05.25.2004 12:48 am Post subject:

The thing I find most intriguing is the way in which his direction and editing can change his personality quite a bit. In every live interview I see him in, he seems like an idiotic pig, with no intelligence whatsoever. However, in his movies, no matter what your political belief, he has an amazing ability to not only make you think he's serving justice, but to like him. Even though every other part of me loathes the guy, as a filmmaker (not documentarian), he has a forcefully convictive style. And seeing that I would find ways to abhor ALL of his arguments in Roger and Bowling if it weren't for this, I'd consider the skill to be quite miraculous. However, I cannot see Fahrenheit 9/11 working; the material is too particular for his own good. The only time he seems to be "on to something" is when he tries to draw parallels, depsite usually staging elements of such sequences. Here, to my understanding, he's directly pointing a finger in a overblowing and nonchalant way. Also, from what I've heard, his material isn't anything new or shocking. As much as I do hate him though, it almost seems like if he actually succeeded, things would feel right. In my conservative eyes, he has yet to do so. As of yet, all he has done is developed some kind of liberal cult following. In his opposition's eyes, all this will do is make him seem like more and more of a fool as time goes by.
_________________
Danny Baldwin

View My Reviews

Tooky Cat · Posted: 05.26.2004 1:34 am Post subject:

beltmann · Posted: 05.26.2004 2:29 am Post subject:

Tooky Cat · Posted: 05.26.2004 2:45 am Post subject:

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of Moore's points, I just don't agree with the manner in which he presents them. I respect him for shamelessly promoting his ideas and opinions, but not when he shoves them down our throats.
_________________
Let's See It In - T H X - The Audience is Listening.

Danny Baldwin · Posted: 05.26.2004 3:40 am Post subject:

Exactly. Even if you disagree with Charlton Heston, does that make insulting a pround, old, and Alzheimic man who isn't expecting any dabate at all, not to mention leaving a picture of a girl who died as a result of a gun on his property, and BLAMING him for it? I'm sickened, as his liberal cult screams "yes." Even though I wouldn't say Bush manipulates facts nearly as much as Moore (even though you're right about Limbaugh), but even if I were to believe such, he chooses to acknowldge the fact that his opinions are strictly personal. Moore wants to insult everyone who disagrees with him. This is the problem. What good are movies that simply solidify your fan base, but make everyone else hate you more? They're serving no purpose--meaningless--even if they're entertaining. That's what he is: an entertainer. His serious to be a political commentator fails with this, more or less embarrassing him. But, to tell the truth, the more embarrassed he should be, the better, in my mind.
_________________
Danny Baldwin

View My Reviews

beltmann · Posted: 05.26.2004 3:55 am Post subject:

Danny Baldwin · Posted: 05.26.2004 4:02 am Post subject:

matt header · Posted: 05.26.2004 5:01 pm Post subject:

I greatly enjoyed Bowling for Columbine, although I agree that it wasn't as in-depth or as fascinating as Fog of War. And I think Moore's intentions -- if not always his execution -- are noble. When approximately 90% of yearly action movies address gun control only by saying that weaponry is a surefire way to reap vengeance, activism of Moore's sort -- even if it's didactic, polarizing activism -- is priceless. It would, I suppose, only be fair for a radically conservative muckraker to fire back at Moore on similar arguments. (Rush Limbaugh does not count, based on the fact that he is a ludicrous fucking idiot.) I found fault with the Charlton Heston moment in Bowling (him lying the picture down on the cement seems an example of the scapegoating he condemns in the film), as well as the Dick Clark assault, which seems a brash excuse to wave a celebrity onscreen simply to cause a stir. Yet even these moments make one think about the subjects Moore tackles: If Charlton Heston isn't to blame for the girl's death, who is? If Dick Clark isn't to blame for all the poor working mothers out there, what is? Yes, McNamara is experienced and more sagacious while Moore can appear an outsider with the luxury of critiquing others, but they're different kinds of documenting: McNamara's self-analysis is, of course, an internal study, filled with doubt, guilt, self-defense, pride, and all things that come with realizing one's mistakes and glories; Moore's analysis is external, filled with cleverness, grandstanding, humor, morality, and all things that come with hindsight and the ability to not be involved. Neither is more appropriate or more noble. Although Moore certainly succeeds at making his non-fans hate him even more with each successive film, the only way he could not do so is to soften or bend his decidedly liberal arguments, turning him into somebody entirely different.

Although I'm extremely excited about Fahrenheit 9/11, I'll admit it's somewhat because I agree with most of his arguments and imagine I will concur with most of Fahrenheit's points. Someone who differs from me in politics will inevitably be less excited, but there is still value in disagreeing, even hating, a movie's arguments before even seeing it, as has already been pointed out: becoming infuriated at what someone says forces you to analyze what you already think, which is invaluable.

As a sidenote, the news media is increasingly becoming what I mentioned earlier: biased reporting from the opposite field, glorifying the war effort in Iraq, manipulated by "the powers that be" to hail all things American. In the governmental report detailing the torturing of Iraqi prisoners, there were more than 200 points addressed. According to Jim Miklaszewski, Pentagon correspondent, the info that made it into the press comprised all of twenty or so points; the other 180 or so were "confidential," unallowed into the airwaves by the government. Imagine what else could be in there! When the Bush administration increasingly uses censorship and propaganda to pull wool over our eyes, Moore's sort of grandstanding becomes even more vital.

the night watchman · Posted: 05.26.2004 11:49 pm Post subject:

I'll admit Moore's placing the photo of the young girl in Heston's front lawn was tasteless, but I don't think he was singling out Heston for blame. (Correct me if I?m wrong, but I don?t recall Moore saying anything like ?This is your fault, Chuck.?) The act struck me as spontaneous, and I think he was making a visual metaphor to point out that Heston's inability to make a rebuttal in the face of Moore?s arguments and criticisms was symptomatic of larger national problems. Yes, Heston is an old man, and wasn't expecting to be debated in his own house. But he is the president of NRA. Shouldn't the president of such an organization be more than a figurehead; shouldn't he be capable of defending his position and the position of the NRA at a moment's notice; shouldn?t he be capable of more than just rhetorical chest-pounding and preaching to the choir at appointed times and places? Hell, shouldn?t the president of the NRA know who Michael Moore is? The fact that Heston failed in that responsibility, Moore suggests with the photograph, represents a larger failure in the nation?s recognition and analysis of its own problems.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg