• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Moore setting things right?

I haven't seen F911 and I don't think I'll see it either. My own ideas about the Bush administration are already made anyway. But when I saw Bowling for Columbine, I remember thinking that it was of course biased in the favor of Moore's theory. I also thought that even if you didn't agree with said theory, there are still facts and statistics in the movie which nobody can deny. I don't think anyone can dismiss all of his stuff on a whim. Moore doesn't hate America, he just wants people to aknowledge some of its fundamental problems.
 
For all those that think this is just going to be a biased lef-wing film full of lies, check out this review from Fox News- their reviewer loved the film, and no one can deny the right-leanings of Fox.

From the article:

The crowd that gave Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theatre premiere certainly didn't have to be encouraged at all to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host and writer Al Franken to actor/director Tim Robbins, Moore was in his element. But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty, and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice. Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets like Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say. Not so with "F9/11," which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and Bin Laden families.
 
Skeptic said:


Moore, when sending his daughter to a posh private school, said publically that "sacrificing our daughter is too great a price to make the world better".

One wonders how he'll react if someone shoved a camera in his face and asked him to promise to send his daughter next year to school with the children of all those wonderful working-class and welfare parents, and not with the children of thosse heartless, awful corporate executives she goes to school with now.

I wouldn't mind seeing Moore squirm a bit. Still, this doesn't exactly have the same resonance as a chickenhawk politician with no military experience or close loved ones with their lives at stake.
 
Mr Manifesto said:
It seems that some sort of chicanery is involved in any documentary making process. Those documentaries you see where the lion hunts down an ungulate of some type? Think about how that shot was set up. Did they track a lion for months on the off-chance it would do some hunting in daylight?

Let's say you're credulous enough to believe that. How about documentaries that follow an eagle flying in the air. Did they get someone on a hang-glider with a steady-cam to follow the eagle around?

What about in the days before steady-cam?


edit I know how to start spelling 'chichancery,' I just don't know how to stop.
So according to your logic, it is okay for a documentary to lie because, according to you, all documentaries lie.

That's some amoral philosophy you've got there.
 

Back
Top Bottom