Michael Moore & the documentary

[blndrhed]

For anyone concerned, he never expressed that Cuba is a "great country". He did show Cubans as some of the most gracious, wonderful, and incredibly caring people you would ever want to meet. It is hard to express the emotions stirred in me when I watched people who have for so long been portrayed as our enemy
let these 911 workers know that their number one priority was the treatment of their illnesses. It was a pretty powerful contrast to what we experience with our healthcare providers, and to see these 911 worker's eyes widen, and their tears form and the hugs they recieved for their courage and determination from Cuban firefighters. Just writing this, I'm starting to get a bit "schpilkus in my ganectagazoink".

 

[Ziggurat]

But you can't compare to Fahrenheit 911 with the rest. It is unique in the history of documentaries. March of Penguins was a documentary in the general since of the word. It was big, beautiful pictures of the Antarctic and Penguins. I could be wrong, but I believe it even had actors voicing over the penguins.

This didn't sound right to me, so I looked it up on IMDB. In the English version (which I saw), Morgan Freeman narrates the movie, but I don't recall him playing the part of any penguins, and I think it would have been silly if he had. But in the French version, actors are credited as "Narrator - Penguin Father", etc. Odd.

 

[skeptifem]

So my question to the Moore critics: who said that film documentaries should be balanced and objective (this is a sincere, not a rhetorical question)?

isnt that how moore himself tries to portray his films?

should we lay off the people who made 'loose change' or other conspiracy videos?

Your argument doesnt make sense to me. its like saying 'who said homeopathic remedies are really supposed to work anyway?" the obvious answer is that the person who is selling it is the one who said it, and they should be held to it. I do know many people who still take all of moores films as being an accurate portrayal of reality, decieving other people into agreement is soooo not cool with me. He has also personally hurt a lot of people featured in his films with his deception. "Micheal moore hates america" re-interviews a lot of the people moore originally did so you can get their reaction to everything, some of the guests offer nothing but baseless conjecture about moores psychological health but for the most part its a pretty good movie.

 

[Unabogie]

isnt that how moore himself tries to portray his films?

Evidence of this?

 

[jimtron]

isnt that how moore himself tries to portray his films?

Yes, I think he does. My point is that IMHO documentary film is more of an art than a science, and all political documentaries are probably going to be propagandistic. N3J0, can you think of other docs on similar topics that are more fair and objective than Moore's?

I don't think Moore is similar to the Loose Change people, because AFAIK none of the theses of his films make specious claims.

Your argument doesnt make sense to me. its like saying 'who said homeopathic remedies are really supposed to work anyway?"

You're right that Moore claims to be fair and objective, and I think he is for the most part, although he can be manipulative. But he surely does not distort the truth the way the Loose Changers do, does he?

 

[Number Six]

The Cuba portion of the film is as follows:

Americans who volunteered during 9/11 as rescue workers were discarded by the federal government since they weren't technically "government workers". Many of them are very sick from the toxins they inhaled while rescuing people. Many of them are needlessly suffering because they have no or insufficient health care coverage. Michael Moore took them to G'tmo to show that even the "evildoers" of 9/11 are getting better care than the "heroes" of 9/11. Of course, the G'tmo guards wouldn't let MM in, so they ask the Cubans about getting some health care. Cuba treats them free of charge. One woman finds the inhaler that she spends $120 for selling in Cuba for 5 cents. Yes, 5 cents.

So, the fact that Cuba is a bad system, or a bad country, does not negate MM's point here, which is why these criticisms are so inane. They bolster his point. Why should a backwards, screwed up country like Cuba be able to render doctor's care to these people but ours can't or won't? Why should we even have to compare our system to Cuba's, since we should have a system far better? The worse you make Cuba sound, the more that point stands out.

Given the fact that the US and Cuba has a long, antagonistic history and consequently many Americans have a knee jerk negative reaction to Cuba, why would MM mention Cuba at all in a movie meant to try to persuade Americans that the US health care system needs changing?

 

[skeptifem]

Evidence of this?

ok beyond the obvious conclusion that moore doesnt run around saying 'my film is biased and deceptive'( and by not saying so he is lying by omission- many things he says are not accidentally deceptive but done on purpose). heres some proof.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601211.html

Moore said he believed it was important for him to let people know his side. "In the report they say that I fudged the facts," he said, "and they didn't find a single fact that I fudged."

he also has the infant mortality rate on his sicko fact sheet, the misuse of the statistic has already been addressed in this thread.


about f 9/11:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-07-04

This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying.

the description of the film on his website also says its about moore 'uncovering the facts'.

bowling for columbine:

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_08_31_archive.html

MOORE: Every fact in the film is true. Absolutely every fact in the film is true. And anybody who says otherwise is committing an act of libel.​

 

[Skeptic Guy]

This didn't sound right to me, so I looked it up on IMDB. In the English version (which I saw), Morgan Freeman narrates the movie, but I don't recall him playing the part of any penguins, and I think it would have been silly if he had. But in the French version, actors are credited as "Narrator - Penguin Father", etc. Odd.

I called the person who saw this and was told that it was the French version that had the voice overs. I believe that because of that, it was considered too kid move like and the US version was presented as more of a traditional documentary.

I didn't see it and I am hearing this second-hand so take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it is accurate. I think that led to some confusion in the States as to what kind of movie it was going to be. I wonder if this potential confusion with a theatrical release may have lead to its unusual success (for a documentary)? Just my opinion.

 

[kellyb]

This is an interesting example of a statistic out of context, since it doesn't include the relative living conditions, diet, and access to health care of the various populations, nor the patterns of drug use.

I think that all falls under what they said:

"The position of the United States relative to other countries remains unfavorable in terms of infant mortality rates," says the CDC report.

The problem: a high percentage of low-birth-weight babies, the "heterogeneity of the U.S. population relative to many other developed countries, and "continuing disparities in health among disadvantaged relative to more advantaged groups," the report suggests.

he also has the infant mortality rate on his sicko fact sheet, the misuse of the statistic has already been addressed in this thread.

Without verification though. Cuba does report their stillbirths, mortality resulting from premature birth, and "regular" infant mortality.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

15 million. Not so good. I think they call that bombing. Harry Potter made that much in 2 minutes.

$15 million is actually pretty good for a documentary.

 

[skeptifem]

Yes, I think he does. My point is that IMHO documentary film is more of an art than a science, and all political documentaries are probably going to be propagandistic. N3J0, can you think of other docs on similar topics that are more fair and objective than Moore's?

I have been trying very hard to remember the name of a documentary I watched about the rise of violent crimes among girls. Like jesus camp, the movie just showed what happened, they followed a few violent girls around for a few years and talked to them about their lives.

Although not documentary films, shows with a documentary style that are about political topics that do a better job than moore are everywhere. There are countless shows addressing the prison system and life within it that are accurate. there are many films addressing the futility of the war on drugs that are pretty accurate.

The biggest difference to me between micheal moore and other people making a less than accurate documentary is that moore seems to deliberatley try to make other people look bad for no other reason than shock value, and continually asserts he is right even after people have caught him.

and yeah i do think micheal moore hates america is better than MM's films as far as being truthful goes. from the title i expected to be amused by some neo con propaganda bs film but was pleasantly suprised by the film. they do address the idea of bias in films and how easy it is to fall into doing it, the film maker does it once and admits it and talks about it instead of simply reshooting footage or editing. I like that they get the reaction of people who were used in mm's films and gave the NRA a chance to defend themselves.

I don't think Moore is similar to the Loose Change people, because AFAIK none of the theses of his films make specious claims.

I think that implying kkk and the nra are connected and saying that white people moved to suburbs with firearms because they are racist is a pretty outrageous claim to make.

You're right that Moore claims to be fair and objective, and I think he is for the most part, although he can be manipulative. But he surely does not distort the truth the way the Loose Changers do, does he?

oh i would say he does.

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

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting.

Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

• Weeping children outside Columbine;​

• ​

ok that happened
​

• Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";​

• ​

he never notes that this speech was made a year after columbine in a different state in response to getting a handmade musket as a gift. he makes it seem as though it is somehow connected to columbine, which you can see by the next narration:
​

• Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"​

• ​

Moore never notes that the NRA was not able to cancel the meeting due to a law about gatherings that large. He never notes that the meeting was scheduled way before the columbine incident ever happened. He never notes that the majority of the nra events at the meeting were cancelled out of respect for the families of the victims.

​

• Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"​

• ​

this is again edited together from different things, and cuts out the part about cancelling most of the events. absolutely shameful.​

​

 

[jimtron]

ok beyond the obvious conclusion that moore doesnt run around saying 'my film is biased and deceptive'( and by not saying so he is lying by omission- many things he says are not accidentally deceptive but done on purpose). heres some proof.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601211.html



he also has the infant mortality rate on his sicko fact sheet, the misuse of the statistic has already been addressed in this thread.


about f 9/11:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-07-04



the description of the film on his website also says its about moore 'uncovering the facts'.

bowling for columbine:

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_08_31_archive.html

But these are all quotes about being factually accurate, not about being objective and balanced. I think Moore's quotes above are true, no?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Compared to Fahrenheit 911, it is a bomb. A big stinking bomb. Oh don’t count too much on video making up the difference with Sicko. As big as Fahrenheit 911 was, it didn’t even make 2 million on video. March of the Penguins made 30 million on video.

And compared to Star Wars, F9/11 was a bomb. Just about every film is.

You can't just compare it to one documentary. You have to compare it against all documentaries. And if you do, I suspect you'll find that $15 million is not to shabby.

 

[jimtron]

The biggest difference to me between micheal moore and other people making a less than accurate documentary is that moore seems to deliberatley try to make other people look bad for no other reason than shock value, and continually asserts he is right even after people have caught him.

Could you give an example of him trying to make people look bad "for no other reason than shock value"? You think his goal is to shock people, not to make points about our situation in the U.S.? And examples of him asserting that he's right after being caught please?

I think that implying kkk and the nra are connected and saying that white people moved to suburbs with firearms because they are racist is a pretty outrageous claim to make.

Could you please cite the sources for this (direct quotes)?

 

[Policenaut]

Could you give an example of him trying to make people look bad "for no other reason than shock value"? You think his goal is to shock people, not to make points about our situation in the U.S.? And examples of him asserting that he's right after being caught please?



Could you please cite the sources for this (direct quotes)?

Have you ever watched Bowling for Columbine? Every section of the movie with Heston in it was to make him look bad.

 

[Number Six]

I haven't seen F911 but as I recall from all the clips they were playing on TV back then there were some where W and/or some of his administration folks were waiting to be interviewed on TV and footage was of them getting ready for the appearance, primping, etc. I don't see any reason for that other than to make them look bad. Also there was a clip of W riding on a golf cart with the Go-Go's "Vacation" playing, implying he wasn't doing nothing but vacationing even though I strongly suspect that even on vacation Presidents have work to do.

Then there was the member of Congress who MM asked, and I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like "If you're for the war then why don't you enlist your son?" The guy was flabbergasted and speechless and it made him look foolish as if he was trying to avoid enlisting his son when instead I suspect that guy was speechless because the question simply didn't make any sense (since a person can't enlist their son and only can enlist themself).

Yes, he makes people look bad, although that isn't necessarily a terrible thing per se, but when you make certain people look bad at certain times in certain ways then you're only going piss people off rather than persuade them. As I said before, MM is good at creating certain images and bad at evaluating how the public will react to those images.

 

[Earthborn]

Then there was the member of Congress who MM asked, and I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like "If you're for the war then why don't you enlist your son?"

It is a good example why it is sometimes a good idea to remember the exact wording. It is true that Michael Moore was there with some military guy acting very much like a recruiter would to get someone to enlist. But he did not ask anyone to enlist someone else. He did have folders and forms and asked congress people to give them to their children, but he did not offer a form to enlist their children.

 

[Number Six]

I can't remember exactly what it was but it was more than just giving forms. Maybe he asked him "Why isn't your son enlisted?" or "Would you allow your son to enlist?" Or something like that. As I recall the question simply didn't make sense and the guy was puzzled and didn't know what to say. But even though the question didn't make sense, which should've made the questioner (MM) look foolish, MM cleverly worded it so that the questionee looked foolish.

 

[Number Six]

Here is a picture with a quote that has him saying to send these brochures to congressmen's kids. Maybe I'm wrong but I could've sworn it was different and also I thought the guy he was talking to looked different, so maybe there was more than one scene in the movie.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/special/f911-screenshots.php

 

[Number Six]

Geez, it's so subtle that I missed it and it was right in front of me. The quote says "Oh, well, see, there's not that many Congressmen that've got kids over there, and in fact, only one. So we just thought maybe you guys should send your kids there first. What do you think about that idea?" How can congress (or anyone) send their kids over there? People can enlist themselves but not their kids. Here is text from a longer exchange.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/jan-june04/moore_6-25.html