 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)Hyperflake recycle ...and 455 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614187 Today 32 Topics 127546 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I must say, I really like BFC, I have the dvd-set etc. but I agree with Fleetmouse on the picture of the dead girl. that was pretty cheap. made me cringe at least. I thought Marilyn Manson was one of the best things in the film. when Moore asks: "What would you say to the parents of the Columbine victims?" and Manson said: "I wouldn't say anything. I would listen. Because that's what noone has been doing". I thought that was spot on. Moore's main point about fear being the connecting factor behind "the gun luvving" was a good evaluation, I thought. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the dead girl photo was questionable.. i wouldn't have done it, but it made a good point regardless. it's good to associate the statistics with faces, not just numbers. it definitely helped make that point. manson was great in the film. he writes really good articles too. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Tits, you are the liberal equivalent of a dittohead. You'll accept anything fatso says at face value but you require bodies, signed affidavits and DNA evidence for any accusation made against him. And you'll refer to his ghoulishness as "questionable" because you happen to agree with him. Perhaps the word I'm grasping for is... Chauvinist? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i wrote above that i wouldn't do it that way. i see where he's coming from and i don't think it was that bad; it served its purpose of making the head of the NRA see firsthand the consequences of his organization's rampant gun ownership/usage policy. it wasn't tasteless (i bet the girl's parents agreed with moore) but i wouldn't have gone that route myself. when did i ever say i accept michael moore's films at face value? what i did say is i seem to understand him better than people like you. it's not a straight documentary, nor is stupid white men a serious academic report. perhaps you have trouble grasping this concept? yes, you can chew bubblegum and walk at the same time. not grasping what moore tries (almost always successfully) to do in his work nullifies these petty, terribly biased/loaded critiques, and it certainly nullifies the people who simply link to other people's articles and offer them as indisputable "proof." hmmm, award-winning, bestselling veteran documentarian or rightwing nut with an agenda, who has better credentials? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i wrote above that i wouldn't do it that way. i see where he's coming from and i don't think it was that bad; it served its purpose of making the head of the NRA see firsthand the consequences of his organization's rampant gun ownership/usage policy. He ambushed an old near-senile man with a dead baby - man that's pretty low. it wasn't tasteless (i bet the girl's parents agreed with moore) but i wouldn't have gone that route myself. You BET they WOULD agree? Now that's a carefully reasoned and researched argument. But congratulations on not planning to stoop as low in the same situation. when did i ever say i accept michael moore's films at face value? what i did say is i seem to understand him better than people like you. people like me it's not a straight documentary, nor is stupid white men a serious academic report. Oh, you mean it's just a larf so I can dismiss what it has to say? Or do you mean that you hold his work to a different standard than you hold criticisms of him? perhaps you have trouble grasping this concept? yes, you can chew bubblegum and walk at the same time. No tits, "people like me" have enough trouble walking without letting our knuckles drag on the ground to tackle advanced topics like gum chewing. not grasping what moore tries (almost always successfully) to do in his work nullifies these petty, terribly biased/loaded critiques, and it certainly nullifies the people who simply link to other people's articles and offer them as indisputable "proof." I see - you understand him on some deep level that makes truth irrelevant and nullifies criticism. Interesting. hmmm, award-winning, bestselling veteran documentarian or rightwing nut with an agenda, who has better credentials? Agenda? Don't make me laugh - Moore doesn't even pretend to be objective. And calling him a "bestselling veteran documentarian" and his critics "rightwing nuts with agendas" is a cheap rhetorical trick devo |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*ahem* ...devoid of substance. [goddamn size limits] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh please.. if he's head of the NRA (as in, not retired) he can take a little "ambush" with a "dead baby" (nice dramatic terms there). you still seem to be wrestling with the concept of being able to do two things effectively, simultaneously. i understand what moore does; you seem to not grasp that it's not literal and that it possesses a serious style. if you can't separate filmmaking style from what he's saying then that's your problem. some of us "get it." if you yourself have proof that what moore said wasn't truth--and this has nothing to do with how he edited his movie, that's dumb--then i'll read it. don't link some nutso article, i don't care for those smear campaigns. at least moore wears his opinion on his sleeve, not tries to pawn off his slant as "objective" fact. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It seems to me that being "not literal" with a "serious style" is what the Bush administration does a lot of. I mean, was it supposed to be a documentary, or fiction loosely based on reality? if you yourself have proof that what moore said wasn't truth--and this has nothing to do with how he edited his movie, that's dumb--then i'll read it. "Canadians don't lock their doors" - not only wrong but wrongheaded. Finding an unlocked door - and how long did that take him - does not constitute an assessment nof national character. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i like it when some tosser starts a fight mnehhh mnehhh! karl marx for world president! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Saw this for the first time last night. Very entertaining, I found Moore's style a little inappropriate (Ali G/Louis Therouex type false "befriending" of a person and putting words in their mouths) a little insensitive given the touchy subject matter. Other than this it was great though, didn't know the NRA was founded the same year the KKK was abolished- I knew it was associated with racism, but I had assumed that was just due to the sort of conservative "gun nut" stereotypes that join it. Marilyn Mason was great as ever in interview. No matter how much I dislike his style and the majority of his music I cannot deny he is very intelligenr and witty. I'd love to see a chat show hosted by him. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
LOL! You are hardcore mate =) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Marilyn Mason was great as ever in interview. No matter how much I dislike his style and the majority of his music I cannot deny he is very intelligent and witty. I'd love to see a chat show hosted by him. Yeah that is exactly how i feel too about him . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Perhaps the word I'm grasping for is... Chauvinist?" Fuck me! That's the first time (aside from when I've used it) that I have ever seen Chauvinist actually used in it's correct context outside of books (yes, even the vast majority of newspapers use it wrongly). Not having a go at Titsworth and this isn't a debate I want to join in, but Chauvanism to describe the view you mentioned is the perfect choice of word. I'm so pleased to see it used correctly; A chauvinist is someone who will always defend the actions of one of their "group" be it a political/religious ideal, gender, etc. no matter how strongly evidence is against them. I cringe everytime I see the phrase "male chauvanist" used to describe someone who wolf whistles at women in the street. Yes, it's deplorable, but it's not chauvanism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"a fiction loosely based on reality" now you're being as ridiculous as the nonsense you linked to.. you're smarter than this. "Canadians don't lock their doors" - not only wrong not to be taken literally. but even if just 25-35% more canadians leave their doors unlocked than americans it's still an important statistic. but wrongheaded. Finding an unlocked door - and how long did that take him the point is the research, not the specific example. if his research showed that more canadians leave their doors unlocked, THAT is the point. i'm sure he did target a neighborhood that he thought would have the maximum amount of unlocked doors, and as courtesy (this is all guesswork here) he probably didn't film the opening of each door before opening. if he found the door to be unlocked he prolly politely asked the owner if he could re-do it with the camera, and i'm sure most owners were good sports about this. - does not constitute an assessment of national character. why, because you don't like it and your friends lock their door? even if it's not "everyone", if a large enough percentage leave their doors unlocked then it's worth noting in his film because it does support his point. listen, it's not a flawless documentary, but you can't take every single thing literally. you have to appreciate things in context. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What really astonishes me is that we're on the same side here - I'm a believer in the same liberal / democrat position as you if I don't completely misunderstand where you're coming from - yet because I point out flaws in your idol I'm one of "those people" to you - kinda stupidly divisive if you ask me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
come on now folks. keep yer cool |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
heh heh. i know we're on the same side politically, but if you're going to do some punk shit ima sit back and chill? nah. if you're tired of my debating you then quit whining about the film. no one forced you to watch it and if you liked it then but all of a sudden don't now then big whoop. just because you feel that way doesn't take away from the power of the film. i "get it" and that doesn't mean that moore is some "idol" or that i see the film as 100% fact or as a "straight" documentary. like someone who is a HUMOR writer and has directed regular movies (eg: canadian bacon) should be expected to make a completely unbiased documentary? obviously he feels very profoundly on the issue and will do what he can to make people see what he wants them to see. that doesn't make him a liar or a phony, just someone with an agenda (like the conservative nut columnists who you and Cabbog have linked to). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Our side" needs fewer assholes like Michael Moore - misinformed, lazy, not really funny and constantly twisting the truth - and more like Al Franken, who is always up to speed on the issues, is actually funny and thinks on his feet. And I think if he ever got caught in a distortion of the facts he'd pay for a full page newspaper ad out of his own pocket to set the record straight and apologize. I know you hate people posting links to articles about Moore but please for the love of God just read . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Just in case you don't read far enough down - Here is his initial reaction to September 11, as posted on his website: "Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California - these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" So Mohammed Atta should have dive-bombed his jet into New Hampshire or Alabama? September 11 was a great clarifying event - within two or three days, we had adjusted to it and absorbed it, but for a few hours that Tuesday what we said and did as we watched office workers jump to their deaths offered a definitive glimpse into who we really are. It's not the politics - in the heat of the moment, to ascribe the event to Bush's rejection of Kyoto is perfectly understandable - but the stunted ugliness of measuring the justness or otherwise of murder according to how one filled in one's ballot. That's the real Michael Moore. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're being completely ignorant. i can accept what Ceri JC said about pretending to befriend someone before broadsiding them, but i can't accept your namecalling. it really doesn't mean anything except a demonstration of your bias against moore. how is he misinformed? how is he lazy? i find him quite funny, and i'm very familiar with his work. are you, or are you judging him on someone else's article and thinking "yeah, this makes sense! moore is a fat loser!" (you've made fun of his weight a lot, what's up with that? insecure with yourself or are YOU an asshole?). "our side"--and our CAUSE--has plenty room for moore and humor in general. i don't think the way he presents the FACTS distorts the truth and i've yet to see any claims to the contrary PROVEN. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you've never said something you've regretted before? were you completely levelheaded the week of 9/11? i agree it's wrongheaded to even think about votes and whatnot, but he was touching on an important part of 9/11, that it was an obvious symbolic attack on the american way and the bush administration. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*shrug* I can't make you read, titsworth. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol rofl Chauvinist really IS the right word for you, isn't it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you asked me for my opinion and i gave it. your calling me one dimensional is like the pot calling the kettle black. look at you! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We should all be grateful to Michael Moore for livening up the lowest-rated Oscars in history. For those brave few who hadn't yet tuned out or fallen into a coma, the voluminous star of Bowling for Columbine picked up his Oscar for Best Documentary and launched into a tirade against America's "fictitious election", its "fictitious President" and his "fictitious reasons" for war with Iraq. LOADED LANGUAGE from the first paragraph. "voluminous star", "launched into a tirade". this writer has a mission and its established early on. then he goes onto do exactly what you're critizing moore for: distortion and deception. He was greeted with a few cheers and more boos untrue! and obviously the "explanation" is meant as sarcastic, so this is yet another false account of the supposed loud booing. the first broadcast clearly showed the majority were applauding and only few were booing. the CNN rebroadcast is said to have turned UP the boos to go hand in hand with the bad journalism that said there was a lot of booing. i've heard both broadcasts and they sound pretty similar to me, and neither has loud booing. michael moore even said there were only a very few people doing it and that journalists intentionally misreported it. it sucks this fiction has become "fact" (by way of journalists recycling this incorrect account) but when you cite faulty journalism like this writer i'm not surprised. what sucks is i like the telegraph and i'm used to a higher calibre of reporting from them. No one who was seriously interested in using his 45 seconds on worldwide television to recruit new members to the anti-war movement would seek to do so by dredging up Palm Beach County and its rusting Votamatics, neither of which anybody except a dwindling but increasingly deranged bunch of chad-obsessives wants to hear about ever again. ok, so we accept that voting doesn't matter and that anyone can buy their way into the highest elected position in the world? i don't accept that and i'm |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ha ha. i like custard and wanking. not necessarily in that order. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how is titsworth a chauvinist? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
never mind ignore my post...thanx (stoned) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
...i'm shocked anyone else would. But, if you're interested in using the war, the economy or anything else to hand to promote the Michael Moore global corporate brand... ooh cynicism! so chic! i'm going to keep critiquing this article because it's really quite bad. stuff about his daughter and his wealth: so what? success brings wealth and what better thing to invest in than your child's education? ...and all the while the cameras are running until Moore's got enough footage to make Cindy-Lou look like an idiot. on the contrary, i don't think that's ever been the point about receptionists and secretaries in his film. it's comic relief but not at the expense of the receptionist. what would be the joke on her, that she's a moron because her boss really IS there, ooops?! or what? i fail to see how the office worker is made the butt of any joke. it's clearly the situation, not the person. little people are either squeaky-clean bland or stump-toothed crazy although this i tend to agree with. moore's depictions can be very unfair. Yet somehow the notion persists that an Upper West Sider adored on the Cote d'Azur is the authentic voice of blue-collar America. i don't see any difference in moore pre- and post-Roger & Me. the writer is making a point that moore changed dramatically following his success with that film and i just don't agree with that at all. the evidence is simply not there. Even in Flint, he was never a regular workin' stiff. He lasted one day on the assembly line. perhaps because of his anti-corporation views? hmmmmmm! or perhaps because half of his family were laid off from the assembly line, which though the chief source of income for "motor city" isn't exactly an easy or fulfilling job. the Alan Edelstein stuff was pretty damn funny though and it does reflect bad on moore. the only thing i can say about that is i think the show was cancelled and maybe that's why he was out of a job. there could be anot |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
...there could be another story though. anyway, i found this article pretty pathetic on the whole. its evidence is really loaded and not too convincing for the most part. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the republicans a worried about what hes doing....they re obviously gonna try and fight back...and whatever the political side some people wont agree and will try and convince the public ...and vice versa...hes doing a lot of criticism and its normal he gets some back....i like him personaly......fleetmouse so why is it that america has more killings than canada regardless the amount of guns? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
...because there are a lot more people in america than canada :) let's face it we have the same entertainment more or less (tv, movies, video games) so it's got to be population. i don't agree completely that there is a major difference in attitude toward violence or gun ownership though i'd be willing to concede that there is a minor difference. i think america is a culture of violence because we have more and worse poverty and our murders tend to be more gruesome. can't recall too many horror stories from CA at the moment. still, this is the few and far between, not some everyday thing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but his point was not that the murders in the US are more gruesome. his point was the media pay more attention to these gruesome murders, thereby creating a general sense of fear. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah population wasnt really mentioned!!ha ha! maybe the way corporate america wants to take over the world and leave all the poor,outcasts,ill and presumably dangerous people to eliminate themselves jacobs ladder style to leave the productive only.......... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i wasn't talking about the movie just then, merely giving my opinion. i do agree with you though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Moore touched on this in the movie - number of gun deaths in the US versus Canada - but didn't bother to adjust for the population difference (Canada's population is 10% that of the US). When that one came across I kinda didn't want to belive he'd do something that sleazy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the ratio dictates that for every Canadian murder there are 16 USA murders. That speaks volumes |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't think he did enough to distinguish the difference in populations but it wasn't THAT bad. i'll keep an eye out for this segment next time i see it (it's been since november). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Altogether his Canadian segment left me aghast - even back when I first saw the film and I wanted to like it. First of all, his Canadian interviewees seemed to be mostly bar hags and drunken snaggletoothed layabouts (see what you quoted below about unfair characterizations). I hope you don't think we're all like that! And he bragged up Canada's health care system without mentioning the long waiting periods for essential procedures, the overcrowding, the budget cutting, the DEATHS that occur due to lack of capacity... I mean, we don't live in some kind of slacker utopia where we spend our days drunk and smoking on welfare money until we have to go in and get magically cured of lung cancer by Medicare for free. I think the major difference culturally, and what probably accounts for the relative lack of violence (other than the population density) is the Canadian attitude of equanimity. We're not as greedy and competitive, we're buddhists in parkas, man. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the canadian comparison was my least favorite part of the film and i think its only weak moment. the heston thing as i said is questionable, but resonnates. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
agree to disagree! personally I think it is a great movie and Michael Moore is a good guy. Let's just leave it at that |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I still think you should go back and read review at Movie Martyr. The guy is hardly a right winger judging by the films he likes, and he makes some awfully good points - |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
just cos i'm sick of ppl linking dumb articles doesn't mean i haven't read them.. that's why i say they're dumb. i mean just slaughtered the last one you linked, i'm not gonna go through all of them. i say they're biased cos they show themselves to be so. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not asking you to criticize it here line by line. Just read it. It's intelligent and well written. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
... he recruits a duo of survivors from the Columbine school attacks to travel with him to the K-Mart headquarters so that they might convince the retailer, who sold the bullets used in the attack, to stop selling handgun ammunition. The entire enterprise feels completely misguided and opportunistic since Moore has essentially stated all along in his film that the availability of handguns and ammunition is not the cause of gun violence. The best point in the article, in case you chose not to read it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And I noted that when he accomplished his goal and K-mart promised to stop selling that caliber of ammunition, Moore seemed oddly dismayed and at a loss - like he would have preferred them to keep on being the big bad evil corporation that honest little common men like him need to keep fighting against. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't know if i agree with that; call me a fool but i really think moore is sincere about his championing of gun control, anti-violence, anti-globalism, etc. and obviously it's a bad idea to sell guns (to kids and others) in wal-mart and similar stores. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Watch the movie again and watch his reaction closely. He is not enthused by his little victory. He doesn't want to win so much as he wants to be admired for fighting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. If he was not concerned about gun control, he wouldn't have been there. Michael Moore does not stand to be admired, for egotistical reasons. Shallow celebrities do that. If it is shallow celebrities you are after, read National Inquirer. What you said there comes across as desperate cynicism man. I mean, do you REALLY think Moore is so heartless that he would manipulate two Columbine victims to suit his own agenda? Of course not. Michael Moore is merely a spokesperson, who is expressing a majorities opinions and frustrations. He cares for what he believes in. Watch the movie closely again and look out for him saying things that any folk with a conscience would love to say given a chance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I didn't want to get drawn into the argument but I felt I had to, heh heh. Michael Moore rawks! Shareholders suck!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
