Probably should have posted this on the other thread, but isn't the general concensus that titles are pretty much only around to grab attention and sell tickets? This one will do that. (and maybe in six months, he can call Mr. Moore to discuss it).
quote:Bin Laden is not "disinherited." He cashed out his inheritence for $300 million in advance.
That doesn't mean that he still has any contact with Bin Laden the contruction company or any of the "legitimate" (non-terrorist) branches of the family, or that he continues to receive monetary support from them for his actions. A one-time "give-me-what's-my-due-as-progeny" payment does not make for funding terrorism, nor does it support the claim that Bush influence had anything to do with it. In fact, the fact that he "cashed out" rather than hang around and benefit from the nepotism and family connections the way his siblings have seems to be evidence that he doesn't want much to do with his father's family.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Erik, the alternative was Al Gore, who looked like an equally miserable choice at the time.
Seriously, I would have preferred a different Republican, but they didn't seem to have a chance. Maybe next year the Elephants will get a clue.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Moore hates America, I think he hates people who don't think in acceptable ways on several political and social issues. I feel the same way about Limbaugh, and replace 'hate' with 'disgust' for O'Reilly (though he's moving in that direction.
And here's a question. Why are many people more comfortable with the thought of Hussein having had control of his oil than the USA?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world? What, we aren't counting tar sands any more?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not comfortable with Hussein having control of the oil. In fact, I'd prefere if the Iraqis had control of their own resources, to do what they want with it. But, chances are, that will not happen. Why should the US have any right to that oil?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying the USA *should* have control of the oil, Syn. And I disagree with people who say things like, "Let the Iraqis pay for the war with their oil," for many reasons, that being one of them.
I'm just pointing out that between two conditions-Hussein having permanent control of the oil, and America having nebulous and arguable control of the oil permanently, many people seem to opt with the former.
Heck, there are some people who preferred to let Hussein have control of KUWAIT'S oil-and everything else-than have America go to war.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you cannot see any lies in Farenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine then Michael Moore has done the job he sought out to do. The whole purpose of what he is doing is to make the viewer believe opinions shown are fact. I am trying to say that while there may be some fact, there is probably a whole lot of opinion parading itself as truth. Editing is a very powerful tool.
White Whale you said
quote: And how about the fact that Bush spent %40 of his first eight (correct me if I'm wrong with this one) months in office on vacation. Thats a ****load of vacation time for a president of the united states.
His vacation is alot different than the type of vacation me or you would take. He was not lounging around sipping margaritas and listening to Jimmy Buffet down in the carribean. Also, that statistic is incredibly skewed. It reminds me of a paper I was given in statistics class about how 98% of crimes occur after someone eats white bread. In other words, its not a valid statistic.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you cannot see any lies in Farenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine then Michael Moore has done the job he sought out to do. The whole purpose of what he is doing is to make the viewer believe opinions shown are fact. I am trying to say that while there may be some fact, there is probably a whole lot of opinion parading itself as truth.
Halt, vultures! You will eat from Promethius brain no more today!
quote: I am trying to say that while there may be some fact, there is probably a whole lot of opinion parading itself as truth.
You haven't even seen the film! How do you know anything?
quote: Editing is a very powerful tool
Agreed.
...but by not seeing the film, you fail to see that MM's main influence is in Voice Over work, not in liberal editing.
People fail to realize that the michael moore movie is a GOOD FILM, not a rush limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Bill oreilly talk fest where THEY ARE THE BE ALL END ALL of their pieces.
Micheal Moore let's the footage speak for it self.
Like the part where he's filming and a woman accuses it of being faked.
posted
Interesting article by Richard Cohen in the Post today (registration required, use someoneelse@bugmenot.com, someoneelse):
quote:...Moore's depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. But nothing is said about multiple U.N. resolutions violated by Iraq or the depredations of Saddam Hussein. In fact, prewar Iraq is depicted as some sort of Arab folk festival -- lots of happy, smiling, indigenous people. Was there no footage of a Kurdish village that had been gassed? This is obscenity by omission.
The case against Bush need not and should not rest on guilt by association or half-baked conspiracy theories, which collapse at the first double take but reinforce the fervor of those already convinced. The success of Moore's movie, though, suggests this is happening -- a dialogue in which anti-Bush forces talk to themselves and do so in a way that puts off others. I found that happening to me in the run-up to the war, when I spent more time and energy arguing with those who said the war was about oil (no!) or Israel (no!) or something just as silly than I did questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Osama bin Laden. This was stupid of me, but human nature nonetheless. ...
Does it say the word documentary ANYWHERE in there? Nope. This is a movie. It's not a documentary at all. Moore never claims it is. He's showing his opinion. He's said it's opinion countless times. The ONLY reason people are calling it a documentary is because that's the only thing that comes close to what it is.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He doesn't decide what people call it. They do. He's calling it a movie. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Asking him to turn down the academy award because they put him in the wrong category is like turning down money because you were supposed to get a gift card.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it just means he's purposely trying to have the best of both worlds - the credibility of a documentary maker and the freedom of an op-ed writer. If he has itnegrity, he'll say, "I cannot rob true documentaries of their chance at this award by accepting it for a movie that shed the difficult constraints they labored under."
I know there have been people that turned down awards because they were in the wrong category. The only one I can remember is Mathew Perry turning down an Emmy nomination for best actor in a comedy on Friends because it was an ensemble cast. But it's happened before.
posted
Theoretically, we should invade China. But the chance of winning (in the sense of ever defeating them and having a stable government and a majority of people survive) is too low for it to be worth the cost.
Israel breaks UN resolutions for one reason--to survive. The UN treats Israel as if it had no right to defend itself against the terrorists who want to annihilate it.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I freely admit that we do act to protect our own interests. Nonetheless, I believe there ought to be a "world police", and that the UN is doing a lousy job of it (perhaps because so many of the "crooks" are allowed a vote). Much of Europe, as well as some other countries--Australia, Canada, Japan, to name a small few--could do an acceptable job, but they don't seem to have the power or the will by themselves. Who's left?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The U.N. can't be a world police because it's considered intergovernmental; it's a bunch of nations agreeing or not agreeing to do this or that. With policing, you don't "agree" to be arrested and detained. To have a world police you'd need something supragovernmental, something less susceptible to the whims and interests of states. Which I don't think will ever happen. The closest the world has to anything supragovernmental are a few branches of theEU, and their success is somewhat dubious.
[ July 01, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes we should do something to China. I do not understand why we trade with them and do not put sanctions on them(Well, I know why, its because of money but...) Their human rights violations disgust me. They are communist, we are not supposed to trade with communist countries. Why China but not Cuba? Arg, stupid stupid stupid politics which do not make sense.
I am at a loss as to whether I should see farenheit 9/11 or not. On one hand I do not want to support michael moore and his whole political view. On the other hand I really want to see it because everyone will be talking about it. I feel that you should spend your money how you want the world to be. Like not buying ivory because you dont want to support killing elephants.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As law is relative and standards tend to vary from country to country, I find it frustrating that American lives and resources are wasted in vain efforts that have no real hope of succeeding.
If the World needs a police force, then the World needs to agree and cooperate.
By leaving the enforcement in the hands of any particular nation leads to accusations of "Pax Americana" in this case and with some reasonable justification.
good point, although i would argue that we're in the wrong regarding cuba, not china. prosperity brings heightened expectations, not only regarding standard of life, but the ability to live as one chooses.
regarding the UN and the possiblity of an eventual world government of some sort, i think of the UN as somewhat analagous to the pre-constitutional american government: more of an organized method of negociating between interests than an intity itself. nevertheless, the process of establishing the rule of law has been a slow and progressive one. i could see the UN as a precursor to something more powerful, especially given how many "hotspots" are demanding the world's attention, and the persistance of genocide and the like.
i also see iraq as a potentially crucial waypoint along this hypothetical trajectory: we've (hopefully) realized that removing opressive regimes is a bit more difficult than it looks on paper. the pragmatics are hard, and the international politiking is harder...
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No sanctions with China is part of Clinton's "Deep Engagement," which I think is a pretty good idea. You get as economically involved with your enemy as possible so then you're co-dependent, and then you have leverage with each other. Besides, cultural ideas get translated along in the process (hopefully liberal democracy, in this case). Right now China has the most American investment than any other nation in the world, I believe.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where? The liberal democracy quip? I actually think it'll work out. Money is the great communicator.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In an interview with Conan O'Brian, Moore stated something like "This movie is my opinion. I'm not expecting you to embrace it, it is just what I believe to be right. Who knows? You're right, I'm right? They're only opinions"
Hard to argue against a point like that. (But I'm sure someone will)
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For your reading pleasure...the definition of "Documentary" with regards to the Oscar category:
quote:Rule Twelve Special Rules for The Documentary Awards
I. DEFINITION 1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.
II. CATEGORIES The Documentary Awards are divided into two categories: 1. Documentary Feature - films more than 40 minutes in running time, and 2. Documentary Short Subject - films 40 minutes or less (including all credits) in running time.
Having just seen this movie (and keeping in mind his last Oscar win for "Bowling...") he seems to fit THIS definition of Documentary film. So, for him to turn it down would be him stepping away from his material and saying it isn't worthy. Why would he do that? Just to make the Republicans happy?
posted
Wait, I thought that the vultures pecked at and ate Prometheus's liver...
Feyd Baron, DoC
Edit, because I missed a letter. And to add this little quip, from Farenheit's webpage ...
quote: With his characteristic humor and dogged commitment to uncovering the facts, Moore considers the presidency of George W. Bush and where it has led us.]
I love hollywood. If I went around calling myself a designer of unique and inspirational buildings, I'd be arrested the first time I actually did it.
quote: quote:as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
Well, I think the problem might be with this part of the definition.
Dagonee
How so? He takes actual video feed of the President and his mates and uses it the film. He didn't stage those Iraq war scenes, did he? The woman in Flint who lost her son REALLY lost her son, didn't she? He drew conclusions from existing information about Bush connections (that exist) with the Sauds, Big Oil, and so on. One may not agree with those conclusions, but that doesn't make the information in the movie fictional. I am curious, what parts are fictional?
posted
That part of the definition leads no place for opinion. And as Moore stated, it's an opinion piece, not a reporting piece. Which means it emphasis conclusion over facts.
posted
Dag, I read your Richard Cohen bit above. I do agree with one thing, he does make a point to show ONLY the shiny, happy version of pre-War Iraq in ONE scene. But Cohen is a bit wrong. There are plenty of scenes in the movie with Bush talking about the Weapons of Mass Destruction and they showed the infamous scene were Powell was forced to walk the plank for the administration by presenting "factual" information and assurances of the locations of the WMD and the vehicles they were stored in. They also showed a TON of footage of Bush making his "Saddam and Al Qaeda are buddies" speeches. Snippets from lots of sources. I think Cohen is guilty of the same "pick and choose" technique that he accuses Moore of doing.
The Oil thing that Cohen feels is "conspiracy" is silly. Most people don't need Moore's movie to tell them that oil is a pretty big factor in the war. We hear DAILY that Iraq is the second largest oil field in the world. Who is working the oil rigs now? American workers for American companies. A scene in the movie took place at a conference where tons of big corps were brought together to talk about how much money can be made off of the war. Was that staged? Made up? What was the biggest talking point in this conference? "When the oil starts flowing, so will the money." Sure, maybe Moore didn't show scenes from that same conference when the big money people talked about helping the Iraqi people gain their freedom, yadda yadda yadda. Right.
Cohen points out the human rights abuses that Saddam committed against his own people as being the reason for going to war. Moore points out that Saudi Arabia is also known for human rights abuses yet we aren't invading them. Yet Cohen thinks THAT is why we are invading Iraq...because Saddam is the worst of a whole slew of bad dictators in the world. But it isn't why Bush initially said "go to war." It was a story used later when the WMD story flopped. And one used again when US troops were torturing Iraqi prisoners..."at least we aren't as bad as Saddam when HE tortured people here."
Try again, Mr. Cohen. I think it is cool that he disagrees with points raised in the movie, but calling it fiction is pretty weak and desperate. There were no "re-enacted" scenes of the Bush family and Saud family and their connections. No faked footage of war and interviews with soldiers (who, by the way, aren't all saying things Moore wants to hear...he talked to Hawks AND Doves). And if Cohen (and those who agree with him) can't see ANY connection to oil, well...
posted
Look, Moore is outraged that people are using generally accepted standards of documentaries to criticize his movie because it's not a documentary. If he's going to play that card, he needs to not accept all the consequences, good and bad, of his movie not being a documentary.
He could have chosen to make the case that his movie is a documentary and that it meets those generally accepted standards. Instead, he took the easier route and said it's not a documentary.
Fine. We'll take him at his word, even though we know his word is worthless.
Dagonee
quote:There is absolutely no part of the definition that excludes "opinion." If so, please point out.
posted
Actually, I am only a small part of this whole discussion of Documentary vs. Not. I am only pointing out one aspect of the discussion...his eligibility for the Oscar for Best Documentary. According to THAT definition, he is eligible.
I don't know why "Fact" and "Opinion" have to be mutually exclusive. What else would he have opinions on? Fictional characters in fictional situations? It simply says it needs to be a movie around factual information and it is. And he shares his opinions around those facts. So while the bigger argument of documentary can and should continue I don't think he needs to step down from Oscar consideration based on their...er...liberal rules and requirements.
posted
Fil's point is pretty good, actually. Particularly as most of the stuff Moore brings up are facts, if facts in dispute (and even if only facts not in dispute were counted, I think most of the movie would remain -- its not the factual nature, but the implications and selective use that are contentious).
It is mostly a movie about facts. A good part of the movie is taken up with real video clips (from the news and such) -- definitely facts that those video clips happened, and usually what they show as well (for instance, Bush sitting on his rear end and doing nothing even after hearing about the second plane).
Many of the financial connections he states (though sometimes presented in the worst possible light) are facts. The statements by people associated with September 11th are facts in the sense that those people did say them -- Moore is merely interviewing them (and he didn't just pull people in off the street, he found a former (as of recently) FBI official who thought the Bush admin trampled on good investigatory procedure, a woman in Flint who got notified of her son's death in Iraq by telephone, et cetera). There are tons of facts in the film, and the film is heavily concerned with them. Denying that is just being contrary.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't deny that the movie has scores of facts, bushels of `em. I just say that Moore cherry-picks his facts, and shades and distorts them when frequently.
Denying that is just being contrary.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet the larger point remains: If Moore is defending his movie not by showing his use of facts is acceptable for a documentary, but rather by denying it is a documentary, then he should be a man and live with that decision.
If the Acadamy of Motion Picture's definition of a documentary isn't the one Moore's using, he might want to let people know.
posted
I know you didn't, fugu. But it appears many people are defending the film by saying, basically, that it's full of true facts.
Well, there's more to it than that, is all I mean.
And Dag is right. Even though he is not specifically barred from the Academy Award for Documentary, if his first defense against criticism is, "It ain't a documentary!" he should not, as an honest man, accept it.
But he will, because he ain't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell, he's not denying its a documentary either, he's just avoiding mentioning the term. Perhaps its because some people might try to task him for doing so.
He is emphasizing that its filled with his own opinions and tries to suggest his side of the story, but that's not substantially different from a documentary on the civil war portraying the North as interfering aggressors and the South as righteous defenders of freedom (or the North as fighting selflessly for the slaves and the good of the nation, and the South as slaveowners out to destroy the union).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is different in one major respect, in that the events being documented are going on right now.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't deny that the movie has scores of facts, bushels of `em. I just say that Moore cherry-picks his facts, and shades and distorts them when frequently.
Denying that is just being contrary.
Who is denying it? Moore surely isn't. He was asked point blank, "are you being fair?" and he said, quite clearly..."no." Doesn't sound like denial to me.
Who doesn't cherry-pick facts and information? The news media does this daily. Bush is in the White House because of such media 'cherry-picking.' What movie ISN'T cherry-picked information? If you don't, you have C-Span..which is simply an open camera on an event without edits or choices in what is seen. The moment a filmmaker enters the editing suite, he or she begins to cherry pick. And in Moore's own words, they aren't fair. I fail to see a problem with this. If Fox and CNN can do it, why can't Moore? If Rush and Franken do it, why can't Moore? I am curious...which filmmakers, documentary or not, don't pick among takes and facts and scenes to make a movie?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
