Did you read any of the links? He edited the film to make events appear to have happened the way he wanted them to. Heston did not say "..from my cold dead hands" immediately after the Columbine incident. That was from another convention but Moore intentionally edited it to make it appear as if Heston said it in response to the incident. That is what I'm talking about. Obviously I didn't mean you can't edit anything. But editing so the facts are twisted is not documentary filmmaking.
I've read them over and over during the past year. Did you read the rebuttal, or the FAQ on Moore's website? They provide pretty compelling arguments against the criticisms.
For example, about the Heston speech, I'd have to look at the movie again, but I'm not at all sure he implies Heston gave that speech in Colorado. That rebuttal I posted say that Moore introduced Heston with his most famous quote - the cold dead hands one - and then went on to talk about how the NRA had a meeting near Columbine after the shootings. I'd have to look at the movie again to make a judgment about that, but some of these people who have attacked the movie are worse with the facts than Michael Moore, and I think we need to be careful about just assuming any criticisms are automatically true.
I'm sure we could go through Ken Burns' documentaries piece by piece and do the exact same thing and come up with lots of supposedly misleading items. Come to think of it, his "Jazz" sucked hard.
I've read them over and over during the past year. Did you read the rebuttal, or the FAQ on Moore's website? They provide pretty compelling arguments against the criticisms.
Are you talking about this FAQ? Because that one doesn't even answer half the questions on the other sites.
I haven't had a chance to read the rebuttal, since you just posted it today and I'm still at work, but I will read it. I think you should also watch the movie again.
Remember, this isn't an attack on Moore himself, his beliefs or the anti-gun movement as I'm in agreement with a lot of those things anyway.
Are you talking about this FAQ? Because that one doesn't even answer half the questions on the other sites.
No it doesn't, but it does address a few of the big ones like the bank, and it's right from the source. The other one is extremely thorough.
I just think that many of the criticisms of that movie have been taken at face value despite being extremely nitpicky. Some of them are legitimate. If that one about the Willie Horton ad is true, that's pretty bad. I hadn't seen that one before, but I want to see it on the DVD to make sure.
What has always amazed me is how worked up people on the right get about things like this. It is like someone raped their kid. The question still remains why we have so many gun-related murders. Anybody here have any ideas?
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of gun violence, especially between how many gun deaths are from strangers: dealers, gang members, robbers, etc. vs. family or friends shooting one another. Also, does police action count in those gun death stats (though I doubt it counts towards a big chunk of the deaths anyway)? As I understand it, most gun violence is between family members and friends, and most are deliberate acts, not accidents, happen between individuals and not groups, and that workplace and school shootings are statistically quite rare. A simplistic explanation would be that a lot of people in the US think of guns are a legit means of taking care of one's problems.
Did you read any of the links? He edited the film to make events appear to have happened the way he wanted them to. Heston did not say "..from my cold dead hands" immediately after the Columbine incident. That was from another convention but Moore intentionally edited it to make it appear as if Heston said it in response to the incident. That is what I'm talking about. Obviously I didn't mean you can't edit anything. But editing so the facts are twisted is not documentary filmmaking.
I'm not an idiot and I didn't think that Moore was saying that Heston said that in response.
This movie appears to ab about as misleading, untruthful as it's possible to get, a bit like those USSR propaganda movies of the 1960s which nobody, even in Russia, believed. In this case, all those rope-a-dope pinbrains will be staring doe-eyed at the images of Bottoms playing the criminal-in-chief on 9-1, as if he was some kind of hero. In reality, he smirked his way throught that awful morning reading a story about a girl and a goat to a bunch of kids, while the US Air Force was deliberately stood down in flagrant violation of standard procedure as the biggest attack on American soil was unfolding.
So Michael moore used some artistic license in Bowling For Columbine?
...
Um no? He lied, staged scenes, doctored footage and misrepresented facts. His lies weren't even accurate. And he's too much of a fat headed asshole to admit he was wrong. So much for the liberal hero. He's nothing more than the Rush of the left.
This movie appears to ab about as misleading, untruthful as it's possible to get, a bit like those USSR propaganda movies of the 1960s which nobody, even in Russia, believed. In this case, all those rope-a-dope pinbrains will be staring doe-eyed at the images of Bottoms playing the criminal-in-chief on 9-1, as if he was some kind of hero. In reality, he smirked his way throught that awful morning reading a story about a girl and a goat to a bunch of kids, while the US Air Force was deliberately stood down in flagrant violation of standard procedure as the biggest attack on American soil was unfolding.
Must you derail every thread? I think we should keep this on topic.
I read the rebuttal and that guy is basically admitting that Moore took artistic license but defends it, not denies it.
So I still believe Moore didn't make a true documentary and doesn't deserve the Oscar. Do I believe that Moore's purpose is just? Yes. But the ends don't justify the means.
On the other hand, Moore's critics due get out of hand with a lot of their issues but I believe that a good portion of them are justified.
Must you derail every thread? I think we should keep this on topic.
I read the rebuttal and that guy is basically admitting that Moore took artistic license but defends it, not denies it.
So I still believe Moore didn't make a true documentary and doesn't deserve the Oscar. Do I believe that Moore's purpose is just? Yes. But the ends don't justify the means.
On the other hand, Moore's critics due get out of hand with a lot of their issues but I believe that a good portion of them are justified.
Spoken like a true moderate, huh?
With all due respect, Willoughby, I don't believe Moore made the film with adhering to your rigid rules for documentaries on mind. That said, it was a wonderful film regardless of what category you want to stuff it in or yank it out of. Some want to undermine the film's categorization as a documentary to simultaneously undermine its message. I have to say that it's a bit too late for that-- the movie is very well regarded in the documentary circle and in the film community in general. Critics love it. The film won Best Documentary at the Academy Awards. There's a very strong case in support of this movie.
Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, Academy Awards, Box Office revenue, etc.
The case against the movie is coming overwhelmingly from the right...
The case against the movie is coming overwhelmingly from the right...
Like the Washington Post, vanguard of the "right". Sorry SPJ. The movie's faked in significant ways. You were fooled and lied to. Worse than that people in other countries will think that what this movie reports is "fact" when much of it is a stage show. And based on the criterion of The Academy this movie does not qualify as a documentary.
Regardless of where the message comes from the movie is a fraud and Moore still tries to pass it off as fact.
I thin kwe need to look at this objectively. The truth is, every person who is nitpicking about MM not deserving this Oscar because it's "not a documentary" is motivated to do so because they don't like Michael Moore (I admit it's not too difficult to dislike him).
If you look at the "big picture", however, you'll see that the film is made in a documentary style, achieves the purpose of a documentary (provides information, rather than entertainment) and would never, EVER be classified as anything else.
I bet if you look at previous "best documentary" winners, you'll see that there are certain artistic licences taken with every film. They are still documentaries. I think you have adapted a conservative definition of the term specifically to criticize Michael Moore.
And should we get nit-picky about other categories? What about "best foreign film"? Crouching Tiger??? That's an American film through and through.
Let it go. It's a documentary. Propaganda? Yes. It's still a freaking documentary.
But tonton a significant amount of the information is wrong. Some of the footage in this "documentary" has be altered. It's faked. We can't believe what we see because what we see is not real. The motivation for the criticism is irrelevant to the fact that Moore faked some of what we see.
I thin kwe need to look at this objectively. The truth is, every person who is nitpicking about MM not deserving this Oscar because it's "not a documentary" is motivated to do so because they don't like Michael Moore (I admit it's not too difficult to dislike him).
I am completely indifferent on Moore. I liked "Rodger and Me". I'm not at all motivated by my feelings on him. Honestly, have I said anything negative about Moore himself?
I'm sure that there are plenty of people who hate Moore and are motivated by that to nitpick his movie but for every one of them there is a liberal who is only defending him because of their hate for the right.
I really am looking at this objectively and not from a liberal/conservative standpoint. If you can't get past that than there's no point in discussing this further.
I've read both sides of the arguement and the pro-documentary (hah) crowd hasn't done a good job of convincing me that the facts weren't twisted. I still think he crossed the line.
Comments
Originally posted by Willoughby
Did you read any of the links? He edited the film to make events appear to have happened the way he wanted them to. Heston did not say "..from my cold dead hands" immediately after the Columbine incident. That was from another convention but Moore intentionally edited it to make it appear as if Heston said it in response to the incident. That is what I'm talking about. Obviously I didn't mean you can't edit anything. But editing so the facts are twisted is not documentary filmmaking.
I've read them over and over during the past year. Did you read the rebuttal, or the FAQ on Moore's website? They provide pretty compelling arguments against the criticisms.
For example, about the Heston speech, I'd have to look at the movie again, but I'm not at all sure he implies Heston gave that speech in Colorado. That rebuttal I posted say that Moore introduced Heston with his most famous quote - the cold dead hands one - and then went on to talk about how the NRA had a meeting near Columbine after the shootings. I'd have to look at the movie again to make a judgment about that, but some of these people who have attacked the movie are worse with the facts than Michael Moore, and I think we need to be careful about just assuming any criticisms are automatically true.
I'm sure we could go through Ken Burns' documentaries piece by piece and do the exact same thing and come up with lots of supposedly misleading items. Come to think of it, his "Jazz" sucked hard.
Originally posted by BRussell
I've read them over and over during the past year. Did you read the rebuttal, or the FAQ on Moore's website? They provide pretty compelling arguments against the criticisms.
Are you talking about this FAQ? Because that one doesn't even answer half the questions on the other sites.
I haven't had a chance to read the rebuttal, since you just posted it today and I'm still at work, but I will read it. I think you should also watch the movie again.
Remember, this isn't an attack on Moore himself, his beliefs or the anti-gun movement as I'm in agreement with a lot of those things anyway.
Originally posted by Willoughby
Are you talking about this FAQ? Because that one doesn't even answer half the questions on the other sites.
No it doesn't, but it does address a few of the big ones like the bank, and it's right from the source. The other one is extremely thorough.
I just think that many of the criticisms of that movie have been taken at face value despite being extremely nitpicky. Some of them are legitimate. If that one about the Willie Horton ad is true, that's pretty bad. I hadn't seen that one before, but I want to see it on the DVD to make sure.
Originally posted by Willoughby
Did you read any of the links? He edited the film to make events appear to have happened the way he wanted them to. Heston did not say "..from my cold dead hands" immediately after the Columbine incident. That was from another convention but Moore intentionally edited it to make it appear as if Heston said it in response to the incident. That is what I'm talking about. Obviously I didn't mean you can't edit anything. But editing so the facts are twisted is not documentary filmmaking.
I'm not an idiot and I didn't think that Moore was saying that Heston said that in response.
Try THIS SCAM
and this
This movie appears to ab about as misleading, untruthful as it's possible to get, a bit like those USSR propaganda movies of the 1960s which nobody, even in Russia, believed. In this case, all those rope-a-dope pinbrains will be staring doe-eyed at the images of Bottoms playing the criminal-in-chief on 9-1, as if he was some kind of hero. In reality, he smirked his way throught that awful morning reading a story about a girl and a goat to a bunch of kids, while the US Air Force was deliberately stood down in flagrant violation of standard procedure as the biggest attack on American soil was unfolding.
Originally posted by sammi jo
So Michael moore used some artistic license in Bowling For Columbine?
...
Um no? He lied, staged scenes, doctored footage and misrepresented facts. His lies weren't even accurate. And he's too much of a fat headed asshole to admit he was wrong. So much for the liberal hero. He's nothing more than the Rush of the left.
Originally posted by sammi jo
So Michael moore used some artistic license in Bowling For Columbine?
Try THIS SCAM
and this
This movie appears to ab about as misleading, untruthful as it's possible to get, a bit like those USSR propaganda movies of the 1960s which nobody, even in Russia, believed. In this case, all those rope-a-dope pinbrains will be staring doe-eyed at the images of Bottoms playing the criminal-in-chief on 9-1, as if he was some kind of hero. In reality, he smirked his way throught that awful morning reading a story about a girl and a goat to a bunch of kids, while the US Air Force was deliberately stood down in flagrant violation of standard procedure as the biggest attack on American soil was unfolding.
Must you derail every thread? I think we should keep this on topic.
I read the rebuttal and that guy is basically admitting that Moore took artistic license but defends it, not denies it.
So I still believe Moore didn't make a true documentary and doesn't deserve the Oscar. Do I believe that Moore's purpose is just? Yes. But the ends don't justify the means.
On the other hand, Moore's critics due get out of hand with a lot of their issues but I believe that a good portion of them are justified.
Spoken like a true moderate, huh?
Originally posted by Willoughby
Must you derail every thread? I think we should keep this on topic.
I read the rebuttal and that guy is basically admitting that Moore took artistic license but defends it, not denies it.
So I still believe Moore didn't make a true documentary and doesn't deserve the Oscar. Do I believe that Moore's purpose is just? Yes. But the ends don't justify the means.
On the other hand, Moore's critics due get out of hand with a lot of their issues but I believe that a good portion of them are justified.
Spoken like a true moderate, huh?
With all due respect, Willoughby, I don't believe Moore made the film with adhering to your rigid rules for documentaries on mind. That said, it was a wonderful film regardless of what category you want to stuff it in or yank it out of. Some want to undermine the film's categorization as a documentary to simultaneously undermine its message. I have to say that it's a bit too late for that-- the movie is very well regarded in the documentary circle and in the film community in general. Critics love it. The film won Best Documentary at the Academy Awards. There's a very strong case in support of this movie.
Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, Academy Awards, Box Office revenue, etc.
The case against the movie is coming overwhelmingly from the right...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
...
The case against the movie is coming overwhelmingly from the right...
Like the Washington Post, vanguard of the "right". Sorry SPJ. The movie's faked in significant ways. You were fooled and lied to. Worse than that people in other countries will think that what this movie reports is "fact" when much of it is a stage show. And based on the criterion of The Academy this movie does not qualify as a documentary.
Regardless of where the message comes from the movie is a fraud and Moore still tries to pass it off as fact.
Originally posted by tonton
I thin kwe need to look at this objectively. The truth is, every person who is nitpicking about MM not deserving this Oscar because it's "not a documentary" is motivated to do so because they don't like Michael Moore (I admit it's not too difficult to dislike him).
If you look at the "big picture", however, you'll see that the film is made in a documentary style, achieves the purpose of a documentary (provides information, rather than entertainment) and would never, EVER be classified as anything else.
I bet if you look at previous "best documentary" winners, you'll see that there are certain artistic licences taken with every film. They are still documentaries. I think you have adapted a conservative definition of the term specifically to criticize Michael Moore.
And should we get nit-picky about other categories? What about "best foreign film"? Crouching Tiger??? That's an American film through and through.
Let it go. It's a documentary. Propaganda? Yes. It's still a freaking documentary.
Want to be my conscience for a day?
Originally posted by tonton
How has the footage been altered? If you mean mixed around on the cutting floor I dare you to try to make a movie without doing that.
...
The faked the subtitle on the Horton ad.
The scene at the bank was a set up.
Originally posted by tonton
I thin kwe need to look at this objectively. The truth is, every person who is nitpicking about MM not deserving this Oscar because it's "not a documentary" is motivated to do so because they don't like Michael Moore (I admit it's not too difficult to dislike him).
I am completely indifferent on Moore. I liked "Rodger and Me". I'm not at all motivated by my feelings on him. Honestly, have I said anything negative about Moore himself?
I'm sure that there are plenty of people who hate Moore and are motivated by that to nitpick his movie but for every one of them there is a liberal who is only defending him because of their hate for the right.
I really am looking at this objectively and not from a liberal/conservative standpoint. If you can't get past that than there's no point in discussing this further.
I've read both sides of the arguement and the pro-documentary (hah) crowd hasn't done a good job of convincing me that the facts weren't twisted. I still think he crossed the line.
But yeah, you're right, it was a good "movie".