The Corporation
Another great movie coming this summer.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/indepe...rporation.html
This looks better than F911 and the Hunting of the President in many ways since it actually exposes the corrupt nature of the system.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/indepe...rporation.html
This looks better than F911 and the Hunting of the President in many ways since it actually exposes the corrupt nature of the system.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
I dunno, I prefer to get information of this type from sources other than film. Film is such a non-informative medium. It's the same reason that TV news sucks compared to written news.
That is a ridiculous statment. Comparing independent film to network television is impossible. Truly independent cinema is not funded by major corporations while TV news most certainly is.
Do you not think that written news is influenced by the same interests as television news? The same media conglomerates that run the networks run the major papers as well.
I haved seen Manufacturing Consent and it was very good and very informative. I look forward to seeing this new film.
Originally posted by buckeye
That is a ridiculous statment. Comparing independent film to network television is impossible. Truly independent cinema is not funded by major corporations while TV news most certainly is.
Do you not think that written news is influenced by the same interests as television news? The same media conglomerates that run the networks run the major papers as well.
I haved seen Manufacturing Consent and it was very good and very informative. I look forward to seeing this new film.
I have no doubt that you're right about the news media and major papers, and how different they are from independent film. But I'm comparing the mediums, not the funding source. Film and TV are both visual mediums, and therefore less efficient at providing information than a written medium, and better at tugging emotions.
I haven't seen F911, but I just get this feeling from the trailer and the reviews that it's not really informative. I don't get worked up about it like some people here do, and I'll probably catch it on DVD some day, but I sincerely doubt I'd really learn anything from it. Sure, he can make Bush look like a dolt, and he can use 7 visual minutes of Bush doing nothing at a school while the 9/11 attacks were occurring to really drive home his point that Bush is a bad president or whatever. But I'd rather use the internet to read and debate stuff to come to conclusions about those issues.
I just think I could learn much more about the issue of corporate abuse (or whatever this is about) in 2 hours of googling and reading blogs and think-tank websites, and debating it here on the internet, than in a movie. That's not to say I would never see it though.
Originally posted by BRussell
I just think I could learn much more about the issue of corporate abuse (or whatever this is about) in 2 hours of googling and reading blogs and think-tank websites, and debating it here on the internet, than in a movie. That's not to say I would never see it though.
I agree to an extent. I get a lot of information from the internet, but isn't it nice to get out of the house once in awhile and see a movie that is entertaining and thought provoking?
You can't often get the tone of someone's speech when you read it off of a page/screen.
The cinema has and always will be a very Powerful medium of expression do to its ability to capture actual moments combined with the nature of editing.
Originally posted by BRussell
I have no doubt that you're right about the news media and major papers, and how different they are from independent film. But I'm comparing the mediums, not the funding source. Film and TV are both visual mediums, and therefore less efficient at providing information than a written medium, and better at tugging emotions.
Some people, like myself, need a visual component to facilitate the learning process. A picture is worth a thousand words so they say. Also, you can read a black and white newspaper column about bombs being dropped on a building but to adequatly convey the mayhem and distruction that ensues a moving visual component is needed. Regardless of the medium everyone should be wary of the possibility that the information is being distorted by the reporters or editors own view points.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
F 9/11 probably isn't too informative to anyone who spends all their time hanging out here (most of what the film had to say had already been discussed to death on AO over the last year)...but I reckon a lot of people who don't waste their time arging politics and prefer the sports section to the front page are going to come out with a lot more questions about what's been going on in the US over the last three years.
Obviously, people here on AO do not represent the majority of Americans. TV news is so uninformative, even manipulative, that a very large majority of the population were convinced, largely by the media's deference towards the Bush administration's point of view. that 80% of the US public in a poll thought there were Iraqis on those 9-11 airplanes, and over 60% thought that Saddam Hussein had some personal responsibility for 9-11. If the US public were so unaware of the really basic fundamental stuff, then how do you expect them to aware of the convoluted business relationships between Bush, Cheney, James R. Bath, the bin Laden family, the Carlyle group, the Saudi royalty, and thousand and one other things that would look the Bush crew look like a bunch of traitors. At least Moore did touch on it during the movie...including how the White House had tried to erase the Bath connection on Bush's military records. Most people probably had no clue about the stuiff Moore touched on, maybe because it is not covered in the "liberal" (!!) media. And coming to think about it....recall that National Geographic survey 18 months or so back? Just one year after the 9-11 attacks, only 17% of young adults could find Afghanistan on the map. Go figure.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...perSurvey.html
You put the jerk in knee-jerk. Just kiddin. That's a funny one though, gotta stick it in my sig...Scott you're taking up too much of my sig you gotta stop!
Originally posted by Aquatic
Binary Scott!
You put the jerk in knee-jerk. Just kiddin. That's a funny one though, gotta stick it in my sig...Scott you're taking up too much of my sig you gotta stop!
Come now Aquatic. Scott was being quite right in that the movie trailer didn't appear to condemn a certain corporation for certain actions. Rather it condemned pretty much all corporations and the entire profit motive.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Come now Aquatic. Scott was being quite right in that the movie trailer didn't appear to condemn a certain corporation for certain actions. Rather it condemned pretty much all corporations and the entire profit motive.
Nick
This is exactly why the movie looks so great. It doesn't attack a specific entity (except perhaps the western governments), but rather the corrupt nature of the capitalistic system that entitles corporations the same rights as people while ignoring real people's rights.
Nick