Michael Moores shameful display
http://www.newarkadvocate.com/news/s...n/1259124.html
I know that many of you may agree with what he had to say, but any respect that I had for him had long since evaporated and this was the final nail in the coffin. I will never view another film by him again. Shameful.
I know that many of you may agree with what he had to say, but any respect that I had for him had long since evaporated and this was the final nail in the coffin. I will never view another film by him again. Shameful.
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
after reading that report on how he completely manipulated reality for his Bowlling for Columbine "documentary" i lost all respect for him anyway.
What report? Could you provide a link? I actually liked that movie because it wasn't the typical "guns are bad" story you hear from the liberal media (which I don't disagree with, but it was refreshing not to hear it again...).
i've never cared for him anyway, though i did want to se bowling for columbine. not sure if i will see it now
see this link for details. He's pathetic actually.
the NRA section was the worst i guess. took a pile of lines out of context, some from entirely different speeches then spliced it to make it sound really bad.
you could do that with anyone on any topic.
as an aside, i watched the movie and liked it, but was surprised by some of the stuff these people were supposed to be saying. after reading up on this, i realized why some quotes seemed off.
kinda of ruins the whole point of a documentary when you make crap up, or edit the hell out of it to make it match your mindset.
Originally posted by der Kopf
Mr. Moore's speech is daily business in our fine Belgian parliament...
What a mature and professional parliament you must have.
Originally posted by groverat
What a mature and professional parliament you must have.
Well, of course, they don't get sound-carpetted of the podium. You DO understand me, groverat? I'm saying that people actually have the right the go full frontal opposition-wise, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is not so right now in your part of the world, or is it?
What Moore said was quite lame in itself, but the worst part was how he lured the other filmmakers up there for his own agenda. I'm sure they didn't expect him to go that far. I'm sure they regret it too.
EDIT: And I do think that personal politics should be kept out of the Oscar's. It's not the right stage for that stuff. People attend to see an awards ceremony, not a political rally. Imagine if you went to a restaurant to eat and the waiter made you listen to his own little politcal tirade.
I'm saying that people actually have the right the go full frontal opposition-wise, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is not so right now in your part of the world, or is it?
You're wrong but we still love you anyway. After all, without hte Belgium parliament's unilateral usurping of national soveriegnty with their overreaching international human rights law(s) than we would have one fewer country to poke fun of for gross hypocrisy. We'd have to add a different word in front of Sprouts as well if your country did not exist
Originally posted by NoahJ
I know that many of you may agree with what he had to say
What an instigator.
My thoughts on the matter are the following: Like any other award recipient, Michael Moore was justified in speaking out against Bush. You have the podium. Let's hear what you have to say. Michael Moore was especially justified because what he said was what his movie for which he received the award was about. The problem was that Moore was a "bit" too outspoken. His comments didn't fit the atmosphere of thoughtful little speeches. All anti-war speeches at the oscar's invoked art in some way or another including Michael Moore's speech. But goddammit, did he have to be so blunt?
completely changed my opinion of him.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I think he's a self-centered jerk! Someone pointed out in the Oscars thread that when he was onstage, he NEVER even thanked the people who helped him get the Oscar. In fact, I don't think he even thanked the Academy. And why did he drag the other nominees up there (who may or may not agree with what he said)? Probably because he's too chicken to stand alone in his comments. All that, combined with the fact that he's so conceited as to put himself in each one of his documentaries (spotlight stealer), makes me have no respect for him whatsoever.
Not a fan of Alfred Hitchcock or M. Night. Shymalayaayaaaa?
The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or lacking in objectivity. One might hope that a documentary would be fair and objective, but nothing rules out a rousing polemic now and then.
The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest. It is fraudulent. It fixes upon a theme, and advances it, whenever necessary, by deception. It even uses the audio/video editor to assemble a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and to turn sympathetic phrases into arrogant ones. You can't even trust the narrator to read you a plaque or show you a speech, for Pete's sake.
Wow! A documentary lacking in OBJECTIVITY?!! OMFG! fancy that!
Anyone with half a clue / and even those with NO clue, but who watch the occasional documentary realise that like the press (of whom documentary producers are a sub-group), documentaries are never "objective".
They are as biased as the humans who produce them, and as slanted as the people who watch them.
"Objective." ROTFL. The very act of editing destroys objectivity. What a documentarist leaves out is as important as what gets left behind. What, you want to watch a 900-reel, three year movie to ensure you are in possesion of 'all the facts'? To make sure 'the full context' of the movie-making process is there?
Even if you watched ALL footage Michael Moore shot, which is laughable, you are still only watching what he shot. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FOOTAGE HE COULD HAVE SHOT, BUT DIDN'T?!! What about whatever was happening around the corner from where MM was shooting? Across the street?! Why didn't he interview EVERY American about what they thought, instead of a small handful? That's so... *gasp!*... biased!!!
So don't link to articles on some backwater web site that point out that MM uses semantics and editing to make a point, because we already knew that.
Next you're going to link to an article that suggests editorials are subjective.
Where did you come from?
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Not a fan of Alfred Hitchcock or M. Night. Shymalayaayaaaa?
Haven't really seen much Hitchcock, and of the few M. Night movies I've seen, he only has cameos. Cameos are fine. Hell, he made the movie, might as well be in it for a couple minutes.
But when you are ALWAYS the main character in some sort of twisted news magazine called a documentary....