Actually, it is productive, because you have to know what the flaws are before you can fix them. Believe it or not, America does have plenty of problems. Just because you don't experience them, that doesn't mean they don't exist or that they aren't worth looking at and fixing. A big flaw that America has, is that it has allowed these banks and corporations (and capitalism in general) to run free and basically rape and pillage the wealth of the country. Michael Moore is just highlighting that fact. Why do you have such a problem with that?
I don't have a problem with that. I'm all for free speech and public opinion.
It's the way he goes about it that bothers me.
SO WHAT if he is a millionaire? So what if he's done well in this system? That changes nothing and it's basically irrelevant.
Nobody is yet to respond to this question:
If he cares so much about his subject matter then why doesn't he use the profits from these films to help the people he's documenting?
This is a question that has been raised about a lot of different artists throughout history.
Particularly photographers. There have been countless photographers that have gone into third world environments and captured incredible imagery of very unfortunate situations from which they've then profited greatly and advanced their careers. It's not just third world countries obviously and it's not just photographers. It's just a good example.
His message is still true, even if it is coming from a hypocrite
It's not absolute truth. There are truths in the film but they are weaved together to become something else. Letterman said it better with his puzzle comment.
So he is a hypocrite?
And the fact that you are focusing on Moore instead of criticizing the content of the movie is very revealing. It says that you are not mentally capable of arguing with the message of the movie
What bothered me about the film is the same thing that bothers me about all of his films. So commenting about him seems appropriate.
Besides which I also made comments specifically about different parts of "Capitalism: A Love Story". I also asked questions that haven't been answered.
Why the interview with Wallace Shawn?
Why cut to the footage of naive 1950's housewives?
I'm not mentally incapable of discussing the film. The issue that I have with the film is not that it is anti-capitalism, it's the manipulative and misleading way in which he re-arranges facts.
By the way, Michael Moore didn't make his money by screwing people over, and that is why he's actually not a hypocrite for making this, and that is the difference between him and the bankers he is criticizing.
That is where we disagree. Michael Moore has built a career upon publicly shitting on other people. You just don't like the people he's 'screwed over'.
Besides, there is no one who can make this movie who isn't rich. It's not like people who are having their houses foreclosed on can pay a camera crew. Micheal Moore is just speaking up for the people who have no power to speak up for themselves.
My hero.
And this might be surprising to some people, especially to extremist right wing capitalists, but some people actually have ethics and morals, and do not only care about their own self-interest. So, they will occasionally criticize something that they personally benefited from, and it is not a crime to do this.
It does come as a surprise that you are bringing up ethics and morals when defending Moore.
I realize that it's not a crime for Moore or anyone to criticize capitalism. But his critique is off. You can't re-arrange footage from old movies and propaganda films, people being evicted, Wallace Shawn, condo vultures, etc. and narrate over the top of it "This is Capitalism"
It's misleading.
This should be easier to accept than me saying that it's an outright lie.
He is misleading. Can we agree on that?
magine that I worked for Nazi Germany, I wasn't involved with any of the holocaust, but I was a very high ranking official in the government, and I had done very well under Nazism. But then I found out about the concentration camps, and left the country and started to publicly criticize Hitler. I bet you wouldn't do the same thing as you are doing now, saying that I shouldn't be speaking out against it, would you? You would say I was right to do it, even if I did do well under the Third Reich.
I don't see how that relates to Michael Moore. It's a bit of a stretch.
