• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Moore's Bush/Katrina Connection: Update- film: Katrina: The Wrath of Bush

"Bring it down"!!
MooreJM.jpg
 
animal_cookie said:
my biggest issue is that he does not make documentaries, he makes propaganda films. a documentary should not have staged scenes in it. nor should it have to rely on fancy editing tricks to make a point.

I guess if the American Media were not in the pockets of the administration then I'd agree but alas fair and impartial journalism seems to be a thing of the past ... mostly ... so I feel the need to support the Moore's of this world.

Hey I'm not American so what do I know 8(
 
^so are you saying its okay for someone to be biased and skew the facts as long as you agree with them?
 
To a certain extent, it's fighting fire with fire.

Fox news is TOTALLY a 24hr propaganda outlet for the Bush Administration.
 
animal_cookie said:
^so are you saying its okay for someone to be biased and skew the facts as long as you agree with them?

He opens a can of worms, makes it News and it's debated ... so kudos. Sure, it's propaganda (but believe motivated for the right reasons) but no more than the spin and manipulation of politicians, big business or indeed the media.

I'd prefer an intellectual such as Chomsky but his appeal is probably limited to intelligent classes whereas Moore's rhetoric can be absorbed by the masses ... I fink :\
 
SheeshKeebab said:
He opens a can of worms, makes it News and it's debated ... so kudos. Sure, it's propaganda (but believe motivated for the right reasons) but no more than the spin and manipulation of politicians, big business or indeed the media.

I'd prefer an intellectual such as Chomsky but his appeal is probably limited to intelligent classes whereas Moore's rhetoric can be absorbed by the masses ... I fink :

I can deal with the fact that he is using propaganda as his pedestal (because, honestly, what isn't propaganda?) but to hide his personal leanings under the mask of 'Documentary film' is, IMO, not only deceitful but slanderous to the art itself. :\
 
The public are too fucking stupid to get the messages Moore puts across if the films were done with proper documentary objectivity. He uses his extreme left methods so that joe shloe can understand it well enough to give a shit.

He initiates debate, like he has many times here on BL, and on that point, I praise his work.
 
doc·u·men·ta·ry
adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.


Since Moore still calls his 'work' that of a documentary he essentially *attempts* to trick the audience in believing that his politically skewed interpretation of events are indeed factual. If it's so harmless than why doesn't he just call it what it is, an independent film? Because he knows he can trick the idiots of America into believing that all he puts forth in his film as fact because it says so on the box. What a great example Michael Moore is.
 
Last edited:
In essence there is no such thing as an unbiased work. Any film-maker wishes to send a message, and in that message is the bias. Can anyone think of any work which is totally unbiased? Even if the film consisted of nothing but the flashing numbers 1- 1000 one could argue the director is biased in favour of the decimal system. One could just present facts, but the order in which facts are presented, the background music, the title etc. all show some level of bias. So of course Moore is a biased film-maker, but as has been said he makes it entertaining enough for the masses to comprehend, thereby initiating debate, and presents information to those who would not ordinarily seek it out. I don't like the man and his messianic 'I'm Mr good fighting the evil in the world' attitude, but I like his films for the above reasons.
 
Yes, but when a filmmaker takes complete control of the situations, hell, CREATES situations (ex. bank in Bowling for Columbine) for the sole purpose of supporting his personal ideology the the documentary it is no longer subject to the inevitable fate of simple bias, but that of blatent disregard for factual evidence.
 
SardonicNihilist said:
So of course Moore is a biased film-maker, but as has been said he makes it entertaining enough for the masses to comprehend, thereby initiating debate, and presents information to those who would not ordinarily seek it out.

But what is the good of initiating debate and providing comprehendable information to the masses if that information is inaccurate and swayed so drastically to the liberal side?

Great, he is getting Americans to think, to hate Bush, to whatever.
But he is getting them to do it through lies and inaccuracies.
It does not matter if everyone who makes a film is biased, it does not change the fact that he is putting utter crap out into the world.

People need to think for themselves, we do not need yet another corrupt, liar, promoting propoganda extremist initiating debate that stupid Americans do not have the capacity to question.
 
Better some debate than no debate.

The nature of debate means it evolves from the initial points of view.
 
AmorRoark said:
Since Moore still calls his 'work' that of a documentary he essentially *attempts* to trick the audience in believing that his politically skewed interpretation of events are indeed factual. If it's so harmless than why doesn't he just call it what it is, an independent film? Because he knows he can trick the idiots of America into believing that all he puts forth in his film as fact because it says so on the box. What a great example Michael Moore is.

I have no doubt folks consume it with a little salt and humour.

We watch so called Documentaries often which are blatant mi-representions of the truth or cleary biased. This from government, Media and even independants. So as long as the key message is opened for real discussion I'm happy with comedic result.

I think he's tackling issues which may be swept away ... he's a dog with a bone and doesn't let go :\
 
AmorRoark said:
Since Moore still calls his 'work' that of a documentary...
at michaelmoore.com, bowling... is described as an "...alternately humourous and horrifying film about the United States..." not a documentary.

i don't think anybody is in any doubt that he's editorialising. i know two wrongs never make a right but what's worse - what he does or what countless outlets do every day under the guise of 'news'?

alasdair
 
yeah, everyone TOTALLY tells me that like the WHOLE of Fahrenheit 9/11 was FAKE!!!

he like totally edited all those scenes!!! no-one can actually show me any specifically erroneous passages, yeah, but godamn he's full of shit!!!

i mean imagine - a film maker uses their media to present their own gripes, some of which i disagree with! well fuck me backwards!!!

it's not like nick broomfield ever made a point in any of HIS documentaries!!! it's not like leni fucking riefenstahl had an agenda when she made her films!??!

lol!!! moore like totally took charlton heston's speech out of context!!! don't you get it!??! he like apparently told lots of lies, and OMG BBQ we only like lies to come from the fucking people running our country, not some independent film-maker. allegedly.

and of course everyone knows that if you wanted a totally unbiased presentation of the facts surrounding, say, the bush administration's compendium of shit re: iraq, well, you'd head to FOX!

oh - except fox are liars who spin their lies as fucking news.

well, there's always the WaPo!

oh - their coverage of the war was abysmal, riddled with outright propaganda, and completely gutless.

well, there's always the NYT!

oops - they got caught totally making up stories, and Miller basically spent the buildup to the war slurping karl rove's ejaculate and regurgitating it onto NYT op-ed pages.

well, there's always the other mainstream TV news channels!

oh - except the ones which play the fucking national anthem when even discussing the war and rely exclusively on 'embed' reporters. oh and the ones who bought into fake documents. and the ones complicit in the smear campaigns against any number of anti-war activists. and of course they're reticent about showing dead americans.

well, there's always the white house press staff!!!

now THERE'S a solution we can all be thankful for! YAAAAY!!!
 
dr suess .. hahahaha!!!

I think EVERYBODY has missed something though, the man's lost weight! Go Moore!;)
 
animal_cookie said:
my biggest issue is that he does not make documentaries, he makes propaganda films. a documentary should not have staged scenes in it. nor should it have to rely on fancy editing tricks to make a point.

i assume you have a problem with the staged media events the white house puts out as well =D
 
grep i should point out i was in no way commenting on the serious implications of the lack of a healthy, independent, factually consistent & unsmeared counter-culture...

...it's just that many of the 'moore is teh bullshit' arguments rest on similar levels of logically fallacial shizzle.

;)

ps. hope all is well with you!
 
Top