Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HaysooChreesto! · 03-28-2003, 10:48 AM

One more time: How does one's suspicions about somebody else somehow validate Moore's being full of shit?
Face it, Moore's been shown as a misleading individual. It matters not what anyone else does, Moore is still willfully dishonest. And that's the focus.
The defense of Moore here strikes me as being very similar to Catholics defending the Pope.

Deacon · 03-28-2003, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lamma
I agree. With the mention of Jackass, this thread has officially degenerated.

It's a legitimate question. Where does it say that a documentary has to enlighten or educate? Then again, I learned a lot of things I didn't want to do after watching that film.

Deacon · 03-28-2003, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lamma
One more time: How does one's suspicions about somebody else somehow validate Moore's being full of shit?
Face it, Moore's been shown as a misleading individual. It matters not what anyone else does, Moore is still willfully dishonest. And that's the focus.
The defense of Moore here strikes me as being very similar to Catholics defending the Pope.

Willfully dishonest?! Have you SEEN the film?

If you hate 'Bowling for Columbine', you're gonna love his next one: 'Farenheit 911': http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/st...-16238,00.html

Deacon · 03-28-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CuriosityKills

I am not convinced that a documentary must be objective. Has anyone here seen a documentary on the holocaust that could be considered truly objective? When making a film on the holocaust could you be truly objective?

:notworthy
Yeah, I'm sure people'd be lining up to see Holocaust: the Nazi Defense.

CuriosityKills · 03-28-2003, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Face it, Moore's been shown as a misleading individual. It matters not what anyone else does, Moore is still willfully dishonest.

I haven't really even seen anything that actually proves he is misleading. Is he really 'willfully dishonest'? Please show some evidence discrediting his sources. And please, no more of that Hardy crap.

Wyz_sub10 · 03-28-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Rat
Ad Hominem

That doesn't negate his good points.

I just want to speak to one point - when you read Heston's speech form the film and his speech as it actually occurred, I cannot see the massive fraud and deception that Hardy sounds off about.

I understand the intro was a problem (although as a viewer, I did not think the "cold dead hands" remark occurred in Denver, mainly because this hadn't been mentioned yet).

But if you read from where Hardy has "Heston (supposedly) continues speech... " and "Heston's speech as actually given" it's obvious that Moore simplied shortened the speech.

The words ommitted by Moore do not change the message. He apologizes for the cancelled festivities, he talks about time in Vietnam, he talks about the NRA being a victim of the media vis-a-vis Littleton, he talks about gun-owners being prevelant, and lastly he talks about the NRA being a victim again.

If you ask me, Heston should be thankful because his full speech was far more embarrassing that the abbreviated version used by Moore.

And BTW, I don't suppose Hardy could take any personal exception to Moore's portrayal of Heston, could he?

Michaelson · 03-28-2003, 03:39 PM

http://www.moorewatch.com/

Looks like a crap site to me, but for anyone willing to trawl through it all.

This is also quite interesting: http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.html

This guy's started researching the film, and says that facts are misrepresented all over the place. He doesn't provide a whole lot of proof (he discusses the title and gun in the bank scene), but he says that once he has more information he'll post it, and I like the general line he takes:

Quote:

If you watch a Michael Moore documentary expecting him to enter into a dry, routine investigation and that he's fully prepared to be surprised and changed by what he learns, you clearly haven't been paying attention.

It's not a problem that Moore has an opinion, a point of view, and an agenda. But it's a major problem if Moore is trying to convert people to this point of view via mistruths and deception. And the more I examine "Bowling For Columbine," the less time I spend thinking "Is there anything inaccurate within this film?" More and more the question becomes "Can we even believe the majority of the facts and events in "Bowling For Columbine"?

Deacon · 03-31-2003, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michaelson
http://www.moorewatch.com/

That website takes a lot of cheap shots with very little weight.

I can see the flames to this post now: "Little weight? Didn't you see how fat Michael Moore is?"

ZiprHead · 03-31-2003, 08:11 AM

Could someone please explain to me how someone can make a political documentary and remain completely objective?

Documentaries are shortened versions of reality. The creator leaves out points it feels are not pertinent to the subject at hand. People will disagree about what is pertinent and what is not, such as the C. Heston speech. Do Moore's choices of what to leave out of the Heston speech change what he said or misdirect the context? IMHO, no.

To take jabs at Moore for leaving parts out, especially by a documentary film maker is intellectual dishonesty. Hardy knows this is how it's done. While I've not seen a film by Hardy, I'd bet my bottom dollar that he's already done the same. The bottom line is that Hardy just doesn't like the direction Moore's film took and is looking for straw men to knock down.

Bookman · 03-31-2003, 01:14 PM

Deacon,
You appear to be beyond convincing at this point. Can you provide responses to the following?

What would convince you that Michael Moore's films (specifically Bowling) contain errors in fact?

What kinds of errors would you consider significant?

What could convince you that errors, if present, represent willful distortions to strengthen rhetorical points by Moore?

Thanks!
Bookman

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2003, 10:48 AM	#61
HaysooChreesto! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: SoCal USA Posts: 7,737	One more time: How does one's suspicions about somebody else somehow validate Moore's being full of shit? Face it, Moore's been shown as a misleading individual. It matters not what anyone else does, Moore is still willfully dishonest. And that's the focus. The defense of Moore here strikes me as being very similar to Catholics defending the Pope.

03-31-2003, 08:11 AM	#69
ZiprHead Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: SagNasty. Posts: 3,034	Could someone please explain to me how someone can make a political documentary and remain completely objective? Documentaries are shortened versions of reality. The creator leaves out points it feels are not pertinent to the subject at hand. People will disagree about what is pertinent and what is not, such as the C. Heston speech. Do Moore's choices of what to leave out of the Heston speech change what he said or misdirect the context? IMHO, no. To take jabs at Moore for leaving parts out, especially by a documentary film maker is intellectual dishonesty. Hardy knows this is how it's done. While I've not seen a film by Hardy, I'd bet my bottom dollar that he's already done the same. The bottom line is that Hardy just doesn't like the direction Moore's film took and is looking for straw men to knock down.

03-31-2003, 01:14 PM	#70
Bookman Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Nashville, TN, USA Posts: 2,210	Deacon, You appear to be beyond convincing at this point. Can you provide responses to the following? What would convince you that Michael Moore's films (specifically Bowling) contain errors in fact? What kinds of errors would you consider significant? What could convince you that errors, if present, represent willful distortions to strengthen rhetorical points by Moore? Thanks! Bookman

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.