King Rat

I don't dispute that he is a card carrying member of the NRA. I dispute the assertion that he was an instructor.

Deacon

Why? What's your proof that he wasn't?

King Rat

Sorry, I should have been more specific, I meant I dispute your assertion the he was an instructor.

Bookman

Fair enough. The editing of the speech given by Heston, where in the words of Hardy, "Moore takes video and audio of seven sentences and assembles them into a speech which was never given" strikes me as a willfully deceptive act, and takes Moore's work out of the realm of the documentarian.

I respect your right to have a different opinion.

Bookman

Deacon

Well, i just meant that it wasn't deceptive to me, but then again having studied fillmmaking, I tend to notice that stuff now without thinking about it.

Deacon

Moore claims he was a sharp shooting instructor in the doc.

Iamthebeerking

All this debate and interesting info on Moore seems to indicate that at best he's an "info-tainer" and at worst a deceptive set up artist.
When I think "documentary", I think of "facts". Moore seems to take stats and twist them around to fit his point of view.
If you find him entertaining, that's fine, but if you want to say he should be admired, thats quite another.

Ronin

I admire him.

...fire with fire and all that.

Besides he has a set of brass ones the size of Texas.

a8o

I do admire his skills technically as a filmmaker. He has managed to make his topic interesting to a mainstream audience. This in itself is a dangerous prospect; future Moore films gaining huge influence, but when we consider his influence in relation to, say, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore's film really isn't the worst.

azidhak

The view that documentaries should be objective is dated. Most documentaries are shot to underline certain opinions of the director. Michael Moore is typical for the "new generation" of documentary-makers that surfaced during the 80-90's. There are however still "traditional" documentaries made.
Haakon