So, I started reading Michael Moore's new book

[El Blanco]

First off, I haven't started the fact digging yet, but most of what I came across is the same old bullshit which has already been torn up by places like Spinsanity. I've come to expect it from him and Chomsky. Thats not what gets me.

Is it his assumed intellectual superiority? No. All pundits are guilty of this in one form or another and we all know that it is totally baseless in his case.

What gets me is his condesending tone throughout the entire book. Apparently, the average person who calls themself a conservative isn't actually a conservative. They are just affraid of change and are little children who don't know any better.

Of course, anyone who can hear from a liberal and still hold conservative valuse must be a racist neanderthal who is scared of change and sunlight. Apparently, conservatives hate black people (which is wierd because my best friend is black and further right than I am), hate gay people, and want all poor people to just die (no matter how many of themselves started out that way).

Chapter 10 "How to Talk to Your Conservative Brother in Law" is the kind of shit that gets people punched. He assumes that the vast majority of people must be bleeding heart liberals who fall in line with every liberal cause (like he certainly does) and that conservatives are "rednecks"(his word) who have quaint little habbits (all punctual and reliable for fixing sinks). They are just your crazy cousin from the backwoods of Alabama.

Then, there is his blatant hypocrasy. He blasts the president for claiming he believes God wants him to do somethings. Then , he writes a chapter as Gpd. No big deal. I've seen it done before and some of them are funny. Not this one, but some. Then, he goes on to push his liberal viewpoints in the persona of God. What makes him thinks he knows a fucking thing about God's opinion on abortion? HE just did what he blasted the president for.

Don't think I'm dead set against him because he is a liberal. I actually liked Al Franken's book. I didn't agree with everything, but it was a good read.

I dislike Moore because he is dishonest, hypocritical, sensationalist and condesending. I'm glad I didn't pay for the book and am putting it in the returns bin ASAP ( I work in a bookstore and got through most of it on a lunchbreak.)

[mburbank]

So what's your take on Limbaugh?

[El Blanco]

Loudmouthed dumbass. But I haven't read his stuff. Ironically, most of the stuff I read is fairly left wing.

Then again, I have always a cliamed that I am independant, with conservative leanings.

[mburbank]

How about Al Franken? I think he's hysterical whatever your bent. I feel the same way about PJ Ororke, who's politics I don't care for but who is a damn fine humorist. Especially Holidays in Hell. That book rocks.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I love George Will. He's so cocky and condescending. It's sexy. :yum

[El Blanco]

Lies is funny and brings up a few good points (even if I don't agree with his conclusions). He does have that air of intellectual superiority, but its easier to tolerate it from him than from a high school drop out.

But I still have a special place in my heart for Bill O'Reilly. He reminds me of my dad so much.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Peter Hart from the media watch dog FAIR is coming out with a book called "The Oh, Really? Factor"

I believe it's a collection of reports and releases on the lying, bumbling, air bag of contradictions that is Bill O'Reilly. It should be better than "Lies," IMO, b/c it'll be better researched (I heard that despite having a team of Harvard grad. students at his disposal, Franken neglects to document things very well in the book). The more I hear about "Lies," the less I wish to read it. And I was looking forward to it. :(

[El Blanco]

There is a reason its in the comedy section at my store and not social sciences with all the other political books.

And after Hart realeases his book, O'Reilly or someone will write a book pointing out all the bogus facts it that. And then Hart or Franken will write a book pointing out...........

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Well, when I mean citations, I mean that Hart's interest will be primarily on actual statements made in the press, on his show, in public places, etc.

That's what Hart does, whereas Franken seems to just be picking a fight against a conservative conspiracy, Hart doesn't spell that out for people, although he probably would like to. Now of course O'Reilly can challene this, but his challenge could only be that he was taken out of context, or something.....

[The One and Only...]

Was it Franken that wrote Supply Side Jesus? If so, that's the only thing I give him credit for...

[CastroMotorOil]

Ive read some of limbaugh's stuff, while the majority is shit, there are good points, just like in moore's work there is good stuff there too.

[n00bward]

I quite liked "Lies", I thought the"Chickenhawk Episode 1" chapter was very funny. And most of the rest of the book had a few decent chuckles in it as well. I've yet however to look up a lot of his stuff on Lexis Nexis to verify accuracy.

[Perndog]

Michael Moore is the deceitful jackass behind Bowling for Columbine, right?

[CastroMotorOil]

Yes, but his earlier stuff is actually good. I loved Roger and Me. I think that was before he knew how t odecive well.

[Zhukov]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/michaelmoore/story/0,13947,1056922,00.html


Here is a rather large extract for anyone interested.

[ranxer]

"Michael Moore is the deceitful jackass behind Bowling for Columbine, right?"
pern,
can you explain anything about that statement?

hah, bowling was one of the best movies i've ever seen on america.

so far i think moore's vids and movies are much better than his books. i have a hard time reading his stuff but i think i'll buy it just to support someone who's opposing the military industrial complex ;)

awe darn, he changed the cover.. i liked the one with the black red yellow of the german flag :/
http://www.twbookmark.com//images/85/90769.jpg

[VinceZeb]

Ranxer, if you believe Bowling for Columbine was accurate, then you have problems.

A guy I really don't like to listen to, Glenn Beck, brought up something the other day that really made me think. He said that the people who read Michael Moore's books are people who are usually not well off and believe everything is bad and liberal policies are great and it really doesn't inspire you about our country or workforce or military.

Just something to think about.

[Perndog]

"Michael Moore is the deceitful jackass behind Bowling for Columbine, right?"
pern,
can you explain anything about that statement?

hah, bowling was one of the best movies i've ever seen on america.

I almost wish I remembered what it was like to swallow everything the media fed me. Almost, because if I did I'd be a liberal drone.

Bowling for Columbine is above all else a collection of spin, deceit, and misinformation made to excite the people that want to believe the kind of shit the radical left is selling. It might have been worthwhile if it were sincere, but it's not, and if it were it wouldn't have been able to present the image that it did. Take a look at the facts: http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

[CastroMotorOil]

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[Perndog]

This is now the rip-on-Bowling thread.

The Democrat student group here on campus is showing Bowling for Columbine on the big screen here tomorrow. I made up some packets based on bowlingfortruth.com and will be handing them out.

Should be fun. I'm telling my friends to bring popcorn just to watch the arguments. :)

[Helm]

Not to discourage healthy arguments, but at least the section on Heston on bowling for truth I found to be as oppinion-based as the works of moore himself, instead of fact-based as the webmaster claims. So I wouldn't suggest using that parts, at least.

I found that closing segment of his movie to be sickeningly sensationalist (with the picture of the girl and all) and that sorta steered me against Moore's methods ( but not nec. against the message of the movie, which is that americans are taught to fear, because a fearful man is so much easier to control) but that doesn't mean I'll just buy any counter-argument around.

And so that we can all laugh I present this link from the bowling for truth website: Petition to revoke the Oscar (http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?nooscar&51)

[Perndog]

The only things I'm pointing out about Charlton Heston are the facts. The spliced speeches (watch the magical changing suit. You can't argue with that.), the newspaper articles that are flashed by (48 hours after... and it was talking about Bill Clinton, also something beyond argument), and the fact that Moore was shamelessly baiting Heston instead of doing a normal interview (which should be obvious). Personally, I think a lot of the NRA folks are pretty loony, too, but they don't deserve this kind of treatment.

[incurable paranoiac]

MBurbank-
I agree about O'Rourke. I can't think of one thing I agree with him about (except for the stuff in Modern Manners), but I laugh myself sick every time I read him. He's a writer I look up to, because he writes about politics, and even people who loathe his politics can appreciate his writing. That's quite an accomplishment.

[incurable paranoiac]

I don't hold any particular fondness for Al Franken, but I think his heart is in the right place. Mainly I just loved that BookTV panel with Molly Ivins, Franken and O'Reilly. God, that was so amazing.

"The liberals resort to name-calling..." (forty five minutes later)"Shut up, you idiot!"

also

"Bill, this isn't your show."

if you haven't seen this, you can stream if off the booktv website.

[mburbank]

One of Frankens lesser known books, "Why not me?", which details a fictional Franken Presidential campaign and victory, is one of the funniest books I have ever read.

[kellychaos]

As much as I appreciate the value of seeing both sides of an issue, Moore is a master of ommision and self-promoting editing.

[KellyGayos]

no

[sspadowsky]

I would like to skewer KellyGayos's eyes with an olive fork.

[mburbank]

Olive fork, but olive oil more.

[kellychaos]

Wood eye?! Wood eye?!

[KellyGayos]

nope

[ranxer]

hey pern those objections to bowling at that site are the whiniest nitpickings i've ever seen from the republicans.

they attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater over and over on the smallest degree of innacuracy.

so if micheal added a flare for the movie or pushed the envelope one tiny little bit to say what the nra or someone in the movie was getting at you'd say "He's LIEING!! its ALL LIES, LIES, LIES!!"
thats pretty weak bud..

for example.. he's attacked for the hunter being accidentally shot by a dog with a gun strapped on it for recreating the scene making the whole segment a lie?!.. give me a fuggin break! the facts are still the same.. hunters dressed the dog up with hunting clothes and strapped a loaded rifle on him then got accidentally shot, the policeman said as much.. i didnt think the scene that was showed was the 'actual' scene for one second and i think anyone that did has no business blaming moore for it. maybe for you whiners that want to nitpick he should have put 'recreation NOT ACTUAL FOOTAGE' on the scene.. damn

every point on that site is similar.. nitpick then discredit a whole segment for a tiny innacuracy that doesnt change what moore was saying or the meat of the segment.

i think we went through these arguements a while back but the i-mock's search is broken :/

http://www.i-mockery.net/images/emoticons/lol2.gif

[Drew Katsikas]

Fun story!

My teacher, a big Moore freak, unfortunatley, goes to Canada. He parks his car, and when he comes back, it's been robbed of his backpack, which contained a Moore book. Ironic, I thought it was safe to keep shit unlocked in Canada? At least according to Bowling.

[VinceZeb]

"Truth", "accuracy" and "facts" = nitpicking, I guess.

[ranxer]

i'd call it the white glove treatment..

a speck of dust results in discrediting the entire film.

i think this concept has been championed by bush and his search
for the last 1% of the wmd's down to a .01% of proof of all wmd's destruction. some would say those with this tactic will not accept any proofs whether it be of moores film or the weapons .. it's a foregone conclusion that they were going to attack iraq or attack moores film.

this trend continues along the rightwing radioshows.. one speck of even talking to or negotiating with a communist labeled group or person labels the subject a total communist.. or name yer label.. discredited group etc.

the only reason this bothers me is that people echo the statements of discredit so rediculously they miss any message that the subject had to pass and proceed to slam without any knowledge of the original reasonings.. spin on, vince and friends, as moore's website says those with these smear tactics tend to discredit themselves.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

and vince if you can't pick an issue and defend it yourself you're really not worth addressing except in the same manner you smear the concepts.

[The One and Only...]

So what your saying is that you only jump on the "LIES!" bandwagon when it suits your opinions?

In reality, I agree with Moore on a lot addressed in Bowling for Columbine, though obviously not all. I just don't like his distortion of the truth.

[ranxer]

i gave the example of the hunter being shot by the dog scene,
do you say that whole scene is based on lies because moore recreated it??

i'd guess that the scene in reality would be more interesting than his recreation(surely he only had a snapshot or the story from the policeman) but it helped the scene stay interesting to recreate it. this practice is done all the time on tv without people yelling "lieing bastards!"

the rest of the critizisms are similar to this please pick one in particular if you don't want to blanket discredit the whole movie for rediculous reasons.. there may be one that i missed that has some meat to really look at.

[Perndog]

Way to ignore the Bowling for Truth FAQ, ranxer. If you had read it, you might notice that the guy there isn't opposed to a lot of Moore's views (I think he's a liberal, too), and not once on his site does he attack them. He is attacking Bowling for Columbine and Michael Moore for being deceitful, with the understanding that he is not selling a political opinion.

I, too, agree with parts of Moore's message. But I still think he's a douchebag for the methods he uses, and I think people deserve to know that.

[El Blanco]

hey pern those objections to bowling at that site are the whiniest nitpickings i've ever seen from the republicans.

Glass houses and stones

they attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater over and over on the smallest degree of innacuracy.

So, butchering and editing speeches to say something completly different, implying incorrect facts about an organization's history, giving muddled facts, outright lying about timelines are small degrees of inaccuracies?

so if micheal added a flare for the movie or pushed the envelope one tiny little bit to say what the nra or someone in the movie was getting at you'd say "He's LIEING!! its ALL LIES, LIES, LIES!!"
thats pretty weak bud..

He went further than that. Morre did outright lie. There is no getting around that. And when he didn't lie, he would misrepresent iirelevent data so you can draw your own incorrect conclusions without him saying it plainly (a favorite trick of Chomsky).



for example.. he's attacked for the hunter being accidentally shot by a dog with a gun strapped on it for recreating the scene making the whole segment a lie?!.. give me a fuggin break! the facts are still the same.. hunters dressed the dog up with hunting clothes and strapped a loaded rifle on him then got accidentally shot, the policeman said as much.. i didnt think the scene that was showed was the 'actual' scene for one second and i think anyone that did has no business blaming moore for it. maybe for you whiners that want to nitpick he should have put 'recreation NOT ACTUAL FOOTAGE' on the scene.. damn

Thats it? Thats all you have? This is somehow more significant than implying that the NRA started the KKK or that they called a rally in Denver to somehow show upthe Columbine victims? You really are a hypocrite. You accuse the author of nitpicking and you just tried the same bullshit.

every point on that site is similar.. nitpick then discredit a whole segment for a tiny innacuracy that doesnt change what moore was saying or the meat of the segment.

Actually, proving Moore lied and muddled facts that are at the very heart of the segment does change it.

i think we went through these arguements a while back but the i-mock's search is broken :/

And you weren't too convincing then, either.

[ranxer]

So, butchering and editing speeches to say something completly different, implying incorrect facts about an organization's history, giving muddled facts, outright lying about timelines are small degrees of inaccuracies?

completely different? i think not, he didn't butcher and edit the speeches.. he cut to boil down his point.. it still remains that heston either never knew that his pro-gun rallies came just after a massacre or didn't think it was related and moore was asserting that it WAS related.. you don't like the assertion fine say so, don't discredit the concept based on some editing slices.

He went further than that. Morre did outright lie. There is no getting around that.

WHERE?

This is somehow more significant than implying that the NRA started the KKK

they didn't? :lol
moore implied it.. maybe even asserted it.. i don't have the information to prove him incorrect.. please help me out and point me to some counter info on the formation of the NRA

Actually, proving Moore lied and muddled facts that are at the very heart of the segment does change it.
change it YES.. discredit it..NO.

i agree that filmmaking in general grants some liberties.. moore has some exagerations that i woulndt mind going over in specific cause i'm interested in learning the truth but blanket statements are not constructive to the huge problems we face. moore put some accusations out there that can be hard to defend but i didn't and still don't see any outright lies. how many lies does it take to discredit a film? which are on purpose and which are on accident? one or two? how many might be tweaked? i think that a couple "outright lies" or even one 'direct lie' would do it for me.. which one is the outright lie? implications are implications not lies, lets not confuse the two.

[El Blanco]

completely different? i think not, he didn't butcher and edit the speeches.. he cut to boil down his point

No. He took speeches from 3 different occasions and cut out and glued together certain parts and then told the viewers that they were the same speech given in Denver as some sort of act of defiance. If that isn't btchering and editing, what is? If that isn't at least dishonest, what is?

you don't like the assertion fine say so, don't discredit the concept based on some editing slices.

Those editing slices were the entire basis for his assertions.

WHERE?

Everytime he falsly presented evidence. Did you even look at the critisiscm or simply write it off as "nitpicking"?

they didn't?
moore implied it.. maybe even asserted it.. i don't have the information to prove him incorrect.. please help me out and point me to some counter info on the formation of the NRA

I don't have to prove innocence. Moore has to prove his accusation, which he didn't.

But, since you didn't read it the first time

his sequence is intended to create the impression either that NRA and the Klan were parallel groups or that when the Klan was outlawed its members formed the NRA.

Both impressions are not merely false, but directly opposed to the real facts.


Fact: The NRA was founded in 1871 -- by act of the New York Legislature, at request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an "illegal" such with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the President to use troops to suppress the Klan. (Although we'd have to acknowledge that murder, terror and arson were illegal long before that time -- the Klan hadn't been operating legally until 1871, it was operating illegally with the connivance of law enforcement.)


Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

Fact: Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

Fact: After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.

Fact: After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.

Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.

Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.



How was that? Or is it more nitpicking?

change it YES.. discredit it..NO.

YES on both accounts. If you lie about the facts you base your message on, your message is shot to hell. For someone who claims to be so into the media and fact finding, you sure are eagerly turning a blind eye to some flat out deceitful tactics.

i'm interested in learning the truth but blanket statements are not constructive to the huge problems we face.

You were given speciffic examples and chose to ignore them.

moore put some accusations out there that can be hard to defend but i didn't and still don't see any outright lies.

Ya, well, its hard to see things when you willingly close your eyes to them.

how many lies does it take to discredit a film?

When its a documentary? One.

Honestly, you have no real principals, do you? You have no ideals, no morales, no real free thought. You are just towing a party line. Somebody is spewing things that fit your ticket and you fall for it hook line and sinker. Never mind what those pesky facts say.

[Perndog]

I saw Bowling in its entirety for the first time today. My impressions?

I loved the film. For entertainment purposes, I haven't seen a better documentary. I laughed at the Nichols guy at the beginning and at the militia. And I do agree with his point that America feeds on fear, though I disagree that fear drives consumerism and that gun ownership is more than a very small part of the problems we have. Finally, I do see that a couple of the things that the anti-Moore websites are pointing out *are* nitpicking.

But the nitpicking is accompanied by all of the major offenses that those sites also cover, which were easily recognizable and *almost* totally accurate. Like walking out of the bank with a gun. :rolleyes

Therefore...good film. Still lies. Still a jackass.

[The_Rorschach]

Fooking aye right Blanco!

Oi!

[ItalianStereotype]

aaaaayyyyyyy....youse done good there blanco. you break-a his face.

[ranxer]

two points: the nitpicking is still there on most of the anti-bowling sites.. yes i'm asserting this without going down the list because the site is asserting the movie has been completely discredited based on minor points..

the speech again..

No. He took speeches from 3 different occasions and cut out and glued together certain parts and then told the viewers that they were the same speech given in Denver

if you went to listen to heston at an nra rally on the west coast in 1999 say, then went to thier rally on the east coast the message would be very similar.. the splices say to me that the speech was just like so many other that he made without a change despite the shootings. NOT a direct falsefication to say a completely different message.

so i still don't think it discredits or changes the nra's stance at the time much. i'm sure there were even members at those rallies that were clamoring for the same message moore was passing along, granted a minority though.

nra and kkk? i'll have to take your word on it :suicide
i really had been discussing that with folks i know
and no one could say either way :/

did the membership jump at that time?

id rather give them the benefit of the doubt than take moores movie as stated.. i don't want to live in that kind of paranoia,
it would suck too much if moore was right on that one.. plus i've got enough nasty things to look into

Quote:
how many lies does it take to discredit a film?

When its a documentary? One.

hmm, depends.. i'd agree that the cartoon segment was discredited by its simplifications and that alone sends the movie completely out of what is considered documentary.
i'd have to look at case by case facts to judge whether a whole movie is discredited by x amount of times and where.

damnit i'm going to have to sit with a notepad next time i see the movie.

still a movie/documentary has a thesis then a case to make.
add it up how you like, i think he made his case well in most parts.

[Perndog]

The splices say to me that the speech was just like so many other that he made without a change despite the shootings. NOT a direct falsefication to say a completely different message.

But it was made to be a completely different message, and I quote:

The comment gives a clear impression. It looks like the mayor said "we don't want you here - don't come here" and Heston said "Sorry! This is a free country and I can do whatever I want! -bitch!"

But that's not what happened at all. Not only, as I said above, did the mayor solicit the NRA to come to Denver in the first place - Moore actually put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status):

"I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" to make him look proud of his defiance. Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

Taken out of context, Heston sounds like a jerk. See what he was really saying, and it starts to make sense. He united instead of divided. Where as the majors comments and Moore's representation saught to make the NRA some foreign freakish organization of flip nut yahoos who aren't welcome past the city walls.

And "from my cold, dead hands," was from a speech several months later.

The convention in Denver, an annual meeting the NRA was required to hold, was 10 days after the massacre. There was not enough time to reschedule it, and in fact, Heston cancelled most of the convention, proceeding with only the meeting on one afternoon. He didn't just show up and say "fuck you, we're going to do what we want." See the deception yet?

[El Blanco]

yes i'm asserting this without going down the list

No shit.

because the site is asserting the movie has been completely discredited based on minor points..

And you know this without actually reading the list? I hope you can see the contradiction here.

if you went to listen to heston at an nra rally on the west coast in 1999 say, then went to thier rally on the east coast the message would be very similar

Unless of course, one meeting (Denver) was a skeleton crew to discuss the state of the organization, as required by law, the second was a sort of birthday celebration for him, and ythe last was at an event to encourage people to register and vote. One of those wasn't even an NRA meeting.


the splices say to me that the speech was just like so many other that he made without a change despite the shootings.

Why not use just one speech? And, if you look at the transcripts, you would see the actual speeches given.

NOT a direct falsefication to say a completely different message.

Moore took different lines from completly different speeches and splice them together to get a speech to fit his own message. If that isn't lying, what is it?

so i still don't think it discredits or changes the nra's stance at the time much.

Yes, it does. Moore made a completly different message. How does it not discredit what he is saying?

i'm sure there were even members at those rallies that were clamoring for the same message moore was passing along, granted a minority though.

So? Big groups are bound to have a few insensitive assholes in them. Why is this held against Heston?

nra and kkk? i'll have to take your word on it

Or, you can read the info you were provided with.


did the membership jump at that time?

You mean did NRA membership jump the year it was founded? I would have to say yes.

id rather give them the benefit of the doubt than take moores movie as stated

Then why are you so quick to get on Moore's bandwagon?

i don't want to live in that kind of paranoia,

I got news for you.......it seems to most people here you are living it.

still a movie/documentary has a thesis then a case to make.
add it up how you like, i think he made his case well in most parts.

Except where he lied, you know, most of the movie.

[ranxer]

damn, i gotta do a freakin study to defend bowling >:

i like the movie and still think its very credible, i can't take the time to refute that whole list of accusations.. when i read them they looked like they were nit picking and they still do mostly..yes i read some but not all..

but, fuck, i agree with many of moore's acusations based on my own damn experience.. i'm not paroting moore when he says something! i'm defending the movie and asuming moore did his freakin homework.. i thought he did in 99% of his other work but of course you wouldn't blanco and pern so this is typical moore lies eh? on some of this my assumtions may make me an ass and i'd like to find out what moore was thinking..

on the other hand,
i expect someone to do a whole lot of homework to attack moores work because of the anti-establishment/anti rich/anti white-racist nature of his works, all i can say is i hope moore goes down that list sometime to explain some of the points especially the few that seem to be valid. :/

[Abcdxxxx]

Moore's been unapologetic in admitting he manipulates scenes to fit his message. He used to say his films weren't even documentaries, and then later he started defending himself by saying he was bucking the tradional constraints imposed on the non-fiction genre.

I'll spare you the film history, mainly because I'm hazy on it, but there's a long legacy of documentary films manipulating depictions of reality. "Man with a Movie Camera" is a good example. Then if you want to intellectualize it you can say that the mere presence of a camera alters an event.

I heard Albert Maysle (Grey Gardens, Gimme Shelter) go off about how what Moore was doing isn't documentary filmmaking, because he does the opposite of what a documentary should do. Rather then record events as they happen, Moore approaches them with a predetermined opinion, and he films events in a way that fits that. Rather then make his subject comfortable, he wants them to run away. Then Maysle admitted he'd never watched a single Moore film, and never would.

I hate Michael Moore. A lot. but Bowling got me sad and emotional, and reinforced some of my previous beliefs. His manipulations are pretty fucking obvious to my eyes. It's stupid to even defend them. Several of the interviews were glaringly unnatural and planned. I doubt the kids from Columbine came up with the idea to go to Kmart and buy the bullets, or it would have been on camera. As for factual integrity - it's real apparent from watching it that Moore wants to be entertaining, and engaging first and foremost. He loves himself more then he loves fact checking. Making a motion picture isn't the same as news reporting.

P.S. Portions of Paradise Lost, and every Eroll Morris documentary were scripted.

[ranxer]

yea.. i'm convinced now that bowling is only a documentary 'styled' movie.. i'm not sure what to call it now.. i wasnt really looking at the definitions of a documentary and i'm a little miffed that moore has gone into undefendable territory.. i realized it when i saw the movie then forgot about some of what i saw that was over the edge when i saw the attacks on the movie.

i really hope those that make accusations are more careful with thier facts and checking them out.. myself included.