|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First) |
Oct 16th, 2003 09:35 AM | |||||||||||||
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. |
||||||||||||
Oct 16th, 2003 01:00 AM | |||||||||||||
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. |
||||||||||||
Oct 15th, 2003 04:43 PM | |||||||||||||
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. :/ |
||||||||||||
Oct 15th, 2003 02:07 PM | |||||||||||||
El Blanco |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||
Oct 15th, 2003 02:05 PM | |||||||||||||
Perndog |
Quote:
Quote:
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? |
||||||||||||
Oct 15th, 2003 01:26 PM | |||||||||||||
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.. Quote:
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 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? Quote:
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. |
||||||||||||
Oct 15th, 2003 03:09 AM | |||||||||||||
ItalianStereotype | aaaaayyyyyyy....youse done good there blanco. you break-a his face. | ||||||||||||
Oct 15th, 2003 02:49 AM | |||||||||||||
The_Rorschach |
Fooking aye right Blanco! Oi! |
||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 10:50 PM | |||||||||||||
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. Therefore...good film. Still lies. Still a jackass. |
||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 09:18 PM | |||||||||||||
El Blanco |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But, since you didn't read it the first time Quote:
How was that? Or is it more nitpicking? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 07:24 PM | |||||||||||||
ranxer |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 Quote:
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. |
||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 07:01 PM | |||||||||||||
El Blanco |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 06:53 PM | |||||||||||||
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. |
||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 06:51 PM | |||||||||||||
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. |
||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 06:38 PM | |||||||||||||
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. |
||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 06:30 PM | |||||||||||||
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. |
||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 05:05 PM | |||||||||||||
VinceZeb | "Truth", "accuracy" and "facts" = nitpicking, I guess. | ||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 04:45 PM | |||||||||||||
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. |
||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 04:39 PM | |||||||||||||
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 :/ |
||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 04:26 PM | |||||||||||||
KellyGayos | nope | ||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 04:25 PM | |||||||||||||
kellychaos | Wood eye?! Wood eye?! | ||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 04:21 PM | |||||||||||||
mburbank | Olive fork, but olive oil more. | ||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 04:18 PM | |||||||||||||
sspadowsky | I would like to skewer KellyGayos's eyes with an olive fork. | ||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 04:17 PM | |||||||||||||
KellyGayos | no | ||||||||||||
Oct 14th, 2003 03:59 PM | |||||||||||||
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. | ||||||||||||
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. |