Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
n0t_u wrote:I'm on Shaman's side though, I know the points raised by him (Moore) are valid. But, his movies are just so boring usually >_>
They're less boring if you live in the country he's talking about
Yeah, that's why they're boring sometimes The one about the health cover thing where they took some people to that jail (forgot name >_> ). That's the only one I've watched all the way through.
n0t_u wrote:I'm on Shaman's side though, I know the points raised by him (Moore) are valid. But, his movies are just so boring usually >_>
They're less boring if you live in the country he's talking about
Yeah, that's why they're boring sometimes The one about the health cover thing where they took some people to that jail (forgot name >_> ). That's the only one I've watched all the way through.
I believe that you are thinking of "Sicko", interesting movie
garret wrote:O com one he lies all the time.
watch farienhype 911
I did, both films twist facts to their own uses. Welcome to the world of politics. FYI, Farenhype 9/11 was just as twisted and misleading as his movie was. If go in knowing that there are going to be distinct political prejudices, his documentaries are quite interesting and useful.
A totally objective film on any issue like that would be utterly boring because it would be like trying to make an academic paper look interesting, which they never are unless you already understand the basics of the topic.
The point about movies like Michael Moore's is that they make you think again about an important issue, even if you don't agree with some or all of his conclusions.
As such, they do not appeal to people with closed minds.
I've enjoyed his previous films (I like documentaries), but they do have a political bias and I'm fine with that.
I'm not so sure about this new one though. The last few were about things I could kind of care about. But I really don't care how the government is wasting my money these days, I have no say in what they do with it and I sure can't stop giving it to them, so why worry about it?
Once upon a time, I told myself it's better to be smart than lucky. Every day, the world proves me wrong a little more.
VermGho5t wrote:If the fething fat faced fething feth was objective in his 'documentaries' sure. But he's not, thus he has no valid opinion.
Sure his opinion is valid. His lack of objectivity in his documentaries really isn't a huge problem. Most people don't know what they are really looking for in subjective/objective terms anyway. His documentaries are kind of just playing devil's advocate for the other side of the argument. Most people are for guns, Bowling For Columbine is against guns. Most people are against Health Care Reform, Sicko is for it. Most people are for Capitalism this next movie will be taking the opposite perspective than the norm. It is both refreshing to see a different view point and annoying to see these views on the big screen. Documentaries are there to persuade you anyway. Most people are dead set on not being persuaded.
Once upon a time, I told myself it's better to be smart than lucky. Every day, the world proves me wrong a little more.
This thread is a good example of why MM sucks. His movies, while often having a few good ideas, are presented in such a dishonest and deceitful way that he doesn't get people to talk about the ideas presented in his movies but about him. He can do more harm to the causes he champions than good. I think the AV Club, bastion of liberal hipsters, nailed it in their review. The only real flaw I see is at one point they refer to him as a documentarian, which is a disservice to to the real ones.
Noel Murray wrote:Michael Moore’s smugness and self-aggrandizement sometimes works against his arguments, but the agitprop documentarian has a gift for provocation, and he knows how to simplify (some would say oversimplify) complicated political issues. Moore’s latest cine-essay, Capitalism: A Love Story, is typically Moore-like, for good and for ill. From the moment his ironically lilting voice appears over stock footage from pro-business industrial films, Moore-haters will likely feel the urge to punch something. And as Moore proceeds to trot out a series of disconnected anecdotes as “proof” that the free market is an outmoded concept, even staunch lefties may bristle at the speciousness of his arguments. Capitalism is intended to convince Americans that they’ve bought into an economic system designed to screw them over, but the tone is so smart-ass that it’s bound to put a lot of viewers into a default defensive posture.
Still, Capitalism is intermittently engaging, even persuasive. When Moore describes a Pennsylvania community that disastrously privatized its juvenile detention facility, the story may not show definitively that capitalism is immoral, but it does offer a sharp rebuttal to those who insist that privatization always produces better results than the government. But even that section of the movie—like nearly every other section—would be stronger if Moore allowed the other side to make its best case, rather relying on blurry images from the news and whispered insinuations of conspiracy. In general, Moore seems to put more stock in the opinions of actors and Catholic priests than he does in actual economic decision-makers. (Or maybe it’s just that almost no one in a position of responsibility will talk to him anymore.)
The biggest problem with Capitalism, though, is that it feels oddly out of touch. In the current political climate, the kind of angry average American that Moore has spent a lifetime championing is more likely to be out in the streets yelling for the heads of liberals like himself, while the kind of people sympathetic to Moore’s causes are likely watching The Daily Show and reading The Daily Dish. Given that the “tea party” movement was gaining momentum while Moore was putting this movie together, it would’ve been genuinely dramatic to see him take his cameras into that throng to argue the virtues of socialism, rather than shooting yet another scene outside an inaccessible corporate office. Capitalism shows that Moore is still capable of making valid points in an entertaining way, but too often, the movie consists of Moore reading yesterday’s headlines, snidely.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
That hasn't been my experience, but I am British and a bit of a lefty, and I've only seen Columbine and Sicko. Being a slightly lefty Brit I am inherently sympathetic to the views presented in those two movies. I've also seen the TV series he did for the BBC, I think it was called TV Nation.
That aside, I've had a number of conversations with work colleagues, friends and relatives concerning those two films, and none of them were about MM himself except regard to his directorial and interviewing techniques.
In short, I suspect a person's reactions to and bias for/against MM and his films are linked to political leanings.
Kilkrazy wrote:That hasn't been my experience, but I am British
I don't know. You really think a polarizing American film-maker making polarizing films about America will get a different reaction from polarized Americans? Seems krazy to me.
Kilkrazy wrote:In short, I suspect a person's reactions to and bias for/against MM and his films are linked to political leanings.
That seems like it should be a reasonable answer. Of course that sort of boils everything back down to believing people are basically a bundle of political ideals and only capable of partisan politics, which isn't that simple. Most are a little bit of both. I know a fair number of 'lefties' irl and online that can't stand MM. It is like assuming if someone is for animal rights that must mean they support PETA but I know a few people that work with either the Humane Society and the SPCA that do not like PETA at all.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
He's not the antichrist, but I don't really think his movies are worth watching. "He makes you think about the issues" always seems to be cop-out excuse for someone who can do little else.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
-to many points to bother to count.
