In other news, George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld have been nominated for Razzies for Worst Actor, Worst Supporting Actress, and Worst Supporting Actor, respectively, for their “performances” in Fahrenheit 9/11.
Britney got a nom as well for her few minutes of idiocy shown in 9/11.
Not to continue the hijack, but I frankly saw the movie as very anti-Roman. The most brutish, cruel, inhuman acts were done by the Romans, and they happened because the Roman leader lacked the balls to stop it. The Jew leadership was obviously not sympathetic, but the worst charge against them from the movie’s view was that they were playing politics. The Romans were the animals.
Liberal: * […] I also greatly appreciate the efforts of the orderly who changed my first diaper, and the janitor who smiled at me late that evening. […] *
Oh hee hee hee hee snork, I love you Lib. (Um, that statement is off the record, and I reserve the right to fail to live up to it in future disputes. ;))
We may need a category for multimedia editorials separate from the existing “documentary” classification.
I actually wasn’t commenting on the movie, just on the general assertion that “the Jews killed Christ.”
But the film did contain elements that were subtly condemnatory of Jews and which did not come from scriptures. See gobear’s post for details.
You can read Emmerich’s Dolorous Passion here.
You’ll probably recognize its similarity to Gibson’s film and you may decide for yourself if it’s anti-semitic.
Back to the OP, the Oscars not giving any nods to F 9/11 hardly means that Bush has actually been a prudent and honest leader. I know you’re eager to find ways to silence those voices of doubt in your head, but you’d be better off if you turned that critical eye to the guy running your country rather than on the guy with the camera.
Horseshit. Moore claims his films are documentaries. Documentaries are reasonbly objective representations of truth and fact. Moore can’t have it both ways. Unless, as in his films, reality really is relative.
But enough of that. I would honestly like to commend you, DTC, for your (and gobear’s) posts clarifying the details of the crucifixion of Christ. Well said.
Yikes the academy that chose such masterpieces as **Titanic ** and **the Greatest show on Earth ** as Best pictures and Marisa Tomei as best actress, failed to Nominate Mr. Moore’s film. Well la dee fricken daa! What the hell is it supposed to prove? It created a stir and got people to talk… I think, aside from the financial aspect the film did quite well for itself on many levels whether you argee with the subject matter or not.
I guess the same can go for Mr Gibson’s Film.
Face it, Hollywood has always tried to distance itself from controversy whenever it can. They aren’t the bravest folks out there. It has a history of avoiding making a stand whether it be moralities or freeedom of speech and expression. On several occassions, sacrificed its own to keep the film rolling.
So they avoided giving a nod to tow of this year’s most controversial films colour me meh.
The Fog of War was an excellent documentary about Robert S. McNamara. It was also 100% one sided.
This documentary shite is incredibly boring. It was a documentary. We had a huge thread where people were asked to prove anything in the movie was false. Not one claim of lies help up.
Moore is biased no question about it but the facts in that film are true.
But isn’t it? 
Seriously, I tend to agree. MM says his films are documentarial, but I think he’s more of a skilled polemicist and social critic than a documentarian. Such folks have their place in the public discourse, certainly, but not in the “Documentary” catagory, IMO.
Can’t agree more. I don’t understand this media-constructed strawman and why it’ so appealing. Gibson and Moore have no animosity and Mel ain’t no Bush fan, either-- he’s much more of a libertarian than a Republican.
Now why’d you have to go and say that? Mel basically told the story that’s in the New Testament. His purpose was to bring that text to the screen. If anything, his film is less harsh towards “the Jews” than the NT is. All of the violence against JC was carried out by Romans.
Frankly, I was very disappointed with this film. It was so self-consciously artsy that I thought that aspect got in the way of the story.
Oh horseshit yourself. Many of the previous 2571 threads on Michael Moore have included a side debate about “What is a documentary?” Objective has nothing to do with it. I wish people would get the concept out of their heads that a documentary is a fifth-grade filmstrip on “Tom and Tilly visit a farm.”
Hell even that film was one sided, the film never talked about the horrors the animals went through with the milking and shereing and sometimes the slaughtering. They also tried to make it sound so fun… where is the objectivness in taht, they totally ignore the fact that living on a farm can sometimes be painfully boring.
I never saw it, primarily because I saw little entertainment potential in watching a guy get flayed for two hours. The reviews gave me the impression the audience spends most of their time watching (and, perhaps more disturbingly, hearing) Jesus get literally ripped to shreds.
I can certainly handle a fairly gratuitous level of gore (or I wouldn’t love some horror flicks as much as I do), but The Passion, apparently, takes “bloodbath” to a whole different plane. An “artsy” bloodbath strikes me as no more entertaining than watching hogs get choreographically slaughtered by pretty ballerinas.
Is this a fair critique of Mel’s treatment?
Moot? What an odd thing to say.
Yes, of course it was propaganda. And was definitly derected at not getting Bush reellected. But all the things said there about why the war was wrong are suddenlly moot becaues, hey, he won??
Yeah a lot of it was over the top, but I can think of a lot of reasons why it should still be seen now, and why it makes a good historical document.
Oh, yeah, and can I just say…documentary does not in fact mean no point of view. Quite the contrary.
And i wonder if anyone could show me a film made with complete objectivity?
I think it’s not so much that as the apparently deliberate lack of it. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I tend to ascribe a certain journalistic quality to the catagory of documentary, at least a degree of impartiality such that the merits of the subject speak for themselves, without crafty manipulation.
Ahem…only if words have no meaning.
This from Merriam-Webster:
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>
I doubt that most people have a concept of a documentary as a children’s story (see the numerous documentaries on television regarding war or wildlife). Nor do they see it as a wildly biased and deceptively constructed propaganda piece. Rather, I think most people have an idea of a documentary as described by its dictionary definition, i.e., objective.
Nitpick: Best Supporting Actress.
And now, back to the 17,000th rehash of F911, Michael Moore, TPOTC etc.