Another failed product of the public school system. Sad. Maybe vouchers would have saved you. Well, let me help you: the concept is called ‘reading comprehension’, and if you look a couple of posts back, you’ll note that I answer the question. Until, that is, I was derailed by your (offtopic, if you care about those things) stupid comment + lack of stupid emoticon combo. Stupid comment + stupid emoticon is what I have grown to expect, and I was caught unawares!
So you are telling us that you don’t care about the plight of the Oompa-Loompas? Hey, it would be nice if THE MAN, who is in the pocket of ‘Big Business’, would for once be in the pocket of ‘Big Oompa-Loompa’, but that ain’t gonna happen.
i wonder… If a conservative filmmaker made a pro-war movie that ‘selectively edited’ scenes to only show stuff that supported his point of view, would all the reviewers and posters on this board be saying, “Well, at least it makes you think, and that’s important. Everyone should see this movie.”? Would it get a standing ovation at Cannes?
Or would you all be describing it as vile propaganda?
I’m sure both sides would call it something. Anti-war/GreenPeace and dictators abroad will call it propoganda. The right will say “YA SEE???” And if we get around to impeaching another president and let’s say conveniently, at the same time, North Korea decides to pick that moment to test it’s nuke program that it swore off and France, Russia, Germany and China decide to do invest in Iraq under a food for oil program - I’ll look at the whole thing and call all of us a bunch of losers too busy trying to wrestle for control while the rest of the world takes advantage of us.
If the filmmaker was able to show evidence that Iraq was connected to 9-11 and that Saddam had weapons of destruction, then hell yeah I’d watch it. I’d be skeptical and ready to dissect that evidence critcally, but I’d be willing to let myself be convinced. I want to be convinced the war wasn’t a huge lie, especially after seeing the graphic images in F911.
I have no interest in seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, nor would I have any interest in a political movie by Coulter or any other windbag talking head from either party; I can get people to tell me their stupid views for free any hour of the day, after all. If they made a movie in another genre, then maybe (Canadian Bacon wasn’t too bad, after all) then I’d consider lining their pockets, depending on reviews and who was in it.
I’m just glad that Moore wasn’t very big when I was in high school, so I only had one of his political “documentaries” inflicted upon me by a teacher.
The thing is, this movie is propaganda. It’s not a documentary. It’s a skillful filmmaker trying to convince you that his point of view is right. And he’s doing it by selectively showing you what he wants you to see. It’s a distortion.
It amazes me that all these reviewers are saying, “Everyone should see it, to open their minds.” Propaganda CLOSES minds. It twists reality. Leni Reifenstahl was a gifted movie maker and propagandist. She made the Reich look good by choosing where and how to point her camera. What would you say to someone who said, “Everyone should see “Triumph of the Will”, to see what the other side has to say.”
A good filmmaker doesn’t have to lie to do this. Every fact in F9/11 could be strictly correct, and yet the position could be a 100% distortion of reality. If I want to show John Kerry is the world’s worst patrician bastard, I could make a movie showing clips of him calling secret service people assholes, yelling at people to shut up, show him entering and leaving his mansions, etc. Or, I could turn around and show that John Kerry is a sweet ‘man of the people’ by showing clips of him hugging children, volunteering at food kitchens, and burning the midnight oil at his desk. In both cases, the ‘facts’ could be completely accurate. The lie comes in the way the facts are chosen and presented, and opposing facts silenced.
And I maintain that if a conservative came along and made a movie proclaiming that John Kerry was a nasty, lying, dangerous bastard by employing exactly the same techniques Moore used, the reviews would be scathing, this forum would be seething with anger, and it would never have even made it to Cannes, let alone getting a standing ovation. It would be dismissed as vile propaganda.
You make it sound as if Moore allows a hint of agenda to stink up his otherwise balanced and informative work.
Get real. Moore is nothing but ‘agenda’; There is no ‘documentary’ to him. Does he even make an attempt at impartiality in his propaganda? Of course not. Now, you may like to slurp up the propaganda he serves, but that doesn’t make him a ‘documentarian’. Just a hack propagandist.
Like Jonah Goldberg recently wrote, Moore does serve as a useful litmus test. Those who use those moronic phrases of the Left when describing his movie, (you know, ‘Raises serious questions’, ‘mind-opening’, et cetera), can be safely ignored. They are nothing but consumers of propaganda, devoid of any original or cohesive thoughts.
I agree partially. Moore’s work is not a documentary. It’s also not propaganda on the lines of Riefenstal. That’s a little much.
I am torn on deciding if a documentary film-maker can have a point of view. But, in any case, I think s/he has to make a good faith attempt to show the facts, and not spin deliberately. Moore definitely fails that test.
That said, I wouldn’t mind F911 because I believe it could be entertaining. Also, to those who say Moore says nothing new or interesting, someone who watched it told me about the important distinction Moore makes between “supporting the war” and “supporting the troops”. I think that is lost on a lot of Americans.
