Ah, Sam, maybe you ought to go back and re-read some of your posts on Kerry in previous threads. The only distinction that I see is that the media format was different. 
Actually, I’d call it “The Evil Saddam, His Very Bad Weapons, and the War to Liberate Iraq,” produced and directed by G.W. Bush.
Come to think of it, when David Brock wrote his hack-job insinuating that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed, which was a work much like what Moore does (selecting only the evidence that can make his case, drawing tenuous conspiracies, guilt through association, etc), I don’t recall the left going, “well, it’s clearly biased, but it does raise interesting questions. Everyone should read this book!”
Right?
The opposite left-version being “The Great and Benevolent Saddam, the Exaggerated Claims He Killed Thousands With Chemicals (They Deserved It), and the Free and Happy, Unoppressed People of Democratic Republic of Iraq.”
It’s brilliant. The title alone “opens your mind” and “makes you think.”
Every story has a point of view and documentaries tell stories. Moore’s view is controvertial but so long as he documents it honestly it’s a documentary. They’re all subjective.
Depends on the reviews.
While I would at first blush dismiss an Ann Coulter movie as two hours of insane ranting, if it was getting rave reviews from a majority of the critics, then I’d make an effort to go see it. If, on the other hand, the critics universally pan it as twaddle, then I wouldn’t see the point of going to the theater and hope to hit the jackpot.
Ye gods, can we lay this nonsense to rest already?
Roger Ebert says documentaries are allowed to have a point of view. Numerous independent filmmakers say documentaries are supposed to have opinions and biases. The only people clinging to a dictionary ideal that documentaries should have no opinions and no biases are the same neoconservative whiners who are still struggling to find something substantial to bash Moore’s movie with. The fact that no one can name a single documentary that’s ever been produced which meets this dictionary-based criteria is a testament to the weakness of the argument.
Give it a rest, kids. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary; just because it says something you may not want to hear doesn’t make it less so.
dude you might wanna take a chill pill - I wasn’t flaming anyone, following a blurb that reads “depends how much girl on girl action” a flick has. “ew.” (gross) and adding a taht is available - hardly call that flaming. Thanks - though I have 10 posts - so I’m sure that translates to “easily dismissed” (nevermind I’ve been watching this board for two years).
:dubious: (if that’s allowed)
But you’re willing to watch their work without paying for it. Way to take the high road. :rolleyes:
Obvious has been the name of this thead so far. Anybody who’s spent a day on this board could’ve predicted some of these responses.
Nitpick: I assume you mean a political movie? It’s presmably possible, though unlikely, she’d suddenly discover a talent for screenplays 
Well, I doubt I’d like it, but if it was popular I’d want to see it out of curiousity, I think.
Outside of a few well-meaning but utterly deluded “human shields” (whatever happened to them, anyway?). I don’t recall any person or group of significance ever taking this stand. Into whose mouths are you putting these words in?
I’m on the left and find that opposing viewpoints often raise intersting questions. I take a cultural studies interest in extreme views, so I entertain plenty of viewpoints with which I strongly disagree. For example, I’m not a Christian, but I read Christian apocalyptic novels and collect gospel music; I’m not a racist, but I collect white supremacist music. It hasn’t been a waste of my time–I’ve gained some insights from these things.
Your argument that a documentary should be unbiased is not only an impossible ideal, but a ridiculous one. I’m a carnivore, but if I saw a documentary by a vegetarian group showing the downside of meat eating, I would have no expectation that, for the sake of balance, they also point out that beef is delicious.
That’s funny, Sam. I don’t recall your denunciation of noted propagandists Limbaugh and Hannity. Did I miss it?
Hypocrisy is a two-way street, I suppose.
I watch documentaries all the time. My son is currently into World War II, and the History Channel is only too pleased to cater to his interests. I can attest that documentaries rarely ever give equal time to both points of view. Hardly any mention the positive reasons for an attack on Pearl Harbor. I don’t think any spend any time weighing the merits of the invasion of Poland.
As bizzwire noted, the difference between my title and yours is mine is reality and yours is basically fantasy. In fact, many on the left already knew that Hussein was a bad guy at the time after he had already used chemical weapons when Donald Rumsfeld was making nicey-nice to him (see here for example).
Ann Coulter is a scary, freakish skank. Almost as scary as that self-centered fatass Michael Moore.
To be truthful (which I always am), I don’t require movies by either.
This is a joke, right?
I’m sick of hearing all of the people supporting Moore’s work saying that a documentary can and should be biased. It’s simply not true. The best documentaries are ones that approach a subject in an objective, unbiased manner and report extensively from a broad range of facts on a subject. PBS’s Frontline has and continues to do some exceptional work in this regard over the last few years, even portraying the families in close assosciation with Osama bin Laden fairly. How, you ask? You take a camera, you go to their house, you ask for an interview, and you use the best, most coherent, cohesive parts of the interview to help that side make their point, and then you go to the other side’s house and ask for the same thing from them.
Their, “Beyond Baghdad” documentary explores both hard working and intelligent Army officials that seem to have genuine concern for the well-being of Iraq and creating a stable democracy while at the same time clearly demonstrating the awkward falls of the same Army in its day-to-day interactions with the Iraqi people; demolishing homes because of suspected militants while children and mothers wail outside.
That’s called fair reporting.
What now, do we just defend Foxnews’s “news” programs like Bill O’Reilley because a journalist should have biases and viewpoints.
In direct answer to the question posed by the OP, I would probably not see a movie by Ann Coulter because a) I find little of her commentary interesting or entertaining, and b) she, quite simply, is not a filmmaker and has no known skills or track record in that regard. Michael Moore, OTOH, IS a filmmaker and regardless of what one may think of his politics, he at least knows how to tell a coherent story via the medium.
On the bias issue, I don’t have much a problem with that in a documentary; I just bring my tiny little mind along to the film and decide on the apparent truthfulness, or not, of what I’m seeing as it unrolls. Moore’s latest film is a personal statement based on his own opinions, and so far as I know he himself has disavowed any intention to be objective. In part through reading commentary on the film here, I don’t recall seeing any credible claims of major lies being told in the film; mostly just remarks on questionable editing choices and Moore’s usual penchant for absurdist confrontation, which is already well-known. I already recognize that the film is intended as anti-Bush propaganda, and when I see it (probably in the coming week) I will judge it on whether it tells me anything factual that I didn’t already know, and whether it does so in an entertaining fashion.
There is a big difference between bias and propaganda. Bias is when a filmmaker or journalist honestly believes he is presenting the truth, but the truth becomes distorted because the creator honestly can’t see the objective truth and it skews what he says.
Propaganda is when someone sits down and intentionally says, “How can I make Bush look the worst?” And then he goes out and asks leading questions of people, shows select footage that backs up his case (and ignores footage that doesn’t), intentionally takes quotes out of context to make them fit the outcome, and in general works as hard as he can to manipulate the audience so that they will accept his point of view.
For example, a movie made by a vegetarian on the evils of meat is no doubt going to be biased. That’s normal. But if that movie presents a study that meat is dangerous for you, and does NOT present subsequent studies known to the creator that totally refute the first one, then the movie is being dishonest, and has crossed the line.
Have you seen those interviews on the Daily Show? Ever notice just how crazy they can make people look? They can do that by filming ten times as much footage, and only using the stuff that looks stupid. They can use it by pretending to do a ‘two camera’ shot, which makes it look like the two people are talking together, and then cutting to a one-shot showing only the interviewer, who then asks a completely different question to make the answer look even more stupid. They can even do it by cutting in footage of the person not saying anything, to make it look like they didn’t have an answer. Now, this is done with the permission of the subjects, and in the interests of comedy, so it’s acceptable. But if you employ the same techniques to make it appear that someone is taking a position they aren’t, or to draw connections in the viewer’s mind that really isn’t there, you are lying with the camera.
I agree. That’s why I would try to catch her sex video.
“Should” has nothing to do with it. Documentaries are biased. Every single one.
Apparently Frontline has chosen to document the views of 2 sides. This isn’t any more objective than Moore’s decision to document his own view.
“Fair” is a judgement call. Personally, I think such balanced pieces have a place but making them the staple of journalism is cowardly. If, for example, there were only a dozen of the thousand of military officials in Iraq who demonstrate a genuine concern for the well-being of the country and the rest of them don’t then the Frontline piece giving equal time to both missions is a distortion of reality. What we need aren’t interviewers who attempt to show their neutrality by presenting both sides. ( Which of course, entails a subjective decision about what the sides are ) but rather journalists with the balls to provide honest analysis of both sides. If one or both sides are full of shit the media should say so instead of passively allowing their subjects to decieve the audience.
An Ann Coulter movie?
Only if there is such a thing as an auto-snuff flick. :dubious: