There’s a short UK film on this subject that was played as part of an Exposure episode on the Scifi channel. The film is Dead On Time by James Larkin. However, since the person making the movie (in movie-within-a-movie, not the actual short film) was trying to become the first visually recorded suicide of the new millenium, I guess we can’t get Moore or Coulter to do a reenactment. 
If Coulter could keep it as factual and thoughtful as Moore’s work (a low standard for some of you), sure, why not? Reasoned views other than one’s own are always educational. But that is certainly not her history in her written work.
Hint for the blind partisans, and you know who you are: Simply utting a Republican in a bad light is not enough to make a work “propaganda”, no matter how much one would like to be able to dismiss it as such.
Coulter hasn’t made any movies, but has written some books. How many of the lefties on the board have read any of them? Like Sam says, do you recommend that the Left read her stuff to open their mind and contemplate the uncomfortable questions she raises?
Same for Rush Limbaugh. Would anyone on the Left claim that he was just presenting a point of view, and the minor inaccuracies are just a product of his point of view?
Which goes better with this sauce - goose or gander?
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, Shodan, in fact, I do.
Have you finished My Life yet?
There’s a difference between inaccuracy and having a point of view. When forming conclusions, everyone ascribes weight to various factors based on their priorites and beliefs. Assuming the facts are reasonably reliable, that doesn’t constitute inaccuracy or distortion–it’s a matter of priorities.
Limbaugh goes well beyond minor inaccuracies in making his points. During the 2000 election debacle, for example, when Al Gore referred to the allegations of voting irregularities in Florida, Limbaugh’s line was, “Al Gore says voting machines are racist,” which was widely repeated as though Gore actually said that or something like it. That’s not selective editing, that’s an outright falsehood. Limbaugh claimed Al Gore said something he did not say. There’s nothing in F9/11 on par with that.
So should news, but that doesn’t stop the Fox ‘News’ Channel.
Right. Anyone who disagrees with your definition of documentary is a neoconservative whiner… oh, wait, I’m not. I stick by the dictionary definition. Here’s the Merrian-Webster’s definition:
“of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>”
I didn’t put the words factual and objective in CAPS.
Now, I understand that in the world of film-making, people can creatively present facts in order to further an opinion. Since you didn’t probably read my post clearly, I already mentioned I’m a bit torn about documentary film-makers having a point of view. So, I grant some leeway to the filmmaker as there could be a unconscious or subconscious bias, heck, even an overt but mild bias. For example, if a documentary film-maker is an environmental activist, I can understand that he could have a subtle bias against big corporations. But, note that this is distinctly different from the film-maker choosing a corporation and going all out to make a movie which will 100% trash it. They OUGHT NOT to selectively edit or deliberately spin facts to suit their purpose. Then, they are using techniques reserved for creative film-making. At some level, selective editing is a no-no for a documentary. Why? Because they have to present recorded documents and interviews as truthfully and as factually as they can.
Now, people have labeled “Triumph of the Will” as “documentary propaganda” for it uses newsreels etc to 100% further a point of view. I prefer to just call it “propaganda”. Propaganda might be a bit much for F911 but I still will not call it a documentary.
You made a bold assertion that no one can name a documentary without overt biases or propaganda. Watch “The New Americans”
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/newamericans/
Finally, your cite was nothing but a bunch of indie film-makers giving their opinions on what a documentary is. Anyway, here’s a quote that might be relevant:
I grant leeway for subtle biases but not for blatant distortions. It’s an important matter of degree. Roger Ebert probably puts it best when he writes:
“The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy.”
I have looked at her books in the bookstore. However, I haven’t found a lot of intelligent thought there worth contemplating.
And, I have made it a project in the past couple of years to read the Wall Street Journal editorial page in the library at work (although I have gotten out of the habit in the last couple of months). I think that this is much more analogous to Moore…i.e., it has some reasonably intelligent thought but gives you only one side of the story with at least as much deceptiveness and half-truths, probably more, than Moore engages in.
Also, although the WSJ editorial page might claim otherwise, I find that they fairly rarely present facts or footage not available in the mainstream media. Part of the reason why someone like Moore can get such a strong turnout to his movie is that many people are learning facts there that they ought to have been able to get from less biased sources but those sources seem to have largely failed them.
To the extent that Moore is engaging in propaganda, it is actually “counter-propaganda”…i.e., it is propaganda that is in the opposite direction from the propaganda that the Bush Administration has engaged in and that the mainstream press has largely abetted. I would have preferred if the public could get this information from the mainstream press, or barring that, from some more carefully factual movie like “Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War” but I am not so sure how picky I can afford to be in these times.
Yes, because everyone agrees that dictionaries know more than actual human beings do. :rolleyes:
Sorry, you lose. “The New Americans” endorses the view that American immigrants have an innate nobility in their migration, that the fact of being immigrants to the United States gives them a status that’s worthy of being highlighted in a documentary. The simple truth is, when someone makes a documentary on Subject X, he’s implicitly telling the viewer that Subject X is worthy of attention in the first place – and that’s as biased a view as Michael Moore’s opinion on Bush’s fitness to hold high office.
Yes, because everyone agrees that dictionaries know more than actual human beings do. :rolleyes:
And yet, Moore’s critics are still unable to find an actual factual mistake in the movie…
Meaningless point. Dictionaries reflect decades of human thought and consensus and is actually written by real humans who dress up as ferrets just for kicks.
Nonsense. First off, the subject of the documentary does not imply any bias whatsoever on the subject of the documentary. It is an issue which the film-maker considers important but how is that a bias? These two words have markedly different definitions.
Secondly, You are talking out of your nether regions because it is obvious you didn’t watch the documentary. There is nothing in that that suggests nobility to US immigration. It is not a peaen to immigration as you wrongfully assumed (your bias came into play;)).
Look, let me make this simple. Answer with a Y or a N.
Do you believe a documentary is a film that does not use actors and uses actual footage?
Do you believe that is sufficient? In other words, can the film-maker can do all he wants to edit/manipulate the footage to support his point of view?
Do you agree Riefenstal made documentaries?
If you answer Y to all of the above, fine, your definition is different from mine. As long as you are consistent, that’s fine. But, then, I don’t understand why you are fighting hard for the “documentary” label? You want a label that says none of the footage is photo-shopped/doctored? Please explain.
Such as
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America’s self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. "
Is that an example of what you mean? The only people that should be made uncomfortable by Coulter’s stuff are the ones who offer it as being worth consideration - and on our own Independence Day, at that.
Another cause for discomfort among those who actually do their own contemplating might be that Michael Moore’s record for factuality is better by far than Shodan’s or Sam’s.
You’re just getting surreal. Dictionairy definitions don’t matter anymore?
I can see why Moore-ons would be nervous about using the dictionary definition of ‘Documentary’:
Factual? Objective? What’s that, you say? What are those new and unknown words, you wonder? Well, look it up.
Yep, yep, and yep. I have a brain, and I don’t know of any requisite for me to turn it off when I watch a documentary.
I’m just tired of the mentally lazy folks who – instead of refuting the points and conclusions Moore raised in Fahrenheit 9/11 – try to simply wave it away by playing the “dictionary definition” card, a feeble debating method that carries little water. It’s as pointless and pathetic as folks who will say “I don’t like George W. Bush because he’s an idiot”; out of numerous thoughtful and insightful positions you can take, why hitch your wagon to a loser like that?
Wow, what startlingly high levels of discourse we’re having today, Brutus.
If that’s true, I haven’t seen a documentary on the History Channel in… well… ever.
Fair enough. I expect something different from a documentary (“old-school”, I suppose) but you are consistent in your definition and that’s agreeable with me.
If some one dislikes the film because it doesn’t fit their definition of documentary, that’s a bit strange. There are clearly some differences in what a documentary is and that needs to be acknowledged. Besides, Moore has never called himself an objective documentary film-maker.
Another post without those highbrow googly eyes? Damn, high level of discourse it is, then.
Nobody is arguing against Moore’s propaganda not being a ‘documentary’ because it isn’t ‘objective enough’. It’s because it doesn’t make so much as a fucking attempt at objectivity. It is pure and unadulterated propaganda. Not so much as a sop to concept of objectivity. Just like a Eisenstein or Riefenstahl flick. (At least they had excuses, though.)
Moore-ons don’t seem bothered by this, of course. They don’t need ‘truth’ and ‘objectivty’ getting in their way when they know that they right!
Indeed.
Right.
Unfortunately (for you and the millions of clones of you) it is also true.
Not our fault if our propaganda happens to be truthful, and yours is just lies and exaggerations.
Do you think that you’re really doing anything other than making yourself look stupid by using that term? I mean, look, I’m telling you this as a person to another person - and you know that I care about people - just stop. It makes you look like a seventh grader.
…
Actually, ARE you a seventh grader?
I mean, look, I’m telling you this as a person to another person - and you know that I care about people…
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I have yet to see any evidence of that. All I hear from you is the stock Leftist response to any given situation, followed by your trademarked emoticon.
But at least you are admitting that F911 is nothing but propaganda. There is hope for, if you just stick with it.
Well, and sometimes the coding rises up against the chains that bind it, and all that. :rolleyes:
I don’t see your point. Granted, two wrongs don’t make a right, but film piracy and dishonesty among pundits have nothing to do with each other. I’m not so much claiming a moral superiority as I am simply saying that I don’t want to financially support people like Moore and Coulter. I would only watch their films if they were popular enough that most people (and a majority of my friends) had seen them.