How exactly do you identify that particular assortment of protestors (the lead character is a state Assemblyman from Brooklyn) as an “anti-defamation group”? And how does staging a protest demonstration, or writing letters and e-mails constitute “pressure tactics” (a term that suggests some sort of goon squad in action)?
While I may disapprove of the final goal, those forms of protest sound an awful lot like democracy in action to me.
If you need a reminder of what a genuine anti-defamation group was doing, go Googling on Abraham Foxman and the ADL.
*"Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, and Gary Bretton- Granatoor, ADL Advisor on Interfaith Affairs, issued the following statement:
The final version of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” now in theaters repeats all of the stereotypes and images surrounding the death of Jesus that have generated anti-Semitism for 2,000 years. We had hoped that Mel Gibson would hear our concerns and make changes; sadly, the epiphany did not happen. Instead of listening to our concerns about the history of the charge of deicide being used to foment anti-Semitism through the centuries, Mr. Gibson attacked his critics and refused to listen to the concerns of Christians and Jews.
All we have asked for the past 11 months is for Mr. Gibson to understand our concerns. Our request that he add a postscript to the film, or to make other changes to help sensitize his viewers, was not so outlandish, for another director in history, when filming his version of the Passion, listened to our concerns and did just that. In 1928, Cecil B. DeMille decided to revise his film “The King of Kings” after hearing concerns from Jews, Catholics and others. Additionally, Mr. DeMille added a forward to his film in which he explained that the Jews, then and now, should not be held responsible for the death of Jesus."*
Note as well that the line in question was removed only after the anti-Semitism issue turned into such a fuss. Note, while your at it, that nowhere do I state any support for any attempt to prevent distribution of any viewpoint whatsoever. I was, and remain, a First Amendment absolutist. My point is only that she has a case in suggesting that Mr. Gibson’s film is anti-Semitic. Mr. Gibson made quite the point of claiming “historical accuracy”, which in the case of the Gospels, means almost nothing at all. Hence, his selective use of those Gospels becomes suspect.
I “boycott” Mr. Polanskis films for two reasons: one, there are none to speak of, and two, I don’t much care for his work (except for his film version of Macbeth, which I thought brilliant.) I can’t imagine why you thought that relevent.
Look at what this rapscallion, this jackanapes, this enfant terrible! said today:
No more than any other film, unless we’re dealing with something truly ground-breaking… and even then it would need a heavy supply of media attention to get caught in the cultural zeitgeist. There is so much noise coming from both the left and the right that one little movie (or one big movie, depending on your p.o.v) is not going to make much of a ripple, IMO…
Unless it hits the pop jet-stream… then I could easily see it becoming a difference-maker…
My opinion of Michael Moore could not be accurately expressed outside of the Pit. must… not… hijack…
That said, I don’t think it’s anyone’s place to prevent the showing of this movie, aside from the theater owners. I don’t think opinions should be quashed, no matter how boneheaded I think they are. The proper way to counter something you disagree with is to present a good argument against it.
Preventing dissenting opinions from your own from being heard is cowardly and implies that your own argument is so weak it couldn’t stand up to inspection.
Just wanted to voice a quick vote and say that while I fully support the right of the Republicans and Moore-bashers to criticize the film and urge people not to see it, they’re crossing the line if and when they try to prevent people who do want to see it from doing so.
Picketing outside the theater? Go for it.
Harassing the theater to not show the movie? Get bent.
As for Moore’s accuracy or lack thereof, there have been numerous threads on the SDMB on the topic. While I agree that Moore tends to exaggerate and wanders off the point, I have not seen any convincing assertions that he flat-out lies in his stuff, unless you want to get into hair-splitting trivialities (“Moore says he filmed this on Tuesday morning, but from the position of the shadows, it’s obviously late afternoon! He’s a LIAR!”). But IMO that issue should go into one of the other pre-existing threads.
I agree with Moore’s politics. I understand and expect that he uses info/events in the best light he can to make his points, like all reporting. (What Ebert said.) I think it is fine for the rightwingers to try to stop his movie being shown. So long as they are not using my tax dollars to do so (can’t help but be suspicious). Simply business. If theater owners don’t want to make money on it, their choice. If they want to make their business choices based on their politics before their bottom line, so be it and good luck.
That said … I think it is hilarious that they do not see the fault in trying this kind of shit. Did O’Reilly prove nothing by suing Franken? ‘No press is bad press’ and all that. By creating such a fuss, and especially the way they do it (threatening theater owners rather than refuting Moore’s message), they say more about themselves than about what they are complaining over.
Little comment… I do hope Moore was a bit more “journalistic” this time around. If his movies aren’t overdone and offensive then it might help change some votes.
Might wanna read the article linked. It’d help ya dispense with the strawmen. As much as I agree with what your guidelines, they’ve got squat to do with what’s happening. The linked story clearly says that it’s a letter-writing campaign. The groups aren’t even trying to intimidate prospective viewers from entering the theater by erecting a picket line. They are writing theater owners in an attempt to convince them to not show the film.
As long as what they do is legal, then of course … it’s legal . Thus, threats of violance or violences is illegal, thus a “no-no”. And, AFAIK there haven’t been any.
And, as long as they don’t try and use official government power to stop it- whatever they do is *moral. * Just as moral od MM making the film in the first place.
“Farenheit 9/11 just won the palm d’or (or is it palmes d’or?) at Cannes.”. Gosh, I am shocked- a film is made that show the Administration in a bad light and a bunch of Freanchmen give it an award. I’ll bet a nickel if th efilm had been equally as well made but with the opposite political leaning, it woudl have been savaged.
Besides MM is either a liar/blowhard or a man who condones torture. He said recently that he knew of the atrocitys in the Iraqi prison, but decidied not to say anything until his film came out.
Let’s say that a big fat Republican blowhard - let’s call him, hm… Lush Rimbaugh… anyway, he makes a TV show or documentary or some such detailing the evils of Democrat’s sexual acts or whatever Republicans talk about these days.
You are saying - let me get this straight - you’re saying that neither Lush, nor any of his supporters, would, in any way, protest or raise a finger if, maybe, some liberals got all ansty and threatened by what he had to say, and started campaigns to prevent local stations from carrying the show. Now, you’re saying, that they wouldn’t complain in the slightest about being repressed? Luch would chuckle good naturedly and say, “well, they’re within the legal limit, so it is perfectly alright.”?
Actually, Zad, m’lad, he probably would do just that. Lush’s market share is rock solid, he fears naught. Nothing but nothing is going to dislodge him (you know what a “chigger” is? Its like that…) Divorce, drug habits, nothing is going to faze him. Unless, of course, the news of his impending marriage to Mike Savage gets out, then maybe…
I think he would indeed chuckle indulgently and say exactly that. Don’t underestimate him. He’s a loathesome, lying, puerile bucket of pus, but he ain’t no dummy. Unless, of course, he’s jonesing…
I wasn’t intending to reference the OP with my examples, but just point out where the line was.
(Emphasis mine)
Now, to me, that’s as bad as barracading the theater doors so I can’t get in. If I want to see the movie, and the theater wants to show me the movie, then by what right does this busybody group have trying preventing me from accomplishing my goal? There’s a line between persuasion and prevention, and they’re trying to cross it here IMO.
Of the nine judges, only one was French. :rolleyes: Try again, without the jingoistic potshot.
Jeez, Unc, you still picking on the French? Do you think, really, that they are in the forefront of the “Fuque les Americains!” movement? Look around the world press a bit, you’re in for a rude shock. We got about six friends left, and they come in two varieties: well paid or well scared. Now, just 'cause someone’s scared of you don’t mean they aren’t sincerely your buddy. But don’t turn your back.
In terms of cordial international relations and the admiration of the world, we have drop-kicked a puppy through the goalposts and did a victory boogy.
Maybe, but I think I recall Lush’s distant cousin Rush complaining a tad about his TV show’s miniscule impact.
Hard to tell, because there was never really a massive campaign to get him off the air/tv/screen/bookshelves/whatever. Take from that what you will.
You people think I’m joking when I say I’m a registered Republican? Nope. I’ve been to the Dark Side. I know it well. The year is 1996. A sunny summer day. A younger (and thinner) Zagadka sits at a desk in a local high school, a stack of papers to be graded in front of him. His walkman is tuned to KFI, AM 640 - More Stimulating Talk Radio ™. The host? Rush Limbaugh. DAH DAH DA-DAH!
I still have 3 Rush books on my bookshelf, reminders of that way of thinking, cozied up next to my copy of the Communist Manifesto. Ooooh yes, he would cry foul. Foul indeed.
This is America. Moore has the right to make whatever movie he wants, and the people have the right to protest it however they want within the law. Ultimately the question the theatre owners will answer is whether or not its worth it to show the film.
In my own opinion, I want to see the movie more now just cause I know its gonna piss some people off.
Y’know, you’re right. I wasn’t much interested in seeing this - I figured it would show me stuff I already know, big deal. But inspired by this thread, I went to watch the trailer from Michael Moore’s website.
The finale to that trailer is f*ing hillarious. If you’ve seen it, you know what I’m talking about. Based on the strength of that alone, it is gonna be worth my $10 or whatever.
Because they are one, or at least are acting as one for our purposes? The ADL isn’t the only antidefamation group in the world, y’know. And as I recall, some of them were fairly ambitious in their goals regarding the distribution of The Passion.
Economic and social pressure are pressure nonetheless. I don’t think I suggested anywhere that such groups were planning to use violence to suppress the film, and I’d be very surprised if most folks read my comments as suggesting as much.
Well, of course, those groups have a first amendment right to participate in that kind of protest, and to use their clout to dissuade film distribution companies from distributing the film. Just as the conservative opponents of “Farenheit 9/11” have the right to use those tactics.
The question at hand, though is not “what are they legally allowed to do,” but rather “what should they do?” Should they seek to suppress opposing viewpoints via totally legal means, or should they seek to allow the expression of those viewpoints while publicly raising counterarguments to them? I think the latter is the better course.
A related question, one that Evil One and I have raised, is “why, if at all, should those seeking to suppress F9/11 be viewed any differently than those who sought to suppress PotC?” Their tactics are largely the same and are perfectly legal. Why is one any different from the other?
[QUOTE=Dewey Cheatem Undhow]
Of course, Mr. Gibson’s ploy is to force viewers to confront the enormity of Christ’s sacrifice and, in doing so, to have them rethink their spiritual lives. That’s a noble goal . . .