Yeah. You don’t like him.
We GET that, already.
But he’s a multi-millionaire, Roger. A multi-millionaire…Mwahahahaha! 
I’ll buy you a diamond ring my friend
If it makes you feel all right
I’ll get you anything my friend
If it makes you feel all right
'Cause I don’t care too much for money
For money can’t buy me love.
There’s a Chinese saying which my wife - rather ominously - was telling me yesterday. A couple who struggle together grow close together. A couple where one person gains power or wealth grow apart.
Agreed. Content, OTOH, not so much.
Sorry. Forget that last one. I was referring to the wrong person.
Apart from his reprehensible editing in Columbine, a move that really angered me, the rest of his films are expositions of his theories and hypotheses. If people believe them without hesitation or any rational thought process coming out of their brains, the the people Moore is fooling are already fools. A case can be made if they deserve it or not.
Sorry, pal, looks like you’re still one more to go: The Big One
…says the guy who still defends Bush’s selling of the Iraq war. 
jungie!!!
What up, dawg? Long time, no see.
Good to hear from ya. 
Which particular editing work are you referring to?
The hunting dog, Heston’s interview, specially Moore’s “brave” confrontation as he shows him the little girl’s picture. Moore wanted us to believe he was talking to Heston when in reality he was confronting air. It doesn’t matter whether he did do it or didn’t, because what we see isn’t exactly what we’re lead to believe. Also, you have to be careful when relating Heston’s “from my dead cold hands” and his “not come here? We’re already here!” speeches. They’re from different speeches (notice the clothes). Heston also didn’t defiantly come to the little girl’s home town as a reaction to that shooting, his Columbine speech was cut in the movie to make him look like an ass and the dog footage was Moore’s fabrication (though I don’t believe he did this one on purpose, to fool you, he failed to make it clear he was joking around). Other stuff might be considered fabricated as it is not made clear where Moore got it from (the death by fire arms count around the globe).
I was angry because, initially, this film had a great impact on me and I was really saddened by it. The most shocking footage for me was that of the high school’s security cameras. I hope at least those are real.
However, other than some doctored headline in Fahrenheit, I don’t think there’s much to be called manipulative on the other three. My position still stands on these: if you fall for it, it’s your own damn fault. Disagree, agree, whatever. Moore’s not brainwashing anyone.
Picking up on Pauline Kael’s New Yorker review of Roger and Me, in which she criticises Moore for his superior leftism, which allowed fellow leftists to simultaneously laugh at working-class people while consoling themselves with the thought that they’re being sympathetic and PC, the beautifully named book Faking It: The Sentimentalism of Modern Society (published in 1998) is worth looking up.
Here’s a couple of extracts from the chapter on Christianity, 'The corruption of Christianity: the history and origins of sentimentality’, by Lucy Sullivan, specifically referring to the patronisation of the working classes:*
- The focus of other chapters includes the sentimentalising of medicine, social policy, children, the media, and Princess Diana.
Sentimentalism has been described by D.H. Lawrence as ‘the working off on yourself of feelings you haven’t really got’. T.S. Eliot wrote that the defining characteristic of the bien pensant sentimentalist is always to be ‘dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good’. He could have been speaking of the current PC madness.
Oh, dear, no. :rolleyes: I could write my fancy way into describing her behavior as the product of a social movement as well, but I’m really tired and they don’t pay me to write nonsense. My opinion, anyway. However, for better or worse, I do have a feeling Michael Moore’s work is going to stick around for a bit longer than Ms. Sullivan’s work. A hunch, if you will.
What about Eliot and Lawrence? Their work has stuck around. They wrong too?
My dad hates Michael Moore with a passion. One of his reasons for this is that Moore is apparently a “raging twat” who doesn’t know how to dress.
You sorta remind me of my Dad, Roger.
Not wanting to pry unduly, but are you and your Dad British? Your dad is either more of a snappy dresser than me (not difficult) or a bit of a clothes Nazi, or both. BUT, he has good taste in men.
My dad’s from Sussex, but I was born in Sydney. I’ve had a bit of an “Anglo-Indian” upbringing.
And my dad does have good taste in men - he says that he’d go gay for Jude Law.
Ah, but would he be a top or a bottom?
Well, I’m a big fan of the 7th too, so you can get partial credit on that one. Oddly enough, the recording I have of the 7th is conducted by David Zinman, who was roundly criticized for trying to have the performance match Ludwig’s original intent as far as tempo goes. It’s been said that his symphonies are like Beethoven meets speed metal. The result brings a bit more energy to the more brisk movements, IMO. Listening to some parts at this tempo makes me wonder if Beethoven’s intent was to write music that was, as much as anything, really really difficult to play.
But yeah, I finished interviews a while ago & now I’m at the “firing incompetent dolts” stage of the year. I’ll probably be around to pit that process sooner or later.
Style? If by style you mean seriously hijacking a perfectly good Michael Moore thread, then you got that right, Jack. I will say that I’ve enjoyed his work, but I do feel his attitude…his presence as an ‘everyman’ just doesn’t work anymore. You’ll notice that he took himself out of sight much more in F11 than in his previous work, which I felt worked for the better. You mention the Halliburton stuff in the film as something you liked. I go to the other side, the woman who feels the military is the best option for many in her town, the recruiters who go to the “dirt” mall. It’s not revealing anything sinister or evil as much as sad.
I took a writing class back in college and the course name was “Studies in Fiction.” When I received the syllabus for the semester, I was surprised to find a list of autobiographies (starting with the Confessions of St. Augustine, a catholic who whacked off in church back in the 300s AD—Gotta love it.) I considered dropping the course because I didn’t figure Thomas Jefferson’s or Malcolm X’s autobiographies fiction in any way. But the class taught me to realize that when an author presents himself in his work, there is room for embellishment & editing on the author’s part. How an author perceives & presents himself won’t necessarily match the reality of it. I’ve applied that to Michael Moore from day 1. He presents himself as the Joe Everyman, middle American guy who’s been hurt by forces larger than himself (insert fat-joke here.) The way I look at it? I don’t believe Moore is the guy we see on the screen, but it’s easy to imagine that the person he’s trying to be exists in great quantities in this country.
So…kind of like the lead violin who knew Beethoven’s tempo better than Beethoven himself, Moore raises valid points that almost become invalidated because he’s the one who raises them.
Waitaminute…that didn’t make much sense. Ah screw it.
I don’t know if you are familiar with the Earwitness Recordings. They’re basically “remastered” versions of reproducing piano rolls made in the first three decades of the 20th century before vinyl records took over.
I’ve got a double CD of Romantic and post-Romantic pianists such as Saint-Saens, Paderewski, Ravel, Rubinstein, Profofieff and Horowitz playing some classical and romantic favourites - Liszt and Chopin feature heavily. And gee are the tempos fast, generally speaking. But what vigour and technical precision they bring too.
[QUOTE=AP]
But yeah, I finished interviews a while ago & now I’m at the “firing incompetent dolts” stage of the year. I’ll probably be around to pit that process sooner or later.]Yes, no doubt they were fired for not knowing how to knot a tie properly.
It was sad, but I felt it was odd how the recruiting sergeants (or whatever) seemed quite happy to take Moore along for the ride. I think everyone in the USA really does want to be a celebrity. Reminds me, I must read de Tocqueville.
You radical you!
Everyone wants ‘thymos’ (or recognition) - it’s a basic human need.
Mmm, you mean wannabe celebrities (I agree), or genuine guys who want to bring about change for altruistic purposes (regardless of whether they get any recogntion or not - and I beleive such people can and do exist) - I can’t agree.
I don’t even think that Moore knows how to read music, borrowing your analogy. He just hears snippets and cobbles them together in a way that pleases the moneyed white audiences of the 1980s-2000s. One day, people may look back and ask what all the fuss was about. ‘May’. Even I am wrong sometimes!
[/QUOTE]
Mmm, you mean wannabe celebrities (I agree), or genuine guys who want to bring about change for altruistic purposes (regardless of whether they get any recogntion or not - and I beleive such people can and do exist) - I can’t agree.
[/QUOTE]
Well, there are plenty of wanna be celebs. I was referring to those who’d like to bring about some changes of percieved injustices…recognition be damned. That I can imagine.
Only about that onion thing. Everything else has been pure gold.
Oh…and I’m a bass player, not a guitar player. Everyone knows that the bass players don’t get the chicks.