This rant will be broken into two sections. Please direct yourself to the section that best describes you.
If you love Michael Moore, please read Section One. If you hate Michael Moore, please read Section Two.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Jesus, if two groups ever needed a Peace Summit, it’s not the Israelis and the Palestinians. It’s the pro-Moore and anti-Moore camps. Or at least a little cross-breeding, so we end up with people who:
A) See Michael Moore’s movies, but understand that the purpose of his films is to entertain
B) Learn the benefit of being tolerant of other people’s political leanings and views
C) Understand that they don’t know everything, and there’s frequently a lot to learn from people that don’t feel exactly the same way you do
Now let’s sit back and let both sides lambaste me for 100 or so replies, since I’m pretty sure that’s how it’s going to go.
Heh–great rant! I’m not exactly mr. Conservative, and I’ve seen every one of Moore’s films, and I’m pretty excited about the effect the movie is having on the electorate–but I’m in no hurry to go out and see it myself. I’m much more excited about seeing Spiderman 2 on Monday, and about taking my sweet wife to see Kill Bill Vol 2 at the dollar theater later this week.
But my mom is coming to visit this afternoon. My mom who left a message for me last Friday telling me how important it was, not only for me to see the movie over opening weekend, but also to make it to one of Move On’s movie discussion parties afterwards.
I love my mom, but she’s a bit of a joiner, y’know? Better Michael Moore than Tony Robbins, but I’m still not really looking forward to the weekend movie discussions.
Well, in every debate over the film that i’ve participated in, including the ones on this message board, i’ve never seen anyone suggest that not seeing Moore’s film makes someone “a closet Communist who masturbates to Al-Qaeda propaganda flyers in my spare time.”
In fact, my criticism is not with people who don’t want to see the film. I’ve made it very clear in another thread that i completely respect that decision. My main criticism has been reserved for those who state that they have no intention of seeing the film, and yet proceed to accuse it of being “propaganda” and lies," based on nothing but third party reports.
I strongheartedly disagree. If you replace *the * with a, you have a point. But Moore’s ultimate purpose is to educate and motivate. Time will tell…blah, blah, blah.
I’d like to know who these rabid MM fans are. I keep hearing them referred to… for instance, this quote from the back jacket of Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man: “And how large of an impact do his incendiary, ill-founded polemics have on the growing community that follows him with near-religious devotion?”
Who follows him with near-religious devotion?
Anyone?
The consensus among liberals, at least on the dope, if there is one, is someting along the lines of “We respect his passion, are glad that someone is speaking out so publically and visibly about topics that aren’t frequently discussed in the mainstream, are sometimes entertained by his movies, but wish he was more rigorous and careful with his facts. Not that he deliberately fabricates things, but he seems to be willing to twist things more than we’re comfortable with to make points. Plus, circumstantial evidence indicates that he’s a bit of an egomaniacal jerk. Nonetheless, we go see his movies.”
I don’t think that, in the current politcal context and climate, that A is an acceptable argument, nor true, as mhendo says. However, A-fuckin-men to B and C.
I’ve had people tell me, “The way you criticize Moore, I don’t want to hear what you have to say about him.” And I make it point to be civil and logical when I debate, and if I don’t know something, I’ll admit it, rather than make shit up and make myself (and my argument) look idiotic. Another gem was, “I never claimed to be open-minded.”
This goes for a lot of political debate- no one seems to see any gray area anymore. Everyone either parrots what the Bush administration says, or they parrot what Moore says. I guess each side has 1920s style “Blindness Rays” that render the whole spectrum in between completely invisible, and it’s really disappointing and sickening. Even in places like San Francisco and Santa Cruz, where political discourse is supposed to be part of our identity, no one bothers to think for themselves.
I’d love to have a good debate about Moore, and I can go both ways with him, but I refuse to do so with someone who refuses to think.
That’s roughly what I feel about him, though I wouldn;t quite say I respect anythign about him. But the problem is that the consensus of the Dope is not the consensus of the country/world, and therein lies the problem.
Michael Moore. The most pitted man at SDMB. Some might say this means he is the most hated man at SDMB. Does Cecil agree? Some might say he does since his board and his column are both owned by the Chicago Reader. Is this why Michael Moore chose to live in a ritzy New York apartment instead of a rundown Chicago flat? Some might say so. Could there be a more evil man than Michael Moore? You let the facts decide.
I usually like what Moore says, though I sometimes feel embarassed by the way he says them. I haven’t bought nor read Stupid White Men or Dude, Where’s My Country? for that reason.
On the other hand, I think Fahrenheit 9/11 is his strongest work yet, both from a thematic standpoint and from a fairness/accuracy/non-distortion standpoint. I’m still waiting to find someone with a legitimate criticism of the film that didn’t come from their own distortion of what Moore’s presenting on the screen.
Riiiiight. See, the nice thing about attacking someone through sarcasm and vague smug implication is that there’s nothing to refute, so no one can actually debate whatever point you may or may not be trying to make.
