Why Doesn't Someone do a Documentary on Michael Moore?

[GorillaMan]

@siberia

Michael Moore is a liar. No doubt about it.

You believe that guy, Moore fans believe Moore. We need more proof than that to denounce someone as a liar.

[Revtim]

@ArchiveGuy

Well, the point he was asserting was that the NRA as an institution was so callous, heartless, and insensitive that they held a national conference near Columbine, ignoring the pleas of people who were still traumatised from the event.

What he conveniently leaves out is that most of the ancillary events related to the NRA event were cancelled out of deference to those families. Moore also omits what anyone with an iota of event planning experience knows: that it’s impossible to casually reschedule a national event (often years in the planning) of that size. With thousands of members, vendors, and organizations flying in, booking cars & hotels, and arranging travel plans, it would’ve been logistically unrealistic to call a halt to everything at the last minute.

I’m a leftie who’s never held a gun in his life, but even I’m willing to admit that the group made more than reasonable accomodations under the circumstances (and took quite a financial hit in the process). But Moore characterized it as Business As Usual, which was certainly not the case.

That’s a valid criticism, thanks.

[Czarcasm]

@CandidGamera

Some mod, any mod, please fix my typo in the thread title? I looked over everything else. Sigh.

As you wish. Thread title changed to “Why Doesn’t Simone do a Documentary on Michael Moore?”

[Darkhold]

@siberia

Michael Moore is a liar. No doubt about it.

Somehow I fail to be swayed by a site that has a banner at the bottom saying “Homosexuals are getting married in Massachusetts TODAY Unless you do something NOW gay ‘marriage’ will soon be in your state to”

[threeorange]

@Czarcasm

As you wish. Thread title changed to “Why Doesn’t Simone do a Documentary on Michael Moore?”

I love Simone! She’s my favorite documentarian!

[mhendo]

@CandidGamera

I believe I mentioned Fahrenheit 9/11’s winning of the Palm D’Or in Cannes and how that didn’t really bother me, but the fact the film was classified as a documentary did.

While i realize that this thread has turned into a debate over Moore’s earlier films, i’d like to ask the OP a question:

When were you lucky enough to see Fahrenheit 9/11?

I ask because you express consternation that it is classified as a documentary, but you haven’t yet explained to us specifically which parts of the movie disqualify it from such a classification.

If you would list a few aspects of the film that you believe to be incorrect or falsified, we might better be able to discuss the issue.

[CLedet]

@Revtim

That’s a valid criticism, thanks.

To expand a little on what ArchiveGuy posted, the NRA was founded in 1871 by an act of the New York legislature. They have to meet once a year or the charter expires, no more NRA. And from what I read there was no time left to change the meeting place.

[Daizy]

@siberia

Michael Moore is a liar. No doubt about it.

[hijack]

From the May 31, 2004 issue: An encounter with the Cannes man.

[/hijack]
May 31st?! How can that be?

[DoctorJ]

See, but the difference is that when we see CH as Moses, we know it’s not footage at the conference. But when we see stock footage of CH at one rally to introduce him as the subject at another, similar rally, and nothing is explicitly stated to differentiate the two, you can’t blame the viewer from getting the impression that they represent the same event.

I can see that, I just don’t think it’s an obvious attempt to mislead. Besides, what does it matter if he gave that particular catchphrase of his at that particular meeting or not? It does nothing for the substance of the point being made.

Your point about Moore’s failure to mention the scaling back of the NRA’s convention is a good one. Like I said before, I don’t like defending the movie.

To expand a little on what ArchiveGuy posted, the NRA was founded in 1871 by an act of the New York legislature. They have to meet once a year or the charter expires, no more NRA.

Would there be a downside?

[Punoqllads]

@Daizy

May 31st?! How can that be?

A magazine’s date is the day it’s supposed to be taken off the shelf, not the day it’s printed or the day it’s put onto the shelves.

[Rick]

From today’s USA Today:

ReganBooks will publish Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man by Jason Clarke,and David T Hardy, the creators of moorelies.com, and mooreexposed.com …
The victory at Cannes presumably woud not change the authors’ mind about Moore’s cinematic contributions. They write:

Postwar filmmakers gave us the documentary, Rob Reiner gave us the mockumentary, and Moore initaiated a third genre, the crockumentary

Carry on

[kung_fu_lola]

@CandidGamera

What, like “Bowling for Columbine”?

Not in my opinion. Columbines are pretty. I like growing them.

[Charlie_Tan]

IIRC the act of changing location for the NRA rally was addressed in BFC.
Also, the löabel ‘documentary’ doesn’t enter consideration in Cannes. F911 won in the cathegory ‘feature film’.

[yojimbo]

@CandidGamera

I believe I mentioned Fahrenheit 9/11’s winning of the Palm D’Or in Cannes and how that didn’t really bother me, but the fact the film was classified as a documentary did.

You haven’t seen the film and yet it bothers you that it’s being classified as a docu? It won the Palme d’Or as a feature btw not a docu but what’s more important is how is the wide wide world of all that is holy can you say this without seeing the movie.

But the film doesn’t go for satirical humour the way Moore’s “Roger & Me” and “Bowling for Columbine” did. Moore’s narration is still often sarcastic, but frequently he lets his footage speak for itself.

here

You then go and spout shite about BfC only to say later you haven’t seem that either.

For fuck sake are you stupid? Go see the movies and then come back and bitch about them with YOU OWN ARGUMENTS not some bollocks you’ve picked up from the web.

As to the editing of the Heston segment. It is quite clear to me that the Cold dead hands part was an intro to Heston. He’s wearing a different suit at the meeting that happened 10 days after Columbine. It is also never stated that it was in response to Columbine. Have some of you never saw a documentary before?

Moore is a biased source, he freely admits that and he stretches the truth to the nth degree sometimes. I have seen interviews with him that have made me almost embarrassed to look at and I’m a fan but for fuck sake people surely there are two basic things that should be kept in mind when criticising a movie.

1. Make sure you’ve actually fucking seen it.
2. Use real criticisms and not just things that confused you due to your lack of understanding of what you are looking at.

[yojimbo]

Oh and well done to ArchiveGuy for actually coming up with something valid.

[TwistofFate]

did you not think that bowling frot truth is a little… kooky?

[CandidGamera]

@mhendo

While i realize that this thread has turned into a debate over Moore’s earlier films, i’d like to ask the OP a question:

When were you lucky enough to see Fahrenheit 9/11?

I ask because you express consternation that it is classified as a documentary, but you haven’t yet explained to us specifically which parts of the movie disqualify it from such a classification.

If you would list a few aspects of the film that you believe to be incorrect or falsified, we might better be able to discuss the issue.

You’re conflating what I’m saying here with the discussion I had with my friends. I know better than to tear into Fahrenheit here without at least a good annotation to begin with. Because of the things I have learned about Bowling for Columbine, I am predisposed to view Fahrenheit 9/11 as a pack of lies. I mention it only as a background to the thought process that eventually arrived at the tirade.

[CandidGamera]

@yojimbo

You then go and spout shite about BfC only to say later you haven’t seem that either.

For fuck sake are you stupid? Go see the movies and then come back and bitch about them with YOU OWN ARGUMENTS not some bollocks you’ve picked up from the web.

On Bowling for Truth, they have actual stills and interview excerpts regarding the confrontation Moore had with Heston that make it clear to me that the man is a liar. What, I need to see the film in motion, so I can say ‘Yep, still a liar!’?

As to the editing of the Heston segment. It is quite clear to me that the Cold dead hands part was an intro to Heston. He’s wearing a different suit at the meeting that happened 10 days after Columbine. It is also never stated that it was in response to Columbine. Have some of you never saw a documentary before?

Oh. My. God. :rolleyes: If it was just an intro, why did he blend the audio of the audience’s applause, giving the illusion of a continuous scene?

Moore is a biased source, he freely admits that and he stretches the truth to the nth degree sometimes. I have seen interviews with him that have made me almost embarrassed to look at and I’m a fan but for fuck sake people surely there are two basic things that should be kept in mind when criticising a movie.

1. Make sure you’ve actually fucking seen it.
2. Use real criticisms and not just things that confused you due to your lack of understanding of what you are looking at.

I’ve seen the parts I’m primarily concerned with here. What, is there a disclaimer at the end of the movie saying that ‘Yes, we staged the Heston thing with the little girl’s picture… and oh, by the way, if ever asked in an interview about that scene, I will lie and say there were two cameras, but I put in this disclaimer, so it’s okay.’?

Because if there is, I will be utterly shocked.

[CandidGamera]

@TwistofFate

did you not think that bowling frot truth is a little… kooky?

I do. He nitpicks over things that I would’ve let slide. But, on the other hand, it’s at the minimum an excellent collection of references to actual articles and interviews that support his various points. And it does seem he makes an effort to be fair, adding footnotes to things that need clarification, removing contested items when offered evidence - and noting their removal - things like that.

On the other other hand, Michael Moore comes off like a disingenuous schmuck on his own website and in interviews.

[CandidGamera]

@Czarcasm

As you wish. Thread title changed to “Why Doesn’t Simone do a Documentary on Michael Moore?”

::fist-shaking smiley:: Curse you, Moderator-Man!

Oh.

Umm… never mind.