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

The BBQ Pit
81

I have seen the works of Michael Moore, in parts. In fact, I have seen the part I am most directly criticizing. If I were criticizing Shakespeare, calling the plot of one of his works inane, would I need to read the entire play, or just a summary of the plot? I don’t need to know the first line of Act 3, Scene 1 of Romeo and Juliet to know that it’s about star-crossed lovers. More directly, I don’t need to see Act 1 to criticize a single line in Act 3. “That’s a silly line.” “You haven’t seen the whole play, you can’t judge.” “Okay, THAT’S a silly line.”

If someone can tell me that the quote from Michael Moore saying he used two cameras for the end of the Heston interview isn’t a real quote and back that up by debunking the cite the editor of BfT gives, then great. Or, if someone will claim that the images presented regarding that section have been doctored in some fashion, then I suppose I’d have to go see the movie itself to see if that claim was true. But no one has.

As I’ve said before, I’ve seen photographic evidence of the deception regarding the cameraman. I’ve even seen an actual clip of that scene. Based on the evidence presented to my eyes… based on my own senses… coupled with the cited quote from Moore that he didn’t re-stage the shot… that he in fact had two cameras… means that I have firsthand evidence that he’s a liar. It’s as simple as that.

Everybody’s biased. Moore’s biased. BfT’s editor is biased the other way. The difference is that BfT : A.) Cites interviews and news articles. B.) Actually presents a token effort at showing opposing viewpoints. and C.) Isn’t acting like an inflammatory clown. and D.) Isn’t selling a big old pile of DVDs.

82

…oh horse hockey. “The website describes the context of the scenes” is not the same as “seeing the scenes in context.” That is only something you can do for yourself by watching the damm movie. Anyway, why the hell should we be debunking BfT? We would much rather debunk your opinions on the movie, but for some reason you don’t want to see it to judge for yourself…

83

Ah, quite true. The experiment is designed to test your assertion that only the most slack-jawed of the slack-jawed yokels would buy that the images are from the same speech, not Michael Moore’s intent, which we can never truly know. I assert that it was intended to deceive based on the facts of the later scene with Heston and the Little Girl’s picture. That later scene (coupled with the interview quote where Moore asserts he had two cameras) makes me suspect that he wished to smear Charlton Heston.

Let me elaborate.

We have the suspect scene, using two camera angles, where Charlton is made to appear insensitive as he walks away from Michael’s plaintive plea about the little girl as he holds up the picture.

One could do this with two cameras, or one could reconstruct the scene faithfully with a single camera, that records the original exchange from the back angle, and then which moves in front for the other angle. That’s possible. It’s even a legitimate documentary technique to re-enact things, as much as it might gall me…

But the interviewer asked Moore how the scene was captured, and he said he used two cameras. So he is asserting that the incident was not reenacted… it was caught by two cameras at the same time. Fine. I suppose that only Moore, his cameraman, and Heston know for sure.

Except there’s a problem. Looking at the angle of the shots … the forward cameraman should be visible to the rear cameraman. My advanced primate-brain ability to extrapolate 3-D images from 2-D images tells me that there’s no second cameraman there recording, when viewed from the back. This tells me there were a minimum of two takes of that scene.

So what? So this is what Moore and the interviewer said, according to the cite provided by BfT:

He’s explicitly denying there was a second take. Visual evidence says there was a second take. He’s a liar.

So, what is the purpose of the lie? Well, clearly he wants you to believe the scene occurred as depicted… meaning, he wants you to believe Heston turned his back on a picture of a little girl. Maybe Heston did. But I can’t prove that. I can prove, beyond a shadow of my own doubt, that Moore lied about that scene.

So I can’t really trust the other things he tries to show me, now can I?

84

I mentioned before that I’d probably end up seeing it eventually. Though I’d expect if any of the information presented thus far were invalid, the wolverines of the SDMB would’ve been all over it already. So, since I have no reason to doubt the section of BfT that convinces me Moore is a liar… I have no need to rush out to see BfC.

85

You’re certain you’ve seen the entire scene? You can’t be unless you’ve viewed the source material. The plot reference would hold up well if that is what you were doing. You’re not. You are criticizing in great detail specific scenes from a movie you haven’t even seen, using as your source a website for which the only reason to exist is to criticize Moore. That’s fine, mind you, everybody can stand some criticism now and then, but you’re displaying an awful lot of trust in them when you don’t have any frame of reference by which to judge their accuracy. Which leads to:

Now that’s just silly. Without seeing the entire play, you don’t know what the single line in Act 3 is referring to. It could be a concise, witty, multi-layered summation of the entirety of Act 1. Or not. But without seeing the entire play, you have absolutely no idea whether it’s silly or not. Without seeing the movie you are criticizing, you have absolutely no idea whether you’re pulling your criticisms out of thin air or not.

86

OK.

I’m going to take Bowling For Truths assessment of the Heston interview apart.

[quote]
‘I Agree with Handguns’ LIE

Michael Moore has to lie to Heston to solidify the fabrication that he is not there to ambush him and make him look stupid. So when Heston says yes, he does have guns in his house, Moore says he “totally agrees” the Second Amendment gives Heston this right.

But again, Michael Moore lied. Both to Heston and the viewer. Earlier in BFC, we see Moore interviewing and ridiculing a pro-gun supporter of the Second Amendment and Moore makes clear that he supports gun ownership only for hunting and not for self defense like he just agreed to Heston about.

[quote]

The truth of the matter is that Moore was agreeing with Hestons statement that the second amendment gives him the right to keep a loaded gun. He did not agree that it is right to keep a loaded gun, he agreed that the second amendment gives the right to keep a loaded gun.

Bowling for Truth lied.

Moore asks why he keeps a loaded gun in his house, Heston says because the second amendment allows him to, and that there is a comfort factor in keeping a gun for security reasons. There was no tape cut.

Bowling for Truth lied.

aside from the fact they are paraphrasing Moore, Heston says nothing about “pithy answers”, he says that is a topic that requires greates study and discussion.

Commies? Commies? what is this guy talking about?

I could go on with the rest of the interview and bowling for Truths rather inept reading of what happened, but after he tries to make out Moore is a racist I lost interest. If this is what you consider good editing, and what Moore does as being wrong, there’s no hope for you.

87

I’m going with flaky interpretation here.

This interests me, and I’ll look for it. It’s also possible that there are different versions of the documentary. There was a change from the theatrical version to the DVD version regarding a Bush-Quayle political ad that BfT noted.

They’re paraphrasing Heston as well.

The site-editor’s racist interpretation of Moore is something that seems fundamentally wrong-headed to me as well.

88

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fallujah.htm

Need I really say any more about that site?

89

Let’s have a hypothetical line. “Verily, yon purple orange is.” I can judge it as archaic, gramatically incorrect, or logically fallacious … and find it silly for any of these reasons… without context.

Let me turn this around. Have you ever started reading a book and set it down after the first chapter? Have you ever started watching a movie or TV show and then changed the channel after losing interest? Are you not judging these things based on a small sample, lacking their complete context?

If I present a list of “100 True Things” and in one of them I assert that the sky is plaid, then I’ve mistitled my list. And that statement is a lie, irrespective of the other 99. The only useful information context could give us in such a case is intent… for example, if the other 99 were all outrageous fabrications, it would seem I intended to amuse, not to inform.

But they’re still fabrications, and so is the statement that the sky is plaid.

90

Took me long enough to find the relevant section of the site (what a poorly designed monstrosity it is!), but now that I have…I cannot say I’m equally convinced that the scene was staged.

In the interview with Moore in which he says there were two cameras, he also says that the unedited scene contained footage of Moore offering Heston a gun of the same type that killed the little girl. He later decided to cut this footage. “Bowling for Truth” claims that there’s no room for this footage to have ever existed, as “there are no signs of an edit”. A strange assertation, since “BfT” claims that the whole scene was edited together from two different takes in the first place! But if the “holding up the gun” scene really happened and there really were two cameras, this would mean there was also extra footage of Heston still walking away. If the cameramen changed positions between the “holding up the photo” bit and the deleted “holding up the gun” bit, then the scene could later be edited together to show Moore holding up the photo and Heston walking away without either cameraman being visible in the other’s shot.

Now, this would require intercutting footage of Moore with footage of Heston that actually took place slightly later. That is a distortion of the pure facts, and might be considered deceptive. However, I would only call it such if it made Heston look like he did something he didn’t. For instance, if Heston really burst into tears at the sight of the photo, or said “I can’t believe even you would pull this cheap stunt, Moore! I’m out of here!” and then walked away, it would be trickery to make it look like he walked away in response to the photo. But if he was truly just walking away the whole time then I see no ethical problem with editing the scene so as to keep the crew from showing.

Of course, to buy the above you have to believe that Moore is telling the truth and that the cameramen did change position. You already believe Moore is a liar, and the second point, while not implausible, is speculation on my part. But I think this explanation is consistent with the known facts, so I’m not ready to call Moore a liar yet.

If Moore is lying about the scene, I think his fitting punishment has been that the scene makes him look like a complete tool. If I were Heston I’d have walked away too. In watching Bowling for Columbine I was surprised that Moore had chosen to leave in a scene that made him look so cheap and manipulative, so I’d be even more surprised if he had intentionally faked it.

*If you can’t, then I don’t see how I can trust anything that comes from that wacky “Bowling for Truth” site…and that includes allegations that Moore staged the scene in question.

91

Yeah, that’s loaded with hyperbole towards the end there. I don’t think Michael Moore wishes for the deaths of Americans. But I’m not relying on BfT’s opinion pieces. The site offers specific refutations with documented cites. It doesn’t matter how much the editor rants and raves.

92

No, it doesn’t. It distorts BfC as much as it claims Moore does with the footage.

93

Snipped the analysis, to make it easier on the hamsters. I considered the possibility of the gun story as a source of alternate footage … the trouble is, if BfT is correct, then Moore’s story about the gun indicates he and the place from which he got the gun committed felonies.

Plus there are three slightly different versions of the tale of that Heston piece that Moore uttered.

I’m not judging based on the site’s wacky assertions. I’m judging based on the evidence collected and referenced there. If the site editor has fabricated some of it, that would be relevant… that would make me reconsider my position. Otherwise… Eh.

And you’re right, it’s a horrible-looking site.

94

But I don’t then run around criticizing Chapter XXVII because of something I read on a web site.

Without viewing both the source and the criticism, you have no basis for making a decision about which is the fabrication. That’s all I’m saying. Well, at least you’re honest about your willingness to be spoon-fed your beliefs.

95

Am I correct in understanding this to mean that you’re willing to dismiss Moore’s entire body of work and whatever factual information or good opinions it might contain because he may have lied about one scene in one film, but at the same time you’re willing to give “Bowling for Truth” a pass for all the lunatic rantings it contains (some of which I think could fairly be called lies) because the screen shots apparently aren’t doctored or anything?

96

Are you saying that Moore’s quote from the interview was altered, or the stills from the Heston incident were doctored in some fashion? Those are the two relevant bits of evidence to me. If you can discredit them, please do. If you want to go on about how the editor of that site creatively paraphrases and how he’s as bad as Moore, then spare me. Yes, there’s bias and distortion on the site. I don’t think it’s as bad as Moore’s, but that’s a matter of opinion. Even a biased source can present facts. Moore presented facts. So does BfT. BfT’s facts make it evident to me that Moore’s a liar. Moore’s facts… well, we’ll see.

I moved BfC up in my Netflix cue, so I should get it this weekend, I expect. I’ll give it a look and see if there was doctoring done on the stills myself.

97

If the stills or quote are altered, somebody speak up. And I have viewed the source… the stills are excerpts of the source. I’ve also seen a clip of the segment. Since they’re the portion I’m interested in, your comment is irrelevant. I have viewed both the source and the criticism for that segment.

98

Almost.

I am willing to dismiss Moore’s entire body of work because I am convinced that he is a liar for reasons already discussed… and I am convinced that he is a hypocrite based on other interviews cited on the site. He has an agenda, and no compunction to tell the truth. Therefore he will fabricate whatever is necessary to achieve his agenda.

BfT’s editor has an agenda. He is prone to exaggeration, hyperbole, and some silly extrapolations. The extrapolations seem mostly opinions. I’ll be looking into the possible lie about the cut in the Heston interview that was mentioned previously. But let’s assume I catch the site in a lie about that cut.

So they’re both liars, and they both have agendas. What’s the difference? BfT references external sources it has no control over. It can’t hack into the New York Times archives and rearrange an interview with Moore to fabricate evidence. And it is that external evidence that has convinced me.

99

i picked out 3 instances from the first 3 points on that page, and gave up after his attempt to call Moore a racist. His paraphrasing is done to misrepresent the events of the movie, which you would know IF YOU ACTUALLY SAW THE MOVIE.
regardless of wehter or not you like Moore, go and watch the movie before you complain of it’s bias, or before you use BfT as the cite for your arguments.

100

[QUOTE=Banquet Bear]
…well, why should we listen to your arguements over something you haven’t seen?

[QUOTE]

Indeed, how can I criticize Hitler’s actions? I wasn’t even alive when they occured to observe them first hand. :rolleyes: