Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

What's Michael Moore been up to?

T

TomUS

non-resident
New movie....."Where To Invade Next" which premiers at the Toronto Film Fest in Sept. Should be good.
Moore said that the idea of America perpetrating an “infinite war … provides the necessary satire for this film, and you’ll see that when you see the movie,” as well as the “constant need to have an enemy… so we can keep our whole military industrial complex alive and keep the companies that make a lot of money for us in business.”
Click to expand...
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/29/michael-moore-where-to-invade-next
 
Dishonest mis representation of facts in order to suit his agenda. More interested in polemics than accurate and honest film making.

Much of claims in his documentaries are demonstrably untrue and easily proven wrong. That means that while he may be on the right side of a argument (better gun control, affordable US health care) because his arguments can be easily picked apart it can actually hurt his own side on certain positions.
 
8den said:
Dishonest mis representation of facts in order to suit his agenda. More interested in polemics than accurate and honest film making.

Much of claims in his documentaries are demonstrably untrue and easily proven wrong. That means that while he may be on the right side of a argument (better gun control, affordable US health care) because his arguments can be easily picked apart it can actually hurt his own side on certain positions.
Click to expand...

This is true, definitely. He showed some poor sod who had had limbs blown off in Iraq, and the simpering voice over saying how this soldier felt he was let down by his Country etc, which some quotes from the fella backing that up.
In fact he was a true blue patriot and had no regrets or quarrel with the USA, and his comments were taken well out of context to back up Moore's point
 
I've got nothing against people simplifying arguments. But there are others who can make a straightforward argument without sensationalising things or bending facts. Moore is an entertainer, often a good one, but he's not a good commuincator of actual stuff iyswim.
 
Or on F911 he claims that only 1 US Congressman or Senator has a child serving in Iraq and doorsteps several asking them to get their children to enlist. One of the Senators in the movie who's shown to walk away actually stopped and discussed the issue with Moore AND had a child serving in Afghanistan.

Or in Sicko he waxed lyrically about the incredible health care in Cuba and showed their "incredible" facilities but neglected to say that the facility he filmed in was exclusively for the party elites.

Similarly he glosses over the problems in UK and European Health care giving Those on the other side of the argument plenty of ammunition to pick apart his arguments.


Kertek I was take issue with any filmmaker who feels a need to "simplify" a story to appeal to "the masses". Any filmmaker (be it fiction or non fiction) who engages in such behaviour immediately assumes (intentional or unintentionally) that they are smarter than the people they are trying to communicate with. It comes off as smug, condensing and patronising.

That's why I dislike Moore intensely.
 
Last edited:
8den said:
Kertek I was take issue with any filmmaker who feels a need to "simplify" a story to appeal to "the masses". Any filmmaker (be it fiction or non fiction) who engages in such behaviour immediately assumes (intentional or unintentionally) that they are smarter than the people they are trying to communicate with. It comes off as smug, condensing and patronising.

That's why I dislike Moore intensely.
Click to expand...
I like him intensely. In F 9/11 he was the first media person to effectively communicate the lies, and horrors of the Iraq war. Before that movie the American public had seen virtually no Iraqi civilian or American military casualties. They had no clue as to the financial connections between the Bush family and the Saudis.

He communicates & speaks truth to power. You view it as being done in a condescending way but he's effective. Of course he thinks he knows more than his audience. If he didn't there would be no point in making the movies. Chomsky also thinks he knows more than his audience. Otherwise he wouldn't write books and give speeches. But he doesn't effectively communicate with the average person. Moore does.
 
he's been milking it off the back of Bowling For Columbine for ages. Admittedly it was an interesting piece.And he shows no loon tendencies either (that I know of anyway) so I suppose thats in his favour.
 
Oh come on he's not perfect but the last 15 years of mainstream documentaries at the cinema would have been significantly worse without him.
 
TomUS said:
I like him intensely. In F 9/11 he was the first media person to effectively communicate the lies, and horrors of the Iraq war. Before that movie the American public had seen virtually no Iraqi civilian or American military casualties. They had no clue as to the financial connections between the Bush family and the Saudis.
Click to expand...

Yes he did, but he also included a huge amount of misrepresentations, carefully edited distortions and factual errors.
All of which were demonstrably provable, thus weakening both his argument and anyone who agreed with him.

He communicates & speaks truth to power. You view it as being done in a condescending way but he's effective.
Click to expand...

Actually I think he's tremendously ineffective. I'll need to dig it up but there was a excellent rebuttal to "sicko" written in 2007. Moore glossed over the problems in a European style model for health services (which he consistently describes as "free" it's not it's heavily subsidised by the state), and he says that the transformation to a European model would be simple. It wouldn't. The rebuttal was written by a Health Advisor to Barack Obama and went on to become a architect of Obama care.

Of course he thinks he knows more than his audience. If he didn't there would be no point in making the movies. Chomsky also thinks he knows more than his audience. Otherwise he wouldn't write books and give speeches. But he doesn't effectively communicate with the average person. Moore does.
Click to expand...

Firstly you completely misunderstand the difference between knowledge and intelligence. Moore dumbs down issues and over simplifies complicated things because he thinks his audience won't understand them (thats being charitable to him) Chomsky does not. Chomsky does not speak down to his audience, and manages to be a best selling author and his books regularly appear on the NY times Best Seller list.
 
Flavour said:
Oh come on he's not perfect but the last 15 years of mainstream documentaries at the cinema would have been significantly worse without him.
Click to expand...

Um, how? The really successful documentary influenced by Moore's style to have any real impact since Bowling would be Supersize me, and there are a host of issues with Spurlocks film.
 
Supersize Me was another one I enjoyed watching but didn't really learn anything from. He also completely failed to deal with any issues around why people eat junk food in the first place. Nobody eats that stuff because they think it's good for them.
 
8den said:
Um, how? The really successful documentary influenced by Moore's style to have any real impact since Bowling would be Supersize me, and there are a host of issues with Spurlocks film.
Click to expand...
Sad state of affairs is that he and Spurlock are about the only doc makers to get main stream distribution :( even getting squeezed off telly. Used to be making docs you'd never get rich, now you probably won't cover costs
 
Last edited:
DotCommunist said:
he's been milking it off the back of Bowling For Columbine for ages. Admittedly it was an interesting piece.And he shows no loon tendencies either (that I know of anyway) so I suppose thats in his favour.
Click to expand...

He likes to tell stories that are too oversimplified though. For example regarding 9/11 he went on about the Saudi Royal family and Bush family links at the expense of geopolitical analysis, Pakistan etc.

On that front he makes Adam Curtis look sophisticated by comparison, which isn't exactly a good thing!
 
elbows said:
He likes to tell stories that are too oversimplified though. For example regarding 9/11 he went on about the Saudi Royal family and Bush family links at the expense of geopolitical analysis, Pakistan etc.

On that front he makes Adam Curtis look sophisticated by comparison, which isn't exactly a good thing!
Click to expand...
yeah, I picked up 'dude wheres my country' for a re-read early last year and was shaking my head. Its well meaning stuff but if its childs play for a hard headed thinking r/winger to demolish then it just isn't helping is it.
 
8den said:
Or on F911 he claims that only 1 US Congressman or Senator has a child serving in Iraq and doorsteps several asking them to get their children to enlist. One of the Senators in the movie who's shown to walk away actually stopped and discussed the issue with Moore AND had a child serving in Afghanistan.

Or in Sicko he waxed lyrically about the incredible health care in Cuba and showed their "incredible" facilities but neglected to say that the facility he filmed in was exclusively for the party elites.

Similarly he glosses over the problems in UK and European Health care giving Those on the other side of the argument plenty of ammunition to pick apart his arguments.


Kertek I was take issue with any filmmaker who feels a need to "simplify" a story to appeal to "the masses". Any filmmaker (be it fiction or non fiction) who engages in such behaviour immediately assumes (intentional or unintentionally) that they are smarter than the people they are trying to communicate with. It comes off as smug, condensing and patronising.

That's why I dislike Moore intensely.
Click to expand...

Do you work in film making? ;)
 
elbows said:
He likes to tell stories that are too oversimplified though. For example regarding 9/11 he went on about the Saudi Royal family and Bush family links at the expense of geopolitical analysis, Pakistan etc.

On that front he makes Adam Curtis look sophisticated by comparison, which isn't exactly a good thing!
Click to expand...

His stuff about Saudi shows signs of conspiraloonery tbf lol
 
elbows said:
I forget any details and am left with the idea that it was just a load of insinuations. I remember being pissed off and ranting upon leaving the cinema.
Click to expand...

I cant remember the exact phrasing but in the book he implies that it was an act of war by saudi arabia on the US and that bush knew about it because bin ladens family were flown out of the country and he was reading the my pet goat story to some kids.
 
frogwoman said:
I cant remember the exact phrasing but in the book he implies that it was an act of war by saudi arabia on the US and that bush knew about it because bin ladens family were flown out of the country and he was reading the my pet goat story to some kids.
Click to expand...

as I posted, more or less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rob Ray
Giorgia Meloni's time is up
Replies
0
Views
170
Rob Ray
Rob Ray
C
Michael Parenti
Replies
7
Views
362
hitmouse
hitmouse
tim
Lula's time is up.
Replies
3
Views
2K
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
krtek a houby
Tim Walz; time up?
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
GarveyLives
G
tim
Bizarre acts of terrorism - statue of Lenin and Mao blown up in Texas.
Replies
3
Views
452
belboid
belboid
Back
Top Bottom