Yup.
Michael Moore interviewed you in Bowling For Columbine, and you seemed to get on so well then. Are there any feelings of guilt over how you portray him here?
I've hung out with him a few times, and he asked me to be in Bowling For Columbine because I grew up in Littleton, Colorado, so I did. And he didn't misrepresent me in the film at all. But what he did that really pissed Trey off, and kind of pissed me off too, was put a little animation right after our interview. Tons of people have come up to us and said: 'Oh I love that animation you guys did in Bowling For Columbine'. It's very South Park-esque but we didn't do it. I was offended by the cartoon, personally I thought it was retarded. That's just my opinion and the only reason my opinion matters is because people thought I made it. It was a good lesson in what Michael Moore does in films. He doesn't necessarily say explicitly this is what it is, but he creates meaning where there is none by cutting things together. But I don't really hate the guy.
This is why his character (and I suspect ego) took such a battering in Team America: World Police.
BBC - Movies - interview - Matt Stone
Yes, that and the pipeline through Afghan. He hurt his movie with those two.His stuff about Saudi shows signs of conspiraloonery tbf lol
Roger & Me is still the best thing that he has done.
Is he referring to the "A Brief History of the United States of America" cartoon in the middle of the film? Cos that's not right after his interview, it's around 10-15 minutes (and a number of other interviews, including Marilyn Manson) later. I wouldn't have associated the two, I don't think it's even that "South Park-esque".This is why his character (and I suspect ego) took such a battering in Team America: World Police.
BBC - Movies - interview - Matt Stone
I think it's okay as a film, joined together with a narrative. All the different visits work and he does show the irrationalities of American neo-liberalism (even if you end up a bit tired of it by the end as he lands in yet another country). It's engaging and he's engaging. It's just that it's not only over simplified, but actually goes as far as dishonesty with regard to his portrayal of enlightened European social democracy. And all the stuff about bosses being happy if the workers are happy particularly irked me. He tells a good emotional/emotive tale, but its the underlying politics I have problem with.I saw it too & thought it was pretty good but not great. He does cherry pick the best in European systems.....making it look like they are a paradise, while ignoring other major problems in those countries. He even admits early on that he'll be "picking the flowers" of the foreign systems. He doesn't go into why the way America does things is so bad, but pointing out that things can be done so much better is a first step. I find it hard to believe that European business owners are all as enlightened & altruistic as he presents them. I missed the anger in his previous stuff.
And he does look physically sick.
Yep, Pilger's films feel more 'grown up'. I was probably a bit too harsh on the Moore film above. It has an entirely decent and worthy account of the public services we all could have. It's just that he's so selective about the countries he visits that it really does get close to dishonesty.I have mixed emotions about Moore..... They're accessible documentaries, but skewed sometimes.
Give me a John Pilger any day of the week.
I saw it too & thought it was pretty good but not great. He does cherry pick the best in European systems.....making it look like they are a paradise, while ignoring other major problems in those countries. He even admits early on that he'll be "picking the flowers" of the foreign systems. He doesn't go into why the way America does things is so bad, but pointing out that things can be done so much better is a first step. I find it hard to believe that European business owners are all as enlightened & altruistic as he presents them. I missed the anger in his previous stuff.
And he does look physically sick.