Has Michael Moore become a full blown Truther?

[ConspiRaider]

So if a documentary wins awards, that means it's factual? Because there's nothing remotely political about the Oscars, right? C'mon, ConspiRaider, you work in that place. You of all people should know that the Academy Awards are about politics and mass appeal, and nothing more.

I mean, look at the 2001 Oscars. A year of people complaining about racial discrimination, and not enough black people winning the awards, and hey presto, in 2001 "Best Actor" and "Best Actress" go to two crap performances by black actors, both of whom have previously been ignored for far superior performances.

The reality is, for every film that wins an Oscar in a given year, a dozen films are made that same year that are far superior in the given category, and don't even get considered for a nomination.

-Gumboot

Gum, I'm not obsessing on the factuality of Moore's films, you are. That's because they are exceedingly easy to evaluate. Moore's got a palette of ten million facts from which to choose, and he selects several dozen here and there and splashes them up on his canvas. To create a portrait according to his eye, his liking. Then he says: "Here it is, everybody!" Some like it, some hate it. Some won't ever know about it, or if they do, won't even look at it.

The Oscars are exactly like every single award system I've ever seen. You can see the same pattern right here at JREF, with the TLA Award. Sometimes awards are issued for politics, or favoritism, or to make a statement, or because of vigorous campaigning. And sometimes - an award is issued because the recipient actually deserves it, based upon the criteria laid down in the selection and voting.

The Academy Awards are hit or miss, just as they all are. Within a year's Awards, you'll find some recipients that truly deserved their statuettes, and others who stole them or bought them. I remember when Spielberg kept getting shut out at the Oscars. The reason? He didn't play the Hollywood game, the schmoozing, the inner sanctum stuff, all that nonsense. Remember how The Color Purple was shut out? Sometimes Hollywood punishes an actor or actress for another's actions. Audrey Hepburn comes to mind, with My Fair Lady. She wasn't even nominated for her astounding performance in the Eliza Doolittle role. That's nearly criminal. And why? Because although she did her own singing in the pic initially, it was decided to get someone to overdub most of it - someone with just a bit of a better voice. Marni Nixon fit the bill. But the Academy took it out on Hepburn, and punished her with a shutout for the Oscar.

On the other hand, when I saw Raging Bull, I believe I would have led an armed revolution into Malibu if Robert DeNiro didn't get Best Actor. My regiment got to stand down, fortunately.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I am interested to see Sicko myself. Especially after some of the praise from his biggest critics. Unlike the LC guys, Moore has done good stuff in the past so I still take each documentary as it comes. As opposed to the LC camp where probability dictates it will be a waste of time. The only fear is not knowing in advance what I am paying for. I don't want to pay to be deceived like in the last two films, but I have no problem paying to be enlightened or even entertained such as with Roger and Me or Canadian Bacon.

I geuss for the first time I will listen to the reviews. This won't be like the situation where your friend comes in to tell you that MI III was a bad movie and the response is "You had to watch it to figure that out?"

 

[gumboot]

That, Gum, is because you don't live here. You're perched over there in New Zealand and making judgments about American politics based on - surfing the Net?

No, based on a lot of interaction with lots of Americans. Certainly, I claim no expertise in the matter,

And actually you DO care about the US political spectrum because you do a helluva lot of commenting on it.

No I don't. I seldom comment on it at all. In fact I try to avoid it. Which is hard because Americans are far more political, and tend to make everything political. This thread, for example, is not about politics. That didn't stop you and Ron sending it in that direction.

Your posts - easy for anyone to see - indicate your leanings towards the right wing.

Care to cite some evidence to support this contention? From what I can gather I'm centre left. Were I an American, I certainly would never even consider voting Republican. Although I don't think I'd been keen on the Democrats either.

That you are evaluating Americans as pathetically biased left or right?

Well, I wouldn't use the term "pathetically biased", I was just using your phrase.

Again, an indication that you don't live here, don't have that in-country feel and experience for a more accurate assessment. Because mostly - Americans are moderate. We're not defined as a nation of extremes. We're middle of the roaders, mostly. I, for example, am just a bit to the left of center.

Ron thinks I'm really a rabid left-winger (as in communistic or socialistic), but he's wrong. I'm more of a centrist than anything, leaning just a bit left.

But herein lies the problem. What I see repeatedly, from Americans, is they label moderates on the other side of the spectrum as extremists on the other side of the spectrum. And what I also see is that Americans repeatedly think those on the other side of the spectrum think they are extremists. When I saw "left right bias is comical" what I mean is, I see a whole bunch of moderates accusing each other of being extremists, and accusing each other of accusing each other of being extremists. It's truly strange.

And the reason why hackles are raised more now in America is because of the Iraq War. Controversial wars will tend to do that. And why not? Those are MY taxes being sunk into the sand pit over there. Those are MY neighbors getting turned into red mist over there. That's MY nephew that I have to sit down and discuss what may happen to him if he joins the U.S. Army.

Fair enough. This thread is not about politics. It's about Michael Moore and his films. Instead of addressing genuine issues I've raised with the factual content in his films, you've gone off on rants about politics. Why?

I don't want to discuss American politics. If I did, I'd be posting in the politics subforum. I don't for a reason.

I'm here to discuss filmmaking. It's my passion. It's my job. It's something that interested me a great deal.

By the way, topping off some key political issues:

1. I'm pro gun control
2. I'm anti religion
3. I'm pro choice
4. I'm pro free education
5. I'm pro minimal government involvement in business
6. I'm anti monopolies
7. I'm pro a work-tested social welfare state
8. I'm anti republican (in the NZ sense, not the US sense)
9. I'm pro arts (surprise!)
10. I'm pro conservation
11. I'm pro international cooperation (UN etc)
12. I'm pro tough sentencing
13. I'm anti smoking in public
14. I think governments should own infrastructure, but private companies should operate it
15. I'm anti unilateral military action
16. I'm anti oppression, discrimination, etc.
17. I'm pro the rule of law
18. I'm anti terrorism
19. I'm anti close ties with nations that offer economic advantages but have poor human rights records etc...
20. I'm pro graded tax rates
21. I'm pro law and order
22. I'm anti isolationist
23. I'm pro free expression
24. I'm pro military
25. I'm pro free healthcare

What does that make me?

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Gum, I'm not obsessing on the factuality of Moore's films, you are. That's because they are exceedingly easy to evaluate. Moore's got a palette of ten million facts from which to choose, and he selects several dozen here and there and splashes them up on his canvas. To create a portrait according to his eye, his liking. Then he says: "Here it is, everybody!" Some like it, some hate it. Some won't ever know about it, or if they do, won't even look at it.

You're still talking about bias, and not presenting all the facts. I'm fine with that. All documentary filmmakers do it. You can't not do it. But whatever facts are presented should be true.

You might think all of his facts are true. That's fine. That's what the discussion is about. Please don't strawman me though.

I remember when Spielberg kept getting shut out at the Oscars. The reason? He didn't play the Hollywood game, the schmoozing, the inner sanctum stuff, all that nonsense. Remember how The Color Purple was shut out?

IIRC it all started because Verna Fields got an Oscar for cutting Jaws, and was widely lauded for "saving the disaster of a film" when she'd cut exactly to Spielberg's edit, thus he felt he had been snubbed. He wasn't afraid to express his displeasure, and the powers in Hollywood didn't take kindly to a 29 year old telling them what was what. Hollywood felt threated by the wave of New Hollywood filmmakers who were real filmmakers instead of politicians and businessmen/women.

On the other hand, when I saw Raging Bull, I believe I would have led an armed revolution into Malibu if Robert DeNiro didn't get Best Actor. My regiment got to stand down, fortunately.

I never liked Bull but DeNiro was indeed fantastic in it.

-Gumboot

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Sorry any press I've heard about the donation is how the guy from Moorewatch.com figured it out was Moore, and when Moore was confronted he admited it. Is it actually in "Sicko"? Can anyone confirm/deny this?

confirmed

 

[Hyperviolet]

A blast from the past. The left's Big Lie lives on.

There weren't any "WMD lies." The Downing Street Memo may have been super-Viagra to far-left internet wankers, but it was ignored everywhere else for good reason.

A bi-partisan Senate investigating committee concluded that no pressure had been applied to intelligence-gathering services to shape their conclusions.

And why would the Bush administration apply such pressure. Bush was hurt more than anyone by the intelligence failures. I keep asking, with no hope of ever getting a coherent answer, why he would craft a lie that was guaranteed to be exposed. Politicians generally try to win elections, not squander big leads.

Wait. When Donald Rumsfeld claimed that "We know that Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction".... he was telling the truth?!? I personally thought he was misleading the country (and into a war for that matter)

Wow. Maybe they should get them, they have been gettin a lot of heat over this.

 

[JimBenArm]

Wow, a thread about Michael Moore, and it got all political. Who woulda thunk it?

Gumboot, I tend to agree with your assessment of American politics. This is why it aggravates me no end to see these threads turn political. Next thing you know, rational people you like and respect are acting like baboons and flinging poo at each other, usually over the most trivial things, such as Michael Moore.

Well, said my piece. Probably get a couple of nasty replies over it, but I don't care. Someone will probably get overwrought, say mean and spiteful things, refuse to apologize, and someone will get kicked off. Yet again. Will this make me eligible for the million?

 

[332nd]

So if a documentary wins awards, that means it's factual? Because there's nothing remotely political about the Oscars, right? C'mon, ConspiRaider, you work in that place. You of all people should know that the Academy Awards are about politics and mass appeal, and nothing more.

I mean, look at the 2001 Oscars. A year of people complaining about racial discrimination, and not enough black people winning the awards, and hey presto, in 2001 "Best Actor" and "Best Actress" go to two crap performances by black actors, both of whom have previously been ignored for far superior performances.

The reality is, for every film that wins an Oscar in a given year, a dozen films are made that same year that are far superior in the given category, and don't even get considered for a nomination.

-Gumboot

Sweet Zombie Platypus of New Zealand! Thank you!!! I was the only Black person in my Grad class and only the professors could figure out why I was mad at the fact that they won for those roles! I mean... Auuuuugh! And then there was Tab telling ME congratulations like I'm gonna get partial credit for them winning! "Oh thanks Tab! I talked to Denzel and Halle last night and their each gonna send me right foot from their statues!"

And Conspiri I came very close to leading a revolt when Jamie Foxx won out over Don Cheadle. Jamie was great yeah but Cmon!!!!!!

Pant, pant,pant.... Sorry... Pant, pant... Rant over.

 

[WildCat]

National Opinion Research Center at Chicago University

To keep up the pedantic angle, there's the University of Chicago, Chicago State University, the University of Illinois at Chicago... but no Chicago University!

 

[David Wong]

Wait. When Donald Rumsfeld claimed that "We know that Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction".... he was telling the truth?!? I personally thought he was misleading the country (and into a war for that matter)

Wow. Maybe they should get them, they have been gettin a lot of heat over this.

...And what about when John Kerry said the exact same thing?

Maybe they were all working from the same bad info? Or is it only a lie when a Republican says it?

 

[Corsair 115]

It's not just about the voice over. Film is a visual medium. An audience member is informed more by the visual information than voice over. And what is happening visually in the cartoon?

The little KKK characters take off their hoods and become NRA characters. That's pretty clear.

On the other hand, how many folks are going to take seriously an animated segment with a style quite similar to that used in South Park?

 

[gumboot]

On the other hand, how many folks are going to take seriously an animated segment with a style quite similar to that used in South Park?

Quite a few. Are you saying most audience members would immediately dismiss any information presented in the cartoon as non factual, because it's a cartoon?

Incidentally it was the similarity to South Park that got Moore blown up in Team America: World Police.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

...And what about when John Kerry said the exact same thing?

Maybe they were all working from the same bad info? Or is it only a lie when a Republican says it?

No, see, the ebil Republicans knew (of course) that it wasn't true, and they lied. But then they told the good wholesome Democrats the lie, and the good wholesome Democrats took the ebil Republicans at their word, so when they repeated the same remarks they really meant it.

-Gumboot

 

[Hyperviolet]

...And what about when John Kerry said the exact same thing?

Maybe they were all working from the same bad info? Or is it only a lie when a Republican says it?

No, the difference is John Kerry took the position that he believed his President and his administration who stated that they "knew" Saddam had WMDs. Obviously, they did not know.... because there were none.

Though, i see what your trying to do.... and i'll cut you off early. I'm more right wing than left wing. I dont like John Kerry, and i never liked Bill Clinton either.
So please don't paint the all too typical picture that i'm only criticising the WMDS fraud because i'm a bleeding heart liberal.

 

[Hyperviolet]

No, see, the ebil Republicans knew (of course) that it wasn't true, and they lied. But then they told the good wholesome Democrats the lie, and the good wholesome Democrats took the ebil Republicans at their word, so when they repeated the same remarks they really meant it.

-Gumboot

Nice try.

Though i don't support the Democrats. I just don't like blatant lies that pull in a country into a war.

First it was
WMD's! He's got em

Once that was found to be totally bunk. It became
Operation Iraqi Freedom, haha yeah sure.

 

[gumboot]

Nice try.

Though i don't support the Democrats. I just don't like blatant lies that pull in a country into a war.

First it was
WMD's! He's got em

Once that was found to be totally bunk. It became
Operation Iraqi Freedom, haha yeah sure.

Aw c'mon now, I was being silly.

-Gumboot

 

[JimBenArm]

Aw c'mon now, I was being silly.

-Gumboot

No, you can't be silly! This is politics, man! It's all serious, and people are going to all be shipped off to Guantanamo, have their testicles zapped with tasers! If you're female, they're going to graft testicles onto you, just so they can zap them!
If you're on the wrong side of this issue, you're evil! Not just wrong, EVIL!

Now, what were we talking about? Kinda lost track...

 

[Hyperviolet]

Aw c'mon now, I was being silly.

-Gumboot

Sorry Gums!

It can be hard sometimes to pick up on the persons tone on ye olde interwebs.

 

[pomeroo]

That, Gum, is because you don't live here. You're perched over there in New Zealand and making judgments about American politics based on - surfing the Net?

And actually you DO care about the US political spectrum because you do a helluva lot of commenting on it. Your posts - easy for anyone to see - indicate your leanings towards the right wing.

That you are evaluating Americans as pathetically biased left or right? Again, an indication that you don't live here, don't have that in-country feel and experience for a more accurate assessment. Because mostly - Americans are moderate. We're not defined as a nation of extremes. We're middle of the roaders, mostly. I, for example, am just a bit to the left of center.

If you're picturing an analog clock, just the top half, with 9 being as left and 3 being as right as one can go: Most Americans are going to be shading the 12 up top, a bit on either side. I'd be about 3 or 4 minutes BEFORE the 12. Ron - he'd be 12 or 13 minutes AFTER the 12. Almost on the big 3. Ron thinks I'm really a rabid left-winger (as in communistic or socialistic), but he's wrong. I'm more of a centrist than anything, leaning just a bit left.

My problem with you is that I like you, but I can't figure out where you're coming from. You say things like, the right controls the media in this country. I mean, liberals like Evan Thomas are embarrassed by the pronounced left bias of the media. Several pundits who are themselves not conservatives have acknowledged that the mainstream media have gone well beyond bias into outright partisanship.

And the reason why hackles are raised more now in America is because of the Iraq War. Controversial wars will tend to do that. And why not? Those are MY taxes being sunk into the sand pit over there. Those are MY neighbors getting turned into red mist over there. That's MY nephew that I have to sit down and discuss what may happen to him if he joins the U.S. Army.

I don't approve of Bush's handling of Iraq. But why won't you tell us what every Democrat running for President carefully avoids telling us: What Should We Do Now?

Al Qaeda understands that the establishment of a democratic Iraq spells doom for its vision. The jihadists are fighting for their very existence. You can pretend that America's surrender in Iraq in Iraq is a personal defeat for Bush and Cheney, but the jihadists won't be fooled. They will know that they have defeated America. Why should I be pleased with that outcome?

Should Iran be permitted to build nuclear weapons? How should we stop them?

Let's forget the twaddle about Bush being a criminal and tell us what policies we should follow.

 

[pomeroo]

No, the difference is John Kerry took the position that he believed his President and his administration who stated that they "knew" Saddam had WMDs. Obviously, they did not know.... because there were none.

Though, i see what your trying to do.... and i'll cut you off early. I'm more right wing than left wing. I dont like John Kerry, and i never liked Bill Clinton either.
So please don't paint the all too typical picture that i'm only criticising the WMDS fraud because i'm a bleeding heart liberal.

Try to understand that it is inconceivable that Bush crafted a lie that was certain to be exposed and cause him great damage. Whatever else he has done wrong in Iraq, he most certainly expected to find WMD. Liars tell lies to benefit themselves, and they don't think they'll get caught.