Michael Moore & the documentary

[Earthborn]

Geez, it's so subtle that I missed it and it was right in front of me.

Yes, the difference between "getting your kids to enlist" and "enlisting your kids" is a subtle, but makes the difference between something possible and something impossible.

 

[Number Six]

No, I meant that at first I thought the quote exonerated MM but upon examination it doesn't. What he actually says is to send the kids there, which of course they can't do. He wants to point out hypocrisy but he's doing it in a way that makes people look bad not because they're exhibiting hypocrisy but rather because MM is good at manipulating words and images.

Those guys are relatively obscure congressmen though so it doesn't matter much. When he does stuff like that to the Presdient or cabinet officials he just drives people away, even some that are inclined to dislike the administration. People don't like symbols they value being ridiculed even if it is deserved in some instances. It reminds me of the Piss Christ art.

All that said, I do think there is sometimes truth to the old adage of "The truth will set you free but first it will piss you off." But although that is true sometimes, it doesn't mean every time you piss someone off in an effort to enlighten them, they'll end up enlightened.

 

[jimtron]

Have you ever watched Bowling for Columbine? Every section of the movie with Heston in it was to make him look bad.

Specifically, what did Moore do to make Heston look bad?

I don't see any reason for that other than to make them look bad.

Of course he was trying to make them look bad; the question is, did he do it unfairly? When conservative columnists right about liberals, they try to make them look bad, and vice versa. That's OK, unless you lie or distort the truth. Of course Moore has an agenda he's trying to get across--in the case of Sicko, that our health care system sucks, even though it's the most expensive, and the insurance companies are making a lot of money, and Hillary Clinton is in bed with them, etc. That's his agenda. Earlier I asked for examples, in reply to another post, of Moore making people look bad for no other reason than shock value. I don't think his goal is to gratuitously shock people, his goal is to express his views on Bush, health care, guns in America, GM and Flint, etc.

Also there was a clip of W riding on a golf cart with the Go-Go's "Vacation" playing, implying he wasn't doing nothing but vacationing even though I strongly suspect that even on vacation Presidents have work to do.

And IIRC Moore pointed out that Bush took more vacation days than most presidents, or something like that. So what? So he's making fun of Bush. This sounds like something Jon Stewart would do. Isn't his main point correct, that Bush is an ineffective president?

Then there was the member of Congress who MM asked, and I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like "If you're for the war then why don't you enlist your son?" The guy was flabbergasted and speechless and it made him look foolish as if he was trying to avoid enlisting his son when instead I suspect that guy was speechless because the question simply didn't make any sense (since a person can't enlist their son and only can enlist themself).

I think that's a fair question. No one has to answer Moore's questions if they don't want to. I think it's perfectly fair to ask our elected officials hard questions, and if they get caught off guard, or can't answer them well, tough. They should be held accountable. (Dems as well as Repubs)

Yes, he makes people look bad, although that isn't necessarily a terrible thing per se, but when you make certain people look bad at certain times in certain ways then you're only going piss people off rather than persuade them.

But that's how docs work. You have to make decisions about who you shoot, and what gets left in the film. Doc filmmakers usually shoot thousands of hours of footage and in the end only 2 hours are left. If you tried to make a political film that didn't piss off some people it probably wouldn't be very effective.

I can't remember exactly what it was...

There's been a lot of this on this thread lately. It would help a lot if people would use specific quotes when criticizing Moore, instead of vague memories or speculations about movies they haven't seen. Please feel free to point out why you don't like Moore, but do it with specific sources, otherwise it's pretty pointless.

Geez, it's so subtle that I missed it and it was right in front of me. The quote says "Oh, well, see, there's not that many Congressmen that've got kids over there, and in fact, only one. So we just thought maybe you guys should send your kids there first. What do you think about that idea?" How can congress (or anyone) send their kids over there? People can enlist themselves but not their kids. Here is text from a longer exchange.

Is that not a fair question? I agree it's a bit of a prankish stunt, but I really think it's a fair question. If lawmakers are going to send our children to war, why shouldn't we ask them why they don't send their children? If they have a good reason, then they can tell Moore what that reason is.

 

[Number Six]

The government can send the military to war but you can't force someone to join the military. Asking someone to send his kid to Iraq when the kid isn't even in the military is non-sensical.

And it doesn't make sense to chide someone for saying "I can't remember exactly what it was..." when right after that they the post exactly what it was.

And yeah, documentaries do what documentaries do, but the point of them is often to persuade and I don't think MM does much of that because of how he tries to persuade.

 

[ChristineR]

I have been trying very hard to remember the name of a documentary I watched about the rise of violent crimes among girls. Like jesus camp, the movie just showed what happened, they followed a few violent girls around for a few years and talked to them about their lives.

Although not documentary films, shows with a documentary style that are about political topics that do a better job than moore are everywhere. There are countless shows addressing the prison system and life within it that are accurate. there are many films addressing the futility of the war on drugs that are pretty accurate.

The biggest difference to me between micheal moore and other people making a less than accurate documentary is that moore seems to deliberatley try to make other people look bad for no other reason than shock value, and continually asserts he is right even after people have caught him.

and yeah i do think micheal moore hates america is better than MM's films as far as being truthful goes. from the title i expected to be amused by some neo con propaganda bs film but was pleasantly suprised by the film. they do address the idea of bias in films and how easy it is to fall into doing it, the film maker does it once and admits it and talks about it instead of simply reshooting footage or editing. I like that they get the reaction of people who were used in mm's films and gave the NRA a chance to defend themselves.



I think that implying kkk and the nra are connected and saying that white people moved to suburbs with firearms because they are racist is a pretty outrageous claim to make.




oh i would say he does.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[/LEFT]
[/LIST]

ok that happened
​

[/LIST]

he never notes that this speech was made a year after columbine in a different state in response to getting a handmade musket as a gift. he makes it seem as though it is somehow connected to columbine, which you can see by the next narration:
​

[/LIST]

Moore never notes that the NRA was not able to cancel the meeting due to a law about gatherings that large. He never notes that the meeting was scheduled way before the columbine incident ever happened. He never notes that the majority of the nra events at the meeting were cancelled out of respect for the families of the victims.

​

[/LIST]

this is again edited together from different things, and cuts out the part about cancelling most of the events. absolutely shameful.​

[/INDENT]

Moore addresses this site's claims on his website and has his own version of events. I'm not qualified to judge between them, but I think it just proves the point that while Moore will pick and choose from the details to make his point, he generally does not actually lie.

 

[jimtron]

The government can send the military to war but you can't force someone to join the military. Asking someone to send his kid to Iraq when the kid isn't even in the military is non-sensical.

Is it unfair to ask a legislator who voted for the war, why he doesn't send his kids? If his/her kids aren't in the military, they could sign up. And again, they're free to say, "Michael, my kids aren't going to Iraq because..." I don't see why it's an unfair question.

eta: In my view our elected officials aren't taken to task as often as they should be. I wish they were asked hard questions more often.

 

[Policenaut]

Specifically, what did Moore do to make Heston look bad?

How about editing together different speeches of his to make it look like one and editing a speech of his by using cutaway shots? Is this something a documentary should do? Perish the thought of Moore showing anything objectively but here he manufactures truth by creating a speech that didn't exist.

 

[Number Six]

k
Is it unfair to ask a legislator who voted for the war, why he doesn't send his kids? If his/her kids aren't in the military, they could sign up. And again, they're free to say, "Michael, my kids aren't going to Iraq because..." I don't see why it's an unfair question.

Yes, it is unfair. The reason is that you can't send adult kids anywhere. They're adults and free to do as they wish. If they take a certain job then they're subject to their bosses in that job. So if the job they pick is being in the military then they're subject to being sent to fight somewhere. But at that point it's not a matter of anyones parents sending anyones children but rather the decision makers of the military telling the military what to do.

Telling someone to send their adult child somewhere makes no sense because it assumes that person has the authority to make decisions for the adult child.

The different point of people in power using their position to make others do the dirty work while protecting their own is a good one to make but my problem is that that's not the one MM makes.

 

[jimtron]

Yes, it is unfair. The reason is that you can't send adult kids anywhere. They're adults and free to do as they wish. If they take a certain job then they're subject to their bosses in that job.

It's unfair for Moore to ask the question? Why is that unfair? Why didn't the guy just say, "I don't send my kids to the Iraq War because they're free to whatever they want, and they don't want to go to Iraq." I really don't think it's an unfair question.

 

[Number Six]

It's unfair for Moore to ask the question? Why is that unfair? Why didn't the guy just say, "I don't send my kids to the Iraq War because they're free to whatever they want, and they don't want to go to Iraq." I really don't think it's an unfair question.

Okay, it's not unfair, rather it was nonsensical. And that was probably why the guy didn't answer...he was perplexed and speechless because somebody asked him a nonsensical question and whereas he was expecting a question that made sense. Maybe it's unfair to publicly ask someone nonsensical questions or maybe not.

But the message to the viewer was "This guy is sending your kids but he won't send his kids." Which makes the guy look bad, even though it shouldn't because he can't send his kids and he can't even send your kids, rather he can vote to fund the military to do whatever it does regardless of who is in it

I agree with you that the congressman should have answered exactly as you said and I suspect he would have if he wasn't surprised by the question. If he had it would have highlighted how he wasn't being the silly one in the conversation but rather MM was. But if he had it would've just ended up on the cutting room floor. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if some other congressmen did answer that way and as a result weren't included in the movie.

And that's the point...MM interviews people to make them look bad and then he puts the ones that look bad in the movie. That's not wrong per se...that's what movie makers and social commentators or activists do sometimes. But doing that is one thing and imagining how the viewing audience will take it is another. When it's an obscure congressman it doesn't matter so much but when it's the US President, any US President, you have to be careful of what you do. When you take the biggest tragedy in US history and imply that the US President, any US President, was too shocked or scared or whatever to do anything about it other than sit and read books with 1st graders then you're alienating a big part of your audience.

 

[jimtron]

Okay, it's not unfair, rather it was nonsensical.

I don't think it's nonsensical. An elected official votes for a war, which will require Americans to fight and risk their lives for. I think it makes sense to say, "you're asking Americans to put their life on the line. Is your kid going?" It's provocative, but not nonsensical.

That's not wrong per se...that's what movie makers and social commentators or activists do sometimes.

Exactly. If you're writing a column about how Clinton is a lying womanizer, you're likely to dwell on the Lewinsky and similar scandals, and probably go light on his positive accomplishments. If you're trying to argument a point, you're going to focus on the facts that support your point, and not spend much time on the facts that don't help your case. Moore is not a news reporter, he's a filmmaker with a strong point of view.

But the message to the viewer was "This guy is sending your kids but he won't send his kids." Which makes the guy look bad, even though it shouldn't because he can't send his kids and he can't even send your kids, rather he can vote to fund the military to do whatever it does regardless of who is in it

Again, the guy could have responded and pointed out that the question was flawed, or whatever. If you're an elected official, you better be articulate and able to handle tough questions--that's an important part of your job. He was asked a tough question, and if he ended up looking bad (in your opinion), I say that's his own fault for not answering the question better. Cheney and Bush might look bad too if asked why they didn't fight during the Vietnam War.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if some other congressmen did answer that way and as a result weren't included in the movie.

So what? That's what happens when you edit thousands of hours of film to 2 hours. You're not going to dwell on the scenes that don't support your point. I think when people watch a Moore movie, they realize they are getting his point of view; the POV of a very opinionated guy.

 

[Unabogie]

ok beyond the obvious conclusion that moore doesnt run around saying 'my film is biased and deceptive'( and by not saying so he is lying by omission- many things he says are not accidentally deceptive but done on purpose). heres some proof.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601211.html



he also has the infant mortality rate on his sicko fact sheet, the misuse of the statistic has already been addressed in this thread.


about f 9/11:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-07-04



the description of the film on his website also says its about moore 'uncovering the facts'.

bowling for columbine:

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_08_31_archive.html

You're changing your position. You claimed that Moore claims to be "unbiased" which is different than claiming to not be a liar. Please cite evidence that Moore claims to be "unbiased".

 

[The Painter]

what's your point? Let's say that Sicko is not a box-office success -what's your point?

My point? More people like Penguins then Michael Moore.

 

[jimtron]

My point? More people like Penguins then Michael Moore.

Right on. Care to post something on topic?

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think it's nonsensical. An elected official votes for a war, which will require Americans to fight and risk their lives for. I think it makes sense to say, "you're asking Americans to put their life on the line. Is your kid going?" It's provocative, but not nonsensical.

It is nonsensical, because the decision is never the parent's. In an all-volunteer military (which we have), nobody (not a senator's child and not a welfare mother's child) is in a position to get sent to war unless they agreed to be in a position to get sent to war. The choice is the child's (although, really, we're talking about adults here), and it should be treated as their choice, not as the choice of their parent.

 

[jimtron]

It is nonsensical, because the decision is never the parent's.

Did Moore say that it was the parent's decision? Does anyone have an exact quote from the movie?

The choice is the child's (although, really, we're talking about adults here), and it should be treated as their choice, not as the choice of their parent.

I agree. But I still don't see how it's nonsensical to ask the congressman if his children are going to Iraq. And even if it was nonsensical (which it wasn't), why didn't the guy just say, "you asked me a ridiculous question, so I won't answer." Or, as I said before, he could have said, "my kids are free to do as they want, and they don't want to fight in Iraq."

Shouldn't an elected U.S. official be articulate and sharp enough to answer tough questions?

 

[Ziggurat]

Did Moore say that it was the parent's decision?

I never claimed he did. But the question of whether or not someone's children are serving in the military has no real significance absent that assumption. I have no doubt Moore knows that's not the case, but I also know cheap rhetorical ploys when I see them.

And even if it was nonsensical (which it wasn't), why didn't the guy just say, "you asked me a ridiculous question, so I won't answer."

No idea. But his failure to answer in a satisfactory manner doesn't exactly improve the quality of the question.

Shouldn't an elected U.S. official be articulate and sharp enough to answer tough questions?

It would be nice. But some people really aren't good at thinking on their feet, on camera, even if they're quite smart.

 

[jimtron]

But the question of whether or not someone's children are serving in the military has no real significance absent that assumption.

Not true. I think it's significant to ask a lawmaker who voted for the war, if his child is serving. It's not a nonsensical question.

No idea. But his failure to answer in a satisfactory manner doesn't exactly improve the quality of the question.

I agree that the response didn't improve the quality of the question. My point is that the question was reasonable, and not nonsensical.

It would be nice. But some people really aren't good at thinking on their feet, on camera, even if they're quite smart.

True, and if they are an elected official, and end up looking bad because they didn't think on their feet--it's their fault that they look bad, not Moore's.

eta: If Bill Kristol or David Brooks or George Will ask Hillary Clinton a tough, provocative question, and she ends up responding in a way that makes her look bad--whose fault is that? Maybe they could ask her why Chelsea didn't go to Iraq--I think that's a fair question.

 

[Unabogie]

I never claimed he did. But the question of whether or not someone's children are serving in the military has no real significance absent that assumption. I have no doubt Moore knows that's not the case, but I also know cheap rhetorical ploys when I see them.

It may be a rhetorical ploy, but it isn't cheap. It helped to illustrate the larger point that Moore made later in the movie, which was that Army recruiters tend to avoid affluent kids and target poorer kids, so you end up with a war being fought by poor people's kids, or illegal immigrants, etc.

The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert use this device all the time, and it's just using comedy (setting up an absurd situation) to illustrate a point. Last night on TDS, they were interviewing a guy who was protesting translators at hospitals. The guy was claiming that a sick person could point to his chest to show he was having chest pains. TDS guy was nodding in agreement the whole time, before finally asking him what the sign was for "I'm allergic to penicillin".

Was it edited? Perhaps. Was it "unfair"? Perhaps. Was it powerful? Yes.

Argument absurdum has its place, and Moore just creates the film version of that.

 

[Unabogie]

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml

Scroll down to "English Burier".

Funny stuff