michael fake it moore

[Zep]

THAT depends on what type of documentary you are trying to make. Moore's piece is CLEARLY edited in a way that implies a pure time-line event. Also, you can't "document" (why are we using quotes?) something that didn't happen. That's called lying.

The film was presented as a documentary. It has won an award as a documentary. I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the falsehoods in it to those who don't think of it as only entertainment. There are people on this very board who thought Moore's cartoon concerning the Klan and the NRA was factual. You say below that Moore was holding up a mirror to his own culture. But a mirror only reflects what is actually there. It doesn't create it's own images.

Last point first. My take on the cartoon history of the KKK and the NRA was that it was meant to be illustrative and amusing only, in exactly the same way as the cartoon characters themselves. At the very least, it came with its own bucket of salt, and even I wasn't dumb enough to accept it as irrefutable fact!

First point: Is strict chronology all that necessary in putting points across where the chronological sequence is not really relevant? I don't think Moore intended that the storyline was to be chronological - the Columbine video was effectively a flashback. Only some sections were in sequence, others obviously were not. I took no exception to the fact they weren't - I was concentrating more on the broader point-by-point arguments (which I have a few gripes with too, btw).

Lying. OK, one example. It was revealed that Moore set up the bank beforehand to give him the gun (there was apparently some additional checking done that wasn't shown in the film, it took a few days instead of minutes, etc). Lying by omission, technically. But Moore's salient point remains in my mind: Doesn't it sound silly/odd that a bank is giving it's customers rifles as a reward for opening an account? Like giving Dracula the keys to the blood-bank? Does no-one see the irony? And does that technical lie really matter in the face of that?

A mirror can be used selectively to show only what it wants to reveal, of course!

 

[Ælfgifu]

Perhaps if you could give us the actual quote?

Well, I could, but I don't own the book. I got it from the library.

Perhaps someone who owns the book could find it? It's at the beginning of the book, one of the first chapters. (A long shot I know.) I think it was about 1/4 of the way down the left hand page.

Have a nice day,
Kelly

 

[Phrost]

Lying. OK, one example. It was revealed that Moore set up the bank beforehand to give him the gun (there was apparently some additional checking done that wasn't shown in the film, it took a few days instead of minutes, etc). Lying by omission, technically. But Moore's salient point remains in my mind: Doesn't it sound silly/odd that a bank is giving it's customers rifles as a reward for opening an account? Like giving Dracula the keys to the blood-bank? Does no-one see the irony? And does that technical lie really matter in the face of that?

Yes, because there is a substantial difference between a bank giving away a gun after a background check, and Moore's implication that anyone could just walk in and get a gun.

That's called dishonesty. Moore has time and time again put integrity aside in order to sell his agenda to people who generally don't spend a lot of time being skeptical about what they see (the American public).

And the fact that such dishonesty is brushed aside demonstrates the character of the individuals who support Moore's agenda.

It's ok to lie to people if you feel it's for their own good, eh?

 

[Darat]

Yes, because there is a substantial difference between a bank giving away a gun after a background check, and Moore's implication that anyone could just walk in and get a gun.

...snip...

I obviously could have mistaken his point. But I got the impression his point was the bank giving as an incentive the gun.

I didn't think he was making any point about being able to walk in off the street and pick up a gun by joining the bank, or that the bank was in anyway acting in an illegal manner pr that no checks were required.

 

[tedly]

The irony of the bank scene is made much more pointed by the next scene where he buys his ammo in the barber shop. Did anyone seriously think there was nothing deeper in these two scenes than the specific details of how these two transactions were carried out?

Moore poses the question of the differing attitudes to firearms, but comparing Canadians to Americans on that simple basis leads to confusion. A Canadian is not an un-armed American with health insurance, she's the one nation in the world that could be American and doesn't want to.

This book Fire and Ice reports on three extensive surveys('92, '96, 00) of Canucks an y'alls, and comes to some very interesting conclusions. The survey at the link places Canadians on a map of American social values. In every age category Canadians come out to the right of and below their American cohort. These differences have increased since '92, but not uniformly in all groups.

The most graphic example, one the author cites frequently is the response to the statement "the father should be master in his own house."

The US deep South has 71% agreement with this statement, falling to 29% in New England. In Canada the range is from 21% in oil and beef country Alberta to 15% in Quebec. Not only does the US have a huge range of response, but no region is very close to the Canadian attitude.

This has been a bit of a ramble i'm afraid, but I wanted to point out that we share a land mass, and an electronic mass media environment, and not much else.

Oh, if the map goes from the origin to 4, I come out at 3.5,-3.5

 

[tedly]

Next, what's wrong with a documentary being propaganda?

The movie "If you Love This Planet" was banned in the US as foreign propaganda. It was made by the NFB in Canada, so it sure counts as foreign. Here's the blurb from my local library.

"This film records a lecture given to American students by outspoken nuclear critic, Dr. Helen Caldicott, U.S. president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Her message is clear: disarmament cannot be postponed. Archival film footage of the bombing of Hiroshima and images of its survivors seven months after the attack heighten the urgency of her message: namely, that unless we shake off our indifference and work to prevent nuclear war, we stand a slim chance of surviving the 20th century."

Any question that this film was not shot in sequence, that cuts and multiple camera angles were used?

And what about 'Triumph of the Will', the documentary that invented just about every cheap advertising trick?

 

[FFed]

There was a thing on Michael Moore the other day on CBC I think it was. I just caught the ass end of it but it was about how Moore is always talking about American jobs leaving the US, yet his very own website is made in Canada.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

How much do you think of Fahrenheit 911 will focus on the UN's Food For Oil scandal and corruption?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

How much do you think of Fahrenheit 911 will focus on the UN's Food For Oil scandal and corruption?

Um... Yeah... Probably not much... Or the massacres in Sudan... Or the deforestation of Brazil... Or the Mars landings...

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Um... Yeah... Probably not much... Or the massacres in Sudan... Or the deforestation of Brazil... Or the Mars landings...

look everyone, its another human-being unwittingly working very hard to achieve the stature of a complete dumbass.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

look everyone, its another human-being unwittingly working very hard to achieve the stature of a complete dumbass.

Not only is that a lousy ad-hom, you haven't said what the oil-for-food scandal has to do with 9/11.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Not only is that a lousy ad-hom, you haven't said what the oil-for-food scandal has to do with 9/11.

Nothing. Just as I thought.

(for those wondering what prompted this remark, NTW has viewed this thread and left again without comment)

 

[JAR]

And what about 'Triumph of the Will', the documentary that invented just about every cheap advertising trick?

Since when is "Triumph of the Will" a respectable documentary?

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Nothing. Just as I thought.

(for those wondering what prompted this remark, NTW has viewed this thread and left again without comment)

I'm not replying because Im incapable of a coherent argument with you, but because you're a complete waste of time to argue with.

you lack cognitive skills and its BORING to even attempt.

 

[JAR]

Next, what's wrong with a documentary being propaganda?

The problem with propaganda is that it appeals more to emotion than to logic. Also, propagandists often lie, mislead, and withhold evidence to get people to think what they want them to think.

I admit, conservatives engage in propaganda too. When you watch Bill O'Reilly or listen to Sean Hannity, your going to be exposed to propaganda. However, I don't think propaganda should be banned, but I do think it's okay to criticize it.

 

[epepke]

The problem with propaganda is that it appeals more to emotion than to logic. Also, propagandists often lie, mislead, and withhold evidence to get people to think what they want them to think.

I admit, conservatives engage in propaganda too. When you watch Bill O'Reilly or listen to Sean Hannity, your going to be exposed to propaganda. However, I don't think propaganda should be banned, but I do think it's okay to criticize it.

Furthermore, whether people decide that something is propaganda or not is based on whether they agree with it. The ads for Christian Children's Fund, the anti-smoking ads, the "AIDS awareness" pamphlets, etc. are clearly propaganda but are seldom called such because people don't generally disagree.

The problems with emotional appeal and the dangers thereof even apply to causes which are generally good. In the 1980's, there were a large number of HIV infections from the blood supply, which was partially due to the CDC's policy of declaring blood to be safe. Now, even though the blood supply is much better, all hospitals are far more reluctant to give blood. The CDC also has a policy of never letting on that latex condoms break, on the rather specious ground that people won't use them. This has delayed and sometimes stopped the availability of much superior polyurethane condoms in the US. I think that EZ-On, which is the best I've found, is still unavailable in the US, even though it's made in California. You can get them in Europe, though.

 

[Zep]

look everyone, its another human-being unwittingly working very hard to achieve the stature of a complete dumbass.

{points at NTW...}

 

[Zep]

The problem with propaganda is that it appeals more to emotion than to logic. Also, propagandists often lie, mislead, and withhold evidence to get people to think what they want them to think.

I admit, conservatives engage in propaganda too. When you watch Bill O'Reilly or listen to Sean Hannity, your going to be exposed to propaganda. However, I don't think propaganda should be banned, but I do think it's okay to criticize it.

I would change the word "often" to "sometimes". And I think you are totally right - it is an appeal to emotion. In Moore's case on the subject of guns, he is trying to appeal to the emotions of sympathy and caring (and even to ridiculousness), instead of to those usually associated with guns: fear and testosterone. It makes an ironic comparison that has certainly jarred some people.

"Triumph of the Will" is considered a classic piece of propaganda, not just for the film production values but also the content. There was nothing in it that was actually "false data" - it captured accurately certain people and events (and they didn't even use CGI). However it was the way that they were protrayed that made the effect on people. It is indeed a respectable piece of film, and it is also great propaganda. At the time, it was as influential like presidential re-election TV campaigns are today. Looking back, it documents the beginning of modern personality advertising.

Besides, there's always more than one way of looking at a single factoid. For example, depending on the intention of the writer, a headline could read "Jesus Walks On Water!", or instead it could read "Jesus Can't Swim!"

 

[Questioninggeller]

Yes, because there is a substantial difference between a bank giving away a gun after a background check, and Moore's implication that anyone could just walk in and get a gun.

That's called dishonesty. Moore has time and time again put integrity aside in order to sell his agenda to people who generally don't spend a lot of time being skeptical about what they see (the American public).

And the fact that such dishonesty is brushed aside demonstrates the character of the individuals who support Moore's agenda.

It's ok to lie to people if you feel it's for their own good, eh?

The teller at the bank said in the film he has to undergo a background check. I don't know what you're referring to by claiming Moore's implied "anyone could... get a gun." Moore showed that anyone who can pass the background check and register for a band account at THAT bank gets a gun free. I guess you didn't see the humor in a bank handing out a weapon. We didn't see him deposit money in the bank account nor did we see the teller go run his ID to clear him, but it was stated in the film directly.