Mo(o)re Documentary

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:20 pm

Speaking of documentaries...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2 ... 50201.html

...even has a connection to MSU basketball.

Also, how come whenever anyone critiques 9/11 they're always vague? Like the 90% BS vs. 10 OK comment. I'd like to just once hear someone say the exact part of the film they thought was inaccurate.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:24 pm

Dude, I don't have the time to list out every single part of the film that I found to be annoying. That would be like listening to right wing radio for three hours and then having someone ask you what, specifically, you found to be intellectually dishonest. It would be exhausting. I was just being fair with a top-level assessment.

I agree with many of his conclusions, but his methods just don't work with me. I'm not into staged events and "look at me" documentaries. I like documentaries that tell a story in an honest and straight-forward manner. That's not his style at all.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:28 pm

I didn't ask for every single part....just one (dude). No, please, don't start turn into a right wing radio host.

Sticking with the dude theme, I thought the sound was great in 9/11.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:39 pm

Well, the first ten minutes was a complete waste of time -- the rehashing of the 2000 election, complete with newspaper headlines saying that the recount had gone to Gore (it didn't -- the independent recount done after the election by the newpapers had Bush ahead).

The waste of film time showing the staged protest by the Black Caucus (suggesting racism)

The waste of (a lot of) film time showing Republicans getting makeup done and making funny faces getting ready to go on camera.

The waste of film time talking about the Oregon State Troopers (which didn't even make sense).

The waste of film making grandiose claims about the bin Laden/Bush connection (stupid on so many levels, not the least of which being that every major company in America has connections to one of the richest families in the middle east -- the bin ladens)

The staged Mother crying in front of the White House thing (it was staged, and someone even got on film to point that out). What a great photo op.

The silly interviews of Congressmen asking to have their kids sign up for the military (look at me! look at me! I'm controversial!)

I could go on for another twenty minutes as I'm only scratching the surface. I had a hard time getting through the film as it was really boring me and I didn't feel like I was getting anything approaching "truth" out of it, but I gutted it out just to say I did it. I liked Columbine, as I think he was a little closer to actually trying to find answers as opposed to creating his own creative collage of clips to support his own views, but this film was nothing more than preaching to the choir. If it would have been more intellectually honest and focused, it could have done a lot of good. Unfortunately, it was so over-the-top and mean spirited that it had no chance of doing anything more than entertaining those who were already on his side (and many of those didn't even like it).

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:43 pm

Oh, and most obnoxious part was the special features. These are often great on documentary DVD's as they give more background on the subject matter of give follow-ups on certain people in the film. On 911, all it consisted of was people at various premiers and film festivals telling Michael how much they loved his film and how great he was. It was really strange. It just kind of supported the idea that the factual content of the film really wasn't the focus of his attention.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:31 pm

iaafan wrote:Speaking of documentaries...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2 ... 50201.html

...even has a connection to MSU basketball.

Also, how come whenever anyone critiques 9/11 they're always vague? Like the 90% BS vs. 10 OK comment. I'd like to just once hear someone say the exact part of the film they thought was inaccurate.

Didn't we discuss this before. There's a several page thread somewhere on here from last summer, iaa...I believe that thread contains some links to articles explaining the "discrepencies" like you are asking for.

Anyway. I don't know why the detractors mostly speak in general terms. Maybe it's because nobody really wants to discuss the film or Moore........anyMoore.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:58 am

Sorry, Bleedin..I must've been gone then. I just saw the date on the article 2/1/05 and figured it was something new.

As for waste of film, that's your opinion BAC and I appreciate that. I was looking for some factual errors that you, or anyone, might want to point out. Yes, a lot of the film was sensationalized with suggestions, sound and other effects, but it sounds (based on words you used like, gradiose claims, stupid, silly, boring, gutted it out....usually you're less tempermental sounding in your posts) like you had some preconceived notions, had formed an opinion long before you went, and maybe even wanted to see it be a failure. Moore is too rudimentary in nature for me to take him too seriously, but his film does point out a lot of things that most people are not aware of and the simple fact that he can make the film is amazing to many in the middle east and probably has done more to put the US, and our ways, in a positive light than any one thing Bush has done.

No, don't 'waste' your time going on, because you only made one, what I'd call critique, of this film and that was your comment regarding what you call the 'staged' scene. I don't want you to carry on if this is the best you can do.

I'll have to watch that scene again as I've only seen it twice. I remember the scene, but certainly don't recall anyone coming on camera and pointing that out that it was staged. As I recall the woman crying had been in the film earlier with her family talking about her son who had died in Iraq (is this not true). Then in the DC scene she had gone to the White House and I don't think anyone was led to believe that she didn't go with Moore, if that's what you're refering to as staged (Moore may have taken her there to shoot this scene, but I don't think the woman's crying was faked or was induced by Moore). The crying woman is standing in front of a booth (is the booth placed there by Moore to induce the crying?) and talking to the person there. The booth is either anti-war or anti-Bush. Another woman sees the crying woman and comes up to her to say something regarding the booth is BS or something to that affect (is this the person you say is calling the scene staged? If so, why wouldn't Moore simply edit her out of the film?). As I recall the crying woman turned this woman and said something that made this woman stop saying whatever it was she was saying and that gave this viewer the feeling that this woman realized she didn't know what she was talking about. There are a few websites that try to expose these lies, staged scenes, etc. by Moore, but I haven't seen one that talks about this scene. I can agree with anyone that says Moore does make a multitude of suggestions that may not be accurate. But I think he leaves that for the viewer to decide. I don't agree with all his suggestions in the movie, but I've yet to see anyone catch him in a flat lie. I don't consider this work to be a documentary due to the high level of suggestions made by Moore. I think documentaries should just place the facts out there and let the viewer decide. But even those documentaries are dangerous in that they make the viewer believe they are being objective when in reality they aren't. The doc "Waco" is an example of this as it was highly regarded when it came out, but has since drawn quite a bit of criticism from independent critics because it left out several valuable bits of information. If you watch 9/11 as a pure documentary it is a disappointment due to Moore's suggestive ways, if you watch it as entertainment, or as a different angle to view what went on, it is quite a work. Because there is more than one way to look at how the Prznit and his boys are doing there jobs and many people are not aware of all the connections between Bush, Cheyney, Rumsfeld and the world of oil, defense contracts, etc. The film does a good job of revealing this to the public.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:49 am

Alright, this is probably how the world's common man views the relative merits of this thread...

A marine squad was marching north of Basra when they came upon an Iraqi
soldier badly injured and unconscious. Nearby but on the opposite side of
the road was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state.

The Marine was conscious and alert.

As first aid was given to both men, the squad leader anxiously asked
the Marine what had happened.

The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving north along the
highway, and coming south was a heavily armed Iraqi soldier. Seeing each
other we both took cover."

"What happened then?" the corpsman asked. "I yelled to him that
Saddam Hussein was a rotten low life slug, and he yelled back, 'John Kerry, Ted
Kennedy, Bill and Hillary Clinton are miserable slimeballs'."

"We were standing there shaking hands when a truck hit us."

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:49 am

iaafan wrote:Sorry, Bleedin..I must've been gone then. I just saw the date on the article 2/1/05 and figured it was something new.

As for waste of film, that's your opinion BAC and I appreciate that. I was looking for some factual errors that you, or anyone, might want to point out. Yes, a lot of the film was sensationalized with suggestions, sound and other effects, but it sounds (based on words you used like, gradiose claims, stupid, silly, boring, gutted it out....usually you're less tempermental sounding in your posts) like you had some preconceived notions, had formed an opinion long before you went, and maybe even wanted to see it be a failure. Moore is too rudimentary in nature for me to take him too seriously, but his film does point out a lot of things that most people are not aware of and the simple fact that he can make the film is amazing to many in the middle east and probably has done more to put the US, and our ways, in a positive light than any one thing Bush has done.

No, don't 'waste' your time going on, because you only made one, what I'd call critique, of this film and that was your comment regarding what you call the 'staged' scene. I don't want you to carry on if this is the best you can do.

I'll have to watch that scene again as I've only seen it twice. I remember the scene, but certainly don't recall anyone coming on camera and pointing that out that it was staged. As I recall the woman crying had been in the film earlier with her family talking about her son who had died in Iraq (is this not true). Then in the DC scene she had gone to the White House and I don't think anyone was led to believe that she didn't go with Moore, if that's what you're refering to as staged (Moore may have taken her there to shoot this scene, but I don't think the woman's crying was faked or was induced by Moore). The crying woman is standing in front of a booth (is the booth placed there by Moore to induce the crying?) and talking to the person there. The booth is either anti-war or anti-Bush. Another woman sees the crying woman and comes up to her to say something regarding the booth is BS or something to that affect (is this the person you say is calling the scene staged? If so, why wouldn't Moore simply edit her out of the film?). As I recall the crying woman turned this woman and said something that made this woman stop saying whatever it was she was saying and that gave this viewer the feeling that this woman realized she didn't know what she was talking about. There are a few websites that try to expose these lies, staged scenes, etc. by Moore, but I haven't seen one that talks about this scene. I can agree with anyone that says Moore does make a multitude of suggestions that may not be accurate. But I think he leaves that for the viewer to decide. I don't agree with all his suggestions in the movie, but I've yet to see anyone catch him in a flat lie. I don't consider this work to be a documentary due to the high level of suggestions made by Moore. I think documentaries should just place the facts out there and let the viewer decide. But even those documentaries are dangerous in that they make the viewer believe they are being objective when in reality they aren't. The doc "Waco" is an example of this as it was highly regarded when it came out, but has since drawn quite a bit of criticism from independent critics because it left out several valuable bits of information. If you watch 9/11 as a pure documentary it is a disappointment due to Moore's suggestive ways, if you watch it as entertainment, or as a different angle to view what went on, it is quite a work. Because there is more than one way to look at how the Prznit and his boys are doing there jobs and many people are not aware of all the connections between Bush, Cheyney, Rumsfeld and the world of oil, defense contracts, etc. The film does a good job of revealing this to the public.

It sounds like you were viewing it more for entertainment value (although I don't think it is even entertaining, unless one is a died in the wool anti-Republican) and less for substance. I expect substance in documentaries. As such, I was seriously turned off by the film and found it to be a waste of time. I get very tempermental when films waste my time. There are too many good films in the world to waste time on bad ones.

I could go into many specific factual shortcomings, incomplete or nonsensical arguments, and other annoyances, but it would be a further waste of time. Basically, the entire film just seemed to be snippets of disconnected bits of left-wing conspiracies thrown against a wall at random to see what would stick. That titlates some people, but did nothing for me.

I also find it hard to digest his attempts at using humor and sarcasm in one scene and then throw crying mothers at us in the next. The subject matter at the heart of the whole thing is pretty heavy stuff, and I would like to see any film made about it to maintain a level of seriousness.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:47 pm

why are we talking about sombody who would love to create movies that manipulates facts, stories, newspaper headlines...ect just for a buck? To be completely honest I think we should kill this thread - I am plenty sure if u want to watch a lefty documentry there are plenty of others that are completely honest with their claimes, instead of accuseing the binladens of being anti american although most of them attend american unviersities, not to mention confusion which oil company wanted to build which pipline (?)

UMfaninkazoo · Post by **UMfaninkazoo** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:46 am

Michael Moore goes to great lengths to make himself look good.....the guy uses his hometown of Flint and downgrades it (which isn't hard to do if you have ever been there) but never does anything to build it back up.....if he really is a humanitarian wouldn't he want to build it back up so he can be some sort of apostle? He evicts racism talking about how its all blacks in the Army because we take advantage of them.....last I knew the Armed Forces were full of many races...not just blacks.......he throws the Halliburton into the mess......does he mention Halliburton received a contract for Serbia under the Clinton administration? Who else are we going to give it to?......give a contract to BP....a foreign company.....in a documentary you are supposed to be recording the story.....not making the story....for that see Bowling For Columbine.....I guess I am just sick of Michael Moore, the fat neck girl from the Dixie Chicks, Ben Affleck, and P Diddy saying look at us vote Democrat and if you don't you wasted your vote........these guys think because theyb are famous and have clout and maybe because they believe in gay rights and all that stuff that they know whats best for us....these guys say they oppose war......its not that they oppose war its that they are pacifists......people need to think for themselves and make a educated choice instead of following the propoganda machines

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:50 am

UMfaninkazoo wrote:Michael Moore goes to great lengths to make himself look good.....the guy uses his hometown of Flint and downgrades it (which isn't hard to do if you have ever been there) but never does anything to build it back up.....if he really is a humanitarian wouldn't he want to build it back up so he can be some sort of apostle? He evicts racism talking about how its all blacks in the Army because we take advantage of them.....last I knew the Armed Forces were full of many races...not just blacks.......he throws the Halliburton into the mess......does he mention Halliburton received a contract for Serbia under the Clinton administration? Who else are we going to give it to?......give a contract to BP....a foreign company.....in a documentary you are supposed to be recording the story.....not making the story....for that see Bowling For Columbine.....I guess I am just sick of Michael Moore, the fat neck girl from the Dixie Chicks, Ben Affleck, and P Diddy saying look at us vote Democrat and if you don't you wasted your vote........these guys think because theyb are famous and have clout and maybe because they believe in gay rights and all that stuff that they know whats best for us....these guys say they oppose war......its not that they oppose war its that they are pacifists......people need to think for themselves and make a educated choice instead of following the propoganda machines

I couldn't agree more with you last line. Although at the same time, the right wing propoganda is just as vile (and often more so) -- and much more organized. If we all quit ignoring celebrities AND talking heads commissioned by political parties (essentially all of talk radio and other less than intellectually honest outlets of opinion) and thought for ourselves after educating ourselves on the issues, then things would definitely be much better... and likely much more civil.

We seem to have become a culture that thinks that political debate is made up of clever retorts and name calling. This basically just leads to the demonization of people that don't agree with us. When people discuss issues in great depth as opposed to soundbites and half-truths, then we can actually respect the other person's opinion and even learn something in the process.

And I certainly agree that MM isn't a particularly constructive voice in this chorus right now.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:52 pm

BAC: Being someone who is pissed off at the Republican Party, not that I want to be, I'm interested in hearing your general thoughts on the Dems and Reps. The positives/negatives of each party's philosophy and agenda. You seem like someone who might be able to ease my pain. Namely I'd like to hear how the Rep. party isn't just a party for the rich, by the rich that uses morality and tax cut promises to woo middle class voters. I'd really like to be "OK" with the Reps, instead of in a state of constant disgust.

UMfaninkazoo · Post by **UMfaninkazoo** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:03 pm

iaafan....you can go to gop.com and read the Republican oath......I am a Republican and I don't think too many follow the oath and belief of the GOP......one interesting thing I heard a few weeks ago was back before my generation politica was more civil.....I was told that it was planned in 1964 for Goldwater and Kennedy to fly around the country together and debate at different locales......think we would ever see that today?.....another thing about politics that i believe is that they don't work for the common man......politicians work for the special intrests that give them the backing to be where they are....

Mo(o)re Documentary

Mo(o)re Documentary

Re: Mo(o)re Documentary