Michael Moore, Hero or Rogue

Craven, I don't come onto the boards to instruct. I can only assume you've done your homework and know many of the details about the Bushes and the Saudis. The handshake was symbolic but I think you are over-interpreting it's purpose. It's a detail piled onto detail which, in their parts, do not have a lot of impact. It's adding it all up with what one goes out and researches for themselves. The everyday citizen and/or voter (we should hope...) doesn't do this research and Moore can't do it all but he can inspire someone to want to know more. I assume some will come away from the movie who are politiclally illiterate and will remain that way, perhaps even taking the film as verbatim. Nothing anyone can do about that.

0 Replies

As Moore has repeatedly said about his opinions offered in the film, "I may be right and I may be wrong." I also may be wrong about my interpretation of the film and, by the same token, you may be wrong. It's our own personal interpretion based on our education and experience.

0 Replies

Quote:

Nothing anyone can do about that.

But there is! They can, for example, not make a film for the lowest common denominator (the illiterate) and not demonize the upstanding Saudis (as opposed to the ones who try to kill us) to score points against Bush.

There's nothing you are I can do, except to hold this film to the standards we each wish to see.

For me, I think it was a low, and when the conservatives start making films like this you'll think so too (but about theirs).

This is like the Rush Limbaughs. And political illiteracy isn't a justification for it (although I admit to a perverse desire that it actually helps Bush lose the election).

0 Replies

So did you like the film or hate it? Not sure now. If it insulted your intellect, you have my sincere regards for your sensitivity.

0 Replies

And I guess myself, my niece who graduated with honors from USC and other relatives, my friends who are all professionals are the lowest common denominator.

0 Replies

And I guess that the over 80% of film critics are the lowest common denominator. Those illiterate film critics, one of which has a Pulizer in journalism and gave the film a rave review.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

So did you like the film or hate it? Not sure now. If it insulted your intellect, you have my sincere regards for your sensitivity.

I liked it. The cinematography was sound, some of the anecdotes were powerful.

I liked the second half more than the first. The story of the mother who used to hate peace protesters was powerful and poignant.

There was a lot of imagery that I liked. As a film it was interesting.

As for the politics I think it represents the case against Bush and the war in Iraq poorly. And because I do not support Bush and the war in Iraq I wish it did not do so.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

It asserted that Saudi Arabia owns around 6% of the USA, this is bullshit.

I don't remember him saying it in quite that way, and I didn't even remember this part until you mentioned it, but didn't he get that from taking what a Congressman (a democrat, of course) said were the amount of investments the Saudi's have made, and then comparing it to the total economy of the U.S.?

0 Replies

Having seen the film today, I consider MM a hero because, he has the balls to go up against the powerful, the fortitude to stand up to the criticism and a belief that the public needs to see op-ed opinion. He also backed up the charges he made in the film with real, unadulterated documentation.

I urge everyone to see it. No matter what your political leanings are. And if you won't/can't see it, please don't discuss it. I've spent the past few hours talking about the film with family members who haven't seen it, but 'know' what it's about and have formed an opinion based on nothing. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Here's some dated info on Saudi investments in the US. http://www.lebanonwire.com/0208/02082002TGR.asp

0 Replies

Okay, I see your passion, Crave. I disagree that the films doesn't have political clout -- the people on these boards do not represent the common denominator (well, for the most part). Get thee to Yahoo chat for that.

I don't believe that is quoted correctly that there was an assertion by Moore or anyone else that the Saudi's owned 6% of the U.S. I'd have to see the film again but if you think you have a point, I'd certainly follow through on finding out what was stated and if it can be backed up. I believe he had three or more fact checkers even checking the interviewees. If you are getting any quotes from the movie off the Internet, believe me there are a lot of distortions of what was actually said in the film on the Internet. It would be worthy of researching for oneself instead of following all the blathering about "this is wrong" and "this is a lie," etc. which is obviously partisanship from the other side.
They are all obviously engaging in ad hominem attack on Moore starting with over 400,000 that he is fat. Well, duh.

0 Replies

Does anyone watch Tavis Smiley? He had likely the best interview with Moore yet on PBS.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I don't remember him saying it in quite that way

He actually went so far as to say more than that.

Quote:

didn't he get that from taking what a Congressman (a democrat, of course) said were the amount of investments the Saudi's have made, and then comparing it to the total economy of the U.S.?

Nope, it was misleading. Somebody (didn't catch who) made gave a false figure ("about 800 billion") for how much the "Saudis" have invested in the US, then they compared it to one singular exchange (again, using a figure that is not accurate, though I do not remember the figure) to then assert that the Saudi's "own 6% of the US".

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Okay, I see your passion, Crave. I disagree that the films doesn't have political clout -- the people on these boards do not represent the common denominator (well, for the most part). Get thee to Yahoo chat for that.

I took special care to include "inordinately partisan" as well as "daft" and "lowest common denominator".

Many here wouldn't be the dumb lot but certainly might qualify for the inordinately partisan criteria.

Quote:

I don't believe that is quoted correctly that there was an assertion by Moore or anyone else that the Saudi's owned 6% of the U.S.

In the film there were so many things that I wished I had a pen and paper.

That is something that he or someone in the film did actually state. If my memory is correct first someone else stated it, then he went on to state it.

Quote:

If you are getting any quotes from the movie off the Internet, believe me there are a lot of distortions of what was actually said in the film on the Internet.

At the time I posted I'd just walked out of the movie. I've not seen anything on the net about it except on A2K.

0 Replies

It would make sense to me that the Saudis had invested that much in America. All the money they get for oil funnels right back out of the country to foriegn markets, and we've sure given them a lot of it.

And at an economy at around 11 trillion dollars (a quote I got to day off of Faux News) 800 billion would be right around..... 6%.

You can say that doesn't equal 'ownership' but if I had 8 out of every 110 shares of stock, I'd certainly say I owned 6% of whatever I was investing in. I realize the situation is a little different but it is not a strech to say so, IMHO.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Re 'rags on heads', I must say that I didn't even consider previous to Craven saying it that there was anything racist about the sequences. I still don't see it that way, but rather as an attempt to portray connections between the oil rich of Arab countries (particularly Saudi Arabia) and the oil people of Texas. Financial interests where they may constitute a conflict of interest are quite relevant subjects of study, though as Krugman and others point out, Moore insinuates rather than proves. Of course, there's the problem of trying to get the information necessary to prove many such assertions, as in the Cheney refusal to make the Energy Commission details public.

As to further racism or cultural supeiority portrayed in the coalition partners bit, again Craven has come away with a reading unique to him (I've not seen mention of it elsewhere). That doesn't make it wrong, but the subjectivity of that understanding makes it difficult to argue against.

Here again, I saw something different...namely, the attempt to show that the 'coalition' was a PR move and an attempt to cover up the (increasingly noted and increasingly unpopular) neoconservative strategy of unilateral prememptive war. Moore wasn't suggesting that such places were primitive, but rather that they had absolutely no significant contribution to make other than one more name on a list.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

We're really in the minority on A2K of some pretty smart people (yes, including those ideologically left and right). The majority of people I know as friends, business colleagues and relatives are embarrasingly dumb about American politics and social issues. Are Europeans any better? I don't know -- that is one of Moore's generalizations that is difficult to interpret. He's got more 'splainin to do. I still do not believe he is anything but supportive of the American ideal and it may not be what each one of us view as the ideal.

Just watch Jay Leno's street interviews and panels on The Tonight Show. Unfortunately, that represents more of the American public than we'd like to admit. It is manifested in the low voter turnout each election which has shrank rarther than increased.

Do you really think that Leno would get laughs showing the people who get his questions right?

If you believe that Leno's street bits are representative of the average Americans, it is no wonder you buy Moore.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

America is exceptional but not always correct in its course. Otherwise, there would have been no Civil War, no segregation (no slavery in the first place, for that matter) no Vietnam war, no incarceration of the Japanese, no pull out from Lebanon, no attempted assassination killing many innocent people of a Lebonese Muslim cleric, no loosening of airport security to save corporate money, and on and on. There's negative and positive in all governments but hopefully ours is self-correcting and we'll see if that happens in November.

Is there a nation on earth or in it's history that is no guilty of similar sins?

If you require perfection before you will grant an exceptionally positive status, you will be waiting a long long time.

0 Replies

I think it goes something like, you'll be waiting until hell freezes over. Wink

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

As to further racism or cultural supeiority portrayed in the coalition partners bit, again Craven has come away with a reading unique to him (I've not seen mention of it elsewhere). That doesn't make it wrong, but the subjectivity of that understanding makes it difficult to argue against.

Dear god the denial is hilarious.

Ok, forget the Arab scare part and skip to where he mocks the "coalition of the willing".

How about the monkeys? Do you remember that scene?

Writing off whole nations as primitive just to demean the coalition?

This isn't vague stuff, and no I didn't say his scenes were racist but that they pandered to the racism.

Americans like to believe that poor nations are primitive. Moore played on that and portrayed three nations as backwards with an insipid mokey element for one of them.

If you think this is an "alternative" interpretation that's cool. I'll remind you of this when you call the exact same thing racism when some conservative spouts something similar in the future. You'll be in the middle of tsk tsking someone who demonstrates a similar disregard for certain cultures and I'll remind you how you should treat it more subjectively. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Michael Moore, Hero or Rogue

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know