yep. pretty much. "reality fiction".
The true "reality fiction" is this administration's rhetoric about WMDs in Iraq and the Saddam-Al Qaida connection.
Quote:Its true what Moore does is simply imbellish the truth to make what he says look true. He rarely says anything completely flase because it would make everything he said questionable. He just tries to stir things up and make things go his way.
Yup, Just like the rest of us............it's easier to see it in others than to see it in ourselves.
Huh, Lola, I think there are matters of degrees in this - we are not "all the same" in such matters. Some are considerably more conscientious/anal (circle which of the two you prefer applying) than others.
The 'well we all do something like that' trick is a classic one used to obscure distinctions in whatever apologetic argument. But it is important to keep a perspective to place things in comparatively. Not every liberal columnist plays as loose with facts as Moore, even if they do all apply a political slant. Not every right-wing radio commentator is as outrageous as Rush Limbaugh, even if all of them express partisan views of some sort. To brush aside the differences in this philosophical, 'well, thats what everybody does in some way or other' kind of way is a bit of an affront to those that do scrupulously try to avoid cheap populism and convenient truth-bending, even if that means skipping an easy score now and then.
Gregg Easterbrook at TNR:
Quote:Bowling for Columbine [..] includes many staged scenes and outright fabrications. A few examples: Moore declares that the United States government was funding the Taliban in 2000 and 2001; but the figures he cites turn out to be humanitarian aid donations made to the United Nations, earmarked for hunger relief in Afghanistan. [snip]
What's disturbing about Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 is that both are classic propaganda. Events are shown out of order, suggesting conspiracy by confusing audiences about the sequence of events; events are shown out of context, edited to create an appearance differing from actual events; scenes of horror are intermixed with scenes of normalcy, suggesting all is horror; viewers are given no way of knowing what is fact, what is opinion, and what is made up.
By the way, did you know that James Madison once attended a secret meeting? Did you know that George W. Bush has quoted James Madison, and that the indexes of several books contain both the names Bush and Osama bin Laden, and that Saudi sources have awarded billions of dollars in contracts, and that Saudi financial dealings have been the subject of investigations, and that a subsidiary of a company a Bush family member once held stock in did business with another company that had an office in Saudi Arabia, and that George W. Bush has never denied these links between him, billions of dollars of Saudi payments, and secret meetings with James Madison? That's a sample of the kind of thinking in Fahrenheit 9/11.
I'm reluctant to put any credibility into some blogger's so-called research. Nine boys from my school which mean when Moore knew them. This person is nitpicking semantics and coming up with statistics that are incorrect. He's doing what the accuses Moore of doing. It's being done everyday. This isn't the point, of course, because despite nitpicking at the movie it has a direction and power than is unmistakable and has reached 80M in box office to match the 80% favorable critical response. I can do the same thing -- pick at trivialities to try and disprove the total impact of the film. If you haven't actually seen the film, incidentally, this is obvious borrowing of opinion from sites that do not have but a tiny percentage of the resources Moore has to fact check.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
Lola wrote:Quote:Its true what Moore does is simply imbellish the truth to make what he says look true. He rarely says anything completely flase because it would make everything he said questionable. He just tries to stir things up and make things go his way.
Yup, Just like the rest of us............it's easier to see it in others than to see it in ourselves.
Right, Lola -- it's done here on a daily basis. Sewing together facts to try and prove a premise or opinion. It rarely works because the seamtress is working on the bias.
Micheal Moore is an idiot. I think that about covers it. His existence is the first sign of our celebrity-driven culture taking a flying leap over the edge of some proverbial cliff.
Moore might think you are an idiot. Now you're even.
rufio wrote:Micheal Moore is an idiot. I think that about covers it. His existence is the first sign of our celebrity-driven culture taking a flying leap over the edge of some proverbial cliff.
lightwizard wrote:Moore might think you are an idiot. Now you're even.
Be careful rufio, LW is the President of the A2K Michael Moore Fan Club. Dis Moore and you'll have LW to answer to.
So sorry but I'm not anybody's "fan." He made a great film and it's getting the critical and financial reward it deserves. Not much different than many films that are produced each years and a long list of films that I would say the same thing about in the past. If you haven't seen the film, you're just bullshitting.
Lightwizard wrote:So sorry but I'm not anybody's "fan." He made a great film and it's getting the critical and financial reward it deserves. Not much different than many films that are produced each years and a long list of films that I would say the same thing about in the past. If you haven't seen the film, you're just bullshitting.
Thou protests too much.
What does my seeing the film have to do with my assessment of your devotion to Moore? I could easily link to a half dozen postings of yours where you break into the flow of the thread to report the latest box office reciepts for his film. The proof is in the posting puddin LW.
Which in itself is an utter non-argument.
Someone reports that Moore in his movie(s) lied about x and y; LW comes in and says, well, but it has reached 80M in box office! Nonsequitur.
Not a long time ago, 70% of the US population believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11. That didnt make it any more true either. A call to the authority of the masses in no way refutes any allegation.
Anyway. LW is - justifiably - suspicious of some blogger's claims.
What about Newsweek?
This article summarises some of the same and some other critical questions, but with much more detailed explanations about them. It does so in a way that is indeed a bit of a relief compared to the putdown-riddled blogger writings - but is therefore all the more convincing a refutal of Moore's purported case. And the points just keep on coming ...
Thats the risk of bending the truth too much for your propaganda - you can end up discrediting your own case. The writers here put it as almost a tragic case: by going overboard in riddling his movie with innuendo, Moore himself spoils what otherwise would be a great movie.
I assume you haven't read Moore rebuttal to Mr. Isikoff.
No, I don't protesteth too much. The Moore bashers protesteth too much from an irrational fear.
Summarilly dismissing the film as "reality fiction" and that Moore is an idiot without having seen the film is what is ridiculous. The mentality of those who review a film and all they have is "it's a piece of crap" has a lower IQ thirty points lower than GWB.
I suggest if you are going to review a film that you actually see it, not go by borrowed opinion and then do you own research, not rely on then highly questionable prattle going around the Internet. Do you also listen to rumors about you friends and take them to the letter? Isikoff saw the film and like every good journalist messed up some details.
This is a movie not the Gospel and even that can be disputed. Moore invites other opinions not some trivia gotcha game.
Lightwizard wrote:Summarilly dismissing the film as "reality fiction" and that Moore is an idiot without having seen the film is what is ridiculous.
Are you aware that Moore has published films and books before Fahrenheit 911, and that they provide at least some basis for answering the question au1929 asked in the title of his thread? If your answer is yes, this opens the theoretical possibility that some people have not seen Fahrenheit 911, are not idiots, but nevertheless do have an opinion about Moore. Whether you wish to consider this possibility is, of course, up to you.
Opinion should be based on experience not some blog raving on the Internet. I doubt that many of the people on these boards including those who want to throw out attacks like calling him an idiot haven't read those books or seen those films either. As it is now, this film is markedly superior to any previous efforts and he is more methodical in this film. If a writer, filmmaker or any artist doesn't grow in his chosen medium he might as well give up.
BTW, Moore never once calls Bush an idiot. Bush is quite content in displaying that himself.
LW, before you saw the film you had an opinion on it. And immediately after seeing it you segued into chiding anyone who had a negative (never chiding those with a positive) opinion of it if they hadn't seen it.
Lightwizard wrote:
BTW, Moore never once calls Bush an idiot. Bush is quite content in displaying that himself.
Moore on November 9, 2003 at the London Palladium:
"[b]Bush is an idiot[/b] - what's Blair's excuse? What did Bush promise him, a gas station in Iraq?"
Anyone know the term for someone who gets messages from God. Someone who believes he is never wrong even when the evidence proves him to be? I have seen people like that preaching on street corners.
