Michael Moore, Hero or Rogue

I just got back from watching the movie.

It's powerful and well done in terms of cinematography. Moore was able to find little things (like putting on makeup) to use to make people look really bad. Implications abound and are powefully orchestrated.

In terms of propaganda this was a pretty good showing, and I only fault it on a propaganda level for playing too much to the choir at times. For example, in the intro it leads with Fox News being the ones who announced Bush's election victory and all. Well, the people who dislike Fox News are the choir, and he sometimes preached too much to the choir. This would reduce its effect as propaganda.

But evaluating it for integrity makes me really sad.

One thing that really bothers me is that Moore does exactly what he faults the administration for by pandering to the fears and phobias of the stupid masses.

He goes on and on about how this administration has done so, but the whole beginning of the film where he uses all the footage of Arabs is exactly the same thing.

Those Arabs are Bin Laden's enemies for the most part. Nearly every single Arab in there has nothing whatsoever to do with the terror.

He was trying to make a guilt by association case but all he did was play on ignorant fears.

He might as well have stated "Bush's families have shook hands with RAG HEADS!" because that was the LCD that Moore was pandering to. Ignorant masses who think that the mere fact that Bush has shook hands with people wearing turbans and the like is supposed to be a knock against him.

He's pandering to the racist lowest common denominator there and that's pathetic.

He goes on to forward other ignorant stereotypes like when he ridicules the "Coalition of the willing" portraying them as backwards. On the whole he's really big on stereotyping in the film but some of them are things that are odd.

I mean, I expect him to do the Bush = cowboy stereotype but trying to associate some of the nations in the coalition with primates (literally) and donkeys and make them look backward is a low way to make a point.

Good film, well done, but I think you have to be daft or inordinately partisan to really enjoy it and to ignore the ignorant ploys he uses at times. There are some really poignant parts, but if one wants political capital for it one would have to hope that only fools go to see it.

The ploys he uses in the film are an insult to intelligence and should be an affront to liberals who care about more than scoring cheap shots for their side.

I can agree to an extent to much of what you have written, Crave. He does try to communicate on an elemental level and that's construed as treating his audience as dull-headed. I don't really believe that he believes that. He often plays the Devil's Advocate with great glee and you can't short the guy for having a good time making his movies. Your work is suppose to be enjoyable. If it isn't, I'd sure consider another career.

I disagree about cheap shots or any racism or xenophobia in the film and do not know how you could have possibly interpreted it in that way. To each his own.

So what was the point of ridiculing the smaller nations in the coalition and showing imagery of monkeys and relics of beackward times?

What was the point about the fact that Bush has shook hands with people wearing a rag on their head?

This isn't suble LW, it's obvious.

His desire to demean the coalittion's cool, I don't think much of it myself.

The monkey references were idiotic.

Showing a strong tie between Bush and family to Arab oil's fine (if, IMO, not relevant to 9/11) but the collage of photos was, in the overwhelming majority, just handshakes with Arab world leaders.

Moore tried to make out that it was sinister and in doing so he went to great lengths to paint Arabs on the whole as being associated with the danger.

He tried to make all the Arabs shaking Bush's hand seem sinister.

He was pandering to the lowest common denominator, and playing of the racism of those who see an Arab in Arab attire and equate it with terror.

He was trying to make Bush look like he was in bed with terror merely by showing him associating with Arabs and to do so you need the underlying racist prejudice that lumps them all together.

If you didn't see it that's cool. I suspect you didn't want to as it was neither subtle nor nuanced and occupied a significant portion of the film.

That is the kind of humor found every day on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. In fact, Moore characterized the film months ago as a comedy. There is certainly no politically induced comedy that isn't at someone's expense and I think you're taking it too seriously. No, he not trying to make it look like Bush is literally in bed with terrorists -- you have a very active imagination and extrapolating is fun but in the end inconsequential to the total effect of the film.

If you don't believe there is nothing sinister about the Bush administration, that's your take. Others may disagree.

It's a moving political cartoon based on, just like political cartoons, a series of carefully researched documents, created documents and the folly of politicians.

I would add here, it is most definitely not being promoted as a comedy.

I feel he should be called upon to refer to it as something other than a documentary, as some of his points are inferred to be facts, yet have been disproven.

Could the reference to the movie as a documentary open him to lawsuits on the disproven allegations?

Who knows what the execs at Lion's Gate are thinking in their promotion of the film. I think they likely believe they would scare many people away by characterizing the film as a satiric comedy.

What are these "facts" that have been disproven? There are none in my estimation.

I don't see anyone filing lawsuits. Could it be they don't want to be dragged into court only to have to dine that evening on a plate of crow?

Sip, sip.

What humor? The whole Arab thing in the beginning wasn't funny or even meant to be. And that others do stupid things as well is no justification.



So? That doesn't mean his idiocy is justified. "Comedy" and "humor" aren't wildcard redemptions.



I call bullshit, your objection is that I don't take it favorably enough, not that I don';t take it seriously. If I "seriously liked" it you'd have no complaint.

At least be true to yourself.



Actually he was, he spent a good deal of the film focusing on the circumstantial relation between Bush and terrorists.

He did it like this:

Osama is a Asudi, Bin Ladens were allowed to leave, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and here is a parade of images of Bush shaking Saudi's hands.

Sure, he didn't explicitly state that Bush is in bed with terrorists but he spent a good deal of the film implying as much.

If you do not think he did so simply explain what his point was for that segment then. You will be unable to do so and it's not because of a dearth of imagination but denial.



I said nothing of the sort, take back your straw man. I said that Moore uses idiotic, dishonest and deceitful ploys. Kinda like straw men.

(Don't rain on my parade 'cause I might squirt you back, but I promise it will be merlot so open wide and wear a raincoat.)

This is an absurd argument. I'll go back and watch it again with a note pad if you want and come back here to refute several claims in the film that are incorrect in no uncertain terms.

Hint:

Just because there are no lawsuits does not mean there are no lies.

Watch:

I have a testicle the size of a bean bag.

This is untrue, I have said it countless times. There has never been a lawsuit.

No lawsuit true

Heck from memory I can name at least one idiotic "fact" that the film has wrong.

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

If all you plan to do is make snide witless remarks and straw men I have no problem with you trying to "squirt" back. It will speak more about you than me.

You're writing that Moore is trying to characterize Bush and Co. as being sinister in some way -- the only strawman just blew alway in the wind. And it's a hurricane 'cause the film is by huge proportions the most successful documentary of all time. Can't take that away from Moore even if you believe he was mean spirited or at least without shame. His curmudgeonly cynicism does overdose here and there but that's a minor quibble.

My, my, you are in a seriously bad mood today.

LW, you need wit to make innanity like this pass for an adequate response.

It doesn't fly.

You just issued a bold naked lie.

You created a straw man. I fault Moore for his misleading tactics and you come back with the lame strawman of "If you don't believe there is nothing sinister about the Bush administration, that's your take. Others may disagree."

I think this Administration is one of the worst in American history. My criticisms of Moore's idiocy and your starry eyed defense of them have nothing whatsoever to do with my feelings on Bush.

This was a straw man of your creation.

Now you may think it's particularly witty to issue nonsensical gibberish and claim a straw man in return but it's a falsehood.

You issued a straw man and no this gibberish that passes for wit isn't going to serve as an adequate defense of your lying.

Not at all, I'm in fine spirits and the weather in San Diego is great.

Now this is just another snide witless comment of yours in lieu of something substatative.

This isn't a bad mood, this is great fun. Though I am disappointed to see you reduced to witless quips again.

Quote:

He tried to make all the Arabs shaking Bush's hand seem sinister.


It is sinister. Just like giving contracts gratis to Halliburton, having financial family connections to the Saudis, pandering to the Saudis...anything else?

You can call them witless quips if you like. I won't condescend to you're taking them so seriously either. You should have known me long enough to know when I'm baiting you. Okay, I apologize for the jibes but only if you take yours back.

Why is shaking an Arab's hand sinister?




Anything more than what? You are better off with the witless quips LW.

The Haliburton relationships with the military pre-date this administration LW. The contract was signed in the Clinton administration.

Get your facts right before bringing them to the table. Again, you were safer with witless quips.

What is sinister about having financial connections (of a very circumstantial nature) with Saudis? This isn't a slick edited propaganda fest so make sure you have your facts straight (or at least reduce yourself to the quips).

What "pandering to the Saudis" are you talking about? We might actually find common ground there, but I suspect you are just throwing that out and dont really ahve anything substantial on this either.

BTW, except the merlot squirtting which was directed at Sofia, not you.

Take what back? Everything I said I stand behind.