Flatted 5th--Sozobe's post on page 3 of this discussion lists several of Moore's lies and deliberate distortions in COLUMBINE. Go read it, something you should have done already.
When I say that Moore barely scratched the surface of gun violence I'm referring to the fact that his movie doesn't include any blacks or Hispanics, who make up a disproportionate number of those who commit crimes of gun violence and those who are victimized by such crimes. I guess they live too far away from Moore's $2 million dollar Manhattan apartment for him to notice them.
You asked how I would react if Marcel Ophuls had made COLUMBINE. You obviously have never seen an Ophuls documentary. Ophuls is temperamentally incapable of the cheap shots and sophomoric humor that Moore fobs off on his audience. Ophuls is an artist. Moore is a blowhard.
0 Replies
larry richette
1
Reply
Wed 2 Apr, 2003 11:35 pm
Do I have to add that the man who so pompously denounced our "fictitious times" at the Oscars is quite capable of fictionalizing the truth when it suits his purposes? Moore doesn't make documentaries, he makes liberal agit-prop.
0 Replies
ossobuco
1
Reply
Mon 7 Apr, 2003 07:29 pm
Hello, late again. I agree with the points Larry Richette has made here, but one, and that is the sniping about GWLightwizard's spelling. I think that takes away from the otherwise perspicacious views Larry put forth.
I have read a lot of Vidal, some of Chomsky, and Kinsley, and am glad they are all out there writing. I have a friend who knows Vidal personally and from that friend know he isn't just a guy with nice houses, although I knew that already.
On the Oscars...first of all, that was my first tv watching in a long time. I don't turn it on for months at a time, but the movies were my family's business some time ago and I still watch credits in the theater and read reviews.
My business partner generally agrees with Michael Moore but was appalled that he made that scene. I don't feel that way. I was more sorry he didn't handle it more persuasively. And also sorry that they virtually gave him the old hook.
Adrian Brody (who lurched and tackled the lovely presenter) did make a dramatically well done and apparently meant speech...and he was treated well.
(I still wonder what would have happened if the lady slapped him, or acted otherwise annoyed). Sorry, that is a bit of a red herring, but I don't think except for a kind of classy smoothness of Adrian that either were perfect on stage.
I don't know myself about Moore's fudgy aspects, but wouldn't be surprised. I also agree that in the long run, that kind of fudging isn't useful, assuming the links bear this out.
I did hear he gave virtually the same speech the night before, so find the church thing for the morning of the oscars unpleasant.
0 Replies
larry richette
1
Reply
Mon 7 Apr, 2003 09:24 pm
Ossobuco, what does your friend who knows Vidal say about him? I ask because he is a particular favorite of mine, a hero in fact--I have read all of his books and went to the same boarding school he did, Exeter. Some weeks back I started a Vidal thread on the Books forum entitled "America's Greatest man of Letters"--which I think he is.
0 Replies
BillyFalcon
1
Reply
Mon 7 Apr, 2003 11:00 pm
Larry. I find fhe comparison of Moore with Limabaugh odious.
Let me explain why. When Chelsea Clinton was in the White House, I saw a Linbaugh say "Clinton says they have no dog in the White House. (Here, an inset screen showed a picture of the awkward looking 13-year-old chelsea)
Linbaugh rolled his eyes as if looking at the inset and said "oh, no?" It was one of the most intentionally hurtful things I have seen.
Disheveled, ex-factory worker, mock rube, Michael Moore has more class than Limbaugh could muster in ten lifetimes. Moore takes on powerful people
he believes are doing wrong , not thirteen year old girls.
What's the difference the Hindenberg and Rush Limbaugh? One is a Nazi
gas- filled air bag and the other is a dirigible.
0 Replies
larry richette
1
Reply
Tue 8 Apr, 2003 09:42 am
Limbaugh and Moore are both demagogues who deal in factoids, not facts. The reality is that you probably agree with Moore's point of view which blinds you to how intellectually dishonest he is. See Sozobe's post on page 3 of this thread for a partial list of Moore's lies and distortions, and then come tell me why Moore is so virtuous.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Tue 8 Apr, 2003 09:45 am
This article is very pertinent, especially on the Moore-Limbaugh thing:
Precisely, Sozobe. Moore is an entertainer not an educator. And America doesn't need more entertainment in 2003, it desperately needs more facts, more truth, more EDUCATION. And Moore isn't even a particularly good entertainer, when you come right down to it.
Exhibit B in this supposed backlash is the morality tale of the Oscars. In its unvaried retelling, this was a pristinely decorous night until Michael Moore came along. Not content to keep with the down-low program of political activism typified by Susan Sarandon flashing a pro forma peace sign and Barbra Streisand congratulating the nation for having the First Amendment, he crashed and burned with his shouts of "Shame on you, Mr. Bush!"
Well, there were boos. But the filmmaker was not hearing them. "When you look at the tape, no one is booing on the main floor," Mr. Moore said when I caught up with him nearly a week later in New York. He attributes the ruckus largely to a shouting match that broke out between scattered booers and his own partisans. But he is not only unrepentant about calling Mr. Bush a fictitious president, he is busy toting up his subsequent good fortune. Box office for "Bowling for Columbine," already the longest-running commercial movie in current release and the highest-grossing documentary in history, was up by more than 100 percent on the Monday after Oscar night. His book "Stupid White Men," already the largest nonfiction best seller of 2002, is reclaiming the No. 1 slot on the Times best-seller list today.
To Mr. Moore, the "virtual insanity" he has provoked in "the Bill O'Reillys and others" on the right is an indication that he, unlike many of his fellow showbiz antiwar protesters, has actually drawn blood. That's a shock to the conservative system. Liberals have been so lame in battling on the mass media's turf that Democratic fat cats in February ponied up $10 million to finance a talk-show radio network that will field hosts to counter Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Yet Mr. Moore, without a talk show, may be just the lethal heat-seeking show-business weapon they have been looking for. It's telling that conservatives who deride him as a big, fat idiot sound as worried about Mr. Moore as liberals were about Mr. Limbaugh when he began his rise to superstardom.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Tue 8 Apr, 2003 01:25 pm
ossobucco: That's okay -- I was likely subconsciously trying to place a crown on Michael Kinsley's head. I suppose we could use an editor around here to blue pencil everything we write, sending us all back to make corrections (oh, this isn't going to be published in the New York Times -- you could have fooled me).
Moore is obviously trying to communicate to the average person while not caring one whit if he impresses or doesn't impress the intelligensia. He's a boxer with smarts and you either are entertained by him or not. Simple as that. Nothing is going to change what he's all about, especially our musings on A2K.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Tue 8 Apr, 2003 01:42 pm
Flatted 5th, yes, I saw that. Good article, I recommend it.
0 Replies
larry richette
1
Reply
Tue 8 Apr, 2003 08:33 pm
It may be that nothing is going to change fat, loud, sloppy Michael Molore's shtick but that doesn't mean I have to approve of it. I especially resent it because I agree with him on the issues but don't want HIM speaking for me. If I want a spokesman I'll take Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal or anyone, anyone, who thinks before he opens his mouth--something Michael Moore seems incapable of doing. Incidentally, when I was leading protests against Mr. Clinton's war in Kosovo and getting surveilled by the FBI for my trouble, where was Michael Moore? Invisible. There was no glory in protesting THAT war, it was popular with the liberal crowd at THE NATION magazine, so Moore was MIA while American bombers destroyed Belgrade and bombed the Chinese Embassy, dropping depleted uranium (radioactive) all over Serbia. So you'll understand why I don't take Moore seriously as a leftist.
0 Replies
larry richette
1
Reply
Tue 8 Apr, 2003 08:45 pm
What made me think of Kosovo is that in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE Moore makes a big point of connecting the war to the shootings in Littleton (both were happening on the same day), showing footage of the US bombings...funny how Moore's big mouth was utterly silent while the actual war was going on, though, isn't it?
0 Replies
BillyFalcon
1
Reply
Tue 8 Apr, 2003 09:18 pm
Larry. There is one crucial difference between Limbaugh and Moore.
Moore sees the rich and powerful doing something he considers wrong and he takes them on. Limbaugh is a grovelling toady to the rich and powerful.
What is wrong with this country is the politeness with which the liberals
treat the worst of their political opponents. From Rumsfeld to Limbaugh, the liberals endure venomous accusations. Being fair to these scurrilous bastards is like playing fair to an attacking pit bull. Playing fair, being moral, honest and using facts instead of emotional arguements are sure fire ways to lose elections. You need an informed public and opponents who acknowledge your right to dissent and propose without having your loyalty questioned.
I think it is safe to say we have neither.
You know that phrase used by members of the Bush administration: "You're either with us or your against us." Well, is it too indelicate to point out that that was the position of the Nazi party in Germany? Why didn't the liberal guns say so? Say it! Hell. Shout it. Talk about it. Bring it up at every oportunity. Get 'em on the defensive. Add that the SS had as its motto "Loyalty is mine honour."
0 Replies
larry richette
1
Reply
Wed 9 Apr, 2003 08:30 am
You can't beat fascists by employing fascist tactics. They will always beat you at their own game. You may be too young to remember the Reagan era, but that is what happened then. Michael Moore vulgarizes and debases the public discourse instead of elevating it--he plays into the hands of the right wing.
0 Replies
CaptainNoblock
1
Reply
Wed 9 Apr, 2003 10:56 am
Michal Moore - Right or Wrong ???
How about "Michael Moore - Ass Clown"
If you don't like what's going on with our leader, the door to the country closes pretty fast, don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out...
0 Replies
Booman
1
Reply
Wed 9 Apr, 2003 11:54 am
WECOME CAPTAINNOBLOCK!
...Ju-u-st to make sure, I'm reading this right; your position is that if a person disagrees with the presidents policies, he should leave, or be deported, is that right?
0 Replies
BillyFalcon
1
Reply
Wed 9 Apr, 2003 05:15 pm
My postings regarding Moore are a bit disengenous. I'm about 50% in agreement with you. But 50% in disagreement. I agree that it is wrong to use the scurrilous methods of the Limbaughs, but I don't see any victories following the noble path. Hardly profound, but "nice guys finish last."
Please clarify for me, however briefly, the use of fascist tactics in the Reagan era.
0 Replies
larry richette
1
Reply
Wed 9 Apr, 2003 09:06 pm
During the Reagan era, the nuclear freeze movement engaged in the exact same kind of oversimplifications and black-and-white thinking that Reagan and his supporters did. Their tactics ended up discrediting the peace movement with a lot of people who otherwise disliked what Reagan was doing with his arms buildup against the Soviets. Perhaps the term "fascist tactics" was a bit of a stretch but I'm sure you see my point.
Victories? What victories is Michael Moore winning except for his own bloated ego? Is he changing the viewpoint of even one committed NRA member? Is he lobbying Congress or the states to get gun laws passed? I see no victories coming out of Moore's cheap demagoguery for anyone except Michael Moore. He is using progressive causes to make himself famous. Period.
0 Replies
BillyFalcon
1
Reply
Fri 11 Apr, 2003 03:40 pm
My last posting said "but I don't see any "victories . . ."
It should have read "but I don't see any "elections"
More on Moore:
I think liberals are too polite, too considerate, too fair, too concerned with integrity. Sure, Vidal and Chomsky are infinitely superior sources. But they are trying to persuade the converted. However, they may at least be reinforcing liberal ideas. I think we can say tens of thoudands, perhaps a few hundreds of thousands of Americans read Vidal and Chomsky.
The rest don't give a shiit.
Moore's movies are seen by millions of Americans. He is not polite, considerate, overly fair, or concerned with integrity. But he is trying to persuade a much more vast audience or at least reinforce their opinions.
Joe Sixpack doesn't care what Moore's critics say.
My point is that Moore has much more impact than do Vidal and Chomsky. You don't hear the popular media inveighing against Vidal and Chomsky. They are intellectuals and, as you well know, they are not even news worthy.
You seem confident with your position regarding Moore. I remain skeptical of my position.
My position "A Moore in the land is worth two in the bush."
I suppose we could use an editor around here to blue pencil everything we write, sending us all back to make corrections (oh, this isn't going to be published in the New York Times -- you could have fooled me).