Author |
Message |
Yankee_in_ca
Member
08-01-2000
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:48 am
Azriel -- given what I wrote above, I wanted to say that I nonetheless agree with your following statements: QUOTE: "Micheal Moore definitely knows how to play to the choir." QUOTE: "I already know what his agenda is in making the film, so I know his 'facts' are skewed so far to the left that I couldn't stomach watching it." I think that's fine and in some ways very true. BUT, many people would say that the current administration knows how to play to the choir. And that their "facts" about Iraq, terrorists, etc., have been so skewed that many cannot stomach to hear it anymore. In this case, I believe that those who support the administration will never go and see this film, and those who do not, will.
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:50 am
I have a very good friend who is a die hard republican, will never vote for anyone other than a republican and is also a die hard Bush supporter. Even outside the movie over the last two or three months she has become disillusioned but still defends Bush and his administration. She came out of this movie, clearly moved and admitting that she now believed we were fed lies. Interestingly enough, she blames "neocons" like Wolfowitz and Cheney and still gives George a Pass. She believes they led him down the path of destruction but she also admits they cant get back in office. She will never vote for Kerry but she is considering not voting in November at all.
|
Yankee_in_ca
Member
08-01-2000
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:56 am
An interesting tid-bit -- my mom got my dad to go to the theater this weekend to see this movie. Why is this interesting? Well, the last movie my dad went to in the theater was over 35 years ago -- before I was born. (P.S. -- edited to add that neither of my parents are lefties. They are both conservative democrats who have, in the past, voted both democrat and republican)
|
Djgirl
Member
07-17-2002
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:57 am
Wow, Yankee, that definitely says something!
|
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:10 am
Yankee, 35 years? wow!! what was their take on the movie?
|
Yankee_in_ca
Member
08-01-2000
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:21 am
I don't usually talk politics with my family (I learned that lesson long ago), so I didn't talk much about it with them, to be honest. My mom said it made her sad, and that certain things -- like the amount of Saudi $$ in the U.S. -- surprised her. My dad is a man of few words. After expressing my extreme surprise that he actually went to a theater, I asked him what he thought of the movie. His exact response was "It wasn't the best movie I ever saw, but it really made you think." I left it at that... Thinking is good enough for me.
|
Moondance
Member
07-30-2000
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:29 am
Thinking is a very good thing... Questioning and thinking a great thing... Thinking for yourself - priceless!
|
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:36 am
I think that's a very good response! Probably one of the best I have heard. And to be honest, that response would entice me to see the movie more than the "if you care about your country and the upcoming election" ones.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-03-2002
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 1:59 pm
Some quotes from Moore over at Zap2it: http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---22014,00.html "It's my op-ed piece, it presents my opinion based on fact," Moore says. "I try to present a view of three-and-a-half years that's an alternative version of what the administration is giving."... Moore says, "Early talk was that anti-Bush people would go see it and pro-Bush people would stay home, and that's not the case. Most people do not go around with labels. A lot of Republicans have open minds." ... Moore has backed off from his statements about hoping to effect the November presidential election, but instead says, "About 50 percent of the people here vote, and from what I see with the postings on my website [MichaelMoore.com] is that 50 percent who didn't vote will now go out and vote," Moore says. "It doesn't necessarily mean they'll change their mind about Bush, but they may change their mind about being an active member of democracy."
|
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 2:23 pm
Moore says, "Early talk was that anti-Bush people would go see it and pro-Bush people would stay home, and that's not the case. Most people do not go around with labels. A lot of Republicans have open minds." ... WOW! Moore realizes something that alot of others don't!
|
Lkunkel
Member
10-29-2003
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 2:25 pm
Once again, I'll stick with the 3% of the country who votes Libertarian. I really like this year's candidate, Michael Badnarik. Not to say he won't make a mess of things, but at least right now he's saying the right things.
|
Wendo
Member
08-07-2000
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 3:26 pm
I tried to bring up the movie this weekend with my mom. She immediately shut me down and stated that she can't stand Michael Moore. When I said I only wanted to touch on a few points from the movie, not talk about Moore, she again shut me down. And, I wasn't suggesting to her that she see it in order to love her country. I encouraged her to see it because it was another opinion about the Bush administration. It's a movie that asks questions and promotes debate. Of course, she had none of it and our conversation ended. What I find frustrating about this is she wasn't even willing to just TALK about the subject matter. I have no desire to tell her who to vote for. But, I do have a desire for her to get as much information as possible to make an informed decision. Ah well. On another note, 60 Minutes reran their interview with Moore from the past year and I think he made a good point regarding the criticism he received about Charleton Heston. For those that don't know, Moore was ripped by people for ambushing Heston, an old man who had chance against Moore. Moore countered this by saying, Heston is the representative of the largetst lobby in Washington. As that representative he should be able to deal with an interview. And, if he can't, then they need another representative. I hope people, whatever your politics, see the movie. I think it's a movie that makes you think and that's always a good thing in my book.
|
Juju2bigdog
Member
10-27-2000
| Monday, June 28, 2004 - 5:55 pm
We are going to see it tomorrow with a couple who spent many years living and working in Saudi Arabia.
|
Gina8642
Member
06-01-2001
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 7:35 am
Wendo - I completely sympathize with your mom. Michael Moore is a lot to take. He has been cruely snarky in his humor in his past. His movies can also seem exploitive (the bunny lady from Roger & Me, and the mom from 9/11, and perhaps Heston). I put that aside and decided to see the movie inspite of all that. I'm really glad I did. I'm a complete news junkie and I didn't really learn much that was new - however, he put it together masterfully. And, he minimized all his negatives (snarkiness, etc.) In the end, I know this was slanted and selective. However, it is more accurate and less slanted than most of the political ads Bush Cheney is posting on their website. Their most recent contains footage of Hitler and associates it with the Kerry campaign. This connection is so bizzrely false, yet they leave it up. (For those that don't know the story: Some person, not related to the Kerry Campaign, posted an offensive ad containing Hitler footage at MoveOn.Org (also not part of the Kerry campaign, but does support the democratic side) for a contest. It was immediately taken down once noticed. Now, the Bush/Cheney website is saying it's a Kerry's ad. That is simply not true. Anyone, including a Bush/Cheney supporter, could submit contest entries. Attributing to Kerry is so false, and yet they are distrubuting it as such. That type of falsehood is so completely more slanted and inaccurate than anything Moore says in his film. Moore doesn't even approach this type of lie. (ok, now I feel like throwing up....))
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 9:31 am
Will Moore succeed? Flint mom of war casualty getting used to being treated as film star FLINT THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION Tuesday, June 29, 2004 By Bob Wheaton bwheaton@flintjournal.com • 810.766.6375 QUICK FACTS Lila Lipscomb FLINT - At the gym and at church, Lila Lipscomb draws extra attention that makes her realize just how hot "Fahrenheit 9/11" is. The Flint woman is one of the "stars" of Michael Moore's new film, the first documentary to hold the No. 1 spot at the box office. Some reviewers have said footage of Lipscomb talking about the death of her son, Army Sgt. Michael Pedersen, is the most compelling part of the movie. Pedersen, 26, died when his Black Hawk helicopter crashed April 2, 2003, in Iraq. "Wherever I go now ... the looks on people's faces are kind of like, 'Is that her?' " Lipscomb said. On Sunday, a woman at Lipscomb's gym recognized her from the movie. On the same day, a friend from church told Lipscomb she had just returned from Chicago and encountered someone who had seen the movie. When she found out the woman was from Flint, she asked her if she knew the Flint mom in the movie. "She asked her to give me a hug for her," Lipscomb said. Lipscomb, who turned 50 on Sunday, said she doesn't mind having her emotions in the spotlight. She's happy about how the movie turned out. "Fahrenheit 9/11" shows her crying as she remembers her son, reads the last letter he sent her and visits the White House to try to find closure. "At the time of the sharing, I didn't even think about (people seeing it on movie screens) because the pain is so raw in my soul that it's just natural, when given the opportunity, to talk about it. It just comes out. "I feel so blessed to be able to have my gut-wrenching feelings be able to touch so many people. Literally, people are calling my home and giving me messages. Men - men - are telling me how when they left the movie they were just sobbing." Lipscomb has been flooded with so many media calls that publicists for the movie are handling most of the requests. She was interviewed by People magazine and USA Today. Moore's production company contacted Lipscomb in January and came to Flint to interview her in February. That's when she read the letter - in which Pedersen criticizes President Bush for attacking Iraq. "I volunteered it," she said. "I shared the information that one of the reasons I was so angry and confused was the last letter from my son. And Michael (Moore) asked if he could see it, and I said, 'Absolutely.' " "Fahrenheit 9/11" shows Lipscomb tearfully reading the letter as she sits on the couch with her husband, Howard. There are no extra takes when you're being filmed for a documentary, she said, although Moore did edit out some of the letter-reading. "It wasn't staged at all," she said. "It was just a continuous flowing." Lipscomb has seen the movie three times - twice at private screenings and once at Showcase Cinemas West in Flint Township. On Friday, she and other Flint residents featured in the movie got to see it - "However, I didn't see the recruiters," she said with a laugh, referring to military recruiters portrayed in an unflattering fashion in the movie. She plans to see it again. "Every time I watch it, I see something different." Lipscomb thinks she knows why so many viewers of the movie have been especially touched by her story. "I believe it's because it puts a heart to the war," she said. "Because we've been so desensitized through the media ever since the war began. You'll continuously show me beheaded people, but you won't even show my son coming home being honored through Dover Air Force Base. "I'm not just representing my son. It's not just about me, and it's not about my son. It's about the over 850 other families - not counting the thousands and thousands of wounded and not counting the tens of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed and wounded." ***
|
Ocean_islands
Member
09-07-2000
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 10:52 am
The film is heartbreaking on so many levels its hard to choose just one.
|
Azriel
Member
08-01-2000
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 11:53 am
Wendo, if I was your mother I would be insulted that you think I have to listen to anything Michael Moore says to have an 'informed' opinion. You only have to listen to Michael Moore for 5 minutes to realize he is consumed by irrational hatred for our President that goes beyond ideological differences and he has clearly stated that he has a vendetta against Bush and will do anything to get Bush out of office and a Democrat in office. There are plenty of intelligent, rational liberal news sources out there where we can learn the liberal viewpoint on issues and form our opinions. We don't have to listen to <namecalling-NK> to be informed.
|
Gina8642
Member
06-01-2001
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:09 pm
Wow Azriel - I don't consider Michael Moore a <nk> at all. That's pretty harsh stuff. I think he can be seen as fighting fire with fire. There's tons of disaffected people in this country who really won't bother to listen rational liberal media outlets. Folks who might agree with Moore's views, don't get involved at all and don't bother to vote. This gets them curious and thinking, I think that's a good thing. Funny seeing that though - I just came to post an article the highlights the methods Moore uses to make his point. They are tried and true and I see them all the time in other movies, news pieces and political ads (from both sides). I don't think any of the "tricks" Moore uses are unique (or constitute hate mongering) to Moore, but he is an expert at using them. Still I find interesting to see them so articulately pointed out as they are in this article. I hope this might be as illuminating to others as it was to me:
quote:June 29, 2004, 9:35 a.m. The Left’s Masterwork Michael Moore’s 9/11. The preview really got my attention. The New York Times called the documentary "entertaining, moving and historically significant." Details dubbed it "an instant and incendiary classic," and Entertainment Weekly called it "epic storytelling...one of the most revelatory...portraits ever made." Thoughtful words for an important moment in film. But Metallica: Some Kind of Monster won't be released until July 9, and, anyway, I was in the theater to see Fahrenheit 9/11. Satire in wartime is an ancient art — Aristophanes made a career of it. One can appreciate the humor in a well-made caricature regardless of one's view of the issues it makes light of. But listening to the banter amongst the Left-wing crowd in the theater, I concluded that this was not simply lampoonery. Moore accurately reflects the beliefs that most Democratic voters hold as true: President Bush was not elected legally; the United States is run by a wealthy white oligarchy (of which Democrats are somehow not a part, but sometimes facilitate); the military is comprised of an underclass that is sent to die in wars to keep the ruling oligarchy in power and make its members even wealthier; and invading Iraq was the idee fixe of the Bush administration from day one, for which the war on terrorism simply provided a convenient pretext. As a film, Fahrenheit is uneven. A few parts are visually entertaining (e.g., the Bonanza parody) and some are very moving. But other segments wander to no particular point (such as a night patrol in Iraq, dimly filmed and inconclusive) or are simply confusing (are there really insufficient numbers of state troopers in Oregon, and if so, isn't that their problem?). Mostly I was interested in how Moore employed the various elements of his shtick, which he has been developing at least since he emerged on the scene with Roger & Me in 1989. All the tricks were in evidence: Exploit the ignorant: Talk to people who are inexperienced with media, and encourage them to say things that they probably should not. It is especially effective when giving a straight interview to people whose views are preposterous. The Daily Show does this regularly, and it is very funny, but hardly profound. Moore shows, among others, a woman in Saginaw, Michigan, who explains why her town could be a target for terrorism, and a clip of a hapless entrepreneur hawking an "escape chute" for emergency evacuation from tall buildings. These people were used to illustrate the irrational fears the oligarchs had conjured in order to prepare the hoipolloi for the case to invade Iraq. Congressman Jim McDermott called the fear campaign a "skillful and ugly" manipulation of the American public, underscoring the sense of paranoia that pervades the film. Stage ambushes: Track down famous people and pose difficult questions while filming them, hopefully catching them in an embarrassing moment. Moore presents congressmen with the idea that their children should be sent to fight in Iraq, his reasoning being that if the lives of the progeny of the oligarchy were placed in danger we would only fight wars that were really necessary. Unfortunately for Moore, he is too well known and instantly recognizable for the ambush to work very well, and most of the shots show his intended victims avoiding him. Perhaps he should work through proxies. Capitalize on the nonsequitur: The most noted example of this technique, and one being used to promote the film, features President Bush on a golf outing. He states to reporters, "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive." This scene got big laughs. Moore makes it appear as though the president convened the reporters in order to make a major policy statement, and then get back to his golf game. However, this was a routine press availability in which the president gave a standard answer to a stock question. Had he shown the entire Q&A it would hardly have been as interesting, but it would definitely have been more truthful. Moore also delights in running out-takes, pre-interview preparation shots, and other images that editors do not usually find newsworthy. People sometimes do strange or potentially embarrassing things before the cameras come on. For example it is not particularly edifying to see Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz coping with a bad hair experience, but apparently Moore found it significant. Juxtapose: Juxtaposition is a very important aspect of Moore's technique, but he is not very subtle. For example, he shows a clip from al Jazeera of an Iraqi woman wailing about her house being destroyed by American bombs, then cuts to a soldier talking about how they are there to make life better for the Iraqi people. The low point in the film is a series of street scenes of happy Iraqi children interspersed with shots of the attack being readied. The implicit — perhaps explicit — message is that life under Saddam was just fine. (Moore doesn't much discuss Saddam, or why Bush was out to get him, except to imply it was because Saddam had tried to kill Bush 41.) We shortly see images of Iraqi children killed or horribly wounded, an echo of the "baby-killer" rhetoric of the Vietnam era. Mess with the soundtrack: This is another form of juxtaposition, and the least clever aspect of Moore's act, the kind of technique anybody could employ. Just take a serious situation and put frivolous music behind it, or illustrate a popular song with images of your victim that place him in a bad light. Moore sometimes showed a little imagination, such as showing tape of President Bush landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln while playing the theme from The Greatest American Hero ("Believe It or Not"). However, frequently his selections were of the "cheesy sounding circus music in the background" variety, what one might call French humor, which is probably what caught the attention of the folks at Cannes. Milk the pathos: Moore appeals to emotion throughout the film, for example showing wounded servicemen, most of whom bore their situations stoically. A 9/11 victim's family member discussed at length how her life had been devastated, though she seemed to be one of the professional victims attending the 9/11 Commission hearings. Moore could have engaged in some clever juxtapositioning here by flashing up the average payment from the victim funds ($2.1 million), especially compared to the minuscule benefits paid to families of troops killed in the war. The most poignant story was Lila Lipscomb's, whose son Sgt. Michael F. Pedersen was killed April 2, 2003, in a Blackhawk helicopter crash. Moore presents Lipscomb as a proud service mother, a self-described conservative Democrat who ran the flag up every day and despised the antiwar crowd. After her son is killed, Moore documents her descent into despair. She is currently getting involved in the peace movement she used to oppose. There was one scene where I felt Moore had reached high art. He portrayed the 9/11 attacks using sounds and a blank screen. He passed up using the most compelling visuals of recent decades, appealing instead to the viewer's imagination and memory, with an auditory prompt. It was disorienting and frightening, and in my opinion the best moment of the movie qua movie. Nevertheless, it was soon over, and then it was back to the shtick. Moore is the perfect person to engage in this kind of manufactured public embarrassment, largely because you cannot imagine him being embarrassed about anything. Not because he doesn't have reason to be, but because he is completely unselfconscious. Faulty reasoning, slim evidence, outright foolish statements, nothing slows him down. The film has a number of factual errors, and the 9/11 Commission, which he portrays sympathetically, has since undercut some of the pillars of his major arguments. Moore passed up a great opportunity for irony with respect to one Commission finding: The movie dwells at length on the issue of the Saudi flights out of the U.S. after the attacks, and Moore shows a clip of Senator Byron Dorgan asking who was responsible. Later when showing Richard Clarke making his argument that the president had ordered him to find Iraq responsible for 9/11, Moore could have scrolled text across the bottom of the screen saying, "Hey Senator! This is the guy!" But that might have disrupted the conspiratorial story line with unnecessary salient facts. The Democratic leadership embraced Moore at the premier at the Uptown Theater in Washington, and the heavily liberal audience applauded the film vigorously. It was a great moment of candor. Moore has the guts to say the things they think but will not utter. If the film encourages them to speak up, all the better. I cannot see Middle America finding much intellectual appeal in the film's underlying feeling of ill will and dread. It is at base very hateful. Conservatives should not protest this film; that only gives it more notoriety and makes its multimillionaire "everyman" director even wealthier. I would sooner acknowledge Moore as the intellectual leader of the Left, and this film his (and their) emblematic masterwork. This is the best they have to offer.
|
Gina8642
Member
06-01-2001
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:12 pm
BTW - I disagree with the news article above that the recruiters were seen in a bad light. Personally, I just thought they were doing their job and doing it very well. We had recruiters in my high school and college, they used the same sort of hooks to grab people's interests. I didn't see them as doing anything wrong. I guess different folks perceive things differently. I'm also pleased to hear the mother didn't feel exploited. I'd heard some people grumbling about that - but if she's fine with it, I think others should be quiet about it.
|
Wendo
Member
08-07-2000
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:39 pm
Azriel, I never said that my mom HAD to watch the Moore movie. Only that it was another viewpoint and she may want to see it. However, I was surprised that she wouldn't even have a 5 minute conversation with me about the movie. My mother has swung to the right, so be it. However, I wouldn't wag the flag for my mom too much; she hasn't voted in the past two presidential elections. She claims she's been busy, etc., etc. So, apparently she can't be bothered to vote. Whether she'll vote this year, I have no idea. I keep encouraging her to vote, irregardless of who she votes for. I'll tell you this, though. If she chooses to again not participate in the next election I will no longer discuss politics with her. If she brings it up, I'm going to end the conversation. (It infuriates me that she hasn't re-registered to vote.)
|
Azriel
Member
08-01-2000
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 1:09 pm
Gina, I know those are strong words, but I believe he is <no namecalling, please-NK>. To me he is the epitome of everything that is wrong with our current political discourse. When President Clinton was in office, I casually said, 'I hate Clinton', but I never HATED Clinton. I'll never use those words casually again. For the past 20 years this has all gone back and forth and gradually built up and now we are all reaping what we have sown. It's ugly and dehumanizing. It's not about political ideology anymore it's all about tearing down a human being and making them into a caricature of lust, greed and evil. <ND>
|
Tishala
Member
08-01-2000
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 1:14 pm
So anyhow about the move...
|
Azriel
Member
08-01-2000
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 1:16 pm
LOL, Tishala! I'm sorry I hijacked the thread. You can return to your regularly scheduled program now. 
|
Landi
Member
07-29-2002
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 2:15 pm
this is exactly why i stay out of the news and views portion of tvch, and why i WILL not see this movie. i do not believe that one side (either republicans or democrats) has the perfect answers to all of our political problems. if a republican is in office, the democrats are furious. and vice versa. i've been asked by a few friends if i had seen this movie. i stated, "no, i hadn't, and i have no intention of doing so". it was like i committed a major crime! just because someone doesn't want to see or hear about this film, does NOT mean that they have cruised to the right. i just do not prefer to see the crassness that is michael moore.
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 2:36 pm
The movie was not crass and in terms of Michael Moores usual modus operandi, he is in the movie very very little. He relies on news clips and video footage. I thought it was a very powerful movie, both funny and heartbreaking.
|
|
|
|