|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
showka
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:47 pm |
  |
|
| digi wrote: |
| Motherfucker made Charlton Heston look like a complete prick in BFC. Conveniently forgot to mention the dude had fuckin' Alzheimer's when he made him a bad guy for not remembering something. |
I saw BFC over four years ago but what I remember was he asked Heston (a guy whose work I really like) why their was more crime in the cities, at which point Heston mentioned something that sounded kind of racist like "well there are mixed ethnicities."
Also if Charlton Heston has "fuckin' Alzheimer's" then maybe he shouldn't have been the foremost representative of the NRA.
I also am starting to really distrust everyone who's first reaction to Micheal Moore is to say "OMG he just lies all the time" and then throw around the word socialist like a slur. How can you imply a word that encompasses as much as "socialism" is plain bad, end of argument, unless you have some kind of major agenda yourself?
Moore embellishes, he exaggerates, he edits things in ways that are misleading (or perhaps only shows what he thinks is important), but he doesn't flat out lie, and he doesn't pretend he's not presenting his opinion (like, say, Fox News). The video he shoots is real enough, and have no doubts that if he misled on the facts regarding the personal stories in the film we'd probably already be hearing about lawsuits.
Also, thinking GcDiaz is too dumb to distinguish what is factual in the film is pretty condescending. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
showka
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:42 pm |
|
|
| Broco wrote: |
| implying that Iraq was a little paradise where kids played with kites before the American invasion, etc etc. |
About that segment, I've always hated it (along with other parts of Fahrenheit 9/11) but let me play devil's advocate for a bit.
I always thought Moore was trying to show that things were indeed better in Iraq before the war. That segment was one-sided (and heavy-handed) but who in the audience wouldn't have already known of Saddam's atrocities and the poor quality of life in Baghdad pre-Gulf War 2 before viewing the film? Around that time all we were hearing was how incredibly shitty it was in Iraq under Saddam and few in loud places had yet had the grim realization that we'd somehow made Iraq worse than it had previously been.
Moore didn't try to show how bad life under Saddam had been because that was common knowledge and doing so would have wasted time, people either got what he was saying by showing those clips or they didn't.
I think Moore's films and arguments in general are easier to take when you consider them as alternate view points being delivered to people who he assumes already have the commonly known facts or ideas about the topic. Thus he takes up no obligation to offer balanced or impartial education on an issue, and let's just hope no one in his audiences need it (can you really imagine someone seriously walking out of Fahrenheit 9/11 and saying "before the war in Iraw all the country spent its time doing was flying kites! Why didn't I know that, damn it!").
What comes from Moore might be misleading, but its not by definition a lie. He presents a partial representation of reality, a subset of the full story. Whether you think thats just of him has to do with how slanted you already think the national discussion is going in, and of course no one should say his movies aren't biased towards his own conclusions. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
