But does this surprise you? Personally, I can't stand the guy. Heard him speak at an FCP Users Group meeting, and came away feeling he's a blowhard a$$. But he does make movies that are politically charged, so people think he's a god. However, it's about making MOVIES. No one said he has to be honest. I doubt there is a totally honest big screen or even small screen film. Everything is told from a particular perspective. Moore uses subjective questions and subjective editing to get his responses. They're inflammatory, and that sells. The problem isn't that he's a liar, the problem is people forget they're watching a film made by someone with an agenda to get rich telling fabrications or exaggerated exploitations. Doesn't take too much to figure that one out. Think about it....it's currently cool to hate conservativism, because many conservatives have screwed up lately. So, Moore makes a film that is an extension of that 'coolness' and charges it with extreme examples, some/many/most of which are grossely exaggerated. He might even totally make something up. But in HIS mind, they are true. Unfortunately, many of those that watch the film are sheep and therefore THEY TOO, believe it's true. Fortunately, people might be sheep but they're not as susceptible to stupidity as they were during "The War of the Worlds" a few decades ago. Some dork would get it in his head that it's OK to start shooting public figures or something.
So, he lies....There was no Trojan Horse in Troy, either. But it's a DAMN good movie. Both versions.
Thanks for the link, but I'll decide whether the film is "filled with lies" for myself, when the film opens later this month. I'll also be deciding in November, too! The Weekly Standard, if I'm not mistaken, represents an ultra-conservative point of view. Makes me think of the Sinclair Broadcast Group's censoring of ABC's Nightline last month.
The word "documentary" always seems to make people believe they are seeing "truth," but as Leni Riefenstahl (the famous and amazingly talented woman documentary film maker for Germany in WWII) showed, images taken of real-life events don't always reflect real life.
What irks me about him falls in line with what you said. What he does is heralded as truth. Most people don't realize he has an agenda. Most people think he's objectively reporting the ills of modern society. I know there's not much one can do about it, but man.....this guy is an insult to anyone who values journalistic film/video.
"Objectivity" is a sham. Tom Brokaw pretending to be completely "objective" and untainted by any bias, when his employer is owned by one of the nation's biggest defense contractors (General Electric owns NBC), is every bit as much a lie as any of Michael Moore's exaggerations or selective use of facts.
At least Moore makes no effort to hide where his sympathies lie. Knowing that about him, you are more likely to view his statements with some skepticism. You are far less likely to question Brokaw when he states, as he did in April of last year, that "The U.S. has won the day in Baghdad in dazzling and dramatic fashion," or repeats administration assertions that weapons of mass destruction are in Iraq as if they were established fact.
I agree about objectivity. It's like a sportscaster who graduated from Notre Dame calling games for NBC, and saying he's objective. I just don't buy that anyone can truly be uninfluenced by their environment. What I value is someone who can recognize this, not claim to be 100% objective, but say they'll do their best in presenting a fair story. Moore doesn't even come close, and no one is asking him to. What I would like to see is a little accountability on his part. I'm a big sports fan, and nothing bugs me more than these media hacks who aren't held accountable for what they write. They have an agenda, and use their columns (in Moore's case the theater) as vehicles to drive their story. In the end, it's about making money, but people don't see it like that. I know I'll hear from a number of friends about the amazing and shocking "truths" Moore has revealed in his latest film, when a lot of the content will be questionable at best.
Yeah, I hear you. I like Moore's films, and I especially like what he's done to popularize the documentary genre. However, his willingness to play fast and loose with the facts hurts his credibility, I think. It seems to me there's plenty of REAL dirt on the Bush Administration, Pentagon and CIA skullduggery, corporate America, etc. Embellishment hardly seems necessary.
Still, see the film, do your own research, and make up your own mind.
P.S. Anyone seen the satirical newspaper "The Onion" recently? They had a headline that read "Michael Moore Kicking Himself for Not Filming Last 700 Visits to McDonald's"
I thought in general we kept politics off these boards. How about a big OT: on your subject header?
Now back to the show:
You are using an article by Fred Barnes, Fred Barnes mind you!, to question someone's honesty? You could have found more neutral and objective sources to support Moore's issues with the truth. The last time Fred Barnes was in the news this much was when he was smearing the gay Episcopal Bishop. Barnes is a deeply committed partisan and is not above outright lying.
So how did Fred Barnes smear the gay Episcopal Bishop. Right before the Episcopal Church was going to vote on whether Gene Robinson should be elected Bishop, Barnes posted an article called, "The Gay Bishop's Links :
Episcopalian bishop-elect Gene Robinson has some curious affiliations. "
Barnes alleged that
1 Robinson had founded a organization for gay teens and thier website linked to a porn site and
2 Robinson had been accussed of sexual harrassment of a male church member.
Barnes did not reveal that he, himself, is a member of a conservative religious organization that was very oppossed to Robinson being named a bishop.
The first allegation was about a group that Robinson had stopped being affiliated with four years before the website was created. A chapter of the organization linked to a site, which linked to a site, which linked to a site...... that six clicks later would get you to porn. (How many clicks do you think it would take from this forum?).
The second allegation turned out to be Robinson had touched a man on his arm and shoulder at a Church meeting in front of about 200 people.
When the House of Bishops investigated the matter, the report stated concluded "In both allegations, it is my conclusion that there is no necessity to pursue further investigation and no reason on these grounds to prevent the Bishops with jurisdiction from going forward with their voting about whether or not to consent to Canon Robinson’s Consecration." Robinson was then elected to be a bishop after a few weeks of having his name associated with scandal.
I find it interesting that this article is the already the highest Fred Barnes article on Google. The RNC and the Bush folks must be afraid of this movie. This reminds of when the White House needed to discredit terrorism czar Richard Clarke and all of a sudden a Wired news article critical of Clarke on cyberterrrorrism, was linked to all over the place. As the campain to discredit him heated up, Clarke was even called a perjurer on the floor of the Senate, by Sen. Frist, the Senate Majority Leader. Frist then walked away from that claim.
I didn't see Bowling for Columnbine, because of Moore's persona/blowhardness/lax-of-rigidly-presenting-an-authentic-timeline.
I probably will see Farenheit 9/11. The trailer is pretty well put-togther. The footage of Bush on the golf course is a mind-boggling, a perfect summation of his callowness. I will also see this movie because the subject matter is more important.
sadly, Moore has screwed over many of the people that help him in the beginning. Moore is an mental patient, it's all those chemicals in the water from the auto factorys.........
Really, the best documentaries are exactly the ones where someone is driven by a passionate agenda or a strong viewpoint.
You can't eliminate this, we all have a point of view. If I was going to commission someone to do a documentary on MacDonalds, cigarette smoking or vegetarianism -- the filmmaler will have a point of view making the film. As neutral as he or she might be, that viewpoint will come out.
Look at "60 Minutes" stories, how interesting would they really be if reporters didn't take sides? More neutral maybe -- but more boring as well. As a filmmaker, it's hard not to have your feelings and opinions political or whatever not find themselves in your work. So how can he be faulted for that.
Now in regards to manipulation and lies, man, "Nanook of the North" was a lie. I mean, don't believe that a documentary is reality, you don't just click a camera and capture -- you also edit. "Survivors" or "The Bachler" is reality TV. But it's manipulated reality, to make it digestable to TV audiences. You gotta understand this going into any good documentary film.
One of the best documentary films last year was "Capturing The Friedmans".
I thought this was one of the few documentaries where the filmmaker did not have a strong view point. But look at that doc carefully you will see that one exsists (I recommend this film entirely -- beautifully shot and editied),
I think Michael Moore is a good filmmaker. I watched "Bowling for Columbine" again and forgot how well crafted it was.
Moore is also good for America, talk about the best example of freedom of speech. Let him continue to make films, let audiences worldwide decide the truth -- today's audiences are smart, don't under estimate them. And the United States is a country that is strong enough to accomodate a filmmaker like Michael Moore, not many are.
Guys, this has nothing to do with Vegas. People seem to think that putting "OT" on the subject of their posts absolves them of any responsibility to keep the discussion focused on Vegas. It doesn't.
Yes, Michael Moore has a political agenda, but no more so than jwall who started this thread in the first place. Knock it off.
"Story about him...his new movie is most likely filled with lies."
Oh as if the Weekly Standard isnt full of lies. (Conservative news rag) Give me a break. This does not belong in this forum, and by posting this you end up looking desperate.
I can not beleive you posted this in this forum. This is so politically desperate and retarded. I can't imagine how mind f'd you are to actually post this in this forum. Bravo conservative republic mantra.. You have now inpsired your minions to post in forums for no dam logical reason. Congrats!
What in the hell does this have to do with Sony Vegas?
Absolutely nothing. Keeps this garbage off the forums.
I'll wait to see the Moore film and judge for myself. Ebert and Roper both gave it a 'thumbs way up' rating which itself means nothing, but they both said he did a good job on it. So we'll see.
From what I heard it should be 'entertaining' which is after all what a film is suppose to be. How fast and lose Moore is or isn't with "facts" remains to be seen.
If it containts some of the stuff dug up by a recent BBC documentary that took a long hard and VERY critical look at the entire Bush family that never aired in the states (wonder why not) it could be a blockbuster. If I can find a link to that flim I'll post it, it ran close to a hour, for a streaming video, rather impressive length.
Yeah, Moore's a jerk, and I say that not because I disagree with his politics, but because he's dishonest and he intentionally warps the facts.
It would be nice, however, if one could keep the personal separate from the professional. In my case, though, I confess I can't; I start feeling like I'm going to get sick every time I hear Streisand sing, for example. Our family watches very few (new) movies when compared to 10 years ago, and a lot of it is because we simply can't identify with the Hollywood crowd.
Thats right Spot... he's no different than the opposition. The only difference is that he makes it in movie format. The opposition starts an entire agenda against a so called liberally biased news media, then creates its own talk icons to do the VERY SAME THING MOORE DOES...
Dont blaim Michael Moore... He's playing the very same game the republicans are in this amazing cluster F that we call America.
Btw Moore is dead on in my views... But hey.. Bill Oriely may be dead on in the views of others....
Get this.. EVERYONES BIASED and approaches something from a point of view.
You people are freaking editors and directors and you DONT KNOW THIS?!
MY GOD.. WAKE UP FOLKS... The second you sit down at your editing stations, you're angling your story to make a point.
I cant beleive i'm reading editors complaining about another film maker for having a point of view... Thats so hypocritical and insane.
Do you guys edit wedding videos form the point of view of "What a wonderfull marrige this will be, and look how beautfiul thsi event was" Or do you edit from the point of view of "Well this thing was so freaking stupid, i had to go, but hell i got paid, and i got atleast one good shot fo the brides hot sister"
I mean come on folks.. realize that we are all guilty of having a point of view and injecting it into whatever we do, say, write, eat, drive, watch, drink etc.
And just because someone may not agree with Moore, doesnt mean hes lieing. The viewers bias is just as guilty of dishonesty as is the presenter of the facts. If the facts are indeed true... and the biased viewer doesnt except it... Who is wrong?
What is truth? Truth is something we accept once proven, and still that may not be TRUTH.
Moore approaches things from information that he has available, and NONE of us know the truth behind what the government does... Its classified. Only the investigative nature, even allegations... help to bring forth truth... and it helps to present the ideas/beleifs that people hold.
Its all apart of the quest for truth. And you are against the quest for truth... what good is free speech ?
What a laughable post. His new movie is "most likely filled with lies," eh? Wouldn't it be better to actually see the movie and THEN state whether or not it is filled with lies? I smell the conservative media machine mobilizing to attack.
last time we had a discussion about MM and the methods that pretty much *all* documentary filmakers use it turned ugly and into personal attacks - so the thread was deleted. So at the risk of this thread degrading down to that level -
>>> ...there's not much one can do about it, but man.....this guy is an insult to anyone who values journalistic film/video.<<<
As a person who highly values journalism please do not speak for me. I value the truth, and I value reality, and gowing up "american" that is often a very hard thing to find. (Look at last week in this country for a perfect example) Michael Moore has never been an insult to me in any way shape or form. I have not seen all of his work, but the work of his that I have seen is great. I admit I wept at parts Bowling For Columbine and I admire the craft it took to put that film together. I remember saying to myself, and to my wife, "I wish I had made this film". I first found out about MM when I saw Roger and me and I felt it was a great film and, like most people, it was the first time any of us had heard of Michael Moore.
I fully plan on seeing his new film. I may love it, I may hate it. I won't know until I see it. I will say this - when September 11 happened my perspective on what I am/was doing as far as filmmaking changed. The material I have put together about September 11 was done to be non-political and no finger pointing, but out of all of it I am getting many concepts about what is "true". I watched the Spetember 11 commission hearing, real time, and I was shocked by some of the outright lies being told and some of the outright stupidity the Bush camp puts out. I don't have to have an agenda to see reality - but if you watched any of the sound bites on the news you might find yourself thinking Bush and company did "all they could do" or that the FDNY/PAPD/NYPD all work in the peaceful loving embracing arms of one another. And if you have not been actualy involved in some element of that day you probably would not even pick up on a lot of it. Does the new MM film touch on these issues? I don't know - but someone sure should.
Look, the bottom line is many of the people who use Vegas are film makers. Many of us understand what goes into making a film of any kind. Some of us also undertand what goes into making a documentary. It takes work, it takes skill to put hours upon hours of footage into some form that makes sense. It also takes being open minded enough to know that what you start off to do may not be the end result. (The film Kurt and Courtney is a film that fits this scenrio. Let it Be is another) And one reson we are all here is because of Vegas - and Vegas is being used by most of us as an NLE...we edit images here people. Most of us wouldn't see anything wrong with re-edting a scene in a film to make it flow better, or to even change the overall a feel of the film. Many people ask all the time how to clean up poor audio. Most people here may not see anything wrong with taking some event and cutting it down to a 30 second sound bite on the news. But put the name Michale Moore into the scenerio and everything changes...and god forbid his editors actual edit anything.
Agenda you say? Look at the Hollywood machine. Look at the publicists and look at the publicity departmets. Look at most any political campaign. Get a grip here people - you all do it when you edit something. The last thread on the topic I said something like the only reality you could view on a screen would be unedited footage with natural sound, locked off in a wide shot. Of course that became sarcasticly taken apart as untrue because you would be selectivly choosing the audio, setting the camera for the best light - maybe even using lights - and it went on. Ending that by saying that what I said didn't matter because I was reaching and searching for ways to defend Michael Moore. Yeah MM dislikes Bush, he said that before September 11. But you know what? On September 11, 2001 one the very first thoughts that hit me was one word - Bush. And I was kind of shocked when other people actually said that as well. Does MM now shed light on this in the new film? Maybe so. Certianly the September 11 commission has shed a lot of light on it and if you simply turned on C-SPAN and viewed them you wouldn't need to see any edited down version from any news outlet or film maker.
Does MM have an agenda? Sure - he is a film maker. Does SPOT have an agenda when he records Native Amrican music? Yes. Does he have an agenda when he goes out and does traing? Sure. Did PETA have an agenda sending an undercover cameras into the IAMS testing facilty? Yes. Did GW have an agenda? Yeah. Did some of the key people in the whole Florida re-count scandle have an agenda? Clearly - being promised positions in the Bush Whitehouse helped with their agendas I am sure. You don't need MM or anyone to tell you these things if you just open your eyes and look. I am sure any one of you could go out and start to interview troops who served in Iraq and get negative feedback. You don't need an agenda one way or the other - what you need is to go beyond the 'expected' answers. Go beyond the "We are serving our country" or "Our commander and chief tells us to go and we go" answers. In the case of documentaries you also need to do a lot of research, or have a solid staff who does it for you. In the case of actually interviewing you need to have some sort of agenda perhaps - but I would say you need to just be aware of answers and how to follow them up. Simply accepting an answer is not something that MM has ever done. It is something most of the Whitehouse Press Corps would like to be able to do in the press briefings I am sure.
Ok, I'll shut up now - even though I have lots lots more I want to say.