Jeezus...
Here I go breaking my own Rule #2 -> 'Thou shalt not argue politics with thy friends.' (Rule #1 involves sex, so let's leave that one alone).
I'm quoting Audiyoda here, but I'm speaking to all those who rant about Mr. Moore's films, opinions, etc.
Allow me to quote from The NY Times:
"Goebbels is in fashion everywhere these days. As Mr. Moore seeks to shape the story of what happened on 9/11, so the White House, President Bush included, collaborated on a movie project with the same partisan intent, "D.C. 9/11: Time of Crisis," seen on Showtime last fall. Instead of depicting Mr. Bush as continuing to read "My Pet Goat" to second graders for nearly seven minutes while the World Trade Center burned (as the recorded video shown in "Fahrenheit 9/11" demonstrates), "D.C. 9/11" showed the president (played by Timothy Bottoms) barking out take-charge lines like "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come on over and get me — I'll be home!"
A point to consider: Goebbels propaganda was delivered from a position of power, since he was a high-ranking official of the Nazi government. Michael Moore has no such power or standing... but Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, et al certainly do.
Hmmm... Now from The Chicago Sun-Times, in response to a letter questioning the motives and/or objectivity of Mr. Moore:
<Begin Quote>
"I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."
That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.
Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.
That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News (which is so famous for telling both sides).
The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.
The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.
In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.
Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.
<End Quote>
I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. And before some of you start composing your cutting replies, let me explain something:
I am an American, and usually proud to be one. I am an honorably discharged veteran of the USAF who served during the Vietnam War. I am a patriot in the truest sense, but my patriotism is driven by a love for my country and its many and varied people (most of whom exhibit the love and care and compassion I admire in any human being), not by whoever happens to be President.
I've voted Democrat, I've voted Republican. I've voted Liberal and I've voted Conservative. Simply put, I don't vote 'labels', I vote for men and women who show me they care about honesty, responsibility, human rights, and the orb we live on.
Would I vote for Michael Moore? Not even for dogcatcher. His passion gives him the ability to make himself heard, but I'm usually wary of anyone who lets their passion run their life. Calm down a bit, Mike. You can tell your stories and broadcast your opinions without resorting to over-the-top accusations or downright exaggerations or lies.
On the other hand, since George W. Bush has demonstrated over and over again that he and his administration care little about any long-term vision of the fate of Planet Earth (except as it may affect the bottom line of Big Business), demonstrate a marked lack of respect for human rights (or the opinions of any person or country who has the temerity to disagree with him), and has yet to take responsibility for dang near anything (except landing a plane on a ship to promote his macho image)... I think that we can just drop the 'honesty' issue and move on.
Okay. Now you can reload and fire away with whatever weapons and ammunition you want to aim at me. Feel free. I won't be replying in this thread anymore as I don't fan flame(war)s except to save my wife and children.
And please note that I didn't feel obligated to use any profanity, resort to name calling, or to compare living men and women to long-dead fascists, or any other reprehensible excuses for human beings.
-ManX
"Live and learn, or die and be done with it"