And the winner of the best film award at the Cannes festival is ...
by Simon 103 Replies latest social entertainment
-
-
Mulan
If I ever get to make a film about the WaterTower Backhoe and Tractor Society, should I expect great lamentations from the ex-JW community if the film does well in the documentary catagory? Cuz I assure you, I would not be un-biased in my presentation. I would look for the absolute worst, most heartbreaking stories to tell. I would dig thru the publications, and video of talks being given, and secret videos of judicial meetings, to find the ugliest, most hurtful things JW's acting in an official capacity have ever said on or off the record. I would be totally honest, but Jehovahs Witnesses will not see it as honest, and in fact some non-witness people who just-don't-know, would assume that I have been dishonest as well, due to my bias.
You do it Sixy! I can't wait.
This thread is hilarious to read. You can sure see the party lines clearly.
I view those kinds of movies believing that there is some truth to it, and some exaggeration. All of television and movies of this type, are that way. The news, the political ads. It's all entertainment as someone else commented. Moore knows what will sell, and he seems to be very successful at it.
-
Euphemism
This thread is hilarious to read. You can sure see the party lines clearly.
Oh really?
Will it be my job as a film maker to balance the negatives of the WT with whatever positives I could find if I looked hard enough?
It's not just about balancing negatives and positives; that's a very crude form of "objectivity" (albeit all too often practiced by newspapers, unfortunately). It's about trying to present an accurate overall picture.
Showing only "the absolute worst, most heartbreaking stories" is by definition not accurate overall.
-
SixofNine
It's not just about balancing negatives and positives; that's a very crude form of "objectivity" (albeit all too often practiced by newspapers, unfortunately).
I agree, and much to my irritation I might add. But that's what I see behind much of the criticism of Moore, people want to hear that faux "balance", that crude form of objectivity that says "the WT society kills people thru their laughably stupid blood policy, but here, take a look at this footage of a Jehovah's Witness graduation party... these people obviously gain a valuable sense of community by associating with the WT society".
I believe with every fiber of my soul that the positives do not in even a small way balance out the negatives of the WT society. If Michael Moore feels the same way about the corporate greed of GM (which at the time, I thought he was a complete showboat about) or the treasonous stupidity of GW Bush (which I very much agree with him about), well, no one has to agree with him, but it doesn't make him dishonest for showing you his side of the story.
-
SixofNine
The Cannes Film Festival has become a politically driven venue, without regard to cinematography, accolades to superb actors, or notice to brilliant minds of the film industry. It seems to me that the whole meaning of films and their critique has become just another advertising venue for politicians.
Huh? Because 9/11 won the top prize this year, Cannes is no longer about movies?
It seems to me that the whole meaning of films and their critique has become just another advertising venue for politicians.
Could you give an example of this?
-
little witch
Uh, yes Six..
Michael Moore taking home the top prize....DUH
-
Double Edge
Oh yes, the admitted liar Michael Moore... a few weeks again some people on this board were outraged that the film was being 'censored' by Disney.... we told you that it was typical Michael Moore and it was a publicity stunt. The following was published in a UK newspaper... (let me know if you need the link)Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 May 2004
Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.
-
rem
Six,
I don't get it. You brush off Moore's many exagerations and blatant falsehoods just because they make us think? You agree he really makes no conclusions other than to bash certain people and groups. If he could do that without lying and creative editing, then I would agree with you - but the second you start lying the message is lost. It's a matter of intellectual honesty.
Would you resort to lying in your documentary about the WT? I hope not, becuase then I would lose respect for you. The point is that if whatever you are trying to expose is really that bad, then you shouldn't have to exagerate your point.
Now, it's been over a year since I saw the movie so I can't remember all of the specifics, but I remember reading about many egregious exagerations and dishonest editing in it after I saw it. If he didn't have an answer to the issue he was presenting, then what was the point of harping on the NRA and military contract companies other than just to make them look bad?
Maybe Moore's documentaries should have a disclaimer in the beginning that says "For entertainment purposes only". :) He's crossed the line from serious documentary to propoganda. That being said, I did enjoy watching it - but then again, I'm kinda funny that way because I enjoy listening to right-wing nutjobs like Mike Savage too (for entertainment purposes only). LOL
rem
-
avishai
I enjoy listening to right-wing nutjobs like Mike Savage too (for entertainment purposes only). LOL
MIKE SAVAGE IS NOT A NUTJOB AND ALWAYS TELLS THE WHOLE TRUTH!!
Yeah right.
-
SixofNine
If he could do that without lying and creative editing, then I would agree with you - but the second you start lying the message is lost.
But that's the point rem, you keep saying that, but you don't provide examples. Please, show me a few of these "blatant falsehoods". Of course, I hear it so much, that I should be able to find several myself.. right? Well that's the thing... I've been looking, and I'm not finding accusations that stand up. Without referencing anyone elses complaints, rem, what exactly sticks in your mind as an example of Moore's "lying and creative editing"? (by "creative editing" I assume you mean "designed to mislead".)
Now, it's been over a year since I saw the movie so I can't remember all of the specifics, but I remember reading about many egregious exagerations and dishonest editing in it after I saw it.
But did you then check out the accusations, match them up against the movie and the public record? To the point there are exagerations, are they really "egregious"? Is the editing dishonest, misleading, or just one sided?
If he didn't have an answer to the issue he was presenting, then what was the point of harping on the NRA and military contract companies other than just to make them look bad?
Well, for one thing, he contrast a culture that eats sleeps and breathes weapons, big weapons, small weapons, hunting weapons, baby killin' weapons... you name the weapon, with an comunal thought that Marylin Manson might just be a big part of the blame for a tragedy like Columbine. Rem, I hardly think of you as the type of person who thinks we shouldn't even look a little deeper than cross-dressing musicians for solutions to our countries' problems? Is it really that big a sin for Michael Moore to note the irony involved in the issues, w/o having an answer? Isn't it better to ask the question louder, with expanded scope, than to feel like you've found the answer in the form of a flamboyant musician (or some equally vapid answer)?
Maybe Moore's documentaries should have a disclaimer in the beginning that says "For entertainment purposes only". :) He's crossed the line from serious documentary to propoganda.
As far as I know, he never set out to be journalist. Other than that, I personally never took some oath of purity as regards the usage of the word "documentary" when applied to theatrically released films (no one seems to be bitching about the discovery channel here), so I view all of this as public masturbation, but in any case, someone from the board pointed out to me that he once said he viewed his films not as documentaries, but as filmed "op-ed" pieces, which sounds like a very truthful description to me. Should newspapers quit running op-eds? Afterall, they aren't "news" in the strictest defininiton.
Would you resort to lying in your documentary about the WT? I hope not, becuase then I would lose respect for you. The point is that if whatever you are trying to expose is really that bad, then you shouldn't have to exagerate your point.
And my point is that just because the average person doesn't KNOW that something is "really that bad", it doesn't mean that something that appears outrageous is "exagerated".
In any case, I never set out to be the board apologist for Michael Moore. Until recently, I had the same general view of him as most seem to. I've just more recently come to the conclusion that his detractors are generally being less honest than he is.