And the winner of the best film award at the Cannes festival is ...
by Simon 103 Replies latest social entertainment
-
-
Double Edge
Michael Moore is such a phony. He likes to play like he's the advocate and friend of the middle-class, when in reality he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.....
"He sends his child to a private school -- no sense associating with the working class -- and has some trouble associating with them himself. The New York Post reported on a tantrum he threw in London: "Then, on his second-to-last night, [Michael Moore] raged against everyone connected with the Roundhouse and complained that he was being paid a measly $750 a night. 'He completely lost the plot,' a member of the stage crew told the London Evening Standard. 'He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, even the 5 pound-an-hour bar staff, telling them how we were all con men and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public.' At his last appearance, staffers refused to work or even open the theater's doors." NY Post, Jan. 8, 2003.
He supplements his meager income with speaking tours (No more $750 gigs; he charged Cornell students $10,000, , Univ. of Texas ones $25,000, told the Penn State ones he could be had for a modest $15-20,000 a night, and most recently, when Kansas University students asked for him, "Moore -- a noted political activist and Academy Award-winning filmmaker -- had raised eyebrows by asking for more than $30,000 to speak at KU." Ah, the joys of capitalism....) No wonder one former associate of his rated him as " You would think that he's the ultimate common man. But he's money-obsessed."
....posted from an April Drudge Report
-
rem
Six,
I never implied that Moore should give a balanced viewpoint. If he views his work as Op-ed pieces, that's fine with me. What I don't appreciate is intellectual dishonesty. I believe you can have an opinion or make a point without stretching the truth.
As for examples, it's been so long since I saw the movie that I hadn't been motivated to get off my ass and provide you examples, but since you seem so sure that criticism of the so-called facts in Moore's movie are overblown, I will go through the trouble. If you have done research that debunks the debunkers then I would like to see it:
Most of the following information comes from http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Do you have any updated information that shows that Moore did not dishonestly edit exerpts from various Heston speeches to make the NRA look like they came to Denver to support gun rights as a reaction to the Columbine tragedy?
Do you have any updated information that shows that Moore did not dishonestly edit exerpts from various Heston speeches and newspaper/web page clippings to make it look like Heston defiantly came to Flint, Michigan just 48 hours after a child was killed by a relative's handgun to support gun rights?
Do you have any new information that shows that Moore's interview with Heston was not purposely edited to make Heston look like a liar? (See above question - the Flint election campaign stop Heston went to was more than 6 months after the girl was killed and Moore makes Heston look like a callous liar by implying he went there 48 hours after. The fact that Heston's memory of the event is foggy is capitalized by Moore which makes Heston look even more evil.)
So is the point of Moore's movie that he doesn't like Heston?
What is your interpretation of Moore's cartoon associating the NRA with the KKK? Do you have updated information that shows there really is a connection? Isn't this a logical fallacy?
Do you have any recent information showing that the young killer of the girl was not a thug who had stabbed other kids with a pencil and later a knife and was brought up in a troubled home? You don't think leaving out those details painted a dishonest picture of what really happened? It seems a drug culture - not a gun culture - was a major contributor to this child's death.
What was Moore's point in lying about "military" assistance to the Taliban? Do you have updated information that shows that this assistance was not UN humanitarian assistance?
Why did Moore use raw and inflated gun homicide statistics to compare the US with other countries (using the lowest numbers) instead of gun homicide *rates*? This one I picked up on immediately while watching the movie - did you? Do you have updated information that shows that the US gun homicide rate is *significantly* higher than other developed nations? If not, then WHAT WAS THE POINT OF MOORE'S MOVIE???
Do you have any information showing that Moore did not stage the gun purchase scene at the bank?
Did you notice that Moore tried to compare US poverty rates to Canadian unemployment rates? (Canada's poverty rate is far lower than the US - unemployment does not correlate with poverty)
Moore tried to show that the Militarism in the city of Columbine could be fuel for gun violence - accusing a local contractor of making weapons missiles. The contractor actually made satellite rockets. Do you have information to dispute this?
Moore just might have stumbled upon some interesting ideas if only he would have stuck with the truth. For example - maybe there is some correlation between poverty and gun homicides... but in his US bashing glee he totally ignored something that could actually add to the dialog.
The interesting thing is that even a couple years after the film, it has not really added anything to the discussion of gun homicides in America. If anything, it looks as if there may not really be as much of a problem as he suggests. What, then, is his documentary good for other than scare mongering and making his enemies out to look like callous villians?
rem
PS: I'm not exactly sure what you're on about with cross-dressing musicians. :) -
avishai
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
See? I have a big problem, a huge problem with all that. It came out later that the columbine shooters did'nt even like Marilyn Manson. And Moore did'nt address that. He also did'nt address (As marylin manson has) THE MAIN REASON FOR COLUMBINE AND MOST OTHER SCHOOL MASS MURDERS!!!
Bullying. Our collective fascination with boys will be boys behavior. Letting Athletes beat the shit out of other, smaller kids, often with teachers looking on, with no more than a warning, and often reprimanding the children who get beat up. I know, it was most of my school existence. Why do we do this? Becasue high school sports often brings in $$$$ to the school coffers, not to mention our society's elitism when it comes to wealthier kids, who are also often allowed to get away w/ beating up poor kids becasue of parents donations, scool board positions, etc.
It happens. A lot. Children are subjected to assaults and behavior so severe, sometimes on a daily basis, that if an adult did them, they would be locked up for years.
But no one wants to talk about that. No wone wants to talk about the pain and rage that nerds go through.
One film, and play "Bang, bang, your dead" Addressed this. It was a powerful, great film. Did it get an oscar? No Did it get any recognition for facing the REAL problems at columbine? No. I had to see it on IFC.
Columbine, Springfield and all the other school tragedies are being used to promote a political agenda that has almost nothing to do with the real problem. That, in the end is what disgusts me.
-
SixofNine
See? I have a big problem, a huge problem with all that. It came out later that the columbine shooters did'nt even like Marilyn Manson. And Moore did'nt address that. He also did'nt address (As marylin manson has) THE MAIN REASON FOR COLUMBINE AND MOST OTHER SCHOOL MASS MURDERS!!!
Huh?... I guess maybe my thought wasn't clear above, but haven't you seen the movie, Avishai? All Moore "adressed" in the movie regarding Manson was that there was an uproar about him playing a gig in that part of Colorado soon after the shootings, and Manson's response to that. Moore certainly didn't try to make it seem as if Manson had any influence whatsoever in the Columbine shooter's lives.
I don't know to what extent bullying played a part in Columbine. I know it's a problem, but that doesn't mean it was a huge problem there. They certainly didn't seem to choose their victims solely on that particular revenge card in any case.
But hey, make yourself a documentary based on that subject. And when you do, you know what you will have been a part of? The political process.
-
Euphemism
Yeah, Moore's stuff is part of the political process. And excrement is natural and organic. Doesn't mean we should spread either around.
-
SixofNine
Do you have any updated information that shows that Moore did not dishonestly edit exerpts from various Heston speeches to make the NRA look like they came to Denver to support gun rights as a reaction to the Columbine tragedy?
*shakes head* ....right outa the box.... Yes.
Moore didn't dishonestly "edit exerpts from various Heston speeches to make the NRA look like they came to Denver to support gun rights as a reaction to the Columbine tragedy" because he didn't make it look like "the NRA came to Denver to support gun rights as a reaction to the Columbine tragedy".
He made it look just like it looked to alot of us, the NRA was saddled with a pre-planned convention in Denver at a really bad time. Rather than cancel (which I don't know that I can blame them), they kept their date, and in many ways seemed to just throw it back in the face of a grieving town. I imagine they did this thinking, "we gotta show 'em that we ain't giving an inch". I think they could have been far more conciliatory and respectful of the raw nerves of the people in Columbine. Moore may think they should have canceled. They certainly could afford to have canceled financially, but I doubt they felt they could afford it politically.
-
avishai
Rather than cancel (which I don't know that I can blame them), they kept their date, and in many ways seemed to just throw it back in the face of a grieving town. I imagine they did this thinking, "we gotta show 'em that we ain't giving an inch
No, due to the by laws of the federal govt., They were'nt legally allowed to cancel. With the type of org. they are, they're mandated by the govt. to have meetings at specific intervals.
-
avishai
All Moore "adressed" in the movie regarding Manson was that there was an uproar about him playing a gig in that part of Colorado soon after the shootings, and Manson's response to that. Moore certainly didn't try to make it seem as if Manson had any influence whatsoever in the Columbine shooter's lives.
Yes, I've seen the movie. I've also seen many of the initial reports about Columbine.
THE REASON FOR THE UPROAR, was because of a rumor that Kliebold and Harris were huge Manson fans, and that listening to Marylin Manson may have been part of the cause of the shootings. Otherwise, no uproar, no reason for Manson to be in the film, got it?
-
SixofNine
Here's a comment from MM on bowling and the other MM for Avishai:
Finally, I've even been asked about whether the two killers were at bowling class on the morning of the shootings. Well, that's what their teacher told the investigators, and that's what was corroborated by several eyewitness reports of students to the police, the FBI, and the District Attorney's office. I'll tell you who wasn't there -- me! That's why in the film I pose it as a question:
"So did Dylan and Eric show up that morning and bowl two games before moving on to shoot up the school? And did they just chuck the balls down the lane? Did this mean something?"
Of course, it's a silly discussion, and it misses the whole, larger point: that blaming bowling for their killing spree would be as dumb as blaming Marilyn Manson.They were'nt legally allowed to cancel. With the type of org. they are, they're mandated by the govt. to have meetings at specific intervals.
I'm sorry, but this stretches the limits of my credulity. Do you have documentation to back this up? I'll grant you that a total cancellation was probably outside the realm of a reasonable option, just based on how many people had made arrangements.