Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerek
That's where you are wrong.
My disdain for Michael Moore has been well documented on IW over the years. I honostly cannot think of enough deragotory comments to describe my feelings for him and the crap-films he touts as "documentaries". However, despite my absolute disgust for Moore and his work, I accepted the challenge years ago to actually watch Bowling for Columbine. I discovered two things when I did. One was that ALL the criticisms I had read about the film were TRUE. He used half-truths, misleading dialogue and spliced film in a deliberate attempt to FORCE the viewer to accept HIS vision of the issue. You chastise me for not watching Al Gore's film? I don't have to. Despite any spin added to the smears, the fact remains that his film DOES contain at least 9 documented material innaccuracies. Add to that the fact that Al Gore has admitted it is common and accepted practice for environmentalist to exaggerate the data and it's impact in order to create "alarm" about environmental issues. He also admitted he, himself, had exaggerated claims of the global warming impact in order to "heighten awareness" of the situation. I watched Moore's film and found out all the flaws he denied actually DID exist in his films. So why do I need to watch Al Gore's film when it has been proven to contain inaccuracies and is narrated by a man who has admitted he has exaggerated data in the past to create extra alarm. The answer is, I don't.
Now then, the second discovery I made while watching BfC surprised me. Despite my personal feelings towards Michael Moore and his mockumentary style of filming, I had to admit he did raise a few valid points in his movie. The sad thing is, the movie would have had a much larger impact if Moore would simply have let the data speak for itself instead of intentionally manipulating it in order to make his viewpoint appear stronger. In fact, his tampering had the opposite effect. A decent message was tainted because the data was very obviously manipulated, so the overall message is denigrated by his actions. The same applies to Al Gore's film and the global warmers consistent cries of "Doom and Gloom! The sky is falling." By routinely exaggerating the data, they impair the message. It's a real life version of the boy who cried "Wolf". Is the danger real? Perhaps. But how can we know the true extent and impact the danger may have when we are constantly fed "alarmingly exaggerated" data? The answer is, we can't.
When you taint the data, you DO taint your overall message.
|
Well, it's odd that you mention this movie because I just watched BFC there a few days ago for the first time and, despite my bad feelings toward guns and arms readily available in America (which we discussed before in another thread) I do in fact, agree with you on this.
Again, I will come forward and say what I feel no matter who made the movie, or if I like what it preaches, rather than back it blindly regardless of content. And note, I am a fan of Michael Moore for his reputation of tackling the issues that many won't. But yes, in this movie all I kept thinking was he went the wrong way about doing it all. There were some pointless arguments made, I totally agree about the last scene blaming the NRA guy for the girl's death...it was a ridiculous play on audience emotion which in his mind may have been the noble thing, but was in reality, totally misguided. I remember watching that part and thinking "Wtf? Audience manipulation isn't how you solve this issue!". Because I did feel like I was being manipulated when watching it. Not one of my favourites at all.
Now, "Sicko" for example, was a great movie. Maybe it's because I know so intricately the gaping flaws in the US healthcare system, or that I know all the things that are said by the smear campaigns about the European or other Free world systems is inaccurate. Why? because I grew up with them. So I could at once see both sides of the coin and dismiss the lies almost immediately due to personal experience. All the while I watched other people succumb to the notion that "the waiting lists are months long in the UK" or "you have a 30% chance of surviving cancer in the UK". I LOL'ed alot at this BS. But it was odd and somewhat frightening, because I kept thinking to myself that if I hadn't seen the truth with my own eyes I may be buying into this stuff.
Anyways, my point is, do not be discouraged by one movie which I already agree has missed the mark entirely. Moore for example did some good stuff later on, keep an open mind, approach with a level of nuetrality rather than nab all of them with the same brush. Even if you force yourself through a sitting of a movie being discussed it will serve to, at the very least, help give your own personal insights, impressions and criticisms alongside the other ones.