[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior 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.

Well Michael Moore has an established reputation for manipulating the audience, or at least trying to, with every film he makes. BfC may have been the most blatant example, but all the others contain the same elements. Even his supporters agree up to a point. Farenheit 911 is another example. Having Senators admit on camera they voted for the Patriot Act even though they never actually read it was a powerful condemnation of the bill. But Moore had to go one step further and drive around in a truck reading the bill over the vehicle's PA system. Theatrics like that actually cheapen the message. One critic summed it up very well in a review of the film - Michael Moore is at his best when he let's the camera do the talking and keeps his own mouth shut. He does tackle important issues, but he just can NOT resist adding his own twist to the message he is presenting. As you said yourself, the audience eventually recognizes this and his manipulations tend to make his whole message suspect.

As for Sicko, I am also intimately aware of the health care system in the U.S. I worked in the healthcare system for 13 years. I also have a chronic illness that has put me in the hospital on numerous occasions and resulted in 7 major surgeries so far. I am limited in the jobs I can pursue because I HAVE to have group insurance. Why? Because my chronic illness makes me automatically INELIGIBLE for individual insurance. Unless I can get on group policy, I simply will NOT be offered insurance at all because of my condition.

As for Universal Healthcare, there are models that work quite well. A former member here lived in France and gave glowing reviews of the universal healthcare available to all members in her country. Canada, on the other hand, falls into the category cited by critics of the universal healthcare. I've spoken directly to citizens there via forums who confirm that they do face waiting periods of up to 18 months for some medical procedures, such as surgery and even routine medical exams. My own personal physician moved here from Canada while I was working in the hospital purchasing department. When we provided him with a list of equipment the hospital would purchase for his office, his reaction was "This is for my office? Here in Canada, I could open my own HOSPITAL with this much equipment." That is straight from the horses' mouth, so to speak. So the actual "truth" about universal healthcare is far from "universal" itself. Some systems are good and some are bad, just like anything else done by the government. I personally would LOVE to see universal healthcare available in the US, IF we can do it the way France and other European countries have. But my fear is that we will end up with a system more like Canada's.

One other point I thought about last night after going to bed. I thought it was interesting that you questioned the article on Snopes, yet held the information on wikipedia up as your source regarding the British trial of Inconvenient Truth. The reason that is interesting is because Snopes exhaustively researches every article they address on their website. Wikipedia, on the other hand, accepts input from readers regarding their topics. Any reader of wikipedia can add to the information on their site. I don't know how thoroughly wiki researches the information they receive. Hopefully, they check it out for themselves before posting it. The point is that the information on wiki could be akin to the information found on any forum where readers submit thier own information. The wiki article on the trial says the judge approved the overall message of the film, but I have to ask if wiki also mentions the ruling of the judge that the film is a political effort that tells only one side of the story and showing the film without adding that disclaimer would be a violation of the Education Code. I left out the part about the judge saying it would be akin to political indoctrination, because that may be part of the spin added by the source I used. But if the judge ruled the disclaimer must be made and that information isn't included on wikipedia, then wiki is also not providing the whole story. I haven't had time to check it myself. It's waay too early in the morning to start googling stuff like that. I'll check it later today as time permits.