[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Does Michael Moore make it known that the "facts" he is presenting are slanted to support his views?

Yes, but your opinion here you state as fact as designated by the are.
I must question this as a statement of fact. I think it is merely your opinion. I just saw the movie BFC today, I not read any of Moore's books. Aside from BFC the only other Moore film I have seen is Canadian Bacon-Hardly a high-water mark in political commentary.

But back to all the "skewwed" facts Moore presents in BFC- a couple of examples: He states some figures about handgun deaths in various countries- Are these facts skewwed to support his veiws? Or do these facts provoke the central question of the film....I guess that is a matter of opinion. Moore also mentions the fact that some of the bullets used in the Columbine massacre were bought easily at k-mart- With the help of some Columbine survivors he illustrates this fact and along the way provokes K-Mart to change policy-regardless are the facts skewwed because he illustrated them with a real-life example or does offering this fact simply lend to the question-why is there so much gun violence in America?
Another matter of opinion.

If so, then I give him credit for doing that. Of course, it isn't like anybody really expects him to present an unbiased account of the facts anyway. His reputation has preceeded him to the extent that everyone knows he slants the information presented in his films.

Everybody knows this? I don't. I very much disagree. Certainly he offered up facts that lent to his question. Once again I state-saying that Moore skewwed facts to support his opinion is itself an opinion, just as much as myself saying that Moore offered facts that lent to the question raised in the film. Perhaps even offering clues to possible answers is my opinion. I do not state my opinion is fact. 2+2=4 is a fact. In BFC Moore offered opinions, asked for opinions and offered facts is also a fact. Whether or not he skewwed the facts remains an opinion. Which is my opinion of course.

As for my own biased opinion, I've never made any pretense to the contrary. I probably have the same opinion of Michael Moore that you do of Rush Limbaugh (although it is possible you might actually like Rush more than I like Mike). I think he uses his films (and any public appearance he makes on behalf of his films) as his own personal political forum. I also think he goes out of his way to portray himself as a poor, helpless victim of whatever group opposes his latest work. And the argument he ALWAYS presents is "They are only mad at me because I'm telling the truth they don't want anybody to hear". So he paints himself as a champion of the underdog when he is a far cry from either adjective.

Well you have a right to your opinion of Moore but it remains so long as people use their opinion attack him and his work in the very guise of fact no less, than he is, IMO, a victim- one who is readily able to defend himself. At the end of the day you ( and all his other vehement critcs) are still probably going to dislike him no matter what he says and others are going to see him as their champion for exactly what he says. Perhaps others like me don't care about the messenger so much either way, but pay attention to the message or in BFC case -pays attention to the question being asked and examines what the answer(s) might be.

Anyway-Repeating over and over he is this or that wont make it true. It is still merely opinion as much as Moore's opinions are simply opinions.

You say that the central question of BFC is "Why is America so violent?". Does Michael Moore actually offer any suggested answers to the question? I agree it is a worthwhile topic to discuss, but does he ever offer any opinion as to what the solution could be? Or is he just trying to figure out who to blame?

You say it is a good topic to discuss but at the same time lambast Moore for doing so. Which is it? Does a person offering a question to invoke discussion have to give an answer for the question to be valid. What if Moore giving a concrete answer was not the point of the film.

Moore asks the question and offers various facts and opinions (his and many other people's) that suggest possible answers but I did not take from the film that it was a work designed to promote solely his opinion at all. Dozens of people offered opinions, insights and perspectives in the film. He did ask the questions and obviously imprinted his answers in part, but I did not feel like I was being spoonfed two hours of Michael Moore's biased perspective nor did I feel like the film adequatley answered the question. It is such a large and serious question that a mere two hours do not do it justice no matter who is asking.

I do find it sad and ironic that people waste a ton of energy attacking Moore and the movie and basically ignore the question. Perhaps that in itself partially lends to the answer(s) to the film's premise. Maybe it is more convient to attack each other for our thoughts, questions, and opinions- in the process reject actually considering the questions and the answers that could lead to our society being a better, safer, more peaceful one.

[ 05-10-2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]