Quote:
Originally posted by Grojlach:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblivion437:
As for F 9/11, it's a "documentary", which means several things:
It won't be as good as Once Upon a Time In America, or William Wyler's Ben Hur, nor will it be as humane (and brilliantly made) as a Martin Scorsese film (like Gangs of New York, or Raging Bull) and it won't have the raw edge of my favorite type of film, so I'm not too interested in it. Considering Moore's record at keeping the facts straight, I'm not going to take it too seriously, if I do see it ever.
|
That's fine, and you're entitled to not seeing it. I don't even mind the occasional condescending remark or cheap dig at Moore's address - after all, it's what we all do if it concerns something that we're really not interested in for strong personal reasons.
What I *do* mind however, is pretending to give indepth criticism of Moore's movie while purely basing that criticism on the very first bash site you come across, because you couldn't be bothered to see it. I find the person of Ann Coulter detestable, but if I've never read one of her books, I'm not going to bother debating one of those books by listing all of its inconsistencies that I just happened to have read on an anti-Coulter site - in that case you're not even slightly interested in judging the novel for what it's worth, but only in using some Internet site to fuel the fire of your own personal vendetta towards Coulter. Sure, you're entitled to do so - but it simply reflects badly on you, and just doesn't make a very convincing case either way; and with Michael Moore, it's the same thing.
Honestly, if you really wish to debate the movie's details in a decent and most importantly
convincing manner, at least have the decency to see it at least once. People probably don't even realise how sheepish they look if they base all of their supposedly "rational" hate on what people like Hardy tell them what the truth is, and while they may feel morally superior to "sheepish Moore followers", theoretically they're just as bad, if not worse. [/QUOTE]
While I doubt it's any consolation, my opinion of Michael Moore was not formed based on any "hate" or "bashing" sites. They are formed based on the man's own words and actions. I pointed out numerous times the blantant lies and misleading information he gave in the interview regarding the entire "controversy" over Disney refusing to distribute his film. One example of misleading information was the comment that "no filmmaker wants to have to find a new distributor after the film is already made". That may be true - on the surface - but as Timber pointed out, finding a new distributor for the film is a very common practice in the film industry. It happens all the time and is not nearly as traumatic or difficult as Moore tried to imply. An example of an outright lie was his comment that he was under the impression that everything was fine with Disney since Miramax funded the film. Wrong! Michael Eisner told Moore's agent AND Miramax that Disney WOULD NOT distribute the film before shooting ever began. Miramax chose to fund the film against Eisner's express wishes. So Moore knew he would have to find a new distributer before shooting ever began - yet he portrayed himself as an "innocent victim" of the mean ole Disney Corporation. Again, nothing but manipulation, misleading and lies. Moore has manipulated facts and skewed the truth with every single film he has made. Now, that is his right to make his films as he sees fit, but do NOT try to turn around and pass it off as "unadulterated truth and unaltered facts". The real truth is that none of his films could stand up to that particular definition.
In regards to BfC, I never visited the "hate site" that listed all the inconsistencies and outright lies in that movie, but a number of members DID reference that site in the long ago thread about BfC. MY opinion of the movie was formed based on the comments of people here. Timber mentioned that he had noticed several of the same "inconsistencies" mentioned by the site (or by othe critics). He then said later that he had discovered even more misrepresentations made by Moore that he had not noticed. In addition, he found information listing the same type of manipulation in the film "Roger and Me". Because of this, his opinion of Moore and his films very much mirrors my own. On the other hand, Chewbacca watched BfC and found the inconsistencies to be very minor (in his opinion) and not significant enough to alter the central message of the film.
That's fair enough. But as you pointed out yourself, we are ALL more inclined to agree with those whose views are similar to our own. We are also more likely to "overlook" any skewing of the facts that person may do and to consider such manipulation to be "minor" in the overall scheme of things. So Chewbacca didn't take issue with BfC the way others have, because he agreed with the overall message it presented and felt that any deviations within the film itself did not take away or alter the central truth the film presented.
I freely admit I am guilty of this "overlooking" as anybody else. I enjoy listening to Bill O'Reilly even though I realize that he is often a pompous and arrogant jerk and acts like a crybaby when opponents level the same type of criticism towards him that he heartily dishes out on his "No Spin Zone" show. I ignore the spin and concentrate on the facts he presents (much like I did with two article presented about the discovery of WMD components by U.N. Inspectors). However, when I DIS-agree strongly with somebody (such as Moore), I admit I pay more attention to the spin and less to the central core message.
I personally despise Rush Limbaugh. I'm fairly hardcore right wing, but even *I* can't stand to listen to the vitriol he spouts on a daily basis. I don't read Ann Coulter myself, but from what I've seen of her articles, she is only about a half-step below Limbaugh on the Repulsive Scale. I can still see the central message (sometimes) like I do with O'Reilly, but the amount of hateful spin she applies is nearly equivalent to Limbaugh, so I have a much harder time giving any weight or consideration to anything she says or writes.