Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
I'm good for at least one more post on this topic. [img]smile.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Hardy did an excellent job at showing exaclty how Moore used the "smoke and mirrors" effect in BfC. He also provided links and sources to back up his claims against the film. In the "controversial" speech by Heston at Denver, he gave a side-by-side comparison of the transcript from the film compared to the transcript of the actual speech. It shows - without any opinion or conjecture - how Moore deliberately took some sentences far out of context and even spliced two separate sentences together to make a completely different statement.
|
The blue part is conjecture- and heads towards the opinion from Hardy that Moore's editing and use of excerpts were
designed to be misleading. This is pure conjecture because intent to decieve cannot be factually proven. The fact of the matter is Moore used
excerpts from a speech. That is
parts of the speech to make a specific point. Leaving out parts of the speech are hardly damning. The is the whole point of excerpts is to show parts.[/QUOTE]
The splicing of two sentences to create a new one is not conjecture. Michael Moore either spliced the sentences together as Hardy claims or he did not - there is no guesswork. Follow the link and look at the transcript Hardy claims comes from the movie. You saw the movie, so tell us if the movie transcript is accurate or not. IF the movie transcript is accurate, then look at the transcript provided of the actual speech made by Heston. If the supposed "spliced statement" is in the movie transcript, but NOT in the original transcript, then Moore did splice the statements as Hardy claims. It should be easy enough to find, because Hardy even gives the two sentences that were spliced.
As for taking "excerpts" from a speech - one sentence from a paragraph hardly qualifies as being presented in context...and even excerpts should be presented in the proper context - unless the intent IS to decieve.
One of the prime examples of this "excerpt editing" is when the mayor asks the NRA to cancel their meeting and not come to Denver, to which Heston supposedly replies "You ask us not to come here, we're already here!!!" The implication give by Moore (or at least those criticising the film) is that Heston is defiantly denying the mayor's request. However, the actual context of that statement was to point out that many citizens of Denver belong to the NRA - so the NRA is already in Denver. Heston followed this statement by saying "We are already here. We are the firemen and police and other citizens of Denver and we are here to help shoulder the burden of grief over this tragedy" (or words to that effect - the link gives the exact text of his statement). To take only the first part of the statement and leave off the following statements definitely seems like an intent to present a false representation of the NRA members in general and Charlten Heston in particular.
But I realize no amount of evidence will be convincing and there is no point in presenting the same circular arguments anymore.
Both sides have been exhaustively represented and it is up to each individual member to judge Moore and his films on their own criteria.
One final note. F9/11 remained in second place this week behind Spiderman 2 and took in a respectable $21 million. It is currently on pace to become the first "documentary" to ever make more than $100 million dollars!!! I may not care for Moore or his films, but I will give credit to him for a job well done. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]