[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Note: I won't respond to anyone who thinks chopping my text into tiny pieces and responding to its parts out of their original context is a good idea. I'll just side with Chewie on this one - it seems some of you make a really big deal about certain elements in Moore's documentaries, while others don't really understand what the fuss is all about, despite the fact that they (and me included) don't agree with at least part of Moore's techniques. It's a difference in perspective, most clearly stemming from political point of view; it seems clear to me that the most rabid right wing defenders don't just disagree with Moore's perspectives (which is fair enough), it also seems they think that character assassination is a vital part of any Moore criticism - there is so much venom in some of you, that you don't really seem to see completely insignificant "manipulations" for what they really are, or seem to accept any online nut's conspiracy theories ("the Heston interview was faked!") as a solid truth, bashing your head against the wall out of sheer frustration because we're nut buying into it. Of course Michael Moore threw in some editorial manipulations. Of course he cut certain scenes (not just because he's an "Evil Gun-Hating Commie", but because the movie would be quite boring with several hours of extra footage, just because certain people get all kinds of weird things in their head regarding the missing elements - quod erat demonstrandum ). Of course he has an agenda with his movie. So What? "Yeah, but he's lieing throughout the entire movie." Then sue him. What's stopping the NRA from sueing Michael Moore? After all, according to you Moore lied about the date of the NRA convention, formed sentences out of seperate parts of the speech, misrepresented the NRA because they "had no choice but to hold their meeting because of the law" , didn't show any footage of NRA members trying to explain that situation to the people protesting outside (just because Moore didn't show that part, it ought to have taken place, right?), "obviously" faked the Heston interview in order to portray him as a racist jerk instead of the tree-hugging, puppy-loving peace activist he really is. That's quite a list of accusations, and some of these could actually be proven in court easily, if necessary. There's footage of the NRA meeting, for one thing. So if you're all so convinced that all of these conspiracy theories hold any water (as you keep repeating them continuously), why don't you do anything about it? Start a petition or a fundraiser or whatever to raise awareness of it, so that the NRA can finally expose Moore in court for the fat liar that he really is. We are aware of your viewpoints, know that there's a chance that Moore tricked us all; but now have the courtesy to accept the fact that you some of those accusations may be wrong or overblown just as easily. It's still speculation, not irrefutable fact - and repeating your speculations ad infinitum to us Disbelievers isn't going to make any of it closer to fact.

Thanks for bringing some much needed perspective back to this topic, Groj. I realize my own intense dislike for Moore makes the issue of his "editing techniques" far more important in my opinion, but it's nice to see an opposing viewpoint say "Yeah, I realize he is doing this too - I just don't think it is as big a deal as you." I guess the main thing I (and perhaps others) wanted out of this thread was an acknowledgement that Moore does do some questionable editing. At the very beginning of this thread, I stated flat out that Moore often "skews" the facts. I was immediately challenged on that and I've had some members say over and over "It has never been proven that Moore lied about anything." Well, sorry, but it has been proven. He outright lied about Disney forbidding distribution of the film and the timing of that decision. Disney did NOT forbid distribution and they told Moore over a year ago that THEY would not distribute his film - but he in an interview I quoted of Michael Moore's, he says he thought everything was "OK" because over $6 million dollars of Disney's money was poured into his film. That's the type of subtle changing of facts that irritate me so much about Moore - because the money actually came from Miramax (which is owned by Disney - so technically it was "Disney's money", but only in a very roundabout way) and the head of Miramax and Moore's agent both knew that Eisner (head of Disney) did NOT approve of the decision. But the Miramax CEO told Moore's agent that he would try to negotiate with Eisner and change his mind. So Moore knew his film was being funded by Miramax against Eisner's wishes - and he just flat out lied about that.

{sigh}Anyway, it is pointless to repeat all the arguments over again. The only thing I will add is that the ONLY reason Moore hasn't been sued over BfC is because of the subtleness he uses in skewing the truth. Moore claims on his site that he had an entire team of researchers and lawyers go over BfC with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it was completely accurate. That's is just propagand bullshit. He had a team of lawyers go over the film with a fine-tooth comb to make sure he could NOT be sued over any portion of it. As Hardy even pointed out on his website, the parts of BfC that are questionable are often presented in such as a way that the viewer feels it is a given truth - but Moore can always claim it was just opinion on his part and he can't be responsible for any conclusions or connections drawn by the viewing audience. That's utter poppycock - he presents several series of scenes in such a fashion that the viewer is led to believe they are related - but Moore has made sure he has "plausible deniability" if actually challenged on the sequence of scenes. In other words, he did a massive C.Y.A. job. I've said before that Moore is extremely intelligent and also very talented at what he does.

Still, despite my rather rabid dislike for the man, I have come away from this thread with a somewhat milder view of him. This IS America and Michael Moore does have every right to produce the films he does and edit them however he sees fit. I feel that his editing leads to a gross misrepresentation of actual facts, but I have come to accept that others don't feel they are that serious.

As for the recurring arguments, I simply felt that Hardy did a very good job of dissecting the film and pointing out the numerous incidents of Moore changing things around. His criticism of the film was based on provable facts rather than heated emotion. It's like someone in the audience explaining how a magician is doing his tricks. Rather than just yelling at Moore and calling him a charlatan, Hardy says "THIS is how he did this trick. This is how he re-arranged the sequence of Heston's statements. This is what he did here, this is how he manipulated the scene there, etc etc." I didn't base my praise of Hardy on his political or personal viewpoints, I based it on a thorough presentation of facts with documentation and links provided to support his conclusions. But I realize that some people still don't believe the allegations being made against Moore and that is also their right to believe or disbelieve what any one person is saying.

Ach...I'm starting to repeat the arguments again and I certainly don't mean to do that. I've been told that my long-winded posts tend to "dredge up" old arguments again and I'm consciously trying to change that. As I said before, both sides have been exhaustively represented throughout both threads and few opinions have been changed either way. Still it has been a rousing discussion and one that has remained fairly civil throughout. So I take comfort in the fact that there are at least some small signs of this forum finally returning to the former days of members discussing opposing viewpoints in a civil and respectable manner.