Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush Pt II

[Oblivion437]

Something I think that needs to be added onto my point, Moore called Heston evil, at least once in his defense of BfC, so to say that he has an agenda against Heston and the NRA (further supported by other words in his post) isn't at all conjecture...

Then to say that his editing which effectively reversed the tone of a speech made by his apparent enemy, from a speech that commands honest respect, to a speech that commands honest disgust, is perfectly understable, it fits in with his agenda...

To say that he employed multi-take editing on the Heston walk-out isn't conjecture, any film editor can tell you that he must have. Considering his agenda, considering his tactics, considering his credibility, hell, just plain considering his character at large (no pun intended) it's not an effort at all to leave it open for discussion that he may have inserted a take for dramatic effect that in the process creates a totally different impression of Heston the man than we'd get without Moore's helpful little insert.

The only conjecture about that point is what's missing? Clearly, the first take's optical sound track is missing, so we can only assume what fits in with this particular case, and I'm inclined to assume that Moore's unedited version of the scene makes him look like even more of a rat-bastard...

When you understand enough about the technological limitations of film, what Moore has said in defense of it and elsewhere, what Hardy says looks less and less like conjecture, what seems to be conjecture turns into stunning fact.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: You say those things aren't an issue, and I say they are. How is that debating you personally, other than my thinking you are wrong? What is so personal about my saying that I believe those things ARE issues?

More twisting of words and mis-characterization.
Nothing personal at all with disagreeing with my opinion and I never said it was. As a matter of fact I have stated numerous times that it was fine and dandy to have a different opinion than me.

This must be another one of those apples and oranges issues. You know, the one that allows acceptions to or the complete ignoring of facts based on whether you agree with the apple or the orange.

The subtle implications here are that in order to disagree with you one must be ignoring facts and ones motives for ignoring facts is based on agreeance with Moores veiwpoints. I restate my opinion both of these points are incorrect and based on the baseless speculation of the motives of a poster rather than a counter-opinion concerning the topic at hand.

This post was about you, but only because you insisted.

No, this post was all about you. You made it so don't pass the buck onto me.


Good Day,

[Ronn_Bman]

And a Good Day to you as well, Chewie. A Good Day indeed. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 07-06-2004, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[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.

[ 07-07-2004, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Grojlach]

Oh, and I'm not sure how often I've repeated this bit, but I'm far from being a Moore fan. I have second thoughts myself on his manipulative directing style; the Heston interview scene for example was incredibly cheap on Moore's part, in my opinion. Though if I come across as too defensive with regards to Moore, then that's mostly because the general tone and attitude in this debate calls for it.
I'll be honest here though, the best thing about BfC and F9/11 isn't the documentaries themselves - it's the responses of some of those he targets that crack me up the most.

[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.

[Oblivion437]

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.

That's a respectable stance, don't give justification to those who have to strawman your point to be able to respond...

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.

The point of difference I think is in the disagreeability. This was a film that won awards for its honesty and objectivity, which it possesses neither and is clearly provable as such. He won an Oscar, and is defended constantly for his apparent credibility, yet he lacks it in spades.

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

I don't much care about Moore the man. My point of contention is, and has always been about his work, and his defense of it. It would be a hasty generalization to assume that Moore's most rabid critics are all right wing. I note that a few of his critics are at least somewhat liberal in leaning (critics I personally know) and are hardly right wing. That he's managed to make himself into a pompous, lying asshole hardly require I think anything on the matter.

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.

Except, no one contended that the interview was faked...Not even our "online nut," who merely noted that 3/4 of the interview itself isn't on film, and that the walk-out was, for reasons unjustifiable in documentarian logic, filmed in two takes. Moore's relation about that whole scene in the news comprises of three different stories, all of which contradict eachother and one involves a felony being committed.

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?

Those "editorial manipulations" which you seem to brush off make it something other than a documentary. Except, it's not that footage is missing, it's that what he chooses to leave out changes the meaning of what he shows.

I point out the following collection of sentences:

----------
"Did you murder your wife?"
"No."
"Are you David Hamilton?"
"Yes."
---------- Unedited segment of a fictional interview
"Did you murder your wife?"
"Yes."
---------- The version with a little bounce by the editors...

"Yeah, but he's lieing throughout the entire movie." Then sue him. What's stopping the NRA from sueing Michael Moore?

Read Hardy's response...

After all, according to you Moore lied about the date of the NRA convention

Balderdash, none of Moore's attackers have made any such claim in this thread.

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"

Actually, that point can be proven, just look at a transcript of the speech as appears in Moore's film, then look at the transcript of the whole speech. It's all in there, but that Moore decided to get more than a little creative with the non linear editing is not something you can seriously contend...

Also, just look at the dates surrounding the events in question. The rally (stripped down to the bare minimum in accordance with what they absolutely had to do) was held 11 days after the massacre. They had to provide cancellation notice 10 days before the rally. Between Columbine and the closure of cancellation date, they had 1 day to cancel, get the word out, and reschedule the whole thing. Now let me ask you this, do you think you could have done that, or would you be more than a little unreasonable to expect them to do something like that?

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?)

I don't know if such a thing did happen, I never made such a contention so I won't answer for it other than this: If in fact it did happen, would Moore, who has in written statements and in interviews expressed his anti-NRA sentiment, be at all willing to show us that? What's more, would the protestors be willing to listen to reason? These are the same people that are in most cases just a step away from mutating into riotors...

"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.

Actually, once again you're strawmanning... We don't know what was said in 3/4 of unshown interview, Heston may have clarified the mixed ethnicity point, and, if you understand anything about how mixed ethnicity has precipitated racism (Heston may very well have clarified this, but we'll probably never know) his point is well taken. Moore, having used biased samples to 'debunk' that idea in previous parts, has already set you up to think Heston is a racist or an idiot, or both... Are you going to deny Heston's personal history in breaking color barriers and standing up, personally, for civil rights? You don't know any of this from the film...

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.

However, Heston is a public figure, the NRA a publicly-owned non-profit corporation. Therefore, quoting he and they out of context won't win you a dime, or get the judge to do anything to Moore.

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?

You're sadly mistaken at calling them conspiracy theories (though it is convenient at dismissing your opponents in a debate, and letting people think your ad hominem attacks have weight) as by definition no more than one person need be involved at editing, though the camera crew would be involved with any stagings that were done. Besides, we aren't exactly wealthy, we most certainly don't have the financial backing of companies like Miramax or an existing multi-million dollar private fortune to bankroll a film from...

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 already have a collection of popular websites and we're getting a book...

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.

Yes, the whole point of real debate is being open to that possibility from the get go. One of you might be wrong, you both might be wrong, only reasoned discussion tends to iron out where everything is...

Some may be speculation (like, just what *is* missing, what does it do to the film? When we can show you what's missing, the picture gets pretty ugly, every time) but that something that is anti-documentarian is at work is factually provable. That biased sample cases are used to give weight to a shaky argument (used frequently to defend gun control...If I could have given Moore some advice before he started this thing, I guess I would have told him to be as careful as possible to deliberately isolate the two issues to keep his thesis more clearly in the spotlight) is not deniable, without outright intellectual dishonesty.

However, when someone shows you frame sequencing and explains the rules of Parallax, and you say it's conjecture, dismissing the whole thing, you aren't keeping an open mind, you're lying to yourself to a degree that can't be properly described. I tell you up is up and you say I'm just stating conjecture...

--Now before you say I have quoted you out of context, I'm merely responding point for point, and if you can show in any way that I've quoted you out of context or responded to an argument you didn't make, I'll rescind those arguments.

[Ronn_Bman]

I have an even better idea Groj! Why don't we just add Moore and his works to the banned discussion list?

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I have an even better idea Groj! Why don't we just add Moore and his works to the banned discussion list?

His work certainly generates massive amounts of response.

[Oblivion437]

All we have to do is turn all that forum traffic into something profitable, and we'll have something lucrative enough to justify Ziroc's headaches