"I am as anti-Bush and anti-government as they come" So you CAN'T backup that statement, can you RAT? In this instance you haven't judged just one person, you've judged EVERYONE who is anti-bush, including those who've taken to the streets to protest, who've given their own time & energy & money to see that Bush doesn't get re-elected. Michael Moore who invested all the above is put down by you, and you claim to be as anti-Bush & anti-government as someone like him. Well just SAYING you are DOESN'T make it so. You have to DO something otherwise you're just a couch potato blowing hot air. And that's all it appears from here. So please tell us just what gives you the right to put down Michael Moore because you are as anti-Bush as he, and therefore in a postion to JUDGE HIM. Either prove it or shut it, dude. Cause that kind of statement WON'T go unchallenged around here. If you can't prove it, then I shall JUDGE YOU as YOU JUDGE others, from your know-it-all high perch that you think you have on this site. Because I see that you are full of it when it comes to this claim. You appear way more conservative & reactionary than you think you are. Just cause you happen to like more radical forms of music (that are pretty dated now), doesn't make you a radical when it comes to politics or anything else. I've seen you say over and over that you're a liberal (always in passing like we're supposed to accept it on your say so), yet you put down the liberals here on this site over and over. You are actually a conservative in disguise and it's closet conservatives like you who are keeping people like Bush in power. Your lipservice is impotent in the face of the American political machine and you feel powerless, no? But that is not the truth. You CAN change things, but not by sitting on your ass criticizing those who ARE working for change.
Most liberals in the USA seem to seriously dislike Moore, and say they find him embarrassing and harmful even to his own views. When someone is overtly rude, it tends to make their arguments less trusted. I've not seen enough of his work to even have an opinion, but I mentioned Moore a few days ago to a friend with whom I talk politics a bit. We agree on pretty much every issue, but at the very mention of Michael Moore he was immediately cussing and nearly spitting with anger. The gun issue. See, my friend grew up with guns, keeps a gun at his door, and wants to still have the right to have that gun at hand when the rightwing goon squad comes to the door with a Draft Notice. "When they kick at your front door, how you gonna come?" -The Clash
As others have said here, at least Michael Moore GETS reaction. Cause most Americans don't react to anything anymore. It takes someone to slap our faces with what SHOULD be obvious before most Americans even start to awaken to the truth. Yeah, I do think he OVERDRAMATIZES a bit, but that's what Americans want & expect from ENTERTAINMENT. You see Americans don't go see movies to be better informed, they go for entertainment! So Moore has fused the two - infotainment - and indeed is now being accused of combining politics & documentary in a new way. Of course if you know the history of left-wing media antics, you know that he's just carrying on in the tradition of the Yippies & Abbie Hoffman by creating media events that enlighten the masses thru information AND humor. It's a very powerful tool, and he's mastered it, much to the dismay and apparent ire of the conservatives who waste no time in issuing their own attacks upon Moore. The media IS the message, and as long as conservatives rule the US media, it's up to INDEPENDENTS, (not corporate types as PR has accused Moore), to bring any different perspectives other than the approved party line to the American public. And the issue over whether it gets US distribution is crucial because it shows just how much power the US govt. has over the media, when they can block a well-financed & critically acclaimed American film from being shown in America (or try to anyway). And since Michael Moore has touched so many issues that Americans feel so strongly about one way or another, people either love him or hate him, usually based on his take on just ONE issue, regardless of how similar his views are on other issues. I respect Michael Moore for many reasons. Yes, he's just reiterating what many of us "liberals" already know. But he puts all the puzzle pieces together in a way that focuses our attention on the bigger issue, and points the figure at those who are ultimately responsible for the problems. His work is STREET THEATER, as pioneered by the likes of the Mime Troop & the Diggers, but yes it's all glossy and slick thanks to Moore's mastery of the movie medium. You MUST confront the oppressors with their oppression and make it public before anything will change.
holy shit...americans go to the movies....for entertainment...what a novel idea...we go and watch movies..for entertainment....movies..entertainment..oh yeah..thats why they called it the entertainment industry.
Just because we don't hear about it all the time, doesn't mean it isn't happening; and the fact that more children die from car accidents or falls, doesn't make the number killed by guns less significant, nor does it excuse it. In 2001 612 children (that’s people under the age of 18) in the United States were murdered by people using guns. (Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2001) NOTE: The table supplying this info was headed Murder Victims by Age, so I can only assume that this statistic doesn’t include non-felony related deaths caused by firearms, which may push the number higher. More than half of all firearm deaths are a result of suicide. I was unable to get statistics on the number of children who committed suicide in 2001 but I think it is reasonable to say that is likely to push this number considerably higher. !n 2001 4,160 children (that’s people under the age of 18) in the United States suffered from unintentional non-fatal gunshot wounds. (Source: Centers for Disease control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System). Let us remember that Mr. Heston gave a speech at an NRA rally in Denver just 10 days after the Columbine shootings and that he devoted a large part of that speech the Denver mayor’s request that the NRA not hold a rally there. The following is a transcript of the speech he gave at that rally: GOOD MORNING. I want to welcome you to this abbreviated annual gathering of the National Rifle Association. Thank you for coming and thank you for supporting your organization. I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today. Of course, you have a right to be here. As you know, we've canceled the festivities and fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. I apologize for that. But it's fitting and proper that we should do this ... because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver, sent me a message: "Don't come here. We don't want you here, " I say to the Mayor, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you could say the same. But the Mayor said, "Don't come." I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing. "Don't come here." This is our country. As Americans we are free to travel wherever we wish in our broad land. They say we'll create a media distraction. But we were preceded here by hundreds of intrusive news crews. They say we'll create political distraction. But it has not been the NRA pressing for political advantage, calling press conferences to propose vast packages of new legislation. They say, "Don't come here." I guess what saddens me most is how it suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and eighty million honest gun owners are somehow to blame, that we don't care as much as they, or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton. "Don't come here." That's offensive. It's also absurd, because we live here. There are thousands of NRA members in Denver and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado. NRA members labor in Denver's factories, populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations, play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the front range, parent and teach and coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches, and proudly represent Denver in uniform on the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment. NRA members are in City Hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students of Columbine from evil, mindless executioners. "Don't come here?" We are already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross-section of American life imaginable. So we have the same right as all other citizens to be here ... to help shoulder the grief... to share our sorrow ... and to offer our respectful, reasoned voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile toward us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So let us be mindful ... the eyes of the nation are upon us today. Remember that this rally was held 10 days after the Columbine shootings. Why does Mr. Heston spend so much time berating the Denver mayor for asking that the NRA respect the feelings of the local population in light of such a recent and powerful tragedy? Was that nice? Mr. Heston claims at the beginning and the end of the speech to be respectful, but was he? Did he offer his sympathies to the families affected by those terrible events? I don’t see it, do you? Do you remember the crowd booing when Mr. Heston mentioned the letter? How were those families supposed to interpret that? Were the members of the NRA who came unaware of the feelings their presence would inspire? I think they were quite aware and that their response was equivalent to saying “fuck you” to all of those families. They were NOT respectful. They did NOT help shoulder the grief, as Mr. Heston claimed. Charleton Heston was PRESIDENT of the NRA, shouldn’t he have provided a bit more guidance to it’s membership at that time? Instead his words were designed to make this belligerent crowd feel good about the pain their presence was causing. As for the case of "the ambush" with Katie Rolland’s picture. Remember that after that rally in Flint, Michigan is shown, there is a clip with a TV interview of Mr. Heston. In this interview, he is asked about the Katie Rolland case. Now, even assuming that he had no knowledge of the case BEFORE that point, that is, during the Flint rally. Certainly he did AFTER the rally. Yet he pretends to know nothing of the case when Michael Moore brings it up at the home interview. Does this strike you as odd? He is the President of the NRA, right? Shouldn’t he be keeping informed of cases like this one (especially when he is asked about them in previous interviews)? What we are seeing here is simply Mr. Heston’s karma acting upon him. Michael Moore is a Flint native and still considers himself a voice speaking for the people who live there - his actions may have been cruel, but they certainly hurt Mr. Heston less than Mr. Heston has hurt others with his actions. After all, Charleton Heston is just one man. Those who are affected by gun violence are a multitude and growing larger daily. The outrage over Michael Moore's acceptance speech suprised me as well. After all, what did they give him the Oscar for? That speech was exactly what I expected to hear from the man who made his reputation confronting the public with "the awful truth." I can't wait to see Farenheit 9/11!
It sounds to me that the people who have a problem with Moore are only angry because they enjoy having GUNS. This is fucking ridiculous. The FACT is that the United States has more gun deaths than every other western nation, even Canada, where plenty of people have guns. 'Columbine' questioned WHY - and I think it came up with a valid answer - our "culture of fear." Moore gave specific numbers for people killed with guns in the US vs. other countries - he didn't fabricate those numbers, and I certainly didn't get the impression that he was saying that 100,000 children are killed by guns every year. Nor did I hear him saying that MOST Americans are running around shooting at people on a regular basis. But the WELL KNOWN fact remains that the US has more gun violence than most nations on earth. 'Columbine' is ONE WORK in Moore's impressive body of political discourse. Just because you or your friend or your cousins have guns and never killed anyone doesn't mean that everything Moore has ever said or says from now on is completely invalid. I can't WAIT to see 9-11.
People have problems with the way moore went about making his fictional story...excuse me documentary...remember how he showed that you could get a gun by just starting up a bank account? Oh yeah, he admitted that was staged and gave the claim like "there have been marketing ads like that before."
So Megara, what's your point. Do you believe Michael Moore was making up his facts? I doubt that seriously. He staged a few events, so? Does that invalidate the point he was making? No. If no one had ever gotten a gun by opening a bank account in the U.S., he wouldn't have done it. Are you upset that he has a sense of humor? In a film on such a controvertial topic, I don't blame him for tying to lighten the mood. He won an Academy Award for it, so apparently someone agrees with me.
thats my problem with it...he claimed it was a documentary... a documentary does not stage events..a documentary does not interweave multiple speeches to make you believe it is just one.....it was hardly a documentary....i dont care thta he made the movie..he has ever right..but classifying it as a documentary is just false.
Sure he "staged" the bank "gun as a free gift" thing - but that program DOES EXIST. The part that was left out was that the bank did check his background and knew he was coming, blah blah blah. It doesn't change the main point, which is that you CAN get a gun AS A FREE GIFT for opening a bank account AT THAT BANK. I agree that he made it look a little crazier than it actually is, but not by much. I think people are really pissed because of how WELL 'Columbine' did, and the fact that Moore's books have been #1 bestsellers consistently - his last one was on the NY Times list for something like 40 weeks straight. Yes, Moore exaggerates, but that is OBVIOUS to any THINKING PERSON (and maybe that's the problem here) who reads or watches his material. Moore's work isn't pure "documentary" - it is also SOCIAL SATIRE. Clearly, the cartoons in Columbine aren't a LITERAL interpretation of the ENTIRE HISTORY OF AMERICA, for heaven's sake - they are SATIRE. I think Moore's real primary flaw is expecting enough intelligence from his audience to understand that his work includes exaggeration and satire.
wow, skip.... i mean no offense to you but i think you are mis-reading matt a little. he always votes liberatarian or green.... he def. never voted republican. he was putting down moore's way of going about things and i think he is entitled to his opinion but like you and other people are entitled to disagree with him. but to say he's a closet conservative and couch potatoe when you dont know him in real life..... well, that's not how i persise matt as being. please dont get mad, im not trying to put ANYONE down- just to speak my mind on this issue.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that "documentary" had to fit your definition. Are you a film-maker? Are you a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? I think the Academy is more qualified to judge what is appropriate to be termed "documentary" than just any shmoe off the street. Michael Moore is not a reporter and has no obligation to present the facts in a manner that will satisfy you. He is an artist and may present the facts in any manner he sees fit. If you want "fair and balanced" reporting, watch FOX News.
doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r) adj. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Very nice, but later on the same page as the one where you got your definition is this: n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.and even later is a link to "Documentary Film." documentary film n : a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event [syn: documentary, docudrama, infotainment] Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University Nowhere does it say that these facts are required to be presented in a particular manner. Like all art forms, the documentary film has changed over time. As is edvinced by the Academy's acceptace of Moore's film. As for the word "objective" in your definition. There is NO SUCH THING as objective media. Research it yourself if you don't believe me. Why bother to pretend otherwise? Moore makes no pretense at being objective. At least in this, he is more honest than most new outlets. Oh, and yes, the reference to FOX News was a joke. They tried to copyright the phrase "fair and balanced" but failed.