Jump to content

Michael Moore


Recommended Posts

I could'nt wait for this film to come out, I saw Michael Moores last film/documentary 'Bowling for Columbine' and ended up buying it on DVD.

 

The man is Brilliant at taking something horrendous and making u laugh/or think because of his brilliant use of timing and surprisingly....background music. I'd strongly advise anyone with an interest in world culture to rent out 'Bowling for Columbine'.

 

This documentary if you haven't seen it, is a look at American gun culture, and how its lax laws on guns have contributed to the rising occurance of school shootings. Columbine being only one incident, but unfortunately the largest massacre. The film has some hilarious scenes which manage to be disturbing at the same time...thats not an easy thing to do in any film.

 

An example of this is a man being interviewed about his opinion on the gun laws, and hearing his idiotic views and how he digs a hole for himself with his comments. But when u think this man has the right to bear arms under the American constitution it's frightening.

 

I enjoyed that film immensly, so it was with a cetain amount of anticipation that I awaited his next venture, which came in the form of the book 'Stupid white men'. It was from this that his new film 'Farenheit 9/11' was based.

 

'Farenheit 9/11' based on Bush's presidency, and his decision to go to war in the aftermath of 9/11. Some of the scenes of Bush in this are hilarious like one where the camera is close up on his face and he's saying how much of a threat Iraq is and how theyre doin everything in their power to stop Sadaam and all that kinda thing....camera pans out to show him on a golf course and without taking a breath he says 'now take a look at this swing'. Classic stuff!

 

Anyone with an interest in this subject definitely go see this movie, hell even if you don't particularly go anyway. You'll be glad you did!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, brilliant film. I like Michael Moore, his books, especially Stupid White Men, are brilliant reads, but it's on the big screen that he really excels himself. I mean, every body hears about people getting killed, but it doesn't really hit home unless you see it and its results. Farenheit 9/11 is probably the saddest film I've ever seen personally. Honest to God, I was almost bawling in the cinema as the woman whose son had been killed in Iraq read out his last letter home. Or the bit where a baby's body is being loaded onto the back of a truck with a big pile of others. Really harrowing stuff. But as you say Eyebrow, some of it is absolutely hilarious too. Just superb film-making.

 

I've always believed that Moore's gift is making you care. I intensley disliked Bush before I went to see this film; now I hate him. I think the man is the anti-christ. How he's gotten away with all his crimes is a mystery to me. But the worst part is seeing the death and carnage, the lives lost, and wondering what the hell these people are dying for in the first place.

 

Superb film, highly recommended :xyx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y’know, it saddens me to hear people criticise that film, “Bowling for Columbine, on the grounds that Michael Moore, y’know, made stuff up, therefore discrediting him, therefore nothing he says means anything. In the wake of Moore winning the Oscar for said film, critics even went so far as to call for the revocation of the award. The thing is, however, that their arguments rely on exaggeration and misrepresentation - in other words, the exact same things that people accuse Moore of doing.

 

As I heard it, there was a helluva character assassination attempted against Moore in the United States after the release of Bowling for Columbine. Thanks to simple-minded patriotism, loud, clear and dissenting voices like Moore's are perceived as disturbing and have to be silenced, partially through well funded public relations campaigns, partially through propaganda. Not surprisingly, much of the criticism of Moore's film is misguided or outright wrong, often vastly more inaccurate than Moore's work itself.

 

Moore portrays the NRA as an unethical, dishonest organization; he sees the paranoia and fear in the United States as a primary cause of violence, and he does not see gun ownership itself as a problem. His documentary is full of subtle humor, jaw-dropping dialogue and dark contrasts. All in all, it is an accurate portrayal of America's gun and violence culture. It also raises questions about America's foreign policy of recent decades, questions which have been all but ignored by Moore's critics.

 

As for whether Klebold and Harris were actually bowling that morning; as I understand it (and maybe it was bullshit), their teacher told the police and the FBI that they were, and this was corroborated by several eyewitnesses. So I would suggest two things:

 

#1 If those people lied to the cops, then that’s not Moore’s fault. I dunno about you, but if I saw in FBI and police reports that two people were in a certain place at a certain time, especially involving something this big, I’d believe it

 

#2 to nitpick over the title of the film is to miss its point. The film is not about whether they were bowling that morning; it’s about America as a nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to the cinema last week' date=' and their were no posters nor trailers. I'll keep an eye out :xyx[/quote']

 

Yeah I read somewhere that theres some problems with releasing it in the U.K. Disney have stoped Miramax from releasing it so far because of political reasons. bah.

 

Just wanted to add, because i read my post and i kinda portrayed that the film is a laugh a minute the whole way through. The film has harrowing moments, like the scenes e2k mentioned so if you go just expect these.

 

It's the first time ive ever seen a film in the cinema and the whole place has gone silent throughout certain scenes.

 

Just wanted to clear that up okely!

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y’know, it saddens me to hear people criticise that film, “Bowling for Columbine, on the grounds that Michael Moore, y’know, made stuff up, therefore discrediting him, therefore nothing he says means anything. In the wake of Moore winning the Oscar for said film, critics even went so far as to call for the revocation of the award. The thing is, however, that their arguments rely on exaggeration and misrepresentation - in other words, the exact same things that people accuse Moore of doing.

 

As I heard it, there was a helluva character assassination attempted against Moore in the United States after the release of Bowling for Columbine. Thanks to simple-minded patriotism, loud, clear and dissenting voices like Moore's are perceived as disturbing and have to be silenced, partially through well funded public relations campaigns, partially through propaganda. Not surprisingly, much of the criticism of Moore's film is misguided or outright wrong, often vastly more inaccurate than Moore's work itself.

 

Moore portrays the NRA as an unethical, dishonest organization; he sees the paranoia and fear in the United States as a primary cause of violence, and he does not see gun ownership itself as a problem. His documentary is full of subtle humor, jaw-dropping dialogue and dark contrasts. All in all, it is an accurate portrayal of America's gun and violence culture. It also raises questions about America's foreign policy of recent decades, questions which have been all but ignored by Moore's critics.

 

As for whether Klebold and Harris were actually bowling that morning; as I understand it (and maybe it was bullshit), their teacher told the police and the FBI that they were, and this was corroborated by several eyewitnesses. So I would suggest two things:

 

#1 If those people lied to the cops, then that’s not Moore’s fault. I dunno about you, but if I saw in FBI and police reports that two people were in a certain place at a certain time, especially involving something this big, I’d believe it

 

#2 to nitpick over the title of the film is to miss its point. The film is not about whether they were bowling that morning; it’s about America as a nation.

In the film, when Moore is talking about the NRA, he chases a 75 year old man, with alzeimers (sp?)

That is not my idea of a good citizen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My views on this idiot is he is cashing in on 9/11. He has no right to do this. Imagine if you were related to someone who died in the twin towers and then you get this prick who is full of exagerations cashing in on it. Not good.

I pretty much hate him, if he hadnt jumped on this bandwagon he woulldnt be that famous. I certainly wont be paying to see this film so he can make many more films full of lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he didn't chase him actually. He asked Heston could he have an interview, Heston said yes. He was invited in to Heston's house. When Moore asked questions that Heston didn't like (fairly pertinent questions, I thought), Heston got up and walked away. Moore walked after him, looking for an answer. He was ignored. Personally, I didn't see too much wrong with Moore's interview technique there to be honest. He didn't physically harrass him or anything, he was just looking for an answer. That's my take on it anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My views on this idiot is he is cashing in on 9/11. He has no right to do this. Imagine if you were related to someone who died in the twin towers and then you get this prick who is full of exagerations cashing in on it. Not good.

I pretty much hate him, if he hadnt jumped on this bandwagon he woulldnt be that famous. I certainly wont be paying to see this film so he can make many more films full of lies.

 

 

You should watch the film Jack before you make any judgements.

 

And I'm pretty sure that if his film is full of lies, then he'd be in big trouble. I'm sure there are libel and slander laws in America too, especially where the bleedin' President is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I started this thread because I personally saw these two films and thought they were very interesting and informative.

 

I looked at both with a degree of scepticism as I do anything that is supposedly fact based....im not just some sheep that believes everything she hears or sees on tv or elsewhere.

 

Fair enough if you don't like Michael Moore or his interview techniques but u cant deny most of the facts of the films. A lot of the evidence is there in black and white.

 

I dont think u should let a dislike for the film maker cloud important issues. I like the simple fact that he brings these things out in the open. Obviously if you don't like his previous stuff then don't go see this.

Edited by peoples eyebrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My views on this idiot is he is cashing in on 9/11. He has no right to do this. Imagine if you were related to someone who died in the twin towers and then you get this prick who is full of exagerations cashing in on it. Not good.

I pretty much hate him, if he hadnt jumped on this bandwagon he woulldnt be that famous. I certainly wont be paying to see this film so he can make many more films full of lies.

 

He has not jumped on the 9/11 bandwagon, his film is about the Bush administration, not about terrorist attacks, not about 9/11 itself. The title is a reference to the event, probably the biggest event in American history which happened during Bush's Presidentcy.

 

Moore's previous film took over 2 1/2 years to make, how could he have been cashing in on 9/11 if he had begun the film before the event even happened? He has been famous on the independent scene for a long time now, he has been making documentories about America's social problems for over 10 years as well as writing books and giving lectures.

 

Moore doesn't lie about subjects, he shows what he see's, he makes a film which shows his point of view, where are the lies, why is he exaggerating about 9/11 when doesn't on the most part comment about it in his films?

 

If i was a relative of someone who died in 9/11 I'd like the fact that someone out there is trying to show us what the real cause and main problem is, the Bush administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is we're never going to know the whole truth because everyone in the media has an agenda. Believe it or not, Michael Moore isn't the good guy simply blowing the lid on scandal and evil. Everything is misrepresented, truths are carefully edited to fit his argument to the point where no-one actually knows that the hell is going on.

 

Saying that, whilst being chocker block with misinformation, 'Bowling for Columbine' was a highly enjoyable film and were his previous works. I will also be seeing this at the cinema prety soon. Moore is a great film maker, just not so great at giving an unbias account of the truth. But then, if he did the films would be far less entertaining. The sad thing is that some people are going to come out of the film believing every word the man said instead of just going for Moores great use of wit and superb film making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has not jumped on the 9/11 bandwagon' date=' his film is about the Bush administration, not about terrorist attacks, not about 9/11 itself. The title is a reference to the event, probably the biggest event in American history which happened during Bush's Presidentcy.[/quote'] I totally disagree with you there. Why, if it has nothing to do with 9 11 has he named the film Fahrenheit 9/11? He is getting on the anti-bush bandwagon.

 

Moore's previous film took over 2 1/2 years to make' date=' how could he have been cashing in on 9/11 if he had begun the film before the event even happened? He has been famous on the independent scene for a long time now, he has been making documentories about America's social problems for over 10 years as well as writing books and giving lectures.[/quote'] Yet again if the film has nothing or little to do with 9/11 why name it that?

 

If i was a relative of someone who died in 9/11 I'd like the fact that someone out there is trying to show us what the real cause and main problem is' date=' the Bush administration.[/quote'] The Bush administration hasnt done ANYTHING wrong. The Bush administration couldnt of stopped 9/11, it has tried to stop terrorism and if this is about the "illegal" war then that is a total load of balls. If we all want to bury our heads in the sand about Saddam Hussein we could of. But Bush and Blair have stopped millions dying. The war on Iraq was right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright here goes...

 

The war on Iraq was supposed to find weapons of mass distruction, that was the British reason for attacking Iraq given to the public... The US said this as well and also stated that the Iraqi's were supplying terroists with arms, possibly even chemical or dirty nuclear weapons...

 

If they had said were going to gain access to oil supplies in the region, to throw out a anti-US dictator and try and make the place safe for ordinary people I would have respected them alot more... All thats happened is that Saddam has gone, people are dying and terroists are now more active in that region then before... And have they found any weapons of mass distruction? No didn't think so...

 

They attacked Afganistan because of a few training camps their.... fine but the fact is most terroist's come from Saudi a place which the US has backed for years due to the oil market... Bin Laden is a sodding Saudi for christs sake!

 

Also Bibby if you have watched the news in the past 6 months the US have been having an investigation on if anymore could have been done and if intelligence failed them in regrads to the events of 9/11.... They found out that the FBI and CIA knew about terroists cells in the USA, the very ones who attacked New York and Washington on that day... They notified Bush and what did he do? Went on holiday! After being told that in the next two weeks there may be a major attack on US soil he went on holiday... its in the evidence of the investigation in black and white!

 

So as for the film... well I haven't seen it yet but because he is using his freedom of speech to express his dismay at the policies of his government and his president alot of people have attacked him...

If he mis-represents the facts and steps out of line do you really think he'd been sued by now? I mean this the USA... they sue for anything over there! Just because he has the balls to stand up and say what he feels against the whole establishment then I think that alone should be applauded...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war on Iraq was supposed to find weapons of mass distruction' date=' that was the British reason for attacking Iraq given to the public... The US said this as well and also stated that the Iraqi's were supplying terroists with arms, possibly even chemical or dirty nuclear weapons...[/quote'] One part of the war on Iraq was for WoMD not all of it. But we know Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past on his own people which was a reason and we found them.

 

If they had said were going to gain access to oil supplies in the region' date=' to throw out a anti-US dictator and try and make the place safe for ordinary people I would have respected them alot more... All thats happened is that Saddam has gone, people are dying and terroists are now more active in that region then before... And have they found any weapons of mass distruction? No didn't think so...[/quote'] Its not Blair's and Bush's fault if people want to kick up a fuss about Saddam leaving. Reember these are Saddams followers not the vast percentage of Iraqis. If it was plenty more would be suicide bombers and plenty more would try and kill US and UK soldiers. Most Iraqis are behind the US and UK

 

They attacked Afganistan because of a few training camps their.... fine but the fact is most terroist's come from Saudi a place which the US has backed for years due to the oil market... Bin Laden is a sodding Saudi for christs sake!
At the time Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia. We also killed a lot of his followers when we bombed th Afghani mountains

 

Also Bibby if you have watched the news in the past 6 months the US have been having an investigation on if anymore could have been done and if intelligence failed them in regrads to the events of 9/11.... They found out that the FBI and CIA knew about terroists cells in the USA' date=' the very ones who attacked New York and Washington on that day... They notified Bush and what did he do? Went on holiday! After being told that in the next two weeks there may be a major attack on US soil he went on holiday... its in the evidence of the investigation in black and white![/quote'] The problem is with that Bush woud get warnings daily saying there will be terrorist attacks. 1000s want to attack America and would try any time and place. Bush wouldve stopped the attacks if he had a good reason saying there was going to be an attack. Obviously there wasnt.

 

So as for the film... well I haven't seen it yet but because he is using his freedom of speech to express his dismay at the policies of his government and his president alot of people have attacked him...

If he mis-represents the facts and steps out of line do you really think he'd been sued by now? I mean this the USA... they sue for anything over there! Just because he has the balls to stand up and say what he feels against the whole establishment then I think that alone should be applauded...

The film is 100% biased. Dont go and see it because it only gives one arguement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We didn't find weapons of mass distruction, yes he's used them before but the fact is the offical reason was to find them...

 

We said we where going to war with Iraq to the UN to find the weapons that thier inspectors were not allowed to search for...

 

The people that are killing each other aren't doing it for Saddam, some are but the vast majority are people who don't want the US in Iraq and want self rule and are trying to cut out a niche of support for them through fear and intemidation... Its not about Saddam its about the fear of becoming a US puppet regime.

 

As for 9/11 well yes alot of terroist attacks are supposedly in the pipeline everyday and pushed on Bush's desk but the fact is in this case the frameworks, the people and everything were being cased by the FBI and the CIA... yet nothing was done... it was the administrations fault, not jus Bush but he could have taken a bigger intrest...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet again if the film has nothing or little to do with 9/11 why name it that?

 

His last film was 'Bowling for Columbine' Jack, where's the 9/11 reference in that?

 

As for the Bush administration doing nothing wrong, ha! Lets see, the American ecomemy has gone to the wall since Bush came to power, oh and lets not forget that his brother stopped 200,000 black people from voting against him in Florida, so he only got into power because he rigged the election.

 

Remember camp X-ray? Over 100 prisoners were treated like they were in Nazi Germany, we were told that they were terrorists, but how many have been charged? 0 would be the answer.

 

As for the war on Iraq, well he said they were going in to find the Weapons of mass destruction, well were are they? As for Saddam terrorising his own people, torturing them and gassing them, were is the evidence? Are we supposed to believe that the same people who swore Saddam could attack the UK in 45 minutes are right about this aswell?

 

Remember the ideal of free speech? Well the Bush government don't as they banned over 900 songs that had either an anti war or anti government message, were is the freedom of speech there? Lets not forget that Bush also wanted to take rights away from the Gay community, banning them from marrage.

 

So where are the good things that the Bush administration did?

 

All Moore is doing is giving his opinion on the Bush government, showing us the facts that he see's, freedom of speech is whats its called, although Bush would rather it didn't exist.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we know Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past on his own people which was a reason and we found them

 

Who sold Saddam Hussein chemical weapons in the 1980's to gas Iranians? That would be the American governemnt, and that is fact. And are you sure that they found weapons of mass destruction Jack?

 

The fact is, you can tell people not to go see the movie, that its all lies, without actually having seen it yourself, but there are so many parts in Farenheit 9/11 that are impossible to distort. As one example - in 2001 (before 9/11), Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice both said that Saddam Hussein did NOT have the capability to make weapons of mass destruction. Now why did this change so quickly after 9/11? Maybe Michael Moore dubbed someone else's voice over theirs? There are so many places in the film that speak for themselves Jack. Watch it and you'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a person who has read all of Michael Moore's books, and watched all of Michael Moore's films, including "Downsize This!" and "Roger & Me" from the early 1990's I conclude that:

 

1. Michael Moore's works are just as biased as George Bush's speechs. Moore has his own version of the truth, and is very convincing at presenting it.

 

2. Moore does a lot of research, for sure, but not whole hearted research, this leaves him open to character asassination.

 

Consider Noam Chomsky: Linguistics Professor turned Social Commentator. This guy is the most fierce of all of Bush's critics, his works are stinging analogies of the Bush Administration. Much more harsh than Michael Moore's. However, Chomsky is not left open to sniping because everything - and I cannot stress this enough...EVERYTHING - is backed up with irrefuteable evidence that condemns Bush. Michael Moore does not produce irrefuteable evidence, just manipulated ideas.

 

Let me put it this way: You spend an afternoon talking to Michael Moore about George W Bush you will end up thinking Bush is the anti-Christ. You spend an afternoon with Bush, talking about Moore and Bush will present evidence to prove that Moore, indeed, is incorrect in everything he accuses Bush of (not) doing.

 

Moore has a political agenda, too. Which doesn't help.

 

Chomsky is an outsider looking in, Bush doesn't DARE argue with him. That's the difference.

 

For example, I believe it's in "Dude! Where's My Country", Moore writes about and criticises the Bush Administration's treatment of black people, and how there are lots of black people in jail. I don't want to touch a nerve here but he basically wrote:

 

I have never been attacked in the street by a black person, therefore all these black people in jail is a sign of racism on the part of George Bush. Of course, he wrote it in a very lush, convincing manner but I was let thinking "WTF?...THAT is your argument?"

 

Michael Moore is not all that he's cracked up to be, then again neither is George Bush.

 

One other thing: "Bowling For Columbine" is a marvellous film, highly recommended. However if you want to watch a proper mofoing film about American Gun Control and the consequences of it, DO NOT watch "Bowling For Columbine", watch Gus van Sant's "Elephant" instead.

 

It makes "BFC" look like a steaming pile of crap. Elephant Crap.

 

Cheers!

Edited by Boyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the bottom line is that as people you should look on the actions of the Bush administration and form your own ideas... same with that of our own government and base your own opinions on what you know...

 

It's what I do.. What Bush or Moore says isn't gonna change my views on the events of the past three years, or even US forgien policy before that... As for US home policy, well I live her, what goe's on in Number 10 is more important then that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off we will never know the full story but I choose to side with the Americans who have the facts about it all.

1. If you remember a few months before the war started, Bush and Blair threatened Saddam to get rid of his nuclear weapons, did he or did say he has done?

2., UN inspectors went to Iraq and if they had come out with a conclusive report saying no weapons were there, would the US and the UK have gone-on with the war?3. What would happen if George Bush took every terrorist threat seriusly? It would be serious chaos, but if George Bush gets proper proof there will be an attack he will do his best to prevent it.

4. Why has he called in that? Because he knows having it in the name will get publicity

5. I dont know why 200,00 blacks werent allowed to vote BUT if it was for no-reason there is no way the UN, Hague or whatever would of allowed Bush in. And that is a fact.

6. Dont get me started on Camp X-Ray! Shoot every single one. They do NOT deserve to live. Now I see they are coming up with feeble excuses like "they were doing charity work" well its all lies. If you get caught with other Taliban members then you are one. Simple as.

7. Kuwait sent off reports to the UN about the attacks with proof and the UN knew.

8. In the 80s Saddam wasnt a threat so why not sell them to Iraq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna finish talking about Moore soon, but I will just say this; if somebody (anybody that I don't know) presents something to me as a fact, tells me it, naturally I won't neccessarily believe it. If I see the proof, however, then I will believe it. Like I said, in my personal opinion, there are parts in Moore's films that you cannot manipulate, fabricate, misrepresent or falsify.

 

Now:

 

UN inspectors went to Iraq and if they had come out with a conclusive report saying no weapons were there' date=' would the US and the UK have gone-on with the war?[/quote']

 

As I understood it, they DID come back and say that there wasn't sufficent proof that he had any. Am I wrong?

 

Dont get me started on Camp X-Ray! Shoot every single one. They do NOT deserve to live

 

Very human of you Jack. There are laws regarding prisoners. And if these people are part of Al-Qaeda, show me the proof. Just show it to me. And while you're at it, answer me why they would fly Bin-Laden's family out of the US after 9/11 without even allowing the FBI to ask them a few questions (again, that's in black and white, it's fact)?

 

In the 80s Saddam wasnt a threat so why not sell them to Iraq?

Ah, because maybe it wasn't their place to do it?

 

 

Basically, it's like Evil Gringo said; make up your own mind. I like Moore's films, I like his books. They're very interesting. I don't think of him as flawless. But I made up my own mind about Bush a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...