New Michael Moore Film

[HoboFactory]

It's to be called "Sicko" and it's about the healthcare system, with a focus particularly on issues dealing with mental health. I'm looking forward to it. We all know that Moore isn't the most honest of film-makers, or maybe he is...

 

but he'll at least get people talking about the topic of problems with healthcare.

[SolidEric]

I remember I had an English student teacher in class, talking to us about world politics. Don't ask why... but anyways. Michael Moore was brought up by a classmate, and the teacher, almost right away, talked about how he disliked his work, calling him a "master of editing." He brought up how his movies are (obviously, for the most part) quite a bit like propaganda. Always one sided, very biased, and usually touched up to fit whatever agenda it's against.

 

Still though, you raised a good point there, "but he'll at least get people talking about the topic of problems with healthcare." His work may be pretty one-sided, but the issues are brought to light as a result.

[wentwj68]

Moore polorizes people. I personally enjoy his films, and feel they are factual, but one sided, but... thats pretty much what i'd expect from most political documentaries. Anyway, apparently he's put all his work on hold to work on "F 9/11 Part 2" after the election, atleast thats the lastest i've heard. Either way i'll be looking forward to all his future films.

[Biggie]

I'm personally not a Moore fan, but a movie about public health care would certainly do well in Canada.

[therethere]

Michael Moore's movies are all entertaining and I think that people should keep in mind that propaganda rarely works on a population of people unless that population is ready to accept that stream of thought with welcome arms. So, all of you who think that it is dangerous propaganda, well, it really isn't. It's just entertainment, really.

[wentwj68]

I don't feel it's propaganda, but that depends highly on your definition of propganda. I don't think any of the facts in the movie are debatable, the commentary and opinions are obviously just that opinions. The facts are one sided yes, but as i said, i wouldnt' expect otherwise from a political documentrary. Atleast getting the facts right is more than people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh do.

[cavalier_eternal]

yeah...

 

he's an anomaly.

 

sensationalism is fun, no matter what form it is packaged in.

 

i used to think he had a decent view of things, until you think about such things, and realize that everybody is skewed, and there's so much b.s. out there that you have to find the good the bad and the ugly in everything.

 

unless we're talking lauren. where there's only good.

[ToadMan]

http://www.propagandacritic.com/

 

Peace

[MadeleineSix]

Michael Moore packages politics in a way that the average American is used to consuming them. Slick and shiny, edited to ensure that no one loses attention. He does what he has to to get his point across and he is quite adept at knowing what people want to see and how they want to see it.He sensationalises politics. Whether or not that's right, or whether or not the information provided is accurate is up to the consumer to figure out. Which very few do.

[no yu begin wher i end]

More importantly, his movies inspire dialogue, which is needed for any important social change.

[pearanoid]

I also agree that even if you don't walk out of the theatre believing everything you just saw, if it gets you talking to people about, then it's served its purpose.

 

But I'm really tired of people criticizing Michael Moore by saying his film is "one-sided". It's a Documentary! It's supposed to be one-sided! It's created to get his point across!

 

If you want an objective point of view, you're supposed to be able to watch the news, although even that's not true anymore.

[cavalier_eternal]

everything is biased.

 

the question is, how much?

 

the news was never unbiased.

 

nobody was ever unbiased, completely.

 

nothing was ever unbiased, completely.

 

who are you kidding?

[HoboFactory]

People often say that facts don't contradict themselves. But I think that's not entirely the case. Just do demonstrate how, here's an example. Suppose two people were arguing about global warming, one believes that people are responsible for it and it's up to people to stop it. The other believes that it is a part of a natural global cycle of periodic cooling and heating. The one who believes people are to blame will point out the fact people are letting tons and tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, these gases contribute to global warming. The other will point out that scientists recently observed that the CO2 (a major greenhouse gas) concentration in the atmposhere nearly doubled in the last decade, which doesn't coincide with global CO2 production which rose by less than 3%, indicating that it must have occured naturally. Both statistical facts are true, yet what they seem to be saying are exactly opposite.

I think such is the nature of Moore films, he does use facts, but only the facts that prove what he is saying. All of the anti-Moore people only use the facts that prove something that is opposed to Moore's point. So the truth porbably lies somewhere in the middle (a little bit closer to Moore's side though ;) )

[ecnarf]

Michael Moore packages politics in a way that the average American is used to consuming them. Slick and shiny, edited to ensure that no one loses attention. He does what he has to to get his point across and he is quite adept at knowing what people want to see and how they want to see it.He sensationalises politics. Whether or not that's right, or whether or not the information provided is accurate is up to the consumer to figure out. Which very few do.

Absolutely.

 

I liked F 9/11, but no matter how much I hate bush, Moore is still a pundit, who's allowed to be called a "propogandist" on major network news (or left-wing filmmaker), whilst people like Ann Coulter are called "journalists". Neither title is accurate, let's all call them idiots and go to sleep.

[Matt]

Michael Moore isn't a documentarist. A documentary must have both sides. You can show your side with an although clause for other bits. Like although "The Bored" has been down several time recently, it features excellent people... There's an example of how to show both sides. Morgan Spurlock ("Super Size Me") was better at showing both sides in his film.

 

I like what Matt Stone, Trey Parker made a point of the fact the left wing didn't like being criticize themsleves, when "Team America" did just that. I think that's a good point, because the left-wing is so apt to criticize the right, yet, the left doesn't want the same treatment.

 

I think people have a right to make claims against Michael Moore being biased, when he excludes many points. He edited parts of "Fahrenheit 9/11". One of the people he asked to send their kids to the war, commented that he already has a cousin in the war. He could have still brought about his point without editing that part.

 

Michael Moore needs to show part of the other side so that people can believe him. Some may be able to have blind faith in his side of the story. However, others need to hear both sides to be able to trust him more than before... Of course some will not believe what he says, but at least he is trying to create a way to communicate to more people.

[saturnine]

why not take it for what it is - entertainment, and leave it at that?

[Biggie]

why not take it for what it is - entertainment, and leave it at that?

Because Michael Moore doesn't want to entertain you. His intention is to educate. (except Canadian Bacon. That was all about entertainment.)

[saturnine]

i had no idea he made that movie..

 

and regardless of his intent, my ass is in that theatre to be entertained, not taught.. if he didn't want to entertain, he would've stood in front of a blackboard and rambled on

Edited January 3, 2005 by saturnine

[Matt]

A documentary is meant to educate someone.

[saturnine]

A documentary is meant to educate someone.

right. but if that was its sole purpose, then it probably wouldn't be entertaining and if it's not entertaining, then it's not making 100 million dollars. people enjoy watching guerilla interviews

[Biggie]

A documentary is meant to educate someone.

right. but if that was its sole purpose, then it probably wouldn't be entertaining and if it's not entertaining, then it's not making 100 million dollars. people enjoy watching guerilla interviews

 

Why do you assume entertainment and education are mutually exclusive? Something can be informative and people will still sit through it. By your logic, museums should have arcades.

[toolboxnj]

Is the movie going to be about how government intervention in healthcare actually declines its effectiveness?

 

Certainly, government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (and its counterparts in other countries) are responsible for thousands (perhaps millions) of deaths by not allowing the individual full discretion over their own treatment along with their licenced physicians.

 

The best example I can give is the prosecution of American doctors that prescribe narcotic pain-killers to patients that are in chronic pain. Isn’t the doctor’s job to treat illness the way he/she and the patient see fit, not the government's?

Edited January 3, 2005 by toolboxnj

[HoboFactory]

You have to take into account costs though. Many people simply can't afford insurance or medical treatments when they need it. That's wherein lies the advantage of government having more of a hand in medicine.

[toolboxnj]

You have to take into account costs though. Many people simply can't afford insurance or medical treatments when they need it. That's wherein lies the advantage of government having more of a hand in medicine.

The government doesn't pay for the services, the people do. Government on its own cannot do anything because it's financed by the people. My neighbor down the street has no more right to my property than I have to his, no matter how horrible his or my suffering may be.

 

If taxes were lowered and government regulations were eliminated, even those flipping burgers would be able to afford health insurance.

[HoboFactory]

Of course the government doesn't pay for it, the question is whether or not it should.