Michael Moore...

[juanpe]

Have u heard about his new book? What do u think about it?

 

Will They Ever Trust Us Again?

 

Michael Moore, the acclaimed filmmaker and #1 best-selling author whose latest movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 , is the highest-grossing documentary of all time, will publish a collection of letters written to Mr. Moore by American G.I.s in Iraq and Afghanistan. The book will contain introductory material from Mr. Moore as well as additional commentary through-out. The letters were received by Mr. Moore over the last year, many of them were sent to his website.

 

Regarding his collection Mr. Moore said, "I'm proud to give voice to the troops who have written to me."

[HoboFactory]

I'll definitely have to read it, I like the concept of it though.

[Crusader]

I've never read anything he's written. Though I agree with most of his statements I get the feeling that some of his work is a bit one sided but isn't everything?

[Trayas]

Hmm sounds intresting. I will pick it up from my local library

[Munk]

He's a very bias source. Whether or not he's credible, he's just too one-sided.

[no yu begin wher i end]

Well duh, he's one sided. Taking what he says at face value is almost like listening straight to Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh (although not with the extreme hate etc.)

[Moonlight_Graham]

yeah, his bias is huge. I find the guy entertaining, but i don't think i'd spend the time to read a book of his. I wouldn;t know whats truth and what's nonsense. I'd rather spend my time filling my mind with something i'd know to be more credible on the truth.

 

There's so much i don't know about history, the world, the arts, the universe etc. that i want to learn and i only have a human lifetime to cram as much of that shit into my head as possible. Might as well choose the really good stuff...

[Seanathon]

I've only seen the one movie (Columbine), and while obviously bias, he can really be entertaining, and the man sure knows how to make money. Though I'm sure that's not his intention ;)

[juanpe]

yeah, he's clearly one sided, but he admits it: he always says that his intention is to "denounce" Bush administration's policies and how they are done against population

 

as far as I have read, he's always trying to "open the Americans' eyes" to reality (not very successful though, as we saw in the last elections...)

[TheKwas]

Outside of Columbine, he hasn't done anything I would reccommend.

[juanpe]

Farhenheit 9/11 was very well done (in my opinion) and it really showed what the Bush administration has been doing in the last years

[TheKwas]

Meh, it was better than "Roger and me", but that isn't saying much.

 

Atleast in Columbine he would acknowledge and explain the opposing viewpoint (And then tear it apart), where in Farhenheit it was just a constant pounding of one-sided arguements.

[juanpe]

i agree it was a one-sided argument all the time, but there was no lies at all in his arguments... and the purpose of the movie was that: to show what the political situation in the US with Bush was... i think he succeeded in showing that although - as i said before - he didnt succeed in changing people's opinions

[TheKwas]

i agree it was a one-sided argument all the time, but there was no lies at all in his arguments... and the purpose of the movie was that: to show what the political situation in the US with Bush was

 

Propaganda isn't a proper way to show political situations.

[ToadMan]

True. But when all other sources produce one side's propaganda, then it would seem appropriate to produce opposing propaganda.

 

Unfortunately I can't see a way that Fahrenheit 9/11 could have been made with out it being leftist propaganda. I think Moore took the approach of "The media is telling this side, so I will tell the other".

 

It's vicious, but when the news media is pandering to a political agenda, how do you address the issue from a central view? How do you tell the rounded story? Do you think that Moore would have got an interview with somebody who could have explained some of the facts Moore presented. When I say that I mean things such as: the report given to Bush in late August warning him that there was an inevitable terrorist attack on American soil; the reason Bush made no action to leave his PR stint to address what had happened (on Sept. 11th). I'm not looking for answers here. I'm just making the point that it's doubtful anybody would have answered these questions for Moore.

 

I will admit that I have heard rumours that Moore talked to a congress-man who did have a child in the armed forces. If that is true, I am disappointed that he choose to cut this fact from the movie. However, I didn't hear this from a credible source.

 

Peace

[Matt]

Truthfully I feel that Michael Moore needed to show both sides, or else some people cannot trust what he is saying.

[Dan #2]

I'm not a huge Moore fan, and i do think he's too one-sided for his own good, i can't not like him. He's one of the few people blending politics with entertainment, which seems to be the only way that youth will pay attention. I respect him for that.

 

 

Anyone see FahreinHype 9/11. Man... and i thought Fahrenheit was one-sided. At least Heit didn't have Joe-Blow Redneck-Scum say "mawr wuz rong" and then cut to a clip of something else.

[pearanoid]

I think Michael Moore does a good job presenting his side of the argument. I think his intention is not just to make people to believe what he says, but be interested in it enough to go out and learn for themselves. At least I hope that's what people do.

 

And it really bugs me when people say he's films are too one-sided to be a documentary, it's just propoganda.

 

Well what the fuck do think a documentary is? It's a creative outlet to get your point across so of course it can be as one-sided as one wants.

[ToadMan]

Tell me how he could have presented the other side? Who could he has interviewed who would have talked to him?

 

Peace

[TheKwas]

It's not even so much the fact that he was one-sided, it's just he didn't even rebuttal opposing views, he just ranted on about his view. In Columbine he was one-sided as well, but he acknowledged the opposing view, and then proceded to tear it apart Moore style.

[Matt]

A documentary is meant to show both sides actually.

Edited April 18, 2005 by Matt

[HoboFactory]

Showing both sides would go against his motive, which is trying to get people involved. If the movie is neutral, it leaves the audience feeling neutral also.

[juanpe]

A documentary is meant to show both sides actually.

not necessarily

[Matt]

A documentary is meant too though actually.

Edited April 18, 2005 by Matt

[jrok]

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.

2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.