Michael Moore...

[pearanoid]

A documentary is meant too though actually.

You're very wrong. That's what the news is supposed to do, but even that's not really true.

[Matt]

A documentary can show both sides and still portray the point of the maker.

[Doc]

Um, that books been out for awhile. I saw it in Chapters before christmas I think.

 

As for Moore himself, yeah he does happen to be one sided, but it's different then the side you get hammered with from mainstream media. Instead of being bombarded with one view constantly everyday from multiple sources, you get Moore's view all at once in a roughly 2 hour sitting.

 

I have a friend who was over in Iraq recently, and how he describes it is closer to what Moore describes then how mainstream media displays it. He has a new found hatred of all things media now, let me tell you...

 

D

[pearanoid]

A documentary can show both sides and still portray the point of the maker.

I know that.

 

You were trying to say that it HAD to show both side. It can show both sides if the filmmaker wants, but it does not have to. That's up to the filmmaker.

[Matt]

Then it is not a documentary though.

[Doc]

then what is it? It certainly isn't fiction, yet it contains fact. A new genre perhaps?

[pearanoid]

Then it is not a documentary though.

I'm afraid you're just wrong and I'm not going to try to argue something that can't even be argued.

[ToadMan]

I'm only going to bash this point one more time: How could he have shown the other side? who was really going to sit down and present the opposing facts to him?

 

By definition it's not a documentary. It would more accurately described as an editorial. The movie clearly presents an edited view of facts.

 

I personally don't have a problem with this kind of editorial presentation. I find it to be a refreshing contrast to the existing presentation of facts. We only get a problem when the editorial and the news are both presenting the same thing.

 

Peace

[pearanoid]

I think he made it on the assumption that most people had heard the opposing facts, as was probably the case. Many people were only fed the Pro-Bush stuff.

 

He decided to show us the other side. You're right Toad, it wouldn't have had the same flow if he stopped at each point to show us the other side, he figured we already knew it.

[juanpe]

dont really know if this movie fits the definition of "documentary"... for me it's a way to show how things really are, he bases his comments/ideas on facts, on documents from the CIA and FBI, from people who were involved opinions, from studies, from news from the media

 

to call it a documentary or not? actually, i am not an audiovisual communication expert and i dont know if "documentary" would be the definition of this type of "movies"

 

in my opinion, what matters is what is presented and how the facts, opinions, ideas are presented

[pearanoid]

A few posts back someone posted the dictionary meanings for documentary. This film clearly falls under the first definition. It's an extremely one-sided doc., but still a doc.

 

And I do work in the film indusrty and have been involved documentaries. This film is a documentary.

[TheKwas]

I'm only going to bash this point one more time: How could he have shown the other side? who was really going to sit down and present the opposing facts to him?

I'm sure that tons of Republicans would LOVE a chance to sit down and debate with/talk with/tear apart Micheal Moore. There's more than enough authors/politicans/CEOs/whoever that Micheal could have interviewed and talked to. He could have even started with the 6 or so filmmakers that made counter-films to F9/11.

 

I don't really understand your point.

[Moonlight_Graham]

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

exactly. It wasn't just WHAT Moore said in 9/11, its how he said it. His narration was kinda low-blow and slimebally to me. I rolled my eyes a lot when i watched it. If you want people to think you are saying the truth, you have to come across more objective.

 

personally i have no idea what is true and what is false in Moore's movie. Its just propaganda to me, unless i do more of my own research to find out what is actually true/false in the movie.

[ToadMan]

Are you sure Kwas? I saw plenty of congressmen running away from Moore in that movie.

 

I'm pretty sure that Moore would be willing to enter into such a debate. I mean the guy went to Carlton Heston's house and asked him why he was an insensitive asshole. The guy is the biggest proponent of personal firearms in america, so really pissing him off could be a bad idea.

 

I will admit that Moore likely didn't choose that approach. I would assert that he felt all he would get from those people is right wing rhetoric. So all he ended up with was left wing rhetoric. It's unfortunate really.

 

Peace

[juanpe]

personally i have no idea what is true and what is false in Moore's movie. Its just propaganda to me, unless i do more of my own research to find out what is actually true/false in the movie.

when you base your images, ideas or opinions on real facts, on official documents, that can't be thought to be false (in my opinion)

 

another thing is how he presented those proofs and those facts... maybe very subjectively? yes, I agree, but I think that is part of what a movie/docummentary or whatever it is is

[pearanoid]

personally i have no idea what is true and what is false in Moore's movie. Its just propaganda to me, unless i do more of my own research to find out what is actually true/false in the movie.

I think doing your own research is kind of what the documentary wants you to do. And I think it's a good thing to do anyway. It's not good to just believe everything you see.

[no yu begin wher i end]

A lot of stuff that he presents are things that I've read earlier before he compiled everything. When he said that the Bin Ladens were allowed by the US government to leave as a special favour or whatever, I remembered reading about that in the news. Where the "special favour" part of it comes in is his own interpretation and opinion of what's been reported. He's essentially a political commentator, and that's what he's doing.