Printable View
True.
We are peaceful, but we also have violence occur regularly.
There is a growing distrust of Stephen Harper and Canadians are starting to realize how corporate he is.
We need a Michael Moore- like exposure of Harper.
Really pull back the curtain.
He is an automaton.
Canada is safer and more peaceful, but did Michael Moore provide good proof of that in COLUMBINE? That is my question. I feel he has undermined his reputation over time with sloppy proofs of his valid points.
Well, it's a fact that we are safer in Canada, but Moore didn't do a complete delineation.
Mike could have reinforced his points in his films even more, and his films could be even greater op-eds than they are.
I think he did them they way he did because most people need it fed to them as plainly as possible.
Too investigative and people's brains can't process the info!
I don't quite agree with that. You can give accurate information to back up your arguments. In this matter of a safer and quieter Canada, he could have provided more hard data, along with the anecdotal material. I feel he fed us anecdotal fluff and expected us to be content with that, on this issue. And there was some of that in SICKO too, though SICKO's anecdotal material from the Americans living in France was very strong. It has stayed with me ever since.
Of course a too cold and factual approach would not influence people very much. It would me, but not most people, I'll grant you. But cheating isn't ultimately gong to work. I guess ultimately Michael Moore excels in preaching to the converted. And as a public speaker, he seems great. I've seen excerpts of speeches he's given, and he's a great rabble-rouser. He has the gift of gab. And I don't begrudge him that. Maybe ultimately it's the duty of each of us to find our own information and make up our own arguments and learn how to do our own preaching to the un-converted. That's a tough job.
Yes.
A big problem is that people don't do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
They're content to let someone else do all the heavy lifting.
I also suspect that time was of the essence and he had to get his product out there, just like any other business.
We know him enough that he should do a film that really does go hard on facts.
We don't need his narration anymore.
We need brilliant op-eds that leave it ALL up there on screen, devastating, probing, lucid.
Moore's in-your-face personal narrations and appearances in his own films has been an essential element in his docs from the beginning. I'm not sure it is Michael Moor otherwise. At the same time his manner is very provocative and the right hates him and will not ever listen to him. Is there any voice on the left that the right will listen to? If so, it's not Michael Moore's.
Of course you're right that time is of the essence with his movies, but with the money and team he has access to now, there is no excuse for superficiality. I think there is a bit of the charlatan in him and that was true from the start too. He is said to have fudged things on the order in which footage was presented and to have pretended the Ford boss wouldn't meet with him when he would. But he had good points to make and the method was powerful -- also from the first.
I agree. Superficiality should be deleted.
There is a very valid point about him being a bit of a charlatan.
But I'm quite fine with it because his brand of charlatan is not malicious.
It's more of white lie-type exposure of people and policy he finds unsavoury.
I love it, actually, because he is willing to "fudge the truth" just like the Right does all the time.
He was fighting fire with fire, quite effectively in my opinion.
Stanley Kubrick took notice of Roger and Me, and allowed Mike to show a print of Dr. Strangelove to his Canadian Bacon crew.
Not many documentarians can claim that.
Moore is relevant and always was.
He's definitely not bulletproof, but he's on the side of Good.
You're right. But this is something I have to work out in my own mind. And in recent years I have drifted away from my earlier passion for Michael Moore. I didn't get him at first (when I saw Roger and Me) and then after the big hoopla about BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE I came to see his power and genius, and then lately he seems to have been losing it, as a filmmaker. The failure of Fahrenheit 9/11 to have any discernable effect was a turn downward, in my view. I did think SICKO was direly needed. But I'm not sure it had the effect it should have.
Your point about the right using the methods of a charlatan is well taken. We need more on the left capable of swaying the masses, of fooling people into thinking what they should, so to speak.
Wait. Did I really say that? What are you leading me into? :)
If Fahrenheit had affected the result of the 2004 election we might have avoided the economic mess.
But then again maybe not.
It may have polarized the U.S. even more, created a toxic hotbed.
But with Obama as President I think we have it anyway!
We need Noam Chomsky with a marketing team that cannot be stopped.
:)
Hard to say what if.... But I do think the financial debacle could have been lessened, if not averted. This is a human-created event. We need financial regulations. We have lost the good ones we had. That has not changed under Obama.
Chomsky for President!
I definitely second that.
Unfortunately Chomsky is a little old. I hope a replacement is coming. So far there is none.
The department of National Defence is in shambles.
Billions of dollars in "black assets" have mysteriously vanished from Canada.
And no one knows a fucking thing.
Secrets and weapons have been compromised on a scale that would make you shit your pants.
Heads should roll, starting with Peter MacKay. But we know that won't happen.
91 Conservative MP's including Immigration Minister Kenney, Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, Gerry (The Jet-Setter) Ritz and other idiots voted against women's rights.
A Conservative MP (who shall remain nameless) put forward this debate of deciding when a fetus is a human being or not.
The House of Commons voted, and it was defeated. Half of the Conservative caucus even thought it was a batshit insane idea.
Stephen Harper himself voted against it.
Why is this shit even being entertained in Parliament?
Why are they wasting precious time and resources on this moronic type of ideology and Stone-Age bullshit?
It's truly amazing how dumb the Conservative party really is.