Disney blocks next Michael Moore film

[Ali]

...or maybe a "Nixon" about Bush. *shudders*

Wouldn't it take to long to audition the apes?

That was a cheap shot, but I'm tired.

I'm really keen to see Fog of War, does anyone know when it opens in Britain?

[Rave]

You know that you've been on the computer too long when your eyes start to mix up the words. As I was reading it took me 2 min to realize its the FOG of war, not the FROG of war, which makes much more sense. Obviously that points out that I havn't seen the movie, nor bowling fo columbine. My mom saw it though, said it was good. I don't really care for his work, I've heard a lot of things from people about his movies and I suppose convinced me not to waste the money to go see them. I might go to Fahrenheit 9/11 if it is released, out of pure curiosity. But in the back of my head, I can't help wondering if he is just doing this for attention. I know that he justifies his work with some sort of passionate crusade for the truth, but I think he subconciously gets some kind of sick pleasure from conjouring up so much contraversy. Anyone else get this vibe too, or is it just me? (sorry for spelling)

[SSH]

Rave, just becuase Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford (or whatver the real reporters were called) probably were thinking "PULLITZER!" when they stumbled across Watergate, doesn't mean that their work was any less good.

Also, how can yousay that you don't care for his work when you have never seen any of it? Next you'll be telling us that you didn't see The Passion becuase of  the Anti-Semitism in it.

[Rave]

Rave, just becuase Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford (or whatver the real reporters were called) probably were thinking "PULLITZER!" when they stumbled across Watergate, doesn't mean that their work was any less good.

Also, how can yousay that you don't care for his work when you have never seen any of it? Next you'll be telling us that you didn't see The Passion becuase of  the Anti-Semitism in it.

What I mean is that I don't care to see his work, not that I am making a judgment on the quality without seeing it. Sorry if thats the way it came out. But I don't see a lot of movies and I have a habit of only seeing the movies I actually have an intrest in seeing. Im not going to go to a movie which someone told me wasn't that good, and I don't really care for the content which I heard about in reviews just to validate that those opinions are true.

Anyway, I hope that clears things up. And no, the reason I didn't see Passion of the Christ is because I can bearly stand to make it through 15 min of 700 Club, I don't think I could stand to sit through a whole movie in an ancient language about a faith I don't wish to be preached to about.

[SSH]

Ah, right, I see.

To be honest, I only saw Bowling once it came on TV.

Sorry for misunderstanding: your earlier post seemed to be in a different tone. Still, the motives, style and appearance of the messenger don't make a message any more or less true.

[LGM]

There is no preaching in Passion, as you put it.. There's not one word in the film that says "If you don't praise this bloody guyor worship his father for the rest of your life, you're going to hell" It just informs you of what happens.. Course, it WAS made by a Christian, so there ares slants toward it.. But never whole sermons about it.

Just thought I'd clear that up..

Oh, and I'll rent BfC once it's in the dollar section.

[Pumaman]

It seems rather odd to block his film; but then, Michael Moore's films seem rather odd anyway. I find it misleading really, that he presents his opinionated and obviously biased opinions in the form of a documentary, which encourages people to accept them as fact, rather than properly questioning what he's saying.

Bowling for Columbine did raise some important points, but it also did manipulate statistics and use clever editing of video footage to make things out as being worse than they really were.

[DGMacphee]

The thing I don't get is that a lot of documentaries use manipulated statistics. I don't see why people should suddenly criticise Moore when it's been done countless times in the past.

[Ashen]

I guess because Moore's been seen by a lot more people than your average documentary - as this thread demonstrates - and so could 'mislead' more people than your average documentarian (if that's a word).

I should add that I've not seen, and don't particularly want to see, any of his stuff, although he does seem like an alright guy in interviews.

[Pumaman]

Well, generally speaking, TV documentaries try to give a balanced viewpoint about the events that they are documenting. They are also normally not made to try and attract millions of people to see them at a cinema, and therefore there's little incentive to 'sex things up'.

Moore has his own agenda, he's making his films for as much profit as possible - and the manner in which they are presented (documentary-style format) tends to lull people into believing what they are seeing in the same way they'd believe a documentary.

[Barcik]

I disagree, CJ. For a documentary to give a balanced viewpoint, its creator must be neutral. And a neutral perspective more often than not characterizes a person who doesn't really care. Such people don't do documentaries. Whether it is the BBC's "The Great War Spin" or Moore's "Bowling for Columbine", the creators have an opinion and it would be impossible to hide it even if so they wished. In other words, every documentary (bar, perhaps, "Le Peuple Migrateur"  ) is biased.
The real problem is that most people tend to accept what they see in documentaries as absolute truth. But then again, this is often true about any film which portrais a real event.

[Andail]

yes, totally unbiased documentaries would have to be created by robots.

Gee, I wonder what those robots would look like

[Ghormak]

[Nellie]

Well, generally speaking, TV documentaries try to give a balanced viewpoint about the events that they are documenting.

But the TV documentaries that do have a completely different intent than Moore.Ã,  Generally, their purpose is to inform, while Moore's purpose is to persuade.Ã,  If you ever see a TV documentary with the intention to persuade (and they're not all that rare - did you ever see that Dispatches documentary which argued a causal link between video game violence and real-life violence?), you'll see just as much editorialising as in Moore's films.

he presents his opinionated and obviously biased opinions in the form of a documentary, which encourages people to accept them as fact, rather than properly questioning what he's saying.

I think this is a confusion that comes from the idea that documentaries by their nature are (or try to be) objective and balanced.Ã,  And this idea comes from the lumping in of persuasive films with documentaries, when surely they are (or were) two seperate categories?

Whatever the case, they have been lumped in together, so Moore's persuasive film wins 'Best Documentary' at the oscars, and a persuasive film is broadcast on Channel 4 as part of the "award winning documentary strand Dispatches".Ã,  Persuasive works and documentaries are now, apparently, inseperable, despite what the dictionary might say.

But is this confusion the fault of Moore or any other persuasive film maker?Ã,  Should they be forbidden from using such an efficient format for presenting their arguments because some of their audience have no critical thinking skills?

[Pumaman]

You're spot on there. It's nobody's fault really, but I don't like the fact that a large chunk of the public will just believe what he says, because they don't spend the time to think it through.

People don't necessarily have any reason to doubt what they hear, I guess - if Moore says that Charlton Heston held a rally the day after a schoolkid was shot dead, why wouldn't you believe him?

I guess it's similar to the way in which news articles will print misleading statistics as if they are fact (eg. "CCTV has lead to a 30% reduction in crime") when in fact when you look at the information available, that's not the case at all.

At some point, people have got to believe what they hear - otherwise, how would we ever learn anything? If you doubt everything that everybody tells you, you'd become paranoid.

Anyway, perhaps the solution is to require the seperation of documentary and persuasive films. I forgot that Bowling won "Best Documentary" and it's that sort of thing that really does cause the public to be mislead.

[Ali]

Apart from a few things that are in question about Colombine (whether the Heston interview was shot on 1 or 2 cameras is a big one) I don't see a problem with it being classed as a documentary. I suspect there's a greater untruth in the documentary that offers a 'fair and balanced' view of the world than the film that says 'here's what I think about everything'.

What Columbine documents is Moore, and his various crusades. It might be a weakness in Moore's work that he is the subject, but I don't think it stops the film from being a documentary.

[DGMacphee]

I think that Moore's perspective is one that is grounded in some reality though. Although he may bend statistics, we can agree that the film has some basis of fact in it. For example, the demonising of Marilyn Manson as myth.

And likewise, I do think Moore leaves a lot out of his film, if only to prove his point. His portrayal of Heston as a right-wing gun maniac is a little unfair, especially when you consider Heston fought for racial equality in the 60s.

However, if you call Moore's film biased, you should go back over every single doco is Oscar history, because a lot of them are biased. Take one of my favourites, The Panama Deception. It's a brilliant doco, but it's biased. Having said that, it was not very possible to present a balanced picture of the Panama conflict when the situation itself was atrocious.

Likewise with Moore. And the thing with balance is that it works on a global scale. Granted, Moore's films and books are biased. However, the Bush administration is biased too. Both views act as a balance to each other.

It's pretty much how the world works in a ying and yang like way.

[c.leksutin]

"Michle Moore's statistics are manipulated"

According to whom?


Ask your self that.


C.

[Pumaman]

He does:

[DGMacphee]