Moore is less!

"Splicing together" is called "editing" in some circles. It's a filmmaking term, T. He's a filmmaker. He's not a debater or a guy doing a history report.

That is one spooky thing to say.
Seriously.

Addressed above. He's a filmmaker, not a historian.

My cards on the table? Am I hiding something from you that I'm not aware? Go fish. If you have to dress up your opinion by making groundless accusations against me, I don't guess you've got an ace up your sleeve, either.

It means this:
For reasons I've already stated upthread, that makes one of us.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

hahah this just made me laugh. You know what...im not the biggest Michael Moore fan but i have to give the guy some credit...At least he gets people talking about issues. Some of his stuff is absoloutly hilarious as well.

But to say that he should be jailed? Wow if really wonder what you think should happen to some of the Chronies in the white house...!

__________________
Trainspotting...
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
The Boondock Saints

Editing is one thing; taking several sound clips and playing them continuously so that they sound like a single statement is not "editing." Allow me to demonstrate by splicing together some of your posts without any indicator as to which pieces came from where:

Moore suggests war, and that is cool in my book. People who think believe everything the GOP tells them.


Imagine that, on September 10th, 2001, a televangelist says that God will cause an airplane to fly into a skycraper to punish us for our decadence. The next day, it happens. His conclusion was right, but does that mean his reasoning made sense?


Hiding? No. But your statements have been somewhat vague or ambiguous, so I'm asking you a direct question in hopes of clearing up your position.

What "groundless accusation" are you referring to?


In other words, you don't think it makes sense to have a distrust of someone whose claims, when investigated, are found to contain half-truths or distortions?

In Moore's case I would find it very hard to place his films in another genre than Documentary.

As I said before, I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet but I have heard complaints about Bowling For Columbine earlier. The Heston speeches thing is just silly. There is nothing about it that is dishonest. First of all, the "From my dead cold hands" part is not in there to look like he said it just after the shooting but to make Heston look like a gunloving maniac period. Moore is creating an image of him as a bad guy by using Heston's own words against him. And I myself at least had no problem noticing that it was speeches made on different occasions. I have also heard complaints about the segment where Moore receives a rifle in a bank. Apparently it shouldn't be that easy to get the rifle. Well, duh. If that is the case, that only demonstrates even more how easy it is in reality.

And I would like to know what's dishonest about Roger & Me.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

heh... Nice.
That was entertaining.
...oh, that makes you the antichrist then, doesn't it?

No, but that's not quite the point I was making. I'm going to forego exploration of your less-than-parallel comparison and simply say: if it turns out he was right, then there is no way he should be cited for having to create the footage he uses to present his conjectures. If what he suggests were overt, it would be on the 6 o'clock news, not in a film.

The one where you suggested I hadn't laid my cards on the table. My posts have been at least as specific as yours, so that was a weird thing to say, and pretty obvious posturing.

Those would be other words do describe other thoughts than mine...

You know, we agree on a lot of things about Moore. Neither of is thinks the world of him, and we agree that no one should take his films as The Truth or expose journalism. Where we disagree is one point, really: you think people lack the objectivity to see his movies and take them with a grain of salt. I think people are smarter than that. I've a strong tendancy to overestimate people, so it could be that you're right. I'm glad though, that your protective impulse can't be implemented in this country. I think we're all better off in a situation where we are expected to sort out what is true for ourselves. The alternative is, to use Silverbullet's word: Orwellian.

As would I, but some films don't fit comfortably in any one genre. Regardless, I don't feel all that strongly about the Oscar issue one way or the other. I'm far more concerned with whether Moore's film's are honest than whether or not they are documentaries.


The "cold dead hands" part isn't all that damning to Moore, I agree. That's within the boundaries of honesty.

What isn't within those boundaries is Moore's voiceover which claimed that "just 10 days after the Columbine mass murders Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally." What he neglects to mention is that the rally had been planned far in advance, and that the NRA was required by law, by its non-profit charter, to hold the meeting. The NRA cancelled all additional events surrounding the rally out of respect for the lives lost, holding only what gatherings they were legally required to.

That one, I have yet to see, so I cannot say whether or not it is dishonest.

Thanks. I also think it makes my point.


I don't think Moore is the antichrist. Try to paint me as some rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth Moore-hater if you like, but it just isn't the case.


I acknowledge that it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it pretty clearly demonstrates that a person's reasoning can be at fault, even if their conclusion is not. There's nothing "spooky" about that.


I wasn't trying to posture, nor insult. If that's what I did, please accept my apologies. I'm not accusing you of hiding your position, but whatever the reason, I don't know whether or not you support Moore's tactics, which is why I'm asking.


But aren't they the opposite of what I said, which you subsequently disagreed with?


We're supposed to give deception a free pass because pointing it out is "Orwellian"? What? No one's advocating any kind of government intervention or censorship.

What I'm saying is in no way tied to the objectivity of your average moviegoer. I think Moore is a negative force; not because people are unable to think for themselves, but because dishonesty is almost never a good thing, whether you're being dishonest to critical-thinking citizens, or easily-led ones.

It made both of our points. It was an amusing illustration of slanted editing, and I didn't take it seriously, nor would anyone else who read it, given the context of the comments. I think people are capable of doing the same with Moore's films.


I'm glad to hear it.


The spooky part was your saying even if he's later proved right, he shouldn't be creating film to promote his opinions.


Ah. Well, I wouldn't do what he's doing, no. But I won't dismiss him as a filmmaker, based on his methods. He's walking the line between fact and fiction, he's getting people talking and thinking, and for that, I think he serves a good purpose.


Hell, I don't remember what this was even referring to...


Not what I said. I said it's Orwellian to create a society in which people aren't allowed to speculate. He's speculating, in filmic form.

How do you advocate dealing with this "negative force"?

I think the key here is popcorn. If people are eating popcorn while hearing something, then they should be getting entertained, not informed. They can get informed once they clean the butter off their mitts. And if you're planning to address people who are stuffing popcorn in their faces, then you should have the same leeway as any other storyteller, and that includes hyperbole.

Hyperbole really isn't something we should be affording documentary filmmakers. And largely, I believe that's what Moore is considered.
I'm not sure anyone would oppose him if he were acknowledged as someone creating satire or entertainment. But let's face it, a lot of people go into these movies expecting the secret truth to be revealed to them. In such a venue, I'd generally prefer the filmmaker to stick, at least mostly, with straight facts.

And I mean, would it really be all that difficult to build a case against the President only using straight facts?

__________________
"We are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow-worm."
--Winston Churchill

We're simply in different camps on this. Having seen his movies, I consider him a guy trying to rile people up. That's not straight documentary stuff, even if he's falling into that category. It's clear that he's trolling, to anyone with any sense. Given that fact, I think people can be expected to take him with a grain of salt. Or a block of it.

I pity the foo's.

But that's not the movie Moore wants to make. Nor is it the movie his backers want to make. Moore = controversy, and that's selling well. It may be tacky, but it's working.

If you want to do that, you should make your own movie.

everyone seems to care whether or not this one film maker is honest or not.
I find it funny that this big a fuss isnt being made on whether the government is being honest...oh wait thats how this all started. so all you people that say Moore is a liar and "less", cut him out compleatly. Why dont you make a fuss about the liars that actually have an effect on you

Oh, I wasn't talking about the Oscar but just about the fact that some people seem to think that he is not a real documentarian.

After having watched that part again I have to say that I don't agree with you at all.

Moore's voiceover is saying that the NRA came to Denver 10 days after the tragedy, which they did. Nothing dishonest with that. He's making an observation and does not have to tell us that they were required by law to be there, which it is possible he didn't even know they were. I think it is also very possible that most people participating in that rally did not know nor care about whether NRA were required by law or not to be there. And that is also besides the point since Moore does not seem to be upset primarily by NRA's presence in Denver but more by what was said on the meeting. Heston does not exactly seem to be caught by the gravity of the situation but instead he seems cheerful bordering to scornful. If the NRA were required by law to be there, there must have been a hundred more proper things they could have devoted that time to rahter than cheering pro gun clichés and mocking the mayor of Denver, a city struck by a horrible tragedy 10 days earlier.

I didn't know this about NRA being required by law to be there. But if that was the case then I think NRA may possibly have used that to not miss an occasion to promote their views. I think Heston's distasteful behaviour supports that theory rather than, what you seem to be advocating, that NRA were more or less forced by law to travel to Denver on this very badly chosen occasion.

That "almost" is pretty interesting.

Whoa, hold up a second: first you defend the method as mere "editing," then you acknowledge that it's not to be taken seriously, and now you excuse it because you think people will see through it? Since when is deception a-okay just because you think it will be identified as such? I was unaware that things like dishonesty cease to be objectionable just because you think the person will get caught.

I don't know about you, but when someone lies to me, I don't like it, even if they do so very badly/obviously.


That would indeed by spooky, if I had said it. But I didn't even imply, much less say, that he shouldn't be creating films to promote his opinions. Just that he ought not to employ such dishonest methods while doing so.


No one said Moore shouldn't be allowed to speculate. No one is advocating that there be any law against what he's doing; just a voluntary public outcry.


By exposing the falsehoods in his work, as I'm doing now. It's the only legitimate way to combat dishonesty without muzzling people.


Which is it: are these hard-hitting films that ask important questions and spark major debate, or lighthearted pieces of entertainment, not to be taken too seriously? Pardon me for suggesting this, but it seems as if you'd like to have it both ways.

There's another thing I have to take issue with: one on hand, you talk about the importance of trusting people to see through any deception, but when someone actually tries to do that (like, in this case, me), you're rather dismissive of it. Why?

It's quite unlikely that Moore, or the people in the rally, didn't know what had happened, in part because Heston mentioned the cancellations in his speech. Moore, of course, saw fit to leave that out.

While Moore doesn't technically HAVE to tell us they were required by law to be there, it is definitely dishonest when you consider that he accused them of coming "despite the pleas of a community in mourning." That assumes choice, rather than obligation.


Based on what you saw in the film, I don't blame you for feeling this way. Heston comes off as insensitive and rude. However, there's more to the story. For example...

Heston did not mock the mayor. In the film, Heston appears to say this: "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this. It says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I said to the Mayor, this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

Sounds pretty insensitive to me, too. Except it's not quite what he said.

This is where Moore's methods become completely indefensible: the above "quote" actually splices two bits together in mid-sentence. It's made up of two of Heston's statements. Here's the first:

"I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, 'I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore attaches the beginning of this paragraph ("I said to the mayor") to another quote at the end of the next paragraph ("As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land.") We don't know it's been spliced together, of course, because Moore cuts to a shot of protestors while the audio plays over.

Here's where the other bit came from:

"NRA members are in City Hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy.

One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile toward us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So let us be mindful ... the eyes of the nation are upon us today."

Pretty far cry from the callous, boastful things Moore made Heston appear to say, isn't it? The last paragraph looks borderline prophetic now.

Also, in case anyone was wondering, the "cold dead heads" line came a year later in North Carolina. In the film, it comes five seconds after a shot of people in Columbine weeping over their loss. We can quabble over whether or not this is an outright lie, but there's no way to deny that it is fundamentally dishonest.


Do you still believe this, given the above transcript of what Heston actually said?


I included it only so someone can't throw some ridiculous scenario about lying for the good of national security at me.

Moore makes entertaining, thought-provoking, discussion-germinating films based on the political climate in the US. You've gone to great lengths to paint him as a deceptive and negative force (your words), and I've refuted that with the fact that people are not decieved. With this post, you try repeatedly to make it appear that I'm contradicting myself, when in reality I've been repeating the above for two pages now. It's been fun, in all seriousness. I can see why Novelty missed you. But at this point it seems a little silly to belabor the wild loops of fiction you're drawing. The fact is, I'm not having anything "both ways", no matter how many times you say it. There's no "both ways" about it. The guy makes propagandist films. People see them knowing that, unless they're actually lemmings, dressed up as people. Why does that bother you so?

How does the fact that people "are not deceived" (which has not been established in any way, as far as I can tell) change the fact that Moore has been deceptive? I fail to see why a lie should be any less distasteful just because no one believes it (even though, in this case, plenty of people clearly do).

The question is not why this bothers me, but why it doesn't particularly bother you. He's been demonstrably dishonest. You seem completely uninterested in this. I can only guess that this is because you, personally, know not to give him the benefit of the doubt, but his twisting of the truth isn't any less egregious just because you or I have not been taken in by it.

Michael Moore doesnt have a direct effect on your life. However the President of the United States does...and hes been quite the dishonest one now hasnt he...

If no deception has taken place, then he's Not. Being. Deceptive. We could debate for another week whether he's trying to decieve, but only he knows that, and I don't think his intent is the real issue here anyway.

As for your second paragraph, you answered your own question. Furthermore, I'm willing to extend my good sense to the assumption that others will be able to do the same. You seem very concerned about the few and far between who might see his movies and buy the show, hook, line and sinker. Those are people who already believe it though. It's not like he's going to sway an objective person, or someone with opposing views.

If you knew for a fact that no one would be "decieved" by him, would you be decrying him as a scheister? Did you run about with your hands in the air after seeing Air Force One and point out to everyone that Harrison Ford is not, in fact, the president, despite his claims to the contrary in the movie? I doubt you did. So, why write Moore off for creating a politically themed film? Because the characters are played by themselves?

So if I lie about you to people who already hate you, it ceases to be a lie? It's not deceptive if the only people who believe it are like-minded and/or gullible? I don't see how that's supposed to add up, and I'm more than a little surprised that "dishonesty is bad" has apparently become a controversial position.

As for intent: there's really no debate to be had. There are a number of instances it which it cannot plausibly be by accident, some of which I've already detailed.


The above is a pretty good description of Jerry Falwell, too, but I imagine we'd agree that it's a good thing when people stand up and denounce his wild claims.


But they're not characters; they're real people. Moore presents it as opinion, but he also defends it as factual and honest. As a result, actual human beings -- not characters -- are sometimes slandered or misrepresented. Charlton Heston is, by most accounts, an honorable man, yet Moore has portrayed him as an insensitive buffoon, and possibly even racist.

This thread is about Michael Moore. If you want to address any of the points I've made about him, be my guest.

Suffice to say, I also disagree with your assessment of the President's honesty, but even if he WERE dishonest, it wouldn't invalidate my criticisms of Moore.