We're all being brainwashed...adoniscapoteJuly 8 2004, 07:53:12 UTC
The Corporation was a pretty great doc...i just saw it last night, and it was just as good if not better than Manufacturing Consent, their last one about Noam Chompsky...
I thought F9\11 was again, pretty great. Aside from the fact that it was funny as all get out, you get a lot of stuff in there that you hear about all the time (roadside bombings, brutal fighing in Iraq) and actually SEE it, which makes the urgency in these situations all the more, well, urgent. I think people NEED to see brutal shit like this, so they can stop supporting a ridiculous war for ridiculous reasons.
The people that try and attack Moore for this are, the more i actually sit down to think about it, people that don't really watch his movies to begin with. No one i know who has SEEN Bowling For Columbine can actually slam it, and the same goes for this one. The argument going that "I just don't like him" is ridiculous and at a bare bones level, they really don't like him and they started to not like him because he doesn't like Bush, and is quite vocal about that.
Therefore, if you don't like Moore, than you're defending Bush, in which case you're a complete moron. I suppose i could back that up with encyclopedic volumes of dictation, but i simply don't have the energy anymore to embark on such a task.
All the complaints that Moore "distorts facts" is simply setting up a strawman to hack away. The ONE instance in F9\11 where he did participate in leading the audience a certain way (the Bin Ladens leaving the country on 9\13) was, in effect, based on facts, and the facts say, even if they were "cleared to leave," that they were NOT questioned thoroughly about Osama's whereabouts, and therefore even if he DID try and mislead the audience into thinking there was some sort of "conspiracy," the ends justify the means.
My last and favorite slam on Moore is that if he's so against all these corporate entities, then why is he so much a part of it, making all this money? Well, for anyone to stop and actually think, this brings out a major aspect of the pathological nature of corporations, which is to make money at all costs...they'll put moore on simply because they think people won't do any of the things he calls on them to do (fight the system, basically) and just pay their money to see him. Therefore he can use all this media as an outlet for his rants. AND, if you think a documentary filmmaker makes him films just to make millions of dollars, then you're so beyond hope it's pathetic. Come to think of it, you don't make films period if the hope is to make millions of dollars, because 87% of the time it just doesn't happen.
I could SO go on with this, but i exhaust myself. Go see it...great shit...
Re: We're all being brainwashed...galactic_jackJuly 8 2004, 11:41:06 UTC
" -I thought F9\11 was again, pretty great. Aside from the fact that it was funny as all get out, you get a lot of stuff in there that you hear about all the time (roadside bombings, brutal fighing in Iraq) and actually SEE it, which makes the urgency in these situations all the more, well, urgent. I think people NEED to see brutal shit like this, so they can stop supporting a ridiculous war for ridiculous reasons- "
I couldn't agree more! and actually pretty much agree with your whole comments above!
I saw F 9/11 this past week (below, is from a post between a friend and I about a few thoughts on the film. I've re-jigged it to make more sense as a comment more than a previous conversation (if ya know what I mean, sorry I'm being a bit confusing :) )
I thought it was rather a great film, in most respects. I did find the film a little one-sided however. It's no real fault just an observation and it's a comment that I'm sure has been noted and discussed many times. It still, obviously, has a lot of very important topics to discuss and succeeds in bringing otherwise unmentioned facts and news details to our attention (the ones you already mentioned) So a bravo to Mr. Moore for this!
Although I'd say that it was a very good 'report' from ONE man, whereas if there was a little bit more of an argument (hearing all sides' views), it could have been an excellent 'documentary'. By letting Bush, maybe, or one of his cronies speak up, it may have shown them up as being as inept as what is sometimes (most times?) leveled at them. And rightly so maybe.
If Bush doesn't get re-elected (or actually elected!) this November, then I'll wonder if this film may play a part in that and it may (should?) be seen as one of the most important films of the year, if not of recent times for American citizens. We'll see.
As a filmmaker, Moore maybe could have presented his argument (i.e. his film) with an opposing side. It's integral for Moore to show his opinion in the film (obviously, it's his job) - and one with which the audience can rightly root for maybe? - but I thought that to have comment from the opposing "side" (Bush/one of his representatives etc) to argue against, literally on screen and represented, would have give a more balanced and focused purpose for Moore's viewpoints. Maybe Moore tried to secure interviews with said people and maybe they refused, which would account for their lack of direct input. I'm no Bush supporter AT ALL, but regardless of the subject, a two-sided account is important.
-Although on seeing the section where Moore previously tried to talk to Bush and was told to "get real work" (or something to that effect) I can see how hard or impossible it may be to get a direct reply or comment from the president.
As the nature of a documentary is to present an argument or pose questions (to the interviewee, to an audience), or to comment on something (a wrong-doing of some sort, a extraordinary event etc) then it's important that there is at least someone/thing there to give you the audience an objective account in their defense or as a reaction to the filmmaker's questions. The filmmaker (or indeed the person they are questioning) doesn't have to neccecarily answer any questions he/she raises but as long as they are shown to be explored and/or debated. This, I find, usually makes for a truly great piece of documentary filmmaking and not just a great piece of reportage. Nonetheless it's an important film which seems to demand an audience response more than most other recent or similar documentary films.
These are just a few thoughts on it, although not having read every comment on the film so far (which in most films cases is probably a good thing - direct thoughts after seeing a film and all that!) it may seem a little out of sync maybe?!? Also as someone who lives in the UK, I sometimes feel like I may not have quite the place to voice opinion as an American has. But then again, the ideas/questions/politics raised do, and will, have impact on all of us in one way or another.
Anyway I'm being a bit blah blah blah!! The film has undeniable merit, and as has already been shown, it has struck an important cord with the audience, whoever they are.
I thought F9\11 was again, pretty great. Aside from the fact that it was funny as all get out, you get a lot of stuff in there that you hear about all the time (roadside bombings, brutal fighing in Iraq) and actually SEE it, which makes the urgency in these situations all the more, well, urgent. I think people NEED to see brutal shit like this, so they can stop supporting a ridiculous war for ridiculous reasons.
The people that try and attack Moore for this are, the more i actually sit down to think about it, people that don't really watch his movies to begin with. No one i know who has SEEN Bowling For Columbine can actually slam it, and the same goes for this one. The argument going that "I just don't like him" is ridiculous and at a bare bones level, they really don't like him and they started to not like him because he doesn't like Bush, and is quite vocal about that.
Therefore, if you don't like Moore, than you're defending Bush, in which case you're a complete moron. I suppose i could back that up with encyclopedic volumes of dictation, but i simply don't have the energy anymore to embark on such a task.
All the complaints that Moore "distorts facts" is simply setting up a strawman to hack away. The ONE instance in F9\11 where he did participate in leading the audience a certain way (the Bin Ladens leaving the country on 9\13) was, in effect, based on facts, and the facts say, even if they were "cleared to leave," that they were NOT questioned thoroughly about Osama's whereabouts, and therefore even if he DID try and mislead the audience into thinking there was some sort of "conspiracy," the ends justify the means.
My last and favorite slam on Moore is that if he's so against all these corporate entities, then why is he so much a part of it, making all this money? Well, for anyone to stop and actually think, this brings out a major aspect of the pathological nature of corporations, which is to make money at all costs...they'll put moore on simply because they think people won't do any of the things he calls on them to do (fight the system, basically) and just pay their money to see him. Therefore he can use all this media as an outlet for his rants. AND, if you think a documentary filmmaker makes him films just to make millions of dollars, then you're so beyond hope it's pathetic. Come to think of it, you don't make films period if the hope is to make millions of dollars, because 87% of the time it just doesn't happen.
I could SO go on with this, but i exhaust myself. Go see it...great shit...
Reply
I couldn't agree more! and actually pretty much agree with your whole comments above!
I saw F 9/11 this past week (below, is from a post between a friend and I about a few thoughts on the film. I've re-jigged it to make more sense as a comment more than a previous conversation (if ya know what I mean, sorry I'm being a bit confusing :) )
I thought it was rather a great film, in most respects. I did find the film a little one-sided however. It's no real fault just an observation and it's a comment that I'm sure has been noted and discussed many times. It still, obviously, has a lot of very important topics to discuss and succeeds in bringing otherwise unmentioned facts and news details to our attention (the ones you already mentioned) So a bravo to Mr. Moore for this!
Although I'd say that it was a very good 'report' from ONE man, whereas if there was a little bit more of an argument (hearing all sides' views), it could have been an excellent 'documentary'. By letting Bush, maybe, or one of his cronies speak up, it may have shown them up as being as inept as what is sometimes (most times?) leveled at them. And rightly so maybe.
If Bush doesn't get re-elected (or actually elected!) this November, then I'll wonder if this film may play a part in that and it may (should?) be seen as one of the most important films of the year, if not of recent times for American citizens. We'll see.
As a filmmaker, Moore maybe could have presented his argument (i.e. his film) with an opposing side. It's integral for Moore to show his opinion in the film (obviously, it's his job) - and one with which the audience can rightly root for maybe? - but I thought that to have comment from the opposing "side" (Bush/one of his representatives etc) to argue against, literally on screen and represented, would have give a more balanced and focused purpose for Moore's viewpoints. Maybe Moore tried to secure interviews with said people and maybe they refused, which would account for their lack of direct input. I'm no Bush supporter AT ALL, but regardless of the subject, a two-sided account is important.
-Although on seeing the section where Moore previously tried to talk to Bush and was told to "get real work" (or something to that effect) I can see how hard or impossible it may be to get a direct reply or comment from the president.
As the nature of a documentary is to present an argument or pose questions (to the interviewee, to an audience), or to comment on something (a wrong-doing of some sort, a extraordinary event etc) then it's important that there is at least someone/thing there to give you the audience an objective account in their defense or as a reaction to the filmmaker's questions. The filmmaker (or indeed the person they are questioning) doesn't have to neccecarily answer any questions he/she raises but as long as they are shown to be explored and/or debated. This, I find, usually makes for a truly great piece of documentary filmmaking and not just a great piece of reportage. Nonetheless it's an important film which seems to demand an audience response more than most other recent or similar documentary films.
These are just a few thoughts on it, although not having read every comment on the film so far (which in most films cases is probably a good thing - direct thoughts after seeing a film and all that!) it may seem a little out of sync maybe?!? Also as someone who lives in the UK, I sometimes feel like I may not have quite the place to voice opinion as an American has. But then again, the ideas/questions/politics raised do, and will, have impact on all of us in one way or another.
Anyway I'm being a bit blah blah blah!!
The film has undeniable merit, and as has already been shown, it has struck an important cord with the audience, whoever they are.
Reply
Leave a comment