both Clive Owen and Naomi Watts have starred in much more memorable films recently--Inside Man for him and Eastern Promises for her i c what you did thar james. i really want to see these two films eventually!
Another thing I really liked was that Spurlock didn't really seem like he had an agenda. Movies like An Inconvenient Truth and Michael Moore's works come across like they are arguing a point so that by the end of the film, the audience will be in full agreement with and support of that point. I think that Hmmmm. I think that there is a need for films/documentaries like Gore's which throw the word "unbiased" out the window. And not just because i'm a card-carrying member of the tree hugging hive mind myself. Okay I phrased that really badly. What I'm saying is, I'm not sure what you're saying? Are you saying you didn't enjoy An Inconvenient Truth as much as Fast Food Nation? Because if you are, then I agree, I didn't either. But I'm troubled by the implication that the general public - which has no vested interest in changing public policy when it comes to environmental issues - would be turned off by someone passionately arguing his case.
A documentary with no obvious agenda is more palatable, yes, but sometimes I read Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter for shits and giggles I dunno I'm probably not one to talk. On the one hand nobody wants to be inundated with propganda, otoh I feel like people are capable of making up their own minds about what they see. And none of this was intended to be an indictment of you or your opinion on Gore or Moore, I just. This is an issue very near and dear to my heart, even though I may not talk about it on LJ a lot. Sometimes it feels like my even broaching the subject of climate change will be taken as an attempt to ~convert~ someone; a lot of people see Gore's film as a heavy-handed attempt to change their minds about something, but I see it as an attempt to present some important facts/predictions/trends that have been obscured by noise. But I dunno, my idea of what constitutes "important" is not the same as yours, and the environmental issues aside, I think it's fascinating how unreceptive audiences can be when they suspect they're being manipulated or coerced into a certain response.
both Clive Owen and Naomi Watts have starred in much more memorable films recently--Inside Man for him and Eastern Promises for her
i c what you did thar james. i really want to see these two films eventually!
Another thing I really liked was that Spurlock didn't really seem like he had an agenda. Movies like An Inconvenient Truth and Michael Moore's works come across like they are arguing a point so that by the end of the film, the audience will be in full agreement with and support of that point.
I think that
Hmmmm. I think that there is a need for films/documentaries like Gore's which throw the word "unbiased" out the window. And not just because i'm a card-carrying member of the tree hugging hive mind myself. Okay I phrased that really badly. What I'm saying is, I'm not sure what you're saying? Are you saying you didn't enjoy An Inconvenient Truth as much as Fast Food Nation? Because if you are, then I agree, I didn't either. But I'm troubled by the implication that the general public - which has no vested interest in changing public policy when it comes to environmental issues - would be turned off by someone passionately arguing his case.
A documentary with no obvious agenda is more palatable, yes, but sometimes I read Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter for shits and giggles I dunno I'm probably not one to talk. On the one hand nobody wants to be inundated with propganda, otoh I feel like people are capable of making up their own minds about what they see. And none of this was intended to be an indictment of you or your opinion on Gore or Moore, I just. This is an issue very near and dear to my heart, even though I may not talk about it on LJ a lot. Sometimes it feels like my even broaching the subject of climate change will be taken as an attempt to ~convert~ someone; a lot of people see Gore's film as a heavy-handed attempt to change their minds about something, but I see it as an attempt to present some important facts/predictions/trends that have been obscured by noise. But I dunno, my idea of what constitutes "important" is not the same as yours, and the environmental issues aside, I think it's fascinating how unreceptive audiences can be when they suspect they're being manipulated or coerced into a certain response.
Reply
Leave a comment