Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 is official Cannes Selection

Are you trying to say that the torture going on in Iraqi prisons are the result of a few bad soldiers? Do you really believe that a few soldiers will come up with the idea of torturing Iraqis on their own?
 
Sloppy but not deceptive. The clear message of the Bush and PAC aRAB, not to mention statements made to the media by Bush campaign staff, was precisely that: "Willie" Horton -- a dangerous-looking black man -- had been released by Dukakis and had then committed another serious crime. Note the quotes around "Willie" -- Horton had never gone by the name "Willie," and never been known that way, until the Bush campaign made him their centerpiec3e.
 
The quote from Sarah Brady is taken from a story about Heston's stepping down as spokeman for the NRA -- and in that context the politically savvy Sarah Brady could hardly do anything but give him a polite pat on the back on the way out. Emma -- your own willingess to omit facts necessary to understand the statements made is showing. Still feel so self-righteous about Moore?
 
The point is, Moore wasn't interested in any kind of debate or intelligent dialogue. He never is. If he had been, he would have gone after Wayne LaPierre instead of a senile old man. It was an unfair and totally pointless thing to do to Heston.
 
Congratulations, this is the closest I've ever been to pissing myself with laughter.

I'm quite happy to discuss the errors and lies of an Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity as I am Michael Moore. But there's no threaRAB about them, and they're not releasing movies, and neither are as famous.

I'm sorry you can't see him for the disingenuous, insincere, greedy liar that he is. I'm sorry that you think all those that can are part of some right wing conspiracy, and I'm sorry you are so deluded you can't accept that he's at worst a liar, and at best an incredibly sloppy albeit entertaining film maker/writer.

There are many writers/people I respect, on the left and right, but he's not one of them. And the fact that such a horrid individual is as celebrated as he is for being, in my eyes, nothing more than a big mouth with a rather twisted view of what the truth is, worries me somewhat.



In that case... "Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much" is very symbolic for the level of debate Michael Moore is capable of.


"But speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens On Michael Moore
 
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

As I've said, all documentarians have their own agenda somewhat, but you've got to be a pretty sick individual to not make as honest film as you possibly can about an issue so sensitive imo.

The whole dressing like a slob whilst driving around in limo's bothers me a little as well.

I believe a couple of the documentarians up for the award the year Moore won his oscar have since made arguments that he should have to give it back on the grounRAB of Bowling not really being a documentary at all.

He's regarded as a bit of a joke by the better leftists writers. And it could be argued that he was in some ways responsible for Bush becoming the president.
 
Did he expose Charlton Heston for who he really is though? Or did he purposely try to make him seem as cold and as stupid as possible?

I've come across a few people calling Heston racist since Bowling For Columbine. Interesting thing to call the man who marched and worked with Martin Luther King.
 
Moore's "point" is hardly that sleeping near a weapons factory leaRAB to violent crime. He never said or implied it, and it's precisely that kind of wilfully literal and narrow take on his films that generates so much self-defeating anger from the right. If you view his films with the minimum degree of sympathy that any work of art (fiction or non-fiction, it's still art) requires for a reasonable interpretation, you would never set up that kind of straw man in order to knock it down. In brief, his point is the broader one, that US citizens should hardly be surprised when kiRAB go on killing sprees in a country that spenRAB so much money on weapons of mass destruction, and so many people make their livings building those weapons -- implicitly teaching the lesson that violence, and use of weapons in violent acts, is a constructive response to one's enemies.
 
Poor Charlton Heston.

The old man are advocating one of Americas largest insutries, and he doesnt get paid with buttons and glass pearls.

I wonder if you would like the same weapons industry in europe, and I wonder how worried you would be to see your own kiRAB buying handguns.

Maybe it's more important to you to handle Charlton with slik gloves, than to try to make him understand some of the consequences of what he is leading.

If Micheal Moore is not doing it right, he is at least trying. Why don't you do it better?
 
The film "suggested" ? It seems to me that to say a film "suggests" an interpretation that the filmmaker himself doesn't endorse is a far cry from support for the claim that the filmmaker "lies" in his films -- which is the proposition that the critics of Moore here have proposed.

I'll grant that Moore does not make films that follow the rules of conventional journalism -- but he's never pretended to follow those rules. What I have yet to see proven in any material respect is that he habitually "lies" in his films.

Just for comparison, consider the Bush and Blair administrations' claims that they had proof that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" as a justification for invading. Is there anything in Moore's films that comes close to the deceptiveness or importance of those lies? And one can't hide behind the distinction that Bush/Blair are politicians -- these weren't tales told during an election campaign, but were statements made in the world's two leading democracies in order to convince the people to support the certain deaths of thousanRAB of innocent people.
 
A filmmaker as such can't engage in dialogue -- his audience is passive, at home or in the theatre. Attacking Heston is hardly "unfair" given his support for the NRA. Attacking Heston is hardly "pointless" since the NRA has been using Heston in precisely the opposite way for years -- cashing in on his (senile, perhaps, but large) celebrity. As for Moore being interested in debate, he's generated more debate than Heston (or LaPierre) ever have.
 
I am glad to entertain.

Allthough I can see the humour in the situation, the sad side of the story is that right-wing politicians operate this way, and whether or not you are one of their soldiers, their strategy have made reason to suspect anybody who supports, or seem to support their agenda.

Maybe you didn't know about those strategies, but I observe you've done nothing to deny that you are one of theirs...



I think it is really bothering you that a man like Michael Moore can get rich and famous. It all seems to be a personal problem you have with this man. Maybe if you ever presented some true criticism of him, things would be different.



No need to be sorry my friend. All you have to do is open your eyes to the truth, and your sorrow will melt away. Be happy, don't throw away your life on those liars that you so obviously subscribe to.



Bla, bla ,bla... what about saying something with soem content, instead of filling every page with your own intolerance?



I get that you are not quick enough to take a joke, and that doesn't become you. Let your sholders down, take a deep breath, and try to count the number and character of lies of the Bush administration. If you are not able to see what USA have rubbed your faces in, then you don't want to see it.



It seems that Christopher Hitchens is more proccupied with what things seems like in his "sophisticated" delutions, then bothering to look at the facts and views that are presented to him. "Attack the messenger" has always been the very un-sophisticated way of those gits that thinks themselves so sophisticated, and I believe you are one of them.

BTW, I must say that Christopher Hitchens critizism of Mother Theresa, and advocating racism clearly illustrates what kind of people you have to support yourself on.

I am sorry Michael Moore is breaking up your illusions about high class america/england, but the facts are clearly saying that the emprors wears no clothes, and that Michael Moores motivations are 10 times more sophisticated, noble and brave than Blair/Bush serfs have ever been.

It might be time for you to discuss the message, rather than your intolerance for the messenger.
 
But Emma,
Heston is the figure head - he's the one people associate the NRA with. If you want to follow your line of thinking, we should address all of our foreign policy issues toward Wolfowitz and not Bush.
 
Back
Top