17 total posts
Even his own kind have turned against him!
No honor among idiots, I guess.
They haven't really turned against him
I saw an interview with the two directors and every time they were asked a question trying to bash the Blowhole, they turned it back into "we still support all of his issues, there are 6500000000000000000000 dead in Iraq etc". They are just using him to make a name for them selves.
I have to disagree. They've documented how he has lied by
omitting relevant footage from his documentaries. Even though they agree with his politics, they have done a service by pointing out his lies. It's hard to ask for more than that. Perhaps, as insiders, more documentarians will listen and understand what is wrong with his approach. Then again, perhaps not.
What service have they done?
The Moore lies are well documented and not many care.
From what I gather
the service they have done is someone on his side admitted he lied. This is much better than having anyone from the opposite side saying it.
Did they discover new lies, or are these the same old lies as before? Will he have to give back his Oscar now?
What are the old lies? I didn't pay much attention at the
time, but now I'm taking a course in Documentary Production. I just sawe Roger and Me a few weeks ago.
The whole premise to Roger and Me was that
Roger would NEVER give an interview to the blowhole. But it turns out, there may have been at least two interviews.
It was part of the premise
It was also about the larger issue of GM shutting down US plants and moving operations to Mexico, which nearly destroyed the town of Flint, MI. It is disappointing to learn that he did in fact get to meet with "Roger."
I haven't seen all of his films. Roger & Me was his best work, I thought. I've also seen Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, both of which had a lot of good, valid information but also a lot of elements I found distasteful.
The problem is that Moore never recognizes or explores the
actual reasons for shutting the plant. Moore himself alludes to those reasons when he refers to the inflated price of a GM car in one of the scenes when he is waiting in the GM lobby. Instead of exploring things like high labor costs, Moore chooses to smear the entire GM management and supervisory structure with a simple minded rich versus poor approach. Moore seems to think that Roger Smith can wave some sort of magic wand to solve Flint's problems.
Moore is an excellent propagandist, but he leaves me sceptical with claims to be a documentarian. He lacks the credibility to sustain a claim to truthfulness. This new film drives those nails into his coffin.
As with all history...
... and historical narratives... the difference between propaganda and documentary is often determined only by the sentiments of the viewer and/or time. As for Moore's work? I can't comment, since I have never seen one of his works from beginning to end, but only in snippets.
I look at the work of his 2 compatriots as nothing but laudable whether they declare themselves liberal or conservative.
One does wonder how these revelations will effect Moore's future projects. I hope he has invested his money wisely. GM stock perhaps?
Not really. There is a pretty good understanding of the
difference between propaganda and documentary, and it is not a matter of ideology, perception, or sentiment. While propaganda from the past is now easily recognized, modern propaganda is more adept at fooling the viewer.
While Moore clearly had an agenda in Roger and Me, it wasn't clear how far over the line he went until this evidence came to light. The now obvious deception and one sidedness in the editing has pushed this movie a long way toward propaganda status.
Ironic you should say that...
... There is a pretty good understanding of the difference between propaganda and documentary, and it is not a matter of ideology, perception, or sentiment.
CNN was just reporting that Iran (Persia) is claiming that the movie 300 is a calculated piece of propaganda designed to historically emasculate Iran in the eyes of the world.
I was speaking of people who are professionals in the documentary area. I was basing my comments on my text book, and what I have learned in class on the subject. What is the authority on which your comments are based?
My authority? About what?
Re: me saying it was ironic? I guess that "authority" would have to be me. I thought it was ironic.
I simply said it was ironic that you said there was an easily defined difference between propaganda and documentary... when Iran comes out this afternoon stating that a hollywood movie is part of a propaganda conspiracy on the part of the US. In this case, Iran, is claiming the motive for the movie is clearly obvious. Propaganda. In this case... Iran is claiming the "authority" to make such a judgement. It is unfortunate that many people in the world will accept Irans authority in this case as valid since the whole premiss is so laughable.
I personally, am wary of putting too much stock in "professional" opinion re: any field. After all... Moore is a "professional" in every sense of the word except possibly ethics. Else why would your school use his work as a teaching reference? Of course it could be said that ethics and/or competency is often found lacking in "professional" behavior.
My comment about Historical accounts? "Documenting" human events and behavior if you will. My pre-grad and post-grad work in historical museums during the 1970s and 80's taught me that different sources may have wildly different accounts of the same event. I let that insight color my consideration of all social documentary films.
We have had this discussion before. I stated in the past that no matter how accurate an account is... if it is edited by human thought, then it has to be colored by opinion. You don't agree with me... that's fine.
It goes beyond that. A key point in the film is when Moore
gets the mic at a shareholder's meeting. The film makes it look like Roger Smith immediately cut off the mic, and adjourned the meeting. Now, we find out that there was an extensive question and answer session. That violates the spirit of everything that a documentary is supposed to do. It converts the film from a documentary to a propaganda piece.