.... it's worth owning, regardless. I'd be a happy human being if we could somehow get every american to see this. I don't think that's it's the Gospel according to Mike, but it's certainly an eye opener, and might inspire many americans to do something new to them

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Well...... -- Robert, 12:25:57 08/02/04 Mon (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

a) according to the examples mentioned in various reports, additionally the mails Moore got by people, he indeed managed to change minds, independents and even former republican voters. It's interesting to read the stuff.

b) I don't know of cheating in BfC, and in Fahrenheit I'm pretty sure the facts are correct - Moore had even hired some fact checking teams - that's the only way to avoid getting trouble when you make such a movie.

c) What is the truth? - For example the kite flying kids in Iraq before the invasion etc, that's criticised as presenting a wrong view of Iraq. In an interview Moore said somewhat like that the other stuff was presented sufficiently all the time. Of course the stuff he presents is one sided, it's the stuff most people never saw or were aware of.
I hope the DVD will have the extended version - Moore mentioned it somewhere - with Bush sitting the whole 7 minutes reading 'my pet goat'. That's exactly like a 'strong leader' would act like. *L*

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Granted, the movie was totally biased and one-sided, but it still presented a lot of data that is shocking no matter what side of the fence you're on. -- Lethal Larry, 12:37:59 08/02/04 Mon (px3wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.204)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> In BfC, Moore neglected to mention the one-week wait at the bank... -- Joe Taylor, 13:10:05 08/03/04 Tue (host-64-110-74-244.interpacket.net/64.110.74.244)

The stuff about kite-flying kids in Iraq may be at odds with official lies about pre-invasion Iraq, but it's still a lie. Iraq had a stunningly low literacy rate for a country with so strong a middle class, and the devastation brought by the sanctions is the joint responsibility of the West and Saddam Hussein.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I wasn't aware of that one week thing at the bank giving out guns - that certainly does change the context of the situation. No matter what his opinions are, he shouldn't warp the message so much by so selectively representing the facts. -- Lethal Larry, 13:16:34 08/03/04 Tue (px3wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.204)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I can't see what's the problem with the bank might be.... -- Robert, 12:22:25 08/04/04 Wed (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

What difference does a one-week wait make?

About the bank thing Moore himself wrote somewhere, that he had to ask for admission to film it, this was granted and then he came with his cammera team - did you expect it to be any different?

And the kite thing - well, I've told you what Moore himself stated, didn't you read it? The situation in pre-war Iraq may not have been great, but for most people it was still better than the situation now. To add some normal life stuff to the abundant horror stories presented elsewhere gives a more complete view.

Your concept of 'lie' seems to be pretty stange. Moore never has claimed to present an objective, complete view - that's impossible anyway. He presents parts of the stuff that wasn't presented elsewhere.
And he always states that the WAY he sees and presents stuff is his personal one - only the facts presented are true, and everyone is free to have a different opinion about it. That's what the administration doesn't do. They always claim that their view is the one and only etc.
Don't you think there might be a slight difference?

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, a one week wait gives ample time to do a background check. It'd be terrifyingly irresponsibe of them not to do that - which is the image Moore presented. -- Lethal Larry, 15:20:17 08/04/04 Wed (px3wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.204)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The one-week wait is enough to a) do a background check, and b) stop people from gunning people down in a frenzy -- Joe Taylor, 23:04:19 08/04/04 Wed (host-64-110-74-244.interpacket.net/64.110.74.244)

About the situation in pre-war Iraq, Moore could have easily shown that it was better - he could've told us about the electricity, or about unemployment, or about women's rights. But he chose to romanticize pre-war Iraq, and that is unforgivable. The invasion of Iraq changed the country's condition from bad to worse, but Moore presents it as if it changed it from good to bad.

The romaniticzation of pre-war Iraq relies on saying facts that are true but unrepresentative. Truth is achieved not just by saying true facts, but also by not omitting important dissonant information, but Moore does exactly that - he doesn't talk about the hunger in Iraq (which AFAIK has been there since before the sanctions) or about illiteracy or about the close monitoring of everything suspicious.

There are certain things we expect from documentaries. For instance, we expect them to be objective, but not neutral. Documentaries about evolution are expected to tell the truth despite the fact that the majority of Americans continues to deny it, documentaries about Jesus or Muhammad are expected to be free of religious dogmas, and so on. Similarly, we expect a documentary about 9/11 to do its best to give us a true picture of what happened, what resulted, and what led to it. But Moore, I think, doesn't do that; rather, for him this is just a way to promote an agenda. If his agenda reflects the truth then he need not fear to present vital contrary information, because the facts that support his point of view will outweigh the facts that don't.

It's interesting that Quentin Tarantino crowned him at Cannes. Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs are deep and feature many shades of gray. The robbers in Resevoir Dogs are neither your heist-movie heroes who will do anything to avoid killing people nor your villains who barely have emotions and don't care. The hit men of Pulp Fiction are again complex characters that on the one hand intimidate and kill their boss's opponents but on the other are clearly human beings with human feelings. Moore, however, makes no attempt to introduce shades of gray into his movies; he views himself much in the same light that Bush views himself - a white knight crusading against all that is evil and unjust, or a white-hatted sheriff protecting frontier settlers from raiders.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now I understand what you mean - I'm just comletely unused to how gun stuff is handled.... *L* -- Robert, 08:49:04 08/06/04 Fri (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

nevertheless - I didn't understand it the way that someone just can go to the bank and get a gun. The point for me was to get a gun when opening an account.
I've rechecked the movie and noticed that the women who shows him the catalogue as well as the one where he fills out the form mention that they have to do a background check. I guess doing this requires some time.
So again, where's the problem.

Now something basic you still seem to be unaware of. Moore's films aren't exactly documentaries, so whatever your concept of documentary may be, it just doesn't apply here. He uses footage to make a point. And the point he makes may of course be more or less valid.
For an obvious example take the 'coalition of the willing' part. No sane person would address this as documentary - hell, he didn't even mention Britain, the most important member! Nevertheless, a closer and somehat time consuming look at this 'coalition', how it was forged and the reasons many of the members joined, shows it as ridiculous. And this 'being experienced as ridiculous' is what Moore gets as result of his great combination of various footage and stuff. But of course, if you want to have the truth about this 'coalition', then you have to check the stuff by yourself, you don't get it from the film.

The film doesn't deliver the truth, though he exposes some important stuff most Americans are unaware of. To get the full truth however they have to do their own checking of the stuff - if the film managed to wake them up. Again, the film in first instance is a powerful wake up call. And it's addressed to people who aren't awake. That's how I experience it and that's my impression from the reactions, and I guess this was Moore's intention too. Propaganda in reverse is meant to keep people asleep. The means may look similar, main thing however is the different effect - people who are more awake than before.

Someone who's awake is able to make up his own mind. This includes making up his own mind about the stuff presented in the film. I don't agree with everything contained there, so there's no reason to defend it, but I don't see this stuff as major flaws. If you do, well, that's your problem.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll tell you what the problem is -- Joe Taylor, 10:58:46 08/07/04 Sat (host-64-110-74-244.interpacket.net/64.110.74.244)

The problem is that the truth explains itself. If Moore's point is correct, then he doesn't need to present it with a black-and-white worldview and with deliberate misleading. It's true that the woman at the bank tells him they have to do a background check, but it looks as if they take it very lightly - something like "We'll do some rudimentary stuff on the spot that will take half an hour." Besides, the wait has a purpose other than background check - it's also meant to ensure that people don't become temporarily insane, buy a gun, and kill people randomly. As usually such madmen are first-time offenders, a background check won't reveal anything.

You say, "To get the full truth however they have to do their own checking of the stuff - if the film managed to wake them up" as if it justifies lying. It's like justifying 9/11 or Bush's cowboyish response to it on the grounds that it was needed to get people to notice the human rights situation in Afghanistan. Lies are lies, regardless of the cause that enlists them. Again, the truth doesn't need to embellish itself with lies.

Besides, the people who got "woken up" by F9/11 are very unlikely to check facts for themselves. People who check the right-wing websites in the USA will find that even if Bush sucks, Kerry is almost as bad; people who check the left-wing websites already know how bad Bush is and don't need F9/11.

And again, Michael Moore can easily make points without fact-skewing. He ould've bashed the NRA without showing Charlton Heston yell "from my cold, dead hands" when talking about the Denver rally even though Heston said no such thing at the said Denver rally. The part in A Brief History of American where Moore presents the NRA and KKK as brother organizations (which they are not - the NRA was incorporated in New York and was made up mostly of Union veterans, whereas the KKK's roots were Confederate) doesn't enhance Moore's argument by one bit. Moore's presentation of Canada's gun ownership statistics is a plain lie, because in Canada the vast majority of privately-owned firearms are hunting rifles, with handguns being hard to get. Moore chose to dismiss the correlation between gun ownership and gun crime with a lie.

You say that, "Propaganda in reverse is meant to keep people asleep. The means may look similar, main thing however is the different effect - people who are more awake than before," as if what Moore does causes people to be more awake than before. This is not true. Propaganda often seeks to make people aware of the other side's atrocities while keeping them ignorant of their own side's atrocities. Hence, US propaganda focuses on portraying Saddam Hussein as a brutal dictator, which he was, while ignoring the devastation that the war and the consequent occupation have inflicted on Iraq. Moore, similarly, makes you aware of how evil Bush is while portraying everyone and everything that opposes Bush as white and pure. This is exactly like American lies concerning communism - communism is indeed a very bad thing, but does it mean that we should believe that everything that is against communism is good?

You're right insofar as "Someone who's awake is able to make up his own mind. This includes making up his own mind about the stuff presented in the film," but in dealing with American leftists over the last year and a half I've seen that they're as deluded as American rightists. For instance, while they universally consider Saddam's regime a very brutal one, they tend to romanticize it, much in the same way communist apologists used to say, "Stalin is bad, but he's much better than Hitler," or the way neocons say, "fascism may be bad, but it's a lot better than communism." And I have yet to encounter one person who blames both the West and Saddam for the misery the sanctions inflicted on Iraq: the right blames only Saddam, whereas the left blames only the USA and the UN. It's like when A holds B in place and C slits B's throat, and then A and C blame each other for B's murder.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> if i may interject a comment or 2 on this subject -- bobbi, 07:39:24 04/26/05 Tue (adsl-68-91-144-124.dsl.wacotx.swbell.net/68.91.144.124)

my first comment relates to whether a background check is performed or not on a purchase of a weapon at a bank. all one has to do to circumvent it is to go to a gun show which the nra rallies around like cowboys with wagons to protect. you can buy just about anything you want, or the kits to build and modify the weapons all in one place. it's all legal thanks to the nra.

another point i had was regarding the comment on nra and kkk associations. they may not be directly linked to one another officially or openly, but clearly charlton heston made racist remarks for the camera without any concern as to what it might make others think. you don't become racist overnight. these are views he held long before michael moore came to town.

the kkk is a strong supporter of the nra and a large percentage (and i mean way up there) of kkk members are also nra members and own firearms. is the nra aware of this. of course they are. they market their products to feed the fears of the public and you can bet that they have done research somewhere to see how to appeal to certain demographics or regions where kk members are numerous. of course they are not blatant about it, but it is there.

facts are, while violent crimes and crimes in general were down several years ago, the nra pushed hard and campaigned in states and guns sales increased. even in states where guns were used to mow down numerous people like cattle.

look at the statistics of blacks in prison or watch the story about tulia, texas. heck our public schools here in texas and universities are reverting back to the ways of the 50's. you don't have to do much searching to find that the kkk and racism in general still have a strong hold on the states that are the biggest supporters of the nra.

and my last comment pertains to communism, purity, and the general comments made in reference to america and propaganda. first of all, communism, in and of itself is not bad. it is the manner in which most communist leaders have used communism to crutch their own egos and greeds that makes communism look bad. you can also say the same for most democratic leaders. does that make democracy itself bad, no. does it make the leaders of democracy bad, probably.

propaganda was also very heavily used against communism by our government based on the same methods of fear mongering in the same way bush uses it to chase after saddam and moore uses it to portray bush. fear is a powerful tool, and people go to great lengths to use it to motivate others to see and do what they want. it appears to me that while you see the propaganda used in modern day politics, you overlooked that which you used to form your opinions of communism. remember, for all of our fear of communism and taking over the world, we ourselves and out greatest allies also were busy spreading our own ideals and rule over countries, land, etc and were we not the firs to use the atomic weapon? yes, it stopped the japanese and jump started the end of ww2, but it was also used as a message to the russians that we had pwoer and weren't afraid to use it. and we killed far more people with that bomb than saddam did, the terrorists of 9-11, and pearl harbor combined. and we killed hundreds of thousands of women and children with that bomb don't forget. does that make us worse, no. japanese tortured women, russians did their dirty work. my point is, propaganda and right or wrong are relative to where you live.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> p.s. sorry about the spelling errors i noticed after it posted. -- bobbi, 07:41:35 04/26/05 Tue (adsl-68-91-144-124.dsl.wacotx.swbell.net/68.91.144.124)

i wasn't aware that you do not get to midfy your message on this forum. sorry about that!

bobbi