Michael Moore Hates America - The MOVIE
#1
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
Michael Moore Hates America
Looks like this could be a fun companion piece to Farenheit:
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
There is a link to the trailer in the middle of the page. Hard to gauge a lot from the trailer, but I love Penn Jillette, so I'll probably check it out for him alone.
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
There is a link to the trailer in the middle of the page. Hard to gauge a lot from the trailer, but I love Penn Jillette, so I'll probably check it out for him alone.
#3
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: seattle WA
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I been diggin on Penn and Teller's BullS**t lately a lot, so his presence is interesting. That really appears to be the only interesting part, and i like the idea of showing that documentaries are edited and non objective in a documentary where you are telling to proclaimed "truth" about something.
#5
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Looks good to me
#6
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 4,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the film could be a very intersting look into the making of documentaries and a more optimistic view of American life... though with the title (as the website admits), it will be easy for critics to dismiss the entire work as a hatchet job.
#7
DVD Talk Legend
So let's think this through ... I'm gonna make a documentary ... boy, those are hard to sell, and getting any press on it won't be easy .... hmmm ... who's getting press ....what are people talking about these days .... hmmm ... ok ... what the hell ... I'll call it Michael Moore Hates America ... or maybe Supersize America
#9
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
Originally posted by silentbob007
I think the film could be a very intersting look into the making of documentaries and a more optimistic view of American life... though with the title (as the website admits), it will be easy for critics to dismiss the entire work as a hatchet job.
I think the film could be a very intersting look into the making of documentaries and a more optimistic view of American life... though with the title (as the website admits), it will be easy for critics to dismiss the entire work as a hatchet job.
#10
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So leeching off another leech to break into the biz. sounds like he has his priorities in the right place.
though I would have to say that any doc. isn't the full truth no matter what as the directors perspective is always going to be touched into it.
though I would have to say that any doc. isn't the full truth no matter what as the directors perspective is always going to be touched into it.
#11
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
Originally posted by marty888
So let's think this through ... I'm gonna make a documentary ... boy, those are hard to sell, and getting any press on it won't be easy .... hmmm ... who's getting press ....what are people talking about these days .... hmmm ... ok ... what the hell ... I'll call it Michael Moore Hates America ... or maybe Supersize America
So let's think this through ... I'm gonna make a documentary ... boy, those are hard to sell, and getting any press on it won't be easy .... hmmm ... who's getting press ....what are people talking about these days .... hmmm ... ok ... what the hell ... I'll call it Michael Moore Hates America ... or maybe Supersize America
#12
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
So leeching off another leech to break into the biz. sounds like he has his priorities in the right place.
though I would have to say that any doc. isn't the full truth no matter what as the directors perspective is always going to be touched into it.
So leeching off another leech to break into the biz. sounds like he has his priorities in the right place.
though I would have to say that any doc. isn't the full truth no matter what as the directors perspective is always going to be touched into it.
#14
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This filmmaker is guilty of the same crimes as Michael Moore. Sensationalized bullshit.
I think it's funny and sad when people speak out against this administration that they are labeled as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American". It's such a simplistic label that means absolutely nothing.
I'm not defending Moore's filmmaking techiniques, because they are manipulative and forced. But wake up and smell the genre, people. That's what documentaries are. The filmmaker cuts interviews to suit his or her message. And that's exactly what Moore does, and will be exactly like this guy will do.
I think it's funny and sad when people speak out against this administration that they are labeled as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American". It's such a simplistic label that means absolutely nothing.
I'm not defending Moore's filmmaking techiniques, because they are manipulative and forced. But wake up and smell the genre, people. That's what documentaries are. The filmmaker cuts interviews to suit his or her message. And that's exactly what Moore does, and will be exactly like this guy will do.
#15
DVD Talk Legend
well this is as good a spot as any to post this....i suppose it goes without saying that this 'film' is a load of shite i'm sure....for one thing, no he doesn't....but hey, at least we now know Chanster's real name is Mike Wilson
Published on Monday, June 14, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Get Him!!
As Moore's Critics Suit Up for "Fahrenheit 911," Liberals Need to Figure Out the Game
by Andrew Christie
Few recent books and movies have been subjected to as high a degree of public scrutiny as the works of Michael Moore. As a fallible human being producing fact-dense works, often citing equally fallible reporters and researchers, his work has an error ratio that is probably comparable to that of everyone else's in print or film media, but everyone else is not the world's most visible and provocative critic of our government's policies, hence their work does not receive a line-by-line, shot-by-shot analysis, animated by a feverishly determined purpose to discredit.
The forthcoming documentary "Fahrenheit 911" is likely to set records in that regard. The stakes could not be higher. Moore's foes get it. Moore gets it, too, and he has retained the services of Bill Clinton's rapid response team from the 1992 election to refute attacks.
The only ones who may not get it: Liberals. When the conservative right and its corporate media handmaidens have throw down dubious "factual challenges" to Moore's high-profile works, many on the left have proven willing to go along.
The classic case in point: Seemingly within hours of the release of Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" in October 2002, the alleged deceptions of Michael Moore were circulating through the zeitgeist at a markedly stepped-up pitch. They coalesced into a hit list printed in Forbes' December 9, 2002, issue, becoming a trumpet call for right-wing bloggers. Then Moore's dour critics in the groves of liberal academe took up the cudgel, with Dissent publishing "The Perils of Michael Moore" in its Spring 2003 issue, solemnly including the litany of Moore's alleged "Columbine" transgressions.
The classic life-cycle of a manufactured political smear is not difficult to detect as it travels across the public spectrum. The goal is to build up enough critical mass that ordinary folks on the street get wind of the target's alleged mendacity and deceit and simply accept it. Many of those normally astute enough to consider the source when a campaign of vilification is based on obvious political disagreement do not make such allowances when presented with what looks like simple mendacity. Pointing out "errors" and acts of deceit seems value-free. Target isolated, credibility compromised, mission accomplished.
But manufactured charges tend to fall apart on examination. Chief among the "Columbine" charges was the "free gun" scene in the bank that gives away guns to new customers.
Here's how it went in Forbes' authoritative-looking bullet points:
"BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, 'if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun.' He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun. ACTUALLY: Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check."
Compare this to Moore's account of what happened, as posted on the "Bowling for Columbine" website:
"North Country Bank (with branches throughout Northern Michigan) offers you a wide choice of guns when you open up a certificate of deposit account.... The bank is also an authorized federal arms dealer so they can do the quick background check right there at the bank. I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, walked out with my new Weatherby-just as you see it in the film. (I did have a choice of getting a pair of golf clubs or a grandfather clock, but they didn't have either of those hanging on the wall like they did those three rifles)."
Tellingly, the differences in these opposing accounts are not a matter of blunt contradiction but of details omitted and included, respectively. The omissions necessary to trump up the "Moore staged it" story become visible in the light cast by the details included in his personal account:
He would've had to open a long-term CD! (...and he did.)
You have to get a background check! (...which he did, on the spot.)
Even more tellingly, that Forbes piece claimed that "Bowling for Columbine" also perpetrated the following "falsehood:"
"WELFARE: Moore places blame for a shooting by a child in Michigan on the work-to-welfare [sic] program that prevented the boy's mother from spending time with him. ACTUALLY: Moore doesn't mention that mom had sent the boy to live in a house where her brother and a friend kept drugs and guns. "
Anyone who even casually followed Moore's commentary during the 2000 presidential campaign, two years before "Columbine," knows that among the top 5 charges he leveled against the career of Al Gore was Clinton-Gore's championship of welfare "reform," the draconian measures Moore held responsible for forcing that woman to get on a bus to make an 80-mile daily commute to two minimum-wage jobs, thereby also forcing her to leave the son she could no longer care for -- day care or baby-sitters not an option -- in the hands of her brother and in the vicinity of those drugs and guns, as Moore related in painful, vivid detail. Forbes made his point for him.
Last year, an enterprising Alternet freelancer interviewed North County Bank's marketing director, who confessed that "she worked with Forbes magazine to put out an article discrediting the movie."
"Dissent" fell for it -- eagerly -- and was not alone among liberal deep-thinkers who frown on Moore's barnstorming tactics. Needless to say, those on the left who repeat the smears of ersatz "debunkers" and parrot their conclusions without running down the source or performing a reality check do the work of the opposition. The attack-&-discredit strategy of right-wing media organizations, think tanks and PR consultants is as old as the created image of the beastly, nun-roasting, baby-bayoneting Hun, concocted to draw the U.S. into the First World War.
It never gets old, because the credulity of the target audience stays forever young.
Get Him!!
As Moore's Critics Suit Up for "Fahrenheit 911," Liberals Need to Figure Out the Game
by Andrew Christie
Few recent books and movies have been subjected to as high a degree of public scrutiny as the works of Michael Moore. As a fallible human being producing fact-dense works, often citing equally fallible reporters and researchers, his work has an error ratio that is probably comparable to that of everyone else's in print or film media, but everyone else is not the world's most visible and provocative critic of our government's policies, hence their work does not receive a line-by-line, shot-by-shot analysis, animated by a feverishly determined purpose to discredit.
The forthcoming documentary "Fahrenheit 911" is likely to set records in that regard. The stakes could not be higher. Moore's foes get it. Moore gets it, too, and he has retained the services of Bill Clinton's rapid response team from the 1992 election to refute attacks.
The only ones who may not get it: Liberals. When the conservative right and its corporate media handmaidens have throw down dubious "factual challenges" to Moore's high-profile works, many on the left have proven willing to go along.
The classic case in point: Seemingly within hours of the release of Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" in October 2002, the alleged deceptions of Michael Moore were circulating through the zeitgeist at a markedly stepped-up pitch. They coalesced into a hit list printed in Forbes' December 9, 2002, issue, becoming a trumpet call for right-wing bloggers. Then Moore's dour critics in the groves of liberal academe took up the cudgel, with Dissent publishing "The Perils of Michael Moore" in its Spring 2003 issue, solemnly including the litany of Moore's alleged "Columbine" transgressions.
The classic life-cycle of a manufactured political smear is not difficult to detect as it travels across the public spectrum. The goal is to build up enough critical mass that ordinary folks on the street get wind of the target's alleged mendacity and deceit and simply accept it. Many of those normally astute enough to consider the source when a campaign of vilification is based on obvious political disagreement do not make such allowances when presented with what looks like simple mendacity. Pointing out "errors" and acts of deceit seems value-free. Target isolated, credibility compromised, mission accomplished.
But manufactured charges tend to fall apart on examination. Chief among the "Columbine" charges was the "free gun" scene in the bank that gives away guns to new customers.
Here's how it went in Forbes' authoritative-looking bullet points:
"BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, 'if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun.' He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun. ACTUALLY: Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check."
Compare this to Moore's account of what happened, as posted on the "Bowling for Columbine" website:
"North Country Bank (with branches throughout Northern Michigan) offers you a wide choice of guns when you open up a certificate of deposit account.... The bank is also an authorized federal arms dealer so they can do the quick background check right there at the bank. I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, walked out with my new Weatherby-just as you see it in the film. (I did have a choice of getting a pair of golf clubs or a grandfather clock, but they didn't have either of those hanging on the wall like they did those three rifles)."
Tellingly, the differences in these opposing accounts are not a matter of blunt contradiction but of details omitted and included, respectively. The omissions necessary to trump up the "Moore staged it" story become visible in the light cast by the details included in his personal account:
He would've had to open a long-term CD! (...and he did.)
You have to get a background check! (...which he did, on the spot.)
Even more tellingly, that Forbes piece claimed that "Bowling for Columbine" also perpetrated the following "falsehood:"
"WELFARE: Moore places blame for a shooting by a child in Michigan on the work-to-welfare [sic] program that prevented the boy's mother from spending time with him. ACTUALLY: Moore doesn't mention that mom had sent the boy to live in a house where her brother and a friend kept drugs and guns. "
Anyone who even casually followed Moore's commentary during the 2000 presidential campaign, two years before "Columbine," knows that among the top 5 charges he leveled against the career of Al Gore was Clinton-Gore's championship of welfare "reform," the draconian measures Moore held responsible for forcing that woman to get on a bus to make an 80-mile daily commute to two minimum-wage jobs, thereby also forcing her to leave the son she could no longer care for -- day care or baby-sitters not an option -- in the hands of her brother and in the vicinity of those drugs and guns, as Moore related in painful, vivid detail. Forbes made his point for him.
Last year, an enterprising Alternet freelancer interviewed North County Bank's marketing director, who confessed that "she worked with Forbes magazine to put out an article discrediting the movie."
"Dissent" fell for it -- eagerly -- and was not alone among liberal deep-thinkers who frown on Moore's barnstorming tactics. Needless to say, those on the left who repeat the smears of ersatz "debunkers" and parrot their conclusions without running down the source or performing a reality check do the work of the opposition. The attack-&-discredit strategy of right-wing media organizations, think tanks and PR consultants is as old as the created image of the beastly, nun-roasting, baby-bayoneting Hun, concocted to draw the U.S. into the First World War.
It never gets old, because the credulity of the target audience stays forever young.
Last edited by HistoryProf; 06-14-04 at 10:50 PM.
#16
DVD Talk Gold Edition
How many of you have watched the trailers? The guy admits that there will be a slant in his documentary, he says it's impossible not to have one. And I don't think the title is serious, probably meant to be ironic.
Anyway, it looks entertaining, just as much as any of Moore's stuff.
Anyway, it looks entertaining, just as much as any of Moore's stuff.
#17
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 4,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Drop
....And I don't think the title is serious, probably meant to be ironic.
....And I don't think the title is serious, probably meant to be ironic.
#18
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And I don't think the title is serious, probably meant to be ironic.
#19
DVD Talk Special Edition
Isn't it interesting how Michael Moore is ignoring this guy, kind of reminds me of Moore's first movie. He's claiming from that Q&A shot that he wouldn't appear in a slander piece about himself... what was Roger & Me?
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate Michael Moore with a passion. he is a lying, deceiving embarassment to the film industry. And I agree he hates America. I will see it because I hate Moore and Love America, and the stuff with the immigrants looks like this will be something I enjoy. Does the website say when it's coming out?
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the guy behind this comes off as more annoying than moore, at least moore is funny and entertaining, I guess I will have to wait and see, I feel like some people get too worked up about this stuff, I mean you could make a documentry that is 100% fact about the nazis being a great bunch of guys through the magic of editing, its a friggen documentry... food for thought.... blah blah blah, nevermind all the crazies will remain polarized, wouldn't it be great if a normal person ran for president?
#25
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,288
Received 1,809 Likes
on
1,129 Posts
One of the dvdtalkers around here has this site as his sig. I checked it out and I have to say I'm totally down with this guy's flick.
Moore makes me sick everytime I see his face and I hear his voice because he's such a low life scum bag. He has all these fools thinking he's some kind of "honest man interested in real America" and it's such garbage.
Moore makes me sick everytime I see his face and I hear his voice because he's such a low life scum bag. He has all these fools thinking he's some kind of "honest man interested in real America" and it's such garbage.