Dr. DVD

Yep, and did you notice how much resentment we got from other nations because of our actions? Attitudes like this are what fuels anti-American sentiment in other countries.

Quote:

Don't be so oblivious. Many people, including terrorists and Republicans, are trying to make a difference. You applaud Moore and these other people because they give your opinion a voice.

I applaud Moore, nowhere did I applaud the other people (ie terrorists). For the record, I love having someone like Moore to voice my opinion. In fact, isn't it common to applaud people who give voice to your opnion?

Quote:

Exactly. It's politically motivated, and a polemic through and through. You're attempting to justify that, very pooly by the way, but in effect are substantiating all of the complaints about this film.

Yep, because I agree with the reasons for giving it the award that makes me a piece of legit evidence that it was politically motivated, right? I don't doubt that it was to an extent, but can you honestly think that films like Titanic and Forrest Gump were given the Best Picture Oscar because they were the best films of those years? While not political, a similar pattern of groupthink played a part in the selection of those films as well. Don't single Moore's work out.

modfather

Generally, aren't documentaries supposed to be an unbiased take on an event? I looked up "documentary" in the dictionary:

So then I went and looked up "Objective":

Quote:

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

I know it's a minor point, but I don't view this as a documentary as much as an extended "Anti-Bush" commercial. He can express any opinions that he wants, but to present it all as unbiased fact is just plain wrong.

BTW, I'd just like to clarify that I'm not a HUGE Bush supporter, and tend to be very moderate.

modfather

P.S. Michael Moore and George Luca$ eat babies! No, seriously, have you seen those guys? They really do eat babies! They're both huge! I will be showing my documentary on this topic at the next Cannes - unbiased, of course.

P.S.S. Somehow, I think that if I had one ounce of credibility, I lost it with my "P.S."

Mr. Salty

Not necessarily. I've seen a lot of documentaries that have advocated a particular point of view.

haclong

In the same way, notes that journalists and media, news related people should be "objectives" too and events tends to prove that journalists made some exceptions time to time

Rivero

They should be but most of them are not.

TheAllPurposeNothing

Actually, the best accepted definition of documentary comes from John Grierson. Documentary is "the creative treatment of actuality."

Think of this way. A documentary is a mixture of document and commentary. Without the commentary (which can be supplied by something as simple as a straight cut between two documents), you're just presenting a single document.

And even that document is suspect since it typically has been taken under the subjective eye of whoever filmed/taped it. The minute a decision has been made where to point a camera, where to start and stop filming, what kind of film to use, lighting, etc., a subjective view has already entered into the proceedings.

This conundrum exists even in "observational" documentaries. Add to it the fact that the inclusion of a camera to the proceedings will typically alter actions and responses by the subject, and the goal for presenting "truth" just becomes a fallacy.

Watch "Rashomon" for a better understanding here. Not a documentary but a great visual poem for why the search for "truth" is virtually impossible.

Moore's films are documentaries. Not like the Maylses films. Not like Morris' films. But documentaries...yes.

Josh-da-man

If documentaries are supposed to be unbiased and present both sides of an issue, does that mean if I make a documentary about the Holocaust that I need to give Holocaust-deniers equal time in the film?

modfather

Why not? I certainly don't believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, but neither do I believe that we should cater to those who might complain if something is politically incorrect. But your example is a bit silly. If I were making a documentary about "Did the Holocaust actually happen?" then yes, I think you should present both sides. If you're making a documentary about the atrocities of the Holocaust, then it's an assumption that the event actually happened.

But using your example, if I were to make a documentary about "Did the Holocaust actually happen?" and then only interview those who felt it DIDN'T, then I don't think it would be very objective, would it? But presenting your opinion about something, and investigating your notions and suspicions and putting only those elements in a film is misleading and biased. That's all I was trying to say...

exm

n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries

"A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration."

Seems that Moore's work fit perfectly in this definition.

modfather

You had me up until the word "factual".

exm

You can say what you want about Moore and dislike his work, but his sources/facts are always solid.

modfather

Look, I've got a 15 year old daughter who's a vegan because of what she reads from PETA. Do you think if PETA would ever talk about slaughterhouses that DO treat animals with care? They have an agenda, and their propaganda is based on that agenda. Michael Moore is very similar. Whatever it takes to get his message out. I'm not saying he's a liar or ficticious, but let's face it - he has an agenda with this movie.

Of course, I'm so non-political and such a cynic, that I could care less. Let him shout at the top of his lungs that Bu$h eats babies. I don't care.

DodgingCars

So.. out of curiousity. When your daughter asks what's for dinner do you say "Cow flesh, washed down with the milk we stole from its baby!"

Mike Lowrey

You're right. It's not a "mockumentary". It's a "crockumentary". And it's TOTALLY made up. Just as is 99% of all Moore's work. Is there any wonder that his hometown of Flint, MI is highly embassed to have had Moore one of their own.

I just love how all of you Moore supporters are so easily duped by his total fabrication of events and "facts" (read: lies).

The man is a socialist pig, who'd probably rather live in France, but he likes making all that money in a capitalist system. Of course he's gonna dislike a conservative Republican administration in America. He hates Republicans just as much as I hate socialist Europe.

Moore is nothing more than a propagandist. If this was WWII instead of WWIII. I guarantee you that he'd be putting out "documentaries" for the Nazis.

modfather

Sometimes I do, actually. But seriously, you can make a "documentary" about any subject you want and justify your position with the proper interviews and facts. Using my daughter and PETA as an example again, she says she doesn't eat meat or dairy because of how animals are treated. Unfortunately, she gets her information from PETA - and let's face it - they support their cause by publishing the worst atrocities they can find, and bury everything else. They have an agenda, and everything they publish is slanted towards accomplishing their goals.

Michael Moore is the same thing - he has a goal to accomplish, so he makes a movie to prove that conspiracy theory.

My recommendation to everyone: If you want to see a good documentary, rent Lost in La Mancha. Talk about a cool documentary!

I think the reason I hate MM (and PETA) is not because of his crazy beliefs, but because he preys on college and high school students much like PETA does. Their beliefs seem to be: "If I can just get the young people on my side, I/we can change the world!" I think MM is very narcissitic and glory-hungry.

P.S. I should mention that I'm a member of PETA myself, believe it or not.

modfather (proud member of "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals")

exm

MrN

I find it ironic that you claim Moore's work is totally made up - just like the 'statistic' you're throwing about. Do you have a source on that, or is it 'totally made up?'

HistoryProf

Brent L

That may be the greatest quote ever on this board.

haliedoeshebron

To be fair though, many groups prey on not on college and high school aged people, but the naive in general. Religious groups do the same thing, as well as corperations. Even schools themselves take advatage of this naivite. Everyone has an angle and its easy to try to get your way if people are uninformed. Kids need to learn young to question everything and read as many sources as possible.

modfather

You need to come over and tell my daughter that - she won't listen to me!

In all seriousness, you're right. I worked at the Church of Scientology for a few months in L.A. They prey on just about everyone, but if you're a bit weird looking, ugly, have no self-confidence, or are famous and have insecurities (and a fat wallet), THEY WANT YOU! I watched them operate when I worked there several years ago. S...C...A...R...Y

exm

Oh thanks

DVD Smurf

ABCDE

"slaughterhouses that DO treat animals with care"

Ha ha, now that's funny, in a dark and mobrid sort of way.

modfather

I was referring to "Kosher" foods.