(I've created a 2007 Movie Report Card in the Movie's Sink, and placed it there.)
Once again, Moore has provided a bit of much needed wisdom...
Michael Moore:
"The official mourning period is over today, and there is a silver lining: George W. Bush is prohibited by law from running again."
That was kind of weird, clicking on that because it's my hometown news network.
Rona: Does anybody consider it offensive that Michael Moore was portrayed as a terrorist and blown up in Team America:World Police?
Luigi Novi: Not really. Every single public figure is subject to being satirized, and given Moore's self-righteousness, he's as legit a target as any other. Parker and Stone specifically targeted him because they were ticked off at how Moore placed his interview with Stone in Bowling for Columbine (preceded by a clip of South Park) right before Moore's animated sequence that falsely connected the NRA with the KKK (when the two were actually enemies), making it appear that Stone and Parker produced it.
Brian Webber: Oh now that's not true. For example I don't think the GOP had anything to do with Paul Wellstone's plane crash. Plus, there's the simple fact that a lot of these "rumours" have turned out to be true. Does that matter to you at all?
Luigi Novi: Yeah, because that really shows that you're not biased, Brian.
I suspect that after tomorrow (OK, after Jan 20, when all the inevitable lawsuits are settled), things will settle down.
ScottN: I suspect that after tomorrow, things will settle down.
Luigi Novi: C'mon, Scott. Brian behaviors this way only in election years? Since when? Check his behavior on the Bowling for Columbine boards. Or the Death to Smoochy board.
Luigi: Or the Death to Smoochy board.
I call shenanigans on that one. It was one badly misinterpreted joke. One post does not a behavior pattern make.
No, one post does not. I'm sure that Luigi, Benn, Mark, the pope, and myself have made one, two, three or so posts that we regretted making. Your latest spree over in PM is more than just one post, I'm sorry to say, Brian.
No one said you made only "one post," Brian, and I have illustrated your pattern of abusive behavior on other boards as well, most notably the Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 boards, and elsewhere on PM. And what you called a "joke" did not appear to be one when you made it, and the specious rationalizations you offered for it after the fact were exposed as such.
Youd idn't expose jack, you just refused to beelive it was a joke. You made up your mind and ignored every thing I ofered up to you that proved I was only kidding with the "carnation instant [banned word]" crack. Kinda what you acucse me of doing, don't you think?
Look the Death to Smoochy thing at the least was a joke gone wrong, at the most a nasty insult. But that's not the crux of the problem here; hell, I've probably said worse things than the Death to Smoochy "joke." The problem is your increasing tendency to use ad hominem arguments and insults in your PM and LM posts.
Mike, you know my personallity, you know I've always caleld it as I've seen it. I wouldn't say the things I say about the Righites if I didn't belibe them, and I wouldn't believe them if I didn't have enough evidence to not only support my pre-existing thoeries, but to give me new ones! It's only in the past 3 years that I've realized are truly EVIL these people are!
Brian Webber: Youd idn't expose jack, you just refused to beelive it was a joke. You made up your mind and ignored every thing I ofered up to you that proved I was only kidding...
Luigi Novi: I made up my mind after you offered several arguments supposedly illustrating why it was a joke, and explained quite clearly, responding to each one of them, why they did not hold up under the scrutiny of logic and reason.
Brian Webber: with the "carnation instant [banned word]" crack. Kinda what you acucse me of doing, don't you think?
Luigi Novi: What is kinda what I accused you of doing?
Brian Webber: Mike, you know my personallity, you know I've always caleld it as I've seen it.
Luigi Novi: Calling it as you see it merely means being honest, and not sacrificing the truth for a false sense of harmony. It does not pertain to rudeness, abusiveness, profanity, insults, or logical fallacies.
Brian Webber: I wouldn't say the things I say about the Righites if I didn't belibe them,
and I wouldn't believe them if I didn't have enough evidence to not only support my pre-existing thoeries, but to give me new ones! It's only in the past 3 years that I've realized are truly EVIL these people are!
Luigi Novi: Evidence allows one to form a conclusion. It does not justify addressing an entire group of people whose individual members you do not personally know with contempt, as if they all somehow believe the exact same thing, and are guilty of the exact same crimes. One of the problems with people like Ann Coulter is that she tends to talk in broad terms about "liberals" and "the liberals," and illustrating examples of poor behavior as if to imply that they are representative of the entire group. She will point to comments critics made about Passion of the Christ being deliberately anti-Semitic, and therefore conclude that this represents all "liberals," depending on what she thinks a liberal is. (What, someone who's pro-choice? Anti-death penalty? Pro-affirmative action? Against the war? What?) This is short-sighted and juvenile thinking. Vincent Bugliosi, in his book The Betrayal of America, which is about how the Supreme Court created a miscarriage of the law and of justice when they stopped the Florida recount in 2000 for solely personal poltical reasons, makes it clear that only the extreme right wing of conservatives are to be held in contempt, and that not all Republicans and/or conservatives do so, pointing out that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta voted 8 to 4 to deny Bush's attempt to have that court stop the recount, even though that court is a conservative-leaning one, of which seven of its twelve members were appointed by Republican presidents, foiur by George W. Bush's father. Thus, comments like "you righties" and responding to conservative criticism of Michael Moore's movies are veridically and intellectually invalid.
You can argue like an adult Brian, and avoid abusive behavior, ad hominem attacks and t he like, or you can argue with a pep rally mentality. But if you choose the latter, please stop being shocked that "no one listens to you," okay? You can argue intellectually, or you can not. If you choose not to, there's no reason to complain when others, conservative and liberal alike, call you on it.
Next week, I will be attending part of the Traverse City Film Festival, run by Mr. Moore. While I would have liked to see the opening and closing fims "Pittsburgh" and "Scoop," I don't have the said fundage to make that possible, so instead I will be savoring five films from the $7 collection:
*The Killing by Stanley Kubrick
*Who Killed the Electric Car?
*Wordplay
*The Beauty Academy of Kabul
*Viva Zapatero!
(which I will discuss in the Movies section)
If I run into Mr. Moore, I'll say hi.
I can't recommend Wordplay enough.
It's getting great reviews. I'm probably most excited about that film (although I have always wanted to see The Killing).
In the evening, they will be showing free films outside and we plan on seeing Jurassic Park and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I have, of course, seen both films already.
I did run into Mr. Moore quite a bit actually. He personally introduced Wordplay, Viva Zapatero, Little Miss Sunshine (another film I saw and can't recommend enough), as well as the outdoor films. On the way out of Who Killed the Electric Car, he was standing by the door and I shook his hand. He seems to have lost some weight since I last saw him on film--his emo glasses are kind of goofy, though.
Note: I disagree with Michael Moore on almost everything politically. But I think it's good to encourage independent filmmaking and culture and I think the Festival was a wonderful idea.
Of the movies, I'll talk more later, but Wordplay was terrific, like a real-life Christopher Guest documentary; The Beauty Academy of Kabul was surprisingly compelling (although it occasionally came off like episodes of Designing Women set in Afghanistan); Who Killed the Electric Car? was interesting but contains too many suppositions and glossed-over facts to be taken seriously; Viva Zapatero was an interesting look at censorship (albeit Italian censorship); and I loved The Killing and Little Miss Sunshine.
Jurassic Park got canceled due to storms. It was cool seeing Holy Grail on the big screen.
Was Michael Moore in any of these films?
No--sorry, I see what you're getting at, though--feel free to move or delete the message, which has a tenuous connection to Moore (especially since I didn't even see the guy this year).
That'll be thirty lashes for you.
(I've created a 2007 Movie Report Card in the Movie's Sink, and placed it there.)
It was interesting, though, that Moore's Festival did NOT play Sicko.
SO...has this guy been discredited yet as a documentary maker?
In the opinion of his critics, yes. In the opinion of the fans of his who give him credence, obviously not.
Michael Moore Hates America
I had wanted to see this film for some time, but then I forgot about it. I just discovered yesterday that it's now on Hulu for free. It was good.
Recommended viewing for anyone who accepts Moore's material uncritically.
Sadly, only those in the USA can stream that video.
Where are you, Chris?
In Ontario, Canada
Michael Moore is coming to Broadway, in a limited run one-man show titled The Terms Of My Surrender. More here.