[KevinGagnon]

Another really good documentary film that I would encourage you watch if you haven't watched it yet. "The Fog Of War". This is one of my favorite documentaries.

I prefer documentaries that are more fact and real life with no skewed stories. Michael Moore's documentaries are guilty of having skewed stories. He basically plays the same game as Fox news and CNN.

Kevin

[robert_fisher]

[QUOTE BY= KevinGagnon]I prefer documentaries that are more fact and real life with no skewed stories. Michael Moore's documentaries are guilty of having skewed stories. He basically plays the same game as Fox news and CNN. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Documentaries that are more fact? Documentaries are the 'art of reality', there is no way to make something completely objective. For every shot you use or don't you are being subjective, for every line from an interview you don't use, you are being subjective. <br /> <br />To be fair Michael Moore is nothing like CNN or Fox News. Michael Moore is an independant person, a producer, director, and writer. CNN and Fox News are large corporations. CNN and Fox pass along one opinion, and they do so by passing it along as news. Michael Moore passes along one opinion, and passes it off to you as his opinion. <br /> <br />There is a HUGE difference. Sure, both points of view are subjective, and have an intent, but Michael Moore isn't trying to pass his information off as 'THE NEWS'. <br /> <br />I'm not saying his films are crap. I was saying quite the opposite. That Michael Moore's films are fine, and his message is fine, it's just that what he tried to do during the election (supporting Kerry) was completely backwards thinking. He should have been showing people that the solutions to the problems he presented in his films are going to come from someone outside of the norm of political thinking.

[KevinGagnon]

<br> <br /> <br /><p>Good point Rob. I don't disagree. The way you explain the differences makes sense. <br /> <br /><p>With that said, I want to add that I do believe documentaries can and will play a roll as news for people in the future. Documentaries are slowly becoming a source of truth. Which is why I believe documentary film directors should try to give us more truth and facts, and less of their own opinion. I'm not saying no opinion, just less of it. <br /> <br /><p>A documentary that I watched which I think gives allot of truth is "The Fog Of War". Mainly cause the author has the real life experience to share with us truth. Although he does share his opinoin in the film, at least he has truth from his own experience to help support his opinion. <br /> <br /><p>Another documentary that shares with us allot of truth is "Dead in the Water" which was about the privatization of water around the world. It played on CBC. Yes there was opinion, but again allot of facts and truth to the documentary. Do we hear much about the move to privatize or water on daily news? Thanks to the documentary I do understand this plan to privatize our water. <br /> <br /><p>In Michael Moore's recent movie I believe he had too much distortion <b><i>(The act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean).</b></i> Bowling for Columbine I didn't see as much of this type of distorting tactic. <br /> <br /><p>Kevin <br /> <br /><p><i>"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." <br />-Mark Twain "</i>

[robert_fisher]

[QUOTE BY= KevinGagnon] <br />In Michael Moore's recent movie I believe he had too much distortion [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />What distortion though? I didn't see any sort of distortion, I thought Moore made a well thought out film in his style. He just threw it all out the window when he decided to support Kerry. <br /> <br />You know what's hilarious? 'Not Another Teen Movie' is playing on TBS in the background as I type this.

[KevinGagnon]

Rob,

"Rob say's: I thought Moore made a well thought out film in his style"

I don't disagree with that. It was his style and he did a good job with that style. But......

I've seen allot of documentaries. And Micheal Moore is the first one I seen who takes clips of different interviews or news clips and brings them together to make a point to support his opinion. He would make clips mean something they were not meant to mean. That is distorting and I don't believe that's what documentary filming is all about. It made for good entertainment, but that's about it. I've also read many reviews on Fahrenheit 911, and those revies support what I'm saying. It was made for good entertainment, not a real documentary presenting facts using clips in its original context to present facts.

I'm not saying his entire film was bad and didn't present facts. He did present some original clips which appeard to be in their full context. However, some of it where he played with clips to create a meaning that didn't exist in the first place, is what I'm opposed too.

So we agree and disagree. Thanks for the interesting conversation. It helps me with my film study

Kevin

[4Canada]

<br /> I liked Fahrenheit 9/11. My favorite part in the movie is a dramatization of fact. It's the shot of a jet taking off from an airport just after Moore tells of how the Saudis flew out of the USA and the song line "We gotta get out of this place, if it's the last thing we ever do", plays. That's entertainment, but nontheless giving the facts at the same time. <br /> <br /> I agree Robert that Michael lost a lot of credibility by first supporting Wesley Clark and then John Kerry. If he was going to support a Democrat at all I would have felt he was being more sincere had he supported Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich. He really just made me embarassed of myself for ever supporting him.

[robert_fisher]

[QUOTE BY= KevinGagnon]Micheal Moore is the first one I seen who takes clips of different interviews or news clips and brings them together to make a point to support his opinion.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />You're going to have to be more specific, it has been a while since I saw the film, but honestly I could find examples of what you are talking about from a lot of films with similar subject matter. Also Kevin have you seen the Power of Nightmares, that was a good series. Very thought provoking to say the least. <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= 4Canada] If he was going to support a Democrat at all I would have felt he was being more sincere had he supported Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich. He really just made me embarassed of myself for ever supporting him.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />I felt exactly the same way. It was almost as if he wanted to be on a winning side after the election. Which is the worse mentality some politicians take. I bet there are a lot of smart politicians world wide that are roped into a party with the winning record, even when they don't agree on some issues. <br /> <br />I think that's one of the main problems with the party system. There is no way that you can get a group of people to agree exactly on one issue. So we have all these wishy-wash parties, like the NDP, who represent so many different opinions that it takes away from each individual voice. Don't get me wrong, they are still the closest party in my riding I can relate to, but they still aren't the party that I can <b>truly</b> identify with, mainly because I need a party that is a little more aggressive. <br /> <br />I need a party that is asking the hard questions all the time and telling people how it is. No more politically correct drivel. I need a party that speaks with no regret for their opinions. Like for example, David Suzuki telling people that if they drive an SUV in the city "they don't give a shit about the environment." Which is the truth. In my opinion we are at the point now where people do need to be guilted into voting for humanitarian and environmental causes, through an aggressive truth campaign. We need candidates that are actually going to stand up to corporations that are making a profit through exploitation, that are going to tell people boycott 'such and such' company because they are doing 'such and such'. Personal attacks on the real perpetrators so that people actually know who is doing right and who is doing wrong on the basis of years of Canadian case law, and world wide human rights beliefs.

[arc628]

[QUOTE BY= robert_fisher] <br />What distortion though? I didn't see any sort of distortion, I thought Moore made a well thought out film in his style. [/QUOTE] <br />Michael Moore likes to play fast and loose with timelines, and use innuendo to cover the fact that he is basically lying to you. If you're looking for a social crusader, look elsewhere. I think he's a brilliant film maker, and a funny guy, but it's hard to respect a guy who has a habit of being so dishonest. Read this article from spinsanity.com, its a non-partisan site, so there is no bias.<P><a href="http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html">Fahrenheit 9/11: <br />The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn <br /></a> <br />I used to love Michael Moore, but I just don't like being lied to. If anything though, he's taught me to be a lot more objective.

[robert_fisher]

There are problems with the link you provided Arc628. There are half truths and stretches to prove Michael Moore wrong in it. <br /> <br />The author Brendan Nyhan is as guilty as Moore ever was. For most of the points he tries denounce he tries to pass some of them off as coincidence. Others he refutes by quoting Newsweek articles, a mainstream media conglomerate. <br /> <br />Also the argument against his timeline 'fraud' in Roger and Me is a weak argument again. The author neglects to mention anything other than the fact that there was a mistake and he was shifting opinions through that mistake. When you actually read the link provided by the author you find out that it was a case of misunderstanding on the original critics behalf. <br /> <br />Then the author of the article you provided goes on to say that a lot of Moore's facts are proved untrue by the 9/11 comittee, a comittee put together by President Bush. What would their intentions be? <br /> <br />[QUOTE] <br />I used to love Michael Moore, but I just don't like being lied to. If anything though, he's taught me to be a lot more objective. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Moore does provide his facts and sources on his website and in his 9/11 companion guide, and I would have to argue that a team of documentary filmmakers, lawyers, and researches put together this film after months of research. I find it hard to believe that a well known 'blogger' who is a single entity put as much time and research into this article as the filmmmakers did. His links are mainly to mainstream news organizations that have been proven to have their biases by the same website that this article appears on. <br /> <br />At least you are taking things with a grain of salt. <br /> <br />I think when it comes down to it Fahrenheit 9/11 was trying to prove one point which to anyone who reads the news from more than one source can tell you is true: <br /> <br /><b>That the 'War on Terrorism' has alterior motives and freedom and safety are not atop these motives.</b> <br /> <br />There really isn't much disputing that.

[KevinGagnon]

Rob,

Funny you mentioned "The Power of Nightmares". I downloaded the bit torrent file of the 3 part series today. I'm gonna watch it when I get the chance.

As for being more specific Rob. I would really like to discuss this much more, but its just a waste of time. I think we will end this with agreeing to disagree

Happy New Year!

Kevin

[arc628]

[QUOTE BY= robert_fisher] Others he refutes by quoting Newsweek articles, a mainstream media conglomerate.[/QUOTE] You can't just immediatly dismiss something because it comes from a "mainstream media conglomerate". Can you refute what newsweek said? <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= robert_fisher] <br />Then the author of the article you provided goes on to say that a lot of Moore's facts are proved untrue by the 9/11 comittee, a comittee put together by President Bush. What would their intentions be? <br />[/QUOTE] The 9/11 commision wasn't put together by President Bush. It was an independant, bi-partisan comission created by congressional legislation. Just because it refuted some things in farenheit 9/11, doesn't mean it gave the Bush administration a free pass. It just wasn't set up to be a Republican witch hunt. <br />[QUOTE BY= robert_fisher] <br />His links are mainly to mainstream news organizations that have been proven to have their biases by the same website that this article appears on. <br />[/QUOTE] As I said in my original post, this site has no bias. Go ahead, look up Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity. It's equally tough on the right as it is with left. Like it say's "Countering Rhetoric With Reason" <br />[QUOTE BY= robert_fisher] <br />I think when it comes down to it Fahrenheit 9/11 was trying to prove one point which to anyone who reads the news from more than one source can tell you is true: <br /> <br /><b>That the 'War on Terrorism' has alterior motives and freedom and safety are not atop these motives.</b> <br /> <br />There really isn't much disputing that.[/QUOTE] <br />Can't say I disagree with you there, but I just can't tolerate the intellectual dishonesty of Michael Moore and Farenheit 9/11. Imagine how powerful a weapon that movie could have been if Moore had made it absolutely <b>BULLETPROOF.</b> That would have been something specail.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= KevinGagnon] Rob, <br /> <br />Funny you mentioned "The Power of Nightmares". I downloaded the bit torrent file of the 3 part series today. I'm gonna watch it when I get the chance. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Strap yourself in, it's going to be a bumpy ride. I started a thread on it: <br /> <br />http://www.vivelecanada.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=5&showtopic=3956 <br /> <br />Let us know what you think of it whan you get finished. <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= arc628]Imagine how powerful a weapon that movie could have been if Moore had made it absolutely <b>BULLETPROOF.</b> That would have been something specail.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />His facts are a matter of record, they are bulletproof. "F/911" was his opinion on those facts. <br /> <br />If your rent/buy the movie, check out the special features. There's some really disturbing footage of Bagdad before/after the war, and how US soldiers treat the common Iraqi - before Abu Graib. <br /> <br />

[arc628]

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] <br />His facts are a matter of record, they are bulletproof. "F/911" was his opinion on those facts. <br /> <br />If your rent/buy the movie, check out the special features. There's some really disturbing footage of Bagdad before/after the war, and how US soldiers treat the common Iraqi - before Abu Graib. <br />[/QUOTE] <br />Looks like i'm fighting a losing battle here! I just think when Michael Moore presents his facts, he does so in a way that makes people draw a conclusion that simply isn't true. I agree with Michael Moore's opinions, but he is just too dishonest in getting them across.<P> Yes, the Iraq war was wrong. Yes, Bush didn't do enough to stop 9/11 before it happened. Yes, the patroit act is infringing on peoples civil liberties. Yes, the war on terror has been disasterously ineffective. But Moore went for sensationalism over accuracy, I would have preferred accuracy. But then again accuracy wouldn't get you $100 million at the box-office. <br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= arc628] <br />Looks like i'm fighting a losing battle here! I just think when Michael Moore presents his facts, he does so in a way that makes people draw a conclusion that simply isn't true. <br /> <br /> But Moore went for sensationalism over accuracy, I would have preferred accuracy. But then again accuracy wouldn't get you $100 million at the box-office. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />No, it's not a losing battle. In MM's own words, this is what he wanted to accomplish. Discussion. <br /> <br />MM uses the same style as other media to get his point across, shock. But he just uses a different kind. He shocks people into thinking 'what the hell were we doing?'. The best part of the extras of F/911 was all the people who said that all his facts were biased or untrue - yet they admitted they hadn't seen the movie! How can one have the opinion that things were presented that were untrue, without actually seeing the movie? <br /> <br />I think that is exactally what MM did with F/911 - "here are some facts, and my opinion. Believe me, or don't - but don't silence me." <br />

[robert_fisher]

[QUOTE BY= arc628]You can't just immediatly dismiss something because it comes from a "mainstream media conglomerate". Can you refute what newsweek said?[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />True enough I can't refute Newsweek, but I am saying I can take both sides of the story with some caution. Those for and against any issue. <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= KevinGagnon] I would really like to discuss this much more, but its just a waste of time. I think we will end this with agreeing to disagree [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Fair enough. To each his own but I still think most Docs are edited in the same fashion as Fahrenheit 9/11. <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] <br />No, it's not a losing battle. In MM's own words, this is what he wanted to accomplish. Discussion. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Exactly, that's why I thought it was so shocking he went with the Democratic party. He seemed to have been making all the right choices until then.