 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
In no way is he the Limbaugh of the left. I find the comparison based on petty biases as deep as those attriuted to Moore.
1. Moore goers from project to project- he lacks a single distributor willing to let him speak endlessly and daily.
2. Moore's schtick has actually lead to good- the most simple example is when he had his short lived show on Bravo, The Awful Truth, back in '98. He got an HMO to reverse their decsion to deny a man a life-saving pancreas transplant. I have yet to see Limbaugh, or Coulter, or Hannity, or any of that lot go out there "on the field" and confront those he criticizes and get actions. (like being part of the campaign to get Kmart to pull ammunition from it's shelves). There is a distinct difference from being (like all of us as well here) a talking head in a studio spouting ideology and talking to your likeminded guests or callers, and going out there and confronting those you criticize. Which Moore does, and not any of the people he is described against.
3. As much as you guys may think Moore's Oscar the work of "liberal media", his overall projects are as opinionated but better quality than what other people like Limbaugh does. The fact is the right has no "Moore" type crusading figure. You guys may hate him and think his commentary equal to Limbaughs, but the man's actions and products show a significant difference.
4. Moore has a defined range: What is Moore's position on Gay marriage? The drug war? no idea-why, cause he does not talk about that. His main issue, defining issue is one of labor populism. He is not a standard bearer of the left's ideology- I have never heard Moore talk about the clean air act, or the priest abuse scandal. Again, he is not there to be a pundit or talking head. That makes him fundamentally different from Limbaugh, or Coulter.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:37
|
|
quote:
Moore Distortions
June 28, 2004
A mainstream liberal consensus on Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" has emerged quickly. It goes something like this: Moore's a nutty conspiracy theorist, and parts of the movie -- in which he suggests, among other things, that we invaded Afghanistan not because of 9/11 but because we wanted to build a natural gas pipeline -- showcase Moore at his least responsible.
But he's also a talented polemicist and filmmaker; and as a result, the second half of the movie -- in which he uses the story of Lila Lipscomb, a grieving military mother, to examine why it is only the poor and working class who sacrifice in times of war -- is both profound and smart. In "The New York Times", A.O. Scott called the interviews with Lipscomb the "most moving sections" of the film. If the folks with whom I saw the movie provide any indication, audiences across the country will leave the theater so moved by Lipscomb's story that they will forgive "Fahrenheit 9/11" its often-incoherent points and poorly supported accusations. That, I suspect, is exactly what Moore wanted: to wrap assertions that can only be described as odd -- such as his insistence that the military is failing to adequately patrol miles of deserted Oregonian coast -- in the heart-breaking story of a mother's loss and the legitimate observation that America's system of military service asks too much of the poor and too little of elites.
There's a central -- and dishonest -- trick to what Moore is doing here: He's conflating two questions that have very little to do with each other. The question of whether a war is just (Moore's thesis is that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not) has no logical connection to the question of whether it is fought by a justly selected military. Vietnam was not an unjust war because elites received draft deferments; it was an unjust war in which the burdens of military service happened to be spread unfairly. Every war the United States has fought since Vietnam has been fought by an unjustly distributed military. But not every war has been unjust. The distribution of sacrifice in a democracy is a moral problem all its own.
Moore's argumentative strategy, however, rests on tricking audiences into believing otherwise. Having laid out his mostly unconvincing cases against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and having presented compelling scenes of Lipscomb grieving, military recruiters preying on the ignorance of teenagers, and congressmen fleeing questions about their children's military service, he pulls an intellectual sleight of hand that goes by so quickly -- and indeed, that sounds so logical -- that many viewers won't realize they've been tricked. In a voiceover, he says (and I'm paraphrasing pretty roughly here): "I've always been amazed that in America the poor and working class do most of the fighting. That is their gift to us. And all they ask in return is that we don't send them to war unless we absolutely have to."
The logical connection between the two thoughts here is patently absurd. (Is Moore implying that it's okay for the poor and working class to do most of the fighting as long as they are only sent to fight in necessary wars? Would it be okay to fight unnecessary wars if the military burden were properly balanced?) But it's also central to Moore's argument. He needs to be able to place his movie's best point -- the brazen immorality of Lipscomb having to grieve her son while elites make no similar sacrifice -- in the service of his larger argument, which is that Bush's wars have been unjust. So he eloquently conflates them, pumps up his soundtrack, and hopes viewers don't bother to think about what he's actually done.
How do we know Moore only wants to use his point about who sacrifices in war as a distraction from his real agenda of indulging conspiracy theories about Bush's foreign policy? Because a serious examination of that issue would have required something very different from what Moore delivers. He could have taken his camera and knocked on the doors of Ivy League presidents who ban ROTC from their campuses, helping to perpetuate the notion that military service is not for our country's young elites. He could have seriously considered the arguments for a draft. The problem of the military's socioeconomic imbalance, when considered thoughtfully, isn't really a partisan issue. But that's exactly how Moore treats it, because embarrassing (presumably liberal) academics or considering proposals with non-ideological appeal just isn't how Moore does business. His approach to the issue makes clear that he is using it rather than examining it. Surely Moore will concede that whether America's wars are just or unjust -- indeed whether we fight wars at all -- we do need people to serve in our military, and we do need to find them somewhere. The logical extension of elite schools shutting their doors to military recruiters is that those same recruiters end up scouring the malls of Flint, Michigan. If Moore really cares about the socioeconomic imbalance of the U.S. military, you wouldn't know it from this movie.
Which is too bad, because the question of who serves in the American military is an important one, and we ought to be having a national debate about it. But far from provoking such a debate, "Fahrenheit 9/11" will stymie it. That's because Moore essentially argues that the way to redress our military's socioeconomic imbalance -- the way to stop the Lila Lipscombs of America from bearing an unfair percentage of the burden of our country's defense -- is not to fight unjust wars. This makes no sense, but it is also a deeply attractive message to Moore's target audience of true believers, because it neatly waves away the guilt of elites who do not want their children to serve in the military. It tells them that the difficult moral question of how we determine who serves in the military -- a question that should make any parent or young person who really thinks about it deeply uncomfortable -- need not be grappled with, as long as we only wage just wars. Just as young viewers of "Fahrenheit 9/11" (like me) may be beginning to wonder why it is that the life of Lipscomb's son was worth less than their own, Moore invites us to short-circuit this troubling, important line of reasoning with a glib piece of illogic: No unnecessary wars; no need to spread the sacrifice of military service. It's as if he forgets that people also die, and mothers also grieve, in necessary wars.
There seems to be a growing sentiment among liberals that Moore is a bad guy, but dammit, he's our bad guy. I disagree. Liberalism is as badly served by liberal intellectual dishonesty as it is by conservative intellectual dishonesty. Besides, Lila Lipscomb and the young men being funneled directly from Flint malls to Iraq deserve better. That is, they deserve to be more than distractions from the intellectual mess that precedes them in this movie. Moore ends "Fahrenheit 9/11" by predicting that American voters will not be fooled into voting again for George W. Bush. I hope he's right. But I also hope they won't be fooled by the bad logic at the center of his film.
Richard Just is editor of The New Republic Online. |
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain626484.shtml
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
|
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:37
|
|
quote:
'Moore is shameless in feeding his own ego'
Observer film writer Mark Kermode on the controversial filmmaker behind Fahrenheit 9/11
Sunday June 27, 2004
The Observer
The most annoying sound at this year's Cannes Film Festival was the incessant drone of Michael Moore telling everyone in town that he had been silenced. If only.
For almost two weeks you couldn't turn on a TV without hearing Moore spouting off about how Disney was censoring him by refusing to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. Of course, it was all nonsense. Despite the fact that Moore had apparently long known about the 'Disney issue', he chose to wait until the eve of Cannes before screaming to the press, thereby generating the kind of frenzied festival publicity money can't buy.
Moore played the victim; the world's press acted outraged; and the Cannes Jury duly handed over the coveted Palme d'Or, insisting its decision had nothing to do with politics. 'It was the best movie we saw,' jury president Quentin Tarantino blubbed unconvincingly. Fast forward a month and, hey presto, Moore's documentary finds itself enjoying the kind of high-profile US opening usually reserved for star-studded blockbuster action movies. With censorship like that, who needs publicity?
According to legend, Fahrenheit 9/11 was made to topple George W Bush and thereby save America from the grip of an evil tyrant. It was also made to prove that Moore was right for attacking 'Dubya' from the Oscar stage last year, labelling him a 'fictitious president' who was leading his country into a 'fictitious war'.
'When I gave that speech,' Moore said later, 'it wasn't embraced by majority opinion. I needed to clarify myself.' In fact, what Moore needed to do was to convince everyone that he wasn't a loud-mouthed winner (anyone clutching an Oscar sounds smug) but the loveable underdog of yore. It's a role he has played to the hilt, with winning results; the glittering likes of Leonardo DiCaprio, Demi Moore and Sharon Stone have recently been snapped at screenings of Fahrenheit 9/11, while Madonna has urged her fans to see the film, insisting: 'I don't think I ever cried so hard at a movie in my life!' (Clearly, she never saw her own stinker, Swept Away.)
Amid this hectic round of celebrity back-slapping and public congratulation, Moore has still found time to remind us just how silenced and censored he is, most recently complaining about the 'R' rating awarded to Fahrenheit 9/11, which he insists will prevent teenagers from hearing his message - and presumably prevent him from pocketing their lucrative demographic dollars. 'Come see my movie by any means necessary,' Moore told young punters, adding, 'If you need me to sneak you in, let me know.' Gee, thanks Mike.
All of which would be far more amusing if Fahrenheit 9/11 was genuinely something to get excited about. I'll be reviewing the film in full when it opens here in a couple of weeks, but suffice to say that it was neither the sharpest, the funniest nor the most politically potent documentary screened at Cannes this year. That award goes to Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me, a stomach-churning attack on the fast-food industry which has all of the bite of Moore's work with none of the self-righteous sanctimony.
Yet in the area of shameless self-publicity, Moore remains unsurpassed, finding a way to turn every situation to his egotistical advantage. If Bush loses the next election, Moore will doubtless claim credit for his downfall, thus making him an international superhero. If Bush stays, Moore can just go on blaming all those people who 'censored' his movie, from Disney, to the Ratings Board, to the dopes of the 'Move America Forward' organisation who tried to get theatres to boycott Fahrenheit 9/11. Haven't they heard that there's no such thing as bad publicity, particularly where our Mike is concerned?
Whoever wins the election, you can be sure that Michael Moore won't be a loser. Nice campaign, Mike. Shame about the film. |
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...1248200,00.html
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
Ah, so even though Moore is a political commentator who uses an entertainment medium to get his message across in a humorous manner, he's different from Limbaugh because his medium is different?
OK!  |
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
if it walks like a duck, quacks likes a duck, looks like a duck . . . . . |
See, this is what I find absurd- Bergen is a political commentator-does that make him like Rush Limbaugh?
Being a political commentator does not equal pundit or talking head. And Rush is a talk show host beyond being a political commentator.
I find this honestly childish attitude towards being policitcal incredably annoying plus utterly hypocratical,, specailly from anyone , ANYONE, who uses left and right as a pejorative.
Yes, Moore is different because he is jot just a talking head. He can go years without a project-he is much more an activist with one issue. I have never seen Moore comment on gay marriage or animal rights on TV, or a hundred different issues. He might mention it in a book, but you don't see him in the press daily spounting off.
And yes, I do add the fact he does more than just sit in a studio and pontificate. He interviews people- he tries to meet with the very people he criticizes to speak to them. I would recommend his film fro 96 that follows his book tour that year. He meets with the Chairman of Nike and asks about factories in indonesia employing kids, or goes to Madison and the state house with welfare mothers asking for work. He does speak himself, but at least outside his books much of what he does is letting others speak. For example, in Columbine when he interviews Charleton Heston- Heston should have known who Moore was- he willingly gave the interview and he hung himself on his own words.
So:
1. Being a political commentator does not equate one with pundit or talking ehad.
2. Moore is hardly a commentator. He is more of an activist against big business, which is the main topic of all his work.
And I would like those who still think he is "the Limbaugh of the left" to lay out the similarities other than having an opinion. And in doing so not essentially describing half the posters here on the OT.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-06-2004 06:56
|