The crux of the issue is this. Moore's work IS propaganda.. and very well constructed propaganda at that. How you interpret what he presents is up to you, but you'll be hard pressed to find any deliberate lies within his work.

have you ever taken even a rudimentary history class? there is no such thing as a '100% truth' in any sort of d o c u m e nt a r y, paper, etc.

i consider distorting facts intentially as lying
its amazing how he can show only the side he needs to push his point, and then call his personal opinions fact. if i made a movie about hitler, but only showed the times he rescued kittens and fed the homeless, would you be angry when i called it a docu mentary?

i didnt say there was, i said he pushs the movie as nothing but facts he's "discovered" and "uncovered" to push his political agenda.

Bingo.

You wouldn't have "lied" but what you presented as a d0cumentary wouldn't be the "truth" either.

How does this disqualify the film from being a docu mentary?

Every docu mentary has a point of view.

Regardless of what facts he shows.. facts are facts if you like them or not. As far as distortion, i think Moore tends to like displaying things in their naturally unfortunate contexts because this has greater effect.

I can't see how you can rationally make this comparison.

uh, so does every doc u mentary, in one form or another. what a revelation.

doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on hahahahahahahahas.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

would you like the def of objectively?

okay, you are obviously a fucking idiot. sorry, but there is no such thing as an objective 'anything', for example docs.

carry on.

dont waste your time posting the mindless and missleading propaganda of Websters Dictionary .

:winkwink:

:1orglaugh

i like your retort.

Perhaps you need to complain to the classification review board.

thanks, i put alot of thought into it

I dispute parts of dictionary.com's definition.

I studied film for three years and anyone with a basic knowledge of the history of the docu mentary film knows that ALL docu mentaries are biased to one particular point of view or another. Why? Because the person or people responsible for it have a point of view. "Objectivity" doesn't come into it. There is no "objective" docu mentary because everything is subjective.

But that's not what's at issue here. The real question is did Michael Moore present lies as fact?

Here's Cambridge Dictionary's definition of docu mentary:

docu mentary [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
a film or television or radio programme that gives facts and information about a subject:
The docu mentary took a fresh look at the life of Darwin.
They showed a docu mentary on animal communication.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

No mention of "objectivity" there.

bingo

cant believe the dictionary 50% of the time either.

take the dictionary.com defintion of porn for example.

n : illegal activities designed to stimulate sexual desire [syn: pornography, porno]

:1orglaugh

I agree with everything except for Platoon which is a great movie. Yes it's an Hollywood movie but it was one of the first movie to talk about rape, drug, diseases and many shitty things that were going on in Vietnam. It's really not cheesy like Pearl Harbor and Titanic....

You must have missed Apacolypse Now?

Now that is a good movie!!!



:thumbsup

:thumbsup

I will back it up... and then off I go to celebrate Mexican independence.

http://www.marccooper.com/

:glugglug

since Apocalypse Now has come up, notice how to pass that film off they had to make it a "dream" type of movie, those "untalked about realities" of Nam are a PERFECt example of films and propaganda, and how one can view them as either simply a film, or someones point of view.

Like Coppola didnt have something to say in AN. of course he did, and its a great piece of work.

He never said it wasnt factual. Stop being a sheep, youre too smart of a woman for that.

I did not miss it. I have seen it several times actually. And the redux version as well.

Ah good.

"I agree with everything except for Platoon which is a great movie. Yes it's an Hollywood movie but it was one of the first movie to talk about rape, drug, diseases"

I misread and thought you meant it was THE FIRST, I missed "one of the" first.

AN is 1979 Platoon was 86. Huge difference in times which is why I said, notice how with Apocalypse Now it was a"a dream" in Platoon it was more reality based, at least by plot and storyboard.

I like war movies.

Johnny Got His Gun, have you seen that old one?

I do sound as well, and am a licensed holder of every sound used in Coppolas film and can reuse them as well.

good stuff! 5 discs of sounds

Of course Michael Moore distorted the facts by not showing both sides of the story, and to a certain audience it is entertaining. I'm not promoting or diminishing what he did, but to consider the movie specifically I'm referring to: "Bowling for Columbine," I wouldn't consider any movie that interviews one of the creators of "South Park" for intelligent insight as 100% trustworthy.

If you like his work, might I suggest a little TV show on Showtime Thursday nights at 10PM EST, Penn and Teller's Bullshit! (yeah I got stock in Showtime but so what?) They do some of the lop-sided arguments as well. Someone posted the website www.bowlingforthetruth.com I believe early in the thread, I suggest it to any Michael Moore supporters. There are always two sides to the story, Michael Moore is merely known for setting up the variables in the story slightly in his favor. That's undeniable, and consider that before running to his defense on the issue :)

I say "Bowling for Columbine" IS a hahahahahahahahaary - how much of it is correct, true - or even just satire doesn't matter to me.

I like the movie. I've seen it twice. I bought it for someone for Christmas. It's entertaining. I think Michael Moore is funny.

I don't however find anything in it to be, as some call it, particularly educational or "eye-opening". Much of it is opinion backed up by anecdotes. It's not rigorous (nor is it intended to be). In short, it's not science.

The film does describe a "problem" but there's nothing new there. There's a large body of work on the subject and nearly all of it is of a higher standard than "Columbine". "Columbine" is entertainment. It does not attempt to describe nor even outline and explain the nearly universal rise in crime rates beginning in 1961 in western countries. It does not mention the precipitous drop in the US homicide rate starting in the early 1990s. It does not mention nor attempt to explain why the US homicide rate is about the same today as it was in 1913 - that it rose and fell. It does not mention - as far as I remember - the huge racial gap in the US homicide rate and attempt to explain how that fits his thesis. Maybe he thinks urban youth watch the news more? He did not compare and contrast news broadcasts in various parts of the world.

Why? Because he's an entertainer and a comedian who hahahahahas books with "dude" in the title. Funny guy.

:glugglug

150 movies :glugglug

I too enjoy his films and books and you are correct...an entertainer...who has found a money making niche...which is what he is about...nothing more than that.

Curious how most posters are totally ignoring the statement which opened this thread: "If Michael Moore's Movies Are Propaganda So are all the other Hollywood movies with bullshit historical refernces."

Fletch did not say Moore's movies were not propaganda (which is actually a pretty harsh word for something that expresses an opinion), nor did he make any claims for the accuracies or otherwise of Moore's movies.

It's equally curious that most of the posts attacking Moore and BFC take issue with the classification of his movies as d o cumentaries, rather than addressing either his opinions or what he claimed as facts. Shoot the messenger if it makes you feel better, but the message remains the same.

Then there is "theking". Someone who regularly claims not to be a Republican, yet jumps on every thread that could be seen as remotely critical of Republican policies, always responds with the predictable Republican clichés, and has not yet - unless I blinked at the wrong time - shown anything remotely approaching balance in his posts. Propaganda?

:glugglug

It's a fact.. 'most posters' are not all that intelligent, it's not surprising the majority barely read beyond the thread title.

:)

Moore is entertainment, yes. Why? Because this way he reaches people he otherwise could not have. This form of entertainment-documentary is the only way for Moore to push his messages into the broader public while keeping to the essential business rule K.I.S.S ( Keep It Simple Stupid ) for maximum 'osmosis' if you will.

Not sure if anyone said it but, Moore did not call Bowling a hahahahahahahahaary. The Acadamy did.

Moore just makes movies based on his opinions.

I am a card carrying member of the NRA (who does not own a single gun) and found nothing anti gun about Bowling, all I saw was some common sense questions like

Why does Canada have more guns per capita then the us, but less gun deaths ?

that is EXACTLY what i thought when i read the title of this thread
that was the BIGGEST load of US propaganda bullshit I have ever had the misfortune to sit thru in my entire life


- I'd rather watch News hour with jim Lehrer :1orglaugh

Yes, Saving Private Ryan was a fucking AWFUL film.

It's worst sin was that it was boring.

I'm sure this was already said in this thread over and over but the whole passing Moore's drivel off as hahahahahahahahaary seems to keep idiots like yourself completely befuddled.

Before I head off to the big city, re-read my original post here. I said I had no problem labeling the entire list FletchXXX gave as propaganda as well as BFC. I merely inserted MY opinion on MM's presentation of the movie to the public, which somehow became an entirely different debate. :thumbsup