Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Nono · Sep 25, 2004, 08:42 am

This goes straight to Butterface since I can't imagine it resulting in any sort of productive debate, despite the fact that a conscious effort has been made to remain tactful.

A Volconvo member whose posts I greatly admire lumped Moore and Rush Limbaugh together a few days ago, describing Moore as a "a posing, pompous slinger of half-truths, innuendos and rumors".

Let me first say that I myself regard Moore as a polemicist, though I doubt he would claim anything different himself. I liked his chutzpah in his film "Roger and me". He's really got a pair and who can deny it?
I thought less of "Bowling for Columbine". While I agree with his views about gun-nutdom, I thought the film and all the specious arguments and hokey posturing dragged into it probably did more harm than good (the bit about Kosovo; the maudlin appeal with the little girl's photo at the end; etc.).

Last night I finally got around to seeing "Fahrenheit 911". It's a classic piece of Moorish polemics. I have reservations. For example, personally I could have kicked his fat ass over the portrayal of Saddam's pre-invasion Iraq as nothing but a peaceful playground in which joyful children flew kites. However, I didn't see a single thing in the film that I know to be actually untrue. Rather it's Moore's personal selection of truths. (And what documentary isn't a selection of things pitched to give the viewer a certain impression?) The striking thing is that Moore's version of truth is really a constellation of precisely the facts that are missing from the mainline American media. His film represents the other pieces of the puzzle, the tendentious flipside of the tendentious "news" fed to a US populace overly reverent toward the holders of power. It should be viewed as a public service.

I don't live in the US but am a frequent visitor. When I was there in August I made a point of listening to right-wing talk radio. (Let's call that a sacrifice I made in the interests of research.) I'd never heard it before and, even to cynical old me, it was a shock. There was something humming in the back of my mind the whole time until the word finally worked its way through: Fascism. That's what these guys are: fascists whose rants are based on conscious lies.

So that's my post: Moore's stuff is documentary -- tendentiously selective, yes, but not a web of lies. He makes a hell of a lousy poster boy for the cause -- scruffy, grossly obese and in need of a shave. But he doesn't deserve to be tossed into the same bag of vipers as the Goebbels-guys who seem to dominate the radio waves, or the smooth talking heads who convey to their rapt viewers a mighty skewed view of the universe.

Thank you.

Rainbow · Sep 26, 2004, 06:21 pm

M. Moore reminds me words of that "famous" boxing-promoter : "Don King" , or so.
"I will create fights (bouts) people will pay hundreds or thousands for tickets to watch them" (not quotted).
Money seems to be not the M.Moore's main objective. However the way he presents the issues carries a lot of questioning.

I watched "Bowling for Columbine". A totally one-sided film. People "fight" over issues, while M.Moore is polishing his NRA membership. No need to see anything more, "made by M.Moore".

giuliano · Sep 27, 2004, 01:33 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Nono,
For example, personally I could have kicked his fat ass over the portrayal of Saddam's pre-invasion Iraq as nothing but a peaceful playground in which joyful children flew kites. However, I didn't see a single thing in the film that I know to be actually untrue.

as much as conservatives hate his style, and his slippery use of language and facts, he does not lie or fabricate anything.

his ridiculous portrayal of iraq confused me. i wonder if it was a strange attempt at humour? he knows that's not what iraq was like, and so does everyone else.

bishop · Sep 27, 2004, 09:23 am

parts of the iraq portrayal were well-put though.. particularly the scene with the lady crying. the bit with the kids on swingsets was a damn stupid scene. he would've been better off showing a kid with his limbs blown off by our bombs instead.

obviously he wanted to show them as being fellow human beings. but, i think he boxed himself in creatively and didn't step back and take a critical look at what he was doing.

Sep 25, 2004, 08:42 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,439	This goes straight to Butterface since I can't imagine it resulting in any sort of productive debate, despite the fact that a conscious effort has been made to remain tactful. A Volconvo member whose posts I greatly admire lumped Moore and Rush Limbaugh together a few days ago, describing Moore as a "a posing, pompous slinger of half-truths, innuendos and rumors". Let me first say that I myself regard Moore as a polemicist, though I doubt he would claim anything different himself. I liked his chutzpah in his film "Roger and me". He's really got a pair and who can deny it? I thought less of "Bowling for Columbine". While I agree with his views about gun-nutdom, I thought the film and all the specious arguments and hokey posturing dragged into it probably did more harm than good (the bit about Kosovo; the maudlin appeal with the little girl's photo at the end; etc.). Last night I finally got around to seeing "Fahrenheit 911". It's a classic piece of Moorish polemics. I have reservations. For example, personally I could have kicked his fat ass over the portrayal of Saddam's pre-invasion Iraq as nothing but a peaceful playground in which joyful children flew kites. However, I didn't see a single thing in the film that I know to be actually untrue. Rather it's Moore's personal selection of truths. (And what documentary isn't a selection of things pitched to give the viewer a certain impression?) The striking thing is that Moore's version of truth is really a constellation of precisely the facts that are missing from the mainline American media. His film represents the other pieces of the puzzle, the tendentious flipside of the tendentious "news" fed to a US populace overly reverent toward the holders of power. It should be viewed as a public service. I don't live in the US but am a frequent visitor. When I was there in August I made a point of listening to right-wing talk radio. (Let's call that a sacrifice I made in the interests of research.) I'd never heard it before and, even to cynical old me, it was a shock. There was something humming in the back of my mind the whole time until the word finally worked its way through: Fascism. That's what these guys are: fascists whose rants are based on conscious lies. So that's my post: Moore's stuff is documentary -- tendentiously selective, yes, but not a web of lies. He makes a hell of a lousy poster boy for the cause -- scruffy, grossly obese and in need of a shave. But he doesn't deserve to be tossed into the same bag of vipers as the Goebbels-guys who seem to dominate the radio waves, or the smooth talking heads who convey to their rapt viewers a mighty skewed view of the universe. Thank you. "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Sep 27, 2004, 09:23 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	parts of the iraq portrayal were well-put though.. particularly the scene with the lady crying. the bit with the kids on swingsets was a damn stupid scene. he would've been better off showing a kid with his limbs blown off by our bombs instead. obviously he wanted to show them as being fellow human beings. but, i think he boxed himself in creatively and didn't step back and take a critical look at what he was doing. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Sep 26, 2004, 06:21 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Rainbow Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,250	M. Moore reminds me words of that "famous" boxing-promoter : "Don King" , or so. "I will create fights (bouts) people will pay hundreds or thousands for tickets to watch them" (not quotted). Money seems to be not the M.Moore's main objective. However the way he presents the issues carries a lot of questioning. I watched "Bowling for Columbine". A totally one-sided film. People "fight" over issues, while M.Moore is polishing his NRA membership. No need to see anything more, "made by M.Moore".