Michael Moores' F 9/11... will you see it?

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 3, 2004 20:30
VIEWED: 28912
PAGE 9 of 14

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 26, 2004 5:11 AM

Quote:
And just taking your cue, how can it be *mean-spirited* when it's the truth? That's been MM's modus operanti and it's quite apparent that it hasn't changed. So, it's the truth and I stated it for what it is.

And yet, everyone is saying how DIFFERENT this is from his usual work. So again, you're not "telling the truth" you're stating your uninformed opinion.

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 26, 2004 5:38 AM

JCOBB

Quote:
Yep, exactly. As soon as you commit a crime that gets you judged by a jury of your peers, (again, thats not to say there aren't innocent people on Death Row that deserve a second chance) to be guilty of a crime, that is nearly equatable, to me anyways, as a loss of humanity.

It is my beliefs that once a person commits as heinous a crime that they forfit much, if not all of their rights as a human being. (Again, you might differ with me, thats fine.) I have no problem with forgiveness, and if the family of the victim wishes to have the sentence of death changed to one of life in prison, or what have you, thats one thing, but under my personal philosophy, and my beliefs, if you commit a crime you are responsible for it. If I murdered somebody I would like to think that I would be willing to accept the penalty, regardless of its severity.

So, are you saying that those who make a choice to commit a crime should take responsibility for their choice? What about people who have limited capacity to choose- schizophrenics, mentally retarded, children? Would you extend that to people who are severely depressed, brain injured, socially isolated, brought up in other cultures?

HEB

Saturday, June 26, 2004 9:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

I'm more than certain you can find it
streaming in the web somewhere. If you
feel guilty about it, you can go to the
theatre and pay for some other random
Miramax movie and just chuck the ticket.

Would you like to try and persuade my parents to get broadband? I've been trying since our town could get it last August but no such luck so far. Apparently we might be finally getting it after my exams but I doubt they'll ever get round to it. I've offered to pay for it, sort out the phone line - do everything and they're still being funny about it. Thanks for the suggestion though but I don't think I'd stand a chance of downloading it before the end of the universe at the speed of my connection.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

JASONZZZ

Saturday, June 26, 2004 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And just taking your cue, how can it be *mean-spirited* when it's the truth? That's been MM's modus operanti and it's quite apparent that it hasn't changed. So, it's the truth and I stated it for what it is.

And yet, everyone is saying how DIFFERENT this is from his usual work. So again, you're not "telling the truth" you're stating your uninformed opinion.

And you have seen all of his other works including this one to be able to judge that it's different?
Where are these people who say that MM has filmed this one differently or used a completely different editing or story telling style? I have read 20 reviews so far from prominent movie reviewers who have included bits of the theme, the editing style, as well as his story telling style within the review. I've read them and found the material to be substantially the same as what he has done before. None of the reviewers noted with any special deference that MM has deviated from his earlier work in style or substance. In fact, quite a few of them notes the same.

So, before you give me your very much *uninformed opionion* of what I am saying, go and look at his earlier works and actually read some of these background material. In addition, backup your statements with the appropriate references so I can find out what you mean by DIFFERENT. Either that, or if you yourself thinks that it is so substantially different, tell me what you think (or what you've read ) that is so DIFFERENT? Has he managed himself away from the quick cut chop chop "mockumentary" style of editing and story telling? Does he no longer provide footages of road side waylaying "famous and important" people? Has he stopped harassing the common folk with his uncommon wit (remember the bunny lady)? Give me something to hang a hat on

Again, to have an equal and informed discussion, we need the same material on both sides. So, once you have seen the other MM works, let me know what you think. Again I pose the questions.

What do you think of MM's other works? Is his technique a good way to deliver the truth? Or is it just an entertaining way to mock and deliver satire?

Just so that there isn't any misconceptions as to where I am coming from.

I don't happen to like Dubya very much, he doesn't have a very charismatic personality, he isn't a terrible public speaker (for god's sake, he can't even read a prepared speech with some oomph, gusto, or conviction).

I like MM's movie for their entertainment value. I just don't like his pushing it as a documentary, and his way of waylaying people and editing out real footages to tell a complete slant of the story. The uninformed might actually take a lot of this for granted and will very likely not be able to separate the facts from fiction from purely MM's opinion and worst his slant.

JASONZZZ

Saturday, June 26, 2004 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
JCOBB

Quote:
Yep, exactly. As soon as you commit a crime that gets you judged by a jury of your peers, (again, thats not to say there aren't innocent people on Death Row that deserve a second chance) to be guilty of a crime, that is nearly equatable, to me anyways, as a loss of humanity.

It is my beliefs that once a person commits as heinous a crime that they forfit much, if not all of their rights as a human being. (Again, you might differ with me, thats fine.) I have no problem with forgiveness, and if the family of the victim wishes to have the sentence of death changed to one of life in prison, or what have you, thats one thing, but under my personal philosophy, and my beliefs, if you commit a crime you are responsible for it. If I murdered somebody I would like to think that I would be willing to accept the penalty, regardless of its severity.

So, are you saying that those who make a choice to commit a crime should take responsibility for their choice? What about people who have limited capacity to choose- schizophrenics, mentally retarded, children? Would you extend that to people who are severely depressed, brain injured, socially isolated, brought up in other cultures?

eh, what's the differece between a non-functional human animal who doesn't know to stop themselves from a violent crime than a rabid dog? Absolutely nothing! I agree that it's much more difficult to resist anthropomorphizing an animal that has four limbs and actually stand upright and looks like the rest of us human beings - as compared to a wild animal, or farm animals and pets (when we are constantly bombarded by the media, the world full of pet lovers, and freakin' talking bears, dogs, cats, cows, and what noughts in Disney films). But at some point, even if you look like a human being, if you don't or can't behave like one, you are just an animal who happen to be using the wrong shell - and we ought not to afford them any better treatment than a rabid dog if that's all they are.

How we treat rabid dogs is another discussion all together.

GHOULMAN

Saturday, June 26, 2004 3:10 PM

Quote:
Arawaen wrote:
Friday, June 25, 2004 10:37
Like both JCobb and SignyM I didn't vote for Gore or Bush and it can be assured I will not be voting 'republicrat' ...

lol!

Thaaaat's the best word describing the neocons yet! Cookies for you.

and... how did abortion get into this thread? I wonder... *chuckle*.

I feel little need to post as long as people with Arawaens' deep insight are around. And she knows her Aristotle! Ah the greeks, they invented that thing people on CNN keep refering too but never demonstrate... Dem, er,... cracies something... can't remember...

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 26, 2004 3:27 PM

What I've heard in just about every review so far is that stylistically there is very much less of Michael Moore's face on camera. This film is also more focused, more substantive, than his previous films.

I haven't seen ALL of his films. I saw "Roger and Me", "Bowling for Columbine", and bits snd pieces of "TV Nation". What MM does is street theater. Sometimes it's insightful, sometimes it's trivial, sometimes it's cheap shots.

But I've ALSO seen "Hearts and MInds", a stunning documentary about the Vietnam war, done with the same technique of using actual war footage, voiceovers from the military etc. It was a powerful film, a credit to the technique, and the standard against which I judge other advocate films. I intend to see F911 this Sunday.

JASONZZZ

Saturday, June 26, 2004 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I've heard in just about every review so far is that stylistically there is very much less of Michael Moore's face on camera. This film is also more focused, more substantive, than his previous films.

I haven't seen ALL of his films. I saw "Roger and Me", "Bowling for Columbine", and bits snd pieces of "TV Nation". What MM does is street theater. Sometimes it's insightful, sometimes it's trivial, sometimes it's cheap shots.

Good, then you agree that it's the same fluff and stuff, cut and paste, techniques; waylay, ambush tactics he uses.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

But I've ALSO seen "Hearts and MInds", a stunning documentary about the Vietnam war, done with the same technique of using actual war footage, voiceovers from the military etc. It was a powerful film, a credit to the technique, and the standard against which I judge other advocate films. I intend to see F911 this Sunday.

Ah, "advocate films", to persuade, to sway the public opinion. A legitimate followup question then, when do they stop being propaganda? Where is the line drawn between advocating & selling and straight into slants and outright lies?

"Hearts and Minds" is not MM, and not done by him. I think you do Peter Davis a great disservice by lumping MM with him. There are these "advocate films", then there are lies and slants like MM, and then there are Nazi made documentary war-machine propaganda movies.

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 26, 2004 7:01 PM

Quote:
Good, then you agree that it's the same fluff and stuff, cut and paste, techniques; waylay, ambush tactics he uses.

Jasonzz, how can I possibly make myself clearer? I don't know that it's the same stuff because I haven't seen it. YOU don't know that it's the same stuff either. All I was trying to say was that I have a basis for comparison. When I have seen it, then I will let you know.

Quote:
Ah, "advocate films", to persuade, to sway the public opinion. A legitimate followup question then, when do they stop being propaganda? Where is the line drawn between advocating & selling and straight into slants and outright lies?

I know many will disagree with me, but ALL art is propaganda.

BTW- have you actually seen "Hearts and Minds"?

JCOBB

Sunday, June 27, 2004 8:52 PM

Quote:
I can "get off" calling it a work of fiction because I've read a history book. The bible was *not* written by god, it *was written by man*, period. History *will* back me up on this one. That being said I will state that it *is* a wonderful book to learn values life lessons, *but*, one must take the prejudices out as there are many in there. But, that is another issue. I will refer you to "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" by Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Sorry, I've never understood the Bible to be written by God, nor have I understood the claim to be such. The Gospel according to Paul, Letters to the Corinthians, etc... I think the question you should be asking yourself is if you can prove these men weren't influenced by God, (which of course you can not, just as one can't prove that they were).

Quote:

Never said that you stated that anybody knew that that pack of cells was a baby. I was only re-iterating the fundamental issue of the discussion that should be addressed first.

This had been said time and time again during the course of the discussion, thus leaving me more then a little confused.

Quote:

have to disagree with JCobb on this one. Aristotle noted two kinds of business: 1) Earning a living, which is noble and honorable, as all people have needs to sustain themselves. 2) Earning a profit, of which there is nothing honorable to it, as it seeks to satisfy an insatiable appetite.

Not to take a plunge off the deep end, but I have to disagree with Aristotle here. The entire American dream is that one can come here and do more then just survive.. One can thrive. It is this ability, (or at least percieved ability) that draws so many people to America. People don't want to just "get by" they want to live comfortably. They want to know that their children can live better then they could, if they work and try hard enough. (Something I think you touched on later in your post.)

What I think of corporations is irrelevent. I don't think I should be able to have a say in their lives. It doesn't concern me, to be frank. Probably this is because I don't happen to work for a corporation, or have been mistreated by them in the past, but I am not going to lie about it. Like I've said, I have known coporations that have done wonders for the people around them. I know of those in the heirarchy of corporations that have done much good with their wealth. I know, for a fact, that they all aren't evil syccophants that care for nothing more then a quick buck.

Quote:

It's your OPINION that pregnancy = legal personhood, but that doesn't make it so. Others can have strict personal accountability and the highest standards, just not yours.

GOOD! Thanks for beating that dead horse again. Not to sound harsh, but welcome to the END of the discussion. I have said this in the past, about eight times by my recollection, in response to several peoples posts. In the future might you try reading the conversation before getting all riled up and leaping upon your high horse?

Quote:

British common law was adopted as American common law. 'Quickening' became the American standard.

So you are forcing that as my standard? I have to change my beliefs to fit in with the law? I am incapable of having different beliefs now?

Lovely. Come on Rue, let it go.

Quote:

So, are you saying that those who make a choice to commit a crime should take responsibility for their choice? What about people who have limited capacity to choose- schizophrenics, mentally retarded, children? Would you extend that to people who are severely depressed, brain injured, socially isolated, brought up in other cultures?

I would extend to them the same thoughtfulness the law did. I would assume that the guilty parties lawyer(s) would have brought up this point and, if after deliberating the case, the jury would have taken that into account (thus the "after being convicted of a crime and judged by a jury of their peers," portion of my post).

Sorry about the delayed reply, wen

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE