Mike Moore, smart or dumbfuck?

[The Kernel]

This doesn't diminish he skill as a filmmaker and underground "journalist".

Ouch, that should read:

This however doesn't diminish his skill as a filmmaker and underground "journalist".

[Rogue 9]

he really doesn't have a firm understanding of most of the concepts he talks about and he prefers to dumb them down to an almost useless level.

*Points to the Brief History of the United States segment in BfC.* Case in point, right there.

[Stormbringer]

I fully agree with this, he is much better at making fun of other people's beliefs then creating good original ones. That's why I think his books were such crap; he really doesn't have a firm understanding of most of the concepts he talks about and he prefers to dumb them down to an almost useless level.

This doesn't diminish he skill as a filmmaker and underground "journalist".

And I acknowledged that he's a decent filmaker. I don't think he really qualifies as a real journalist; if he is a journalist he's a shitty one. In his more honest moment he's admitted he's not a journalists but a politcal pundit.

[Guardsman Bass]

he really doesn't have a firm understanding of most of the concepts he talks about and he prefers to dumb them down to an almost useless level.

*Points to the Brief History of the United States segment in BfC.* Case in point, right there.

I actually thought it got one of his main points across, even if it was obviously a cartoonish exaggeration.

[Rogue 9]

he really doesn't have a firm understanding of most of the concepts he talks about and he prefers to dumb them down to an almost useless level.

*Points to the Brief History of the United States segment in BfC.* Case in point, right there.

I actually thought it got one of his main points across, even if it was obviously a cartoonish exaggeration.

"But when they arrived, they were greeted by savages!"

Pilgrim: "Ahhhh! Injuns!"

"So they killed them all!"

*Pilgrims pull out guns and kill all the Indians.*

"You'd think that wipin' out a race of people would calm 'em down but no!"

I'll take "That's way too far distorted to be exaggeration" for $500, Alex.

[The Kernel]

I'll take "That's way too far distorted to be exaggeration" for $500, Alex.

I think we got that when it was presented in cartoon form Rogue.

At no point was it suggested that this was and actual literal recouting of history.

[Stormbringer]

I'll take "That's way too far distorted to be exaggeration" for $500, Alex.

I think we got that when it was presented in cartoon form Rogue.

At no point was it suggested that this was and actual literal recouting of history.

True, but the only history that it bares any resemblance to is the "Delusion Liberals Guide to History" so saying that it's overwrought and just plain wrong is reasonable enough.

[Rogue 9]

I'll take "That's way too far distorted to be exaggeration" for $500, Alex.

I think we got that when it was presented in cartoon form Rogue.

At no point was it suggested that this was and actual literal recouting of history.

No, but that's not an exaggeration. That's a lie. I could delve into it further if you'd like. That was just the first gross example in the segment.

[aerius]

Mike Moore is a really smart dipshit.

[The Kernel]

No, but that's not an exaggeration. That's a lie. I could delve into it further if you'd like. That was just the first gross example in the segment.

Oh get off your fucking high horse, if South Park had run a similar bit, everyone would be laughing their asses off and wouldn't give a shit that it was a gross simplification of history, which anyone with a working brain could figure out. Michael Moore himself has already conceeded that his films are not documentaries, so why the hell are you holding him to some sort of high standard for literal truth when that cartoon bit in BfC accomplished exactly what it was supposed to considering the spirit of the film?

[Rogue 9]

I did laugh my ass off. It was funny, but hardly informative, and if it was taken to be such (highly probable given the ignorance of the average American high school student on history and the way it was presented as a documentary) it could be detrimental. No one's going to take South Park seriously, but people do take documentaries seriously. With that fact comes the responsibility of making an accurate documentary.

[Stormbringer]

Oh get off your fucking high horse, if South Park had run a similar bit, everyone would be laughing their asses off and wouldn't give a shit that it was a gross simplification of history, which anyone with a working brain could figure out.

And South Park is a strictly fictional show whereas Bowling For Columbine has been described and sold as a doctumentary.

Michael Moore himself has already conceeded that his films are not documentaries, so why the hell are you holding him to some sort of high standard for literal truth when that cartoon bit in BfC accomplished exactly what it was supposed to considering the spirit of the film?

Because he spends most of his time hawking his films as documentaries and truthful ones at that. Despite the rare lapses of honesty, Moore himself calls them documentaries 99.9% of the time and has no problems accepting the Documentary Oscar for BFC (and despite his latest stunt probably would not for F911 either).

[The Kernel]

I did laugh my ass off. It was funny, but hardly informative, and if it was taken to be such (highly probable given the ignorance of the average American high school student on history and the way it was presented as a documentary) it could be detrimental. No one's going to take South Park seriously, but people do take documentaries seriously. With that fact comes the responsibility of making an accurate documentary.

Yeah, I'm sure people took that cartoon segment sooooo seriously.

No one in this thread has tried to argue that Moore's films are documentaries, with the possible exception of Roger and Me; a documentary is a film where the narrator observes and describes, not a film where the narrator actually participates and incites as Moore does. Moore's films are more akin to sociological experiments and as such they are perfectly valid, they are not meant to accurately depict history in any way, shape or form and as they are not documentaries, this is perfectly forgiveable.

And before you start clamoring that Moore has some unspoken responsibility to protect the ignorant from themselves, let me assure you that he has no such responsibility. Just because the Academy puts his films in the Documentary category does not make them so and Moore himself has not tried to play on the literal accuracy of his films but rather the human factor and the sociological dissection that he crafts.

[The Kernel]

Because he spends most of his time hawking his films as documentaries and truthful ones at that. Despite the rare lapses of honesty, Moore himself calls them documentaries 99.9% of the time and has no problems accepting the Documentary Oscar for BFC (and despite his latest stunt probably would not for F911 either).

At first I can understand the confusion that Moore himself might have with this; there is no functional marketing term for the type of films Moore makes but it was clear from the beginning that the direction he took with BfC and F-9/11 was not the path of a documentary filmmaker and he has made no attempts to hide it. The fact that Moore was given an Oscar in the Documentary catagory was due to his film having more ties to the documentary film style (which is where some of the inspiration and film techniques are taken from) and the fact that there is no other catagory that it can really fit into.

[Stormbringer]

At first I can understand the confusion that Moore himself might have with this; there is no functional marketing term for the type of films Moore makes but it was clear from the beginning that the direction he took with BfC and F-9/11 was not the path of a documentary filmmaker and he has made no attempts to hide it.

Actually, he has indeed tried to claim that they are documentary films when it was to his advantage to do so. He certainly has done so plenty of times. And the fact is that he can't really hide it, but he has done as much as possible to try and deny that the path wasn't one of a crusading journalists.

His occassional lapse into honesty are not indicative of the fact that both films have quite clearly been marketed as documentaries.

The fact that Moore was given an Oscar in the Documentary catagory was due to his film having more ties to the documentary film style (which is where some of the inspiration and film techniques are taken from) and the fact that there is no other catagory that it can really fit into.

If he really was going to stick by the story that they were editorial films he should have refused the Oscar and have consistently stated they were editiorial films.

[The Kernel]

Actually, he has indeed tried to claim that they are documentary films when it was to his advantage to do so. He certainly has done so plenty of times. And the fact is that he can't really hide it, but he has done as much as possible to try and deny that the path wasn't one of a crusading journalists.

His occassional lapse into honesty are not indicative of the fact that both films have quite clearly been marketed as documentaries.

So the distributor chose to market them as documentaries, like I said, this is expected given that they don't fall cleanly into any other category. If you'd like to provide a quote from Moore where he demands that his films are actually documentaries and not a sociological editorial, I'd be glad to read it, but it doesn't really change the fact that while they might loosely fit into the market for documentaries (not to mention the same moviegoing crowd) it is obvious to anyone with a brain what his films really are.

I don't think this really diminishes him as a filmmaker; it might be very tacky of him to insist that they are actually documentaries (something I've never heard him do) but it doesn't tarnish the film itself.

If he really was going to stick by the story that they were editorial films he should have refused the Oscar and have consistently stated they were editiorial films.

Why should he? It's not his responsibility to invent a definition (not to mention an Oscar category) for his films. If the Academy wants to give him an Oscar for best documentary, that is their poor judgement in nominating a film that is not a documentary and I'm not going to insist that Moore be held accountable for this, nor that he should have denied acceptance of the Oscar (after all, Oscar nominations rarely make any sense to begin with and are often all about recognizing a particularly breakthrough film/actor/director).

[The Kernel]

Why should he? It's not his responsibility to invent a definition (not to mention an Oscar category) for his films. If the Academy wants to give him an Oscar for best documentary, that is their poor judgement in nominating a film that is not a documentary and I'm not going to insist that Moore be held accountable for this, nor that he should have denied acceptance of the Oscar (after all, Oscar nominations rarely make any sense to begin with and are often all about recognizing a particularly breakthrough film/actor/director).

Just to illustrate this, I wouldn't have asked Whoopi Golderberg to refuse to accept her Oscar for best supporting actress in Ghost even though it was the Academy's way of placating the people who insist she should have won the Oscar for A Color Purple (rightly so, that was a tremendous performance) the previous year. She didn't earn it for that role, it was a politically motivated decision, but that doesn't mean she should be expected to refuse it.

[Zor]

Personaly, i am suprised not as many people took option six...

[Master of Ossus]

I think he's pretty bright, but many of his actions really do make him seem like an idiot. I'll hedge my bets and say that he's about average, but some of the things he does really bother me.

[Graeme Dice]

True, but the only history that it bares any resemblance to is the "Delusion Liberals Guide to History" so saying that it's overwrought and just plain wrong is reasonable enough.

It's called parody dumbass.

[Stuart Mackey]

Average, albeit witha passion for what he does.
What I find amusing is when people try to say his facts are not so factual and then we find that no one has sued him over these movies for libel.

[salm]

Well, that stunt with walking up to random Canadian front doors and opening them in Bowling for Columbine was pretty dumb.

why? i thought that was one of the coolest things in the movie. or was that faked or something?

Well you can't exactly call it breaking and entering, as he didn't break anything, but still, I'd be pretty pissed if some fat guy just showed up at my door and opened it. (And no, we don't lock our doors during the day, so he could theoretically do it if he were to show up at my town.)

meh, maybe impudent, but not stupid. actually it was a pretty smart thing to do considering what he wanted to show in his movie: demonstrate the difference between the amount of fear in canada and the amount of fear in the usa with an example that can be visually integrated into his work while being interesting to watch at the same time because it´s got something slighly naughty.

[neoolong]

Average, albeit witha passion for what he does.
What I find amusing is when people try to say his facts are not so factual and then we find that no one has sued him over these movies for libel.

I don't think they can, unless he's specifically lying about someone.

[Stuart Mackey]

Average, albeit witha passion for what he does.
What I find amusing is when people try to say his facts are not so factual and then we find that no one has sued him over these movies for libel.

I don't think they can, unless he's specifically lying about someone.

Oh they can, or at least cast doubt on his work credibility.

[Thanas]

Squeal in outrage? Bush hasn't even acknowledged the movie's existence, to my knowledge.

Perhaps you didn't wacth the RNC when McCain HINTS at Jabba the Moore's presence and the crowd erupts into near teeth gnashing frenzy. Called a liar and worse by many others in the right clearly his film has pissed off more than a few in the Bush camp. Hell, they even lamented the fact that he plans to release the film on DVD weeks before the election.

What was even more fun was that Moore was actually at the RNC as a columnist for an American newspaper. He laughed ast McCain, formed an L with his finger and showed it to Cain.