ClumsyMonkey.net

ya but the government and media only showed us one side too, he showed us the side they didn't show

I know... I am not blaming him for not showing the other side...because he wasn't supposed to.

He is trying to convince people, you know?

i think he's just trying to show us some information not trying to convince of us anything, everything he says is true

i highly doubt that everything he says in this movie is true.

just like i highly doubt everything my government says is true.

Because this film is classified as a documentary it has to be factual and non-fiction. If it were a docu-drama then it could contain untrue material and wouldn't have to have only facts.


Brought to you by Lando's knowledge from film school

BFC was a documentary, and it was full of lies.

bcf?

Bowling For Columbine.

And sorry, my mistake, there are two classifications both Fictional and Factual (or non-fiction) Documentaries.

However and I'm not sure how it's registered in the USA, but if in a factual documentary you present any untrue subjects you can get into a lot of trouble. Fined, sued or charged because it's immediately slander unless it's registered as fictional or something along those lines.

esspecially a movie with that much press, it was all just petty stuff as far as i've seen, or unprovavble stuff

Well he had 3 teams of lawyers and editors from the New Yorker sift through the movie (and BFC AND his books) to ensure that everything in the movie was fact since as Lando said he could be sued for slander. If his movies are lies, why hasn't he been sued yet?

I believe his movie is true. There may be tons of bias and he notes that that's the case, but you cannot deny that his side of the story is true.

all the facts are true. but the conclusions you draw from them don't neccessarily have to match moores.

Exactly. The way he sets things up are somewhat manipulative - intended to make you come to certain conclusions which may or may not be true.

For example, BFC implied that the plant outside of Littleton had something to do with causing the Columbine murders. Something about how "nuclear weapons are often shipped through the streets of this town". The conclusion is automatically drawn that Moore is tying a connection between the two. However, he never says that this was an effect of it. These are just two things that happened to go on in the same town - not a conclusive connection. The purpose (I think) was to create a less than settling feel about the town itself - not to accuse the plant of influencing the killers. But the audience automatically draws that linear conclusion. Suddenly, this becomes a main argument against Moore.

Here are some pretty good political cartoons about the movie (for and against):

http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/MichaelMoore/main.asp

Axtech wrote:Exactly. The way he sets things up are somewhat manipulative - intended to make you come to certain conclusions which may or may not be true.

For example, BFC implied that the plant outside of Littleton had something to do with causing the Columbine murders. Something about how "nuclear weapons are often shipped through the streets of this town". The conclusion is automatically drawn that Moore is tying a connection between the two. However, he never says that this was an effect of it. These are just two things that happened to go on in the same town - not a conclusive connection. The purpose (I think) was to create a less than settling feel about the town itself - not to accuse the plant of influencing the killers. But the audience automatically draws that linear conclusion. Suddenly, this becomes a main argument against Moore.

he was just showing a fact relating to what other people had said about the town like, "it's just a quiet little town" much like when he asked people who they thought influenced it answers like, south park, and marilyn manson, when he interviewd marilyn manson, he asked him "what would you say to those kids who did the shooting if they were here today?" to which manson said "i wouldn't say anything i'd listen" which is the smartest thing ever said in that movie

mosaik wrote:all the facts are true. but the conclusions you draw from them don't neccessarily have to match moores.

couldn't have said it better myself!

I saw the movie today.

Yeah, I don't know what to make of it. I mean, it did move me, especially when they showed the American soldiers getting burned, beaten with sticks, then hung without their heads, and seeing the dead Iraqi child dropped into the truck of the dead, but it didn't really do much for me.

I guess it's harder to impress me now. I wasn't going into this movie blind like with BFC, so there was no shock value. Except, of course, for the bloodied up people.

The part that really got everyone in the theatre was when the ladt from Flint visited Washington DC and was pretty much told off by some passer-by, saying everything was staged. Yeah, needless to say, people in the theatre were either pissed off or crying. If I were the Flint lady, I'd have knocked that one cunt out, but that's just me. I'd be offended it someone claimed that my son's death was fake and just made up for a documentary.

In conclusion, if I vote, I'll still vote Democratic, just because I loathe Bush. I just do. After watching this movie, the prospect of my friends fighting over in Iraq (which three are presently doing) scares the hell out of me. I don't want them to be hung from streetposts headless and charred.

Lando wrote:

mosaik wrote:all the facts are true. but the conclusions you draw from them don't neccessarily have to match moores.

couldn't have said it better myself!

I agree too.

My comment was just based on Reno's post...

highly doubt that everything he says in this movie is true.

just like i highly doubt everything my government says is true.

I've tried to get into this movie twice and both times we couldn't get in, so I'm gonna try again in a couple of weeks after I turn 17. Then I'll tell you what I think (prolly).

Lando wrote:

mosaik wrote:all the facts are true. but the conclusions you draw from them don't neccessarily have to match moores.

couldn't have said it better myself!

it's ironic that moore would use the same tactics that bush would use. wheather it's lies, or truth that is to make one draw a psudo-false conclusion.

instead of sending a thief to catch a thief, send the police.

Well I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't know for sure what kinds of tactics he's using. I'll probably see it in the coming week or so.