Moore’s new movie… version 2.0

I know I said in the comments to the previous post I would have this up a couple of days ago - I apologize for the delay. WotLK has me a bit under it’s spell… ;)

Remember the announcements a few months ago about Moore’s new film, the sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11? You know, the one he’s been shooting for a good couple of months? Well… he’s still shooting it… it just isn’t a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 anymore. Anyone else confused? Cinematical seems to be as well:

By now we all know that Michael Moore doesn’t make documentaries like our grandfathers did. He’s a master of polemics, using his films to rail against corporations, guns, governments, insurance companies, and whatever else riles up his David vs. Goliath sensibility. When his most recent project was announced in May, it was described as a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 that would “tackle what’s going on in the world and America’s place in it,” as pointed out by The Hollywood Reporter. Now, however, THR says the film will focus on “the global financial crisis and the U.S. economy.”

Moore is still “feverishly shooting” and it’s hoped the film will be ready for release next spring. At first blush, though, it sounds like he decided to make the mid-project adjustment in reaction to (or in anticipation of) the Democrats’ victory. Without Bush to bash, and without the Republican Party in control of Congress, how much mileage could he get out of criticizing U.S. foreign policy with a new President steering a (presumably) different course?

So.... let me see if I have this right. Moore has COMPLETELY changed the topic of his film. It was going to be a polemic that railed against US foreign policy, and now it’s going to be an study of our economic crisis. These are two completely and totally different topics… and yet Moore isn’t stopping his filming or scraping his footage. Somehow he’s going to make all the footage he’s shot about foreign policy now work for and focus on the economy.

.... ummmm...... anyone else confused about how he could possibly pull that one off without coming to both projects with very similar theses, preconceptions and foregone conclusions? Me either. I think Cinematical states the problem quite well:

Unlike many documentary filmmakers, Moore appears to start with a conclusion on his projects and then search for footage to back it up. Documentarians often say they don’t really ‘find’ their film, or discover the story, until they’re knee-deep in editing, but it doesn’t sound like Moore works that way. Which doesn’t mean his films lack meaning or substance or entertainment value, just that they’re more like personal essays than traditional docs.

According to THR, Moore is now saying that the project is less a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 and more of a bookend to Roger & Me. What more could he say, though, about corporations and big business than he already has? When he endorsed Barack Obama in April, he wrote: “Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so.” Maybe he wants to hold their feet to the fire until they burst into flame.

If all Moore does is bitch about the economy and complain about corporations, I don’t think it’ll be a very welcome message.

Well said.

I open to the floor to you fine ladies and gentlemen. Thoughts? Comments? Opinions? What do you think about this sudden and drastic turn in Moore’s agenda?

A Corny Argument

A few weeks ago the lovely DonnaK posted a list of Mikey’s latest idiocies, as well as her critique of them.  One particularly stuck out in my mind.

Proposal Three: Ban high fructose corn syrup. “And I will be the poster boy of that campaign.” Earlier in his lecture, Moore suggested that corn syrup’s historical dominance as a sweetener was a result of government collusion with large agribusinesses.

This is, simply put, one of the most retarded things he has ever said.  The EXACT OPPOSITE is true.  The prevalence of HFCS is a direct result of government interfering in the free market, and it was implement by the Grand Socialist himself FDR.  Here’s what I wrote FOUR YEARS AGO on my personal blog regarding this issue.

There’s one aspect to this that this article neglected to mention.  The next time you buy a Coke look at the ingredients.  You won’t see sugar, you’ll see “high fructose corn syrup.” This is sugar syrup made from corn, and it’s used in almost everything.  Why?  Because the high tariffs on imported sugar inflate the price to such a high level that using corn syrup is far less expensive.  The main group lobbying for these high sugar tariffs is a corporation called Archer Daniels Midland.  Why should ADM care about sugar tariffs?  Because, you guessed it, ADM are the makers of, among other things, high fructose corn syrup.  There’s absolutely no reason that Coca Cola couldn’t be made, as it used to be, with sugar, except for the artificially high price caused by government interference in free trade. 

To put it in simple terms, the government puts tariffs on imported sugar in order to keep the price artificially high.  (I have heard estimates that sugar is five to ten times more expensive than it would be if subject to market forces.) The makers of HFCS only have to make their product a penny or two cheaper than sugar to make it an economically attractive alternative.  Coca Cola alone must save millions, of not billions, of dollars by saving those few pennies with each batch of Coke they produce. 

Why is business able to collude with government?  If government were to get out of the sugar price support business, and let the market decide, you would have fewer products using HFCS because sugar would immediately drop in price.  What Mikey is proposing with his ban on HFCS is treating the symptom, not the disease itself.  If the government were not involved in sugar prices, then there would be no avenue for business to collude with them to keep the price of sugar high.  Mike is therefore correct in stating that it is collusion between agribusiness and government, but he implies some kind of corporate conspiracy, when the simple solution is to just end all farm subsidies once and for all.

So, let’s look at this in the context of the current election.  Cato has a great post up about the policy proposals of the specific candidates regarding this very issue.

In an article in today’s Congress Daily, key sugar lobby groups praised Senator Obama’s newfound enthusiasm for the U.S. sugar program. As a senator from the candy-making state of Illinois, he was none too fond of the price supports and import restrictions that raised input prices for factories in his state.

Not anymore. In a letter to sugar groups, Senator Obama gave assurances that while he “has concerns” with the program, he would listen to and work with them to “reward [their] hard work with policies that will keep [their] industry and your communities strong”. Oh dear.

One former lobbyist pointed out that “…the candidate now “represents a broader range of interest” than when he was a state legislator…[and] added that Obama has never voted against the sugar program and supported the 2008 Farm Bill.” McCain, on the other hand, would likely have lost the support of formerly Republican-leaning farmers because “…[he] has consistently opposed the program and agreed with President Bush’s decision to veto the Farm Bill.” Another lobbyist said that “Sen. McCain seems to want to radically alter [the farm safety net].”

Thus McCain’s policies would achieve the result that Mikey wants, fewer people using products sweetened with HFCS.  And Obama, with his socialist proclivities, will work to keep this very same collusion between agribusiness and government in place.

See, the issue here is that Michael Moore is a died-in-the-wool socialist.  Add to that the fact that his admirers are, generally, not the brightest people in the world.  All you have to do is mention the word “corporation” and it’s like you said “child rapist.” The solution is clear—if you want to avoid collusion between business and government, get the fucking government out of business.  As long as government retains the power to keep price subsides in place, corporations will always have an interest in making sure that government stays there.  It’s much easier to make a few campaign contributions to key legislators than it is to, y’know, actually compete in a free and open market.

Moore’s new movie getting some downloaders in hot water

Everyone hang on to your seats… I’m about to defend Michael Moore. ;)

Cinema Blend has a hot button article up on their site accusing Moore of a few things. The most important allegation of theirs is that Moore was trying to get the people outside the US and Canada who downloaded “Slacker Uprising” through his site in legal trouble. To be completely fair to Cinema Blend and to ensure that I don’t quote anything out of context, I’m going to republish their article in its entirety.

First of all, the idea that Moore would want to get people who wanted to see one of his movies in trouble with the law deliberately seems more than a bit far-fetched to me. Moore’s all about getting people to see him, hear him, watch him, believe in him. Why would he intentionally alienate a single one of his fans, even if they aren’t US citizens? It just doesn’t make sense.

Secondly, Moore doesn’t own the international distribution copyrights for “Slacker Uprising”. Brave New Films does. They get to decide who outside the US and Canada get to download Moore’s movie, not Moore himself. And if they don’t want the movie floating around internationally, they legally must make a showing that they intend to protect their copyright or they could be accused of abandoning it. By suing people and companies who are downloading or distributing “Slacker Uprising” in other countries they are simply protecting what is legally theirs and making a proper legally showing. Michael Moore isn’t part of this equation since the copyright isn’t his. He simply cannot be blamed for this one.

Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, Moore told everyone in his letter of September 22nd, 2008 that this movie was only available for download in the US and Canada. He said it plainly, albeit perhaps not overly clearly, that this download was only available to US and Canadian citizens: “That’s why I’m giving you my blanket permission to not only download it, but also to email it, burn it, and share it with anyone and everyone (in the U.S. and Canada only).”. HE TOLD EVERYONE. He gave proper notice to those outside the US that this download was not for them. He did his legal duty and I cannot find fault with him on this front.

Now, I will agree with Cinema Blend on one point. Moore really should have made sure that either this movie was available throughout the world or he should have worked out a deal with his distributors to make it so before the lawsuits came flooding down on his fans. However, to lay the blame for this problem at Moore’s feet is wrong. He doesn’t own the international copyrights and he did give notice that the download was only available to the US and Canada.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Moore. I personally see no need to invent ones that have no real merit, and this one doesn’t.

The response to Moore’s latest book and movie offerings

In answer to your first unspoken question - no, I have not yet seen Moore’s newest free movie, “Slacker Uprising”, nor have I read his book “Mike’s Election Guide”. In answer to your second unspoken question - yes, I do plan on watching the movie but not reading the book. So, since I have no first hand knowledge about the quality of either of Moore’s newest products, I have to turn to the Internet to see how the rest of the world seems to feel about them. The reponse? It’s mixed, but in general things the reviews tend to sound like this:

From The National Review about “Mike’s Election Guide”:

Well, at least he’s spared the local cineplex.

Michael Moore didn’t really bother trying to influence this election with another documentary — his new film, Slacker Uprising, is online-only and merely a travelogue of his 2004 anti-Bush tour — so instead he’s tossed off a book, Mike’s Election Guide. With Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, Moore at least tried to make a case for voting against Bush, even if it was all conspiratorial nonsense. This time around, Moore’s just been lazy. He’s actually published a book straight-up telling people how to vote.

Given that Moore is a leftist radical given to astounding acts of greed-driven hypocrisy, it’s pretty presumptuous (even for him) to publish an election guide. Let’s face it: Asking Michael Moore to tell you how to vote is like asking Stevie Wonder to drive you to the airport — no good can come of it and ultimately you’re to blame. Now let’s get something out of the way — Mike’s Election Guide is a lame bit of cultural detritus that every living thing can and should safely ignore.

Ouch. I will admit that was one of the harsher reviews I read, but the tenor is about the same all around. But maybe “Slacker Uprising” is faring better after it’s dismal premiere at TIFF last spring? Let’s see:

From MLive.com:

Thankfully, the title has been changed for the better. But the 102-minute film isn’t up to snuff as far as Moore’s films go. It’s a straightforward and repetitive travelogue, consisting primarily of footage of Moore stirring up large audiences with anti-George W. Bush polemics, and introducing celebrity guests, from the sublime (Eddie Vedder) to the shrill (Roseanne Barr). In between, he splices bits of newscasts covering his speeches, which were often subject to Republican vitriol, and fly-on-the-wall scenes of Moore chastising the media at press conferences.

Regardless of what side of the partisan divide you fall, it’s easy to see with Moore’s previous work — “Roger and Me,” “Bowling for Columbine” — that he’s a talented filmmaker and satirist. Those expecting his wit and behind-the-camera skill will be disappointed with “Slacker Uprising” — it’s visually inert, and lacks the by-turns snarky and poignant first-person narration Moore usually provides.

From Emory Wheel:

Where “Slacker Uprising” truly fails is in its lack of organization. The film almost completely abandons the structure of his earlier work, replacing it with the loose, unpredictable structure of a 1970s variety show. It has numerous musical numbers and mediocre guest stars like comedienne Roseanne Barr, who fails to amuse a hefty portion of the on-film audience.

A select few of these musical numbers make for some of the strongest moments in the movie. Eddie Vedder, Pearl Jam’s infamous frontman, delivers an inspired acoustic cover of Cat Stevens’ “Don’t Be Shy,” while Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave fame delivers an uncharacteristic acoustic performance.

These pleasant musical interludes do little more than break up the monotony of speeches — and sometimes they don’t even do that.

When R.E.M. and Anti-Flag take the stage, it is only to deliver more speeches, not to play any of their hits. While the appearance of these very political bands is fitting, especially in a youth-heavy setting, the lack of musical performance is quite disappointing.

Moore’s first-person narration is also absent, making the film feel much less personal than his previous works. Combined with the amount of footage that shows Moore being mobbed by his adoring public, this causes the film to feel a bit like a self-congratulatory pat on the back.

Ouch again. It doesn’t seem that Moore is faring too well with either his book or his movie. If anyone in our audience has seen or read either product, please comment and let me know what you thought. I mean… it *can’t* be that bad...... can it?

What in the world is Michael Moore thinking?

Normally I try to be as unbiased and non-judgmental as possible when I’m reporting on the letters or speeches Michael Moore delivers. However, this particular speech, delivered at the premiere of Slacker Uprising in Ann Arbor, goes so far over the top that I find myself questioning if Moore is either playing an enormous practical joke or he’s really lost his way somehow. Before the screening of his new “free” movie (that he is of course selling copies of for those who don’t download… so much for free for all!), Moore offered seven “modest suggestions” for Barrack Obama should he in fact win the presidential election. The “suggestions” range from the potentially practical to mildly amusing to the rather offensive to the downright ridiculous. I seriously can’t do this justice. Here… read the synopsis for yourself:

Proposal One: Institute a military draft, but only for the children of the top five percent of wage earners in the country. “I am convinced that if they have to send their own kids off to war, there won’t be any wars,” Moore said.

Proposal Two: Sign into law congressman John Conyer’s universal health-care legislation (HR676). “The Obama health plan is no good. The McCain health plan is really, really no good,” Moore said, explaining that on this issue, his support for Obama comes down to the “lesser of two evils.”

Proposal Three: Ban high fructose corn syrup. “And I will be the poster boy of that campaign.” Earlier in his lecture, Moore suggested that corn syrup’s historical dominance as a sweetener was a result of government collusion with large agribusinesses.

Proposal Four: Build wells in the developing nations to provide clean drinking water for all. Moore says it will cost $10 billion to dig wells in villages. “We’re going to spend $12 billion on Iraq in this month alone. $12 billion. One month of Iraq and the entire world can have clean drinking water. What is our problem?”

Proposal Five: Remove the $102,000 income cap on the social security tax. “If you make over 102,000 a year, do you realize the people in that category do not pay one dime on wages they earn over $102,000 ... Why shouldn’t they have to pay the same six-and-half to seven percent rate that you have to pay on 100 percent or your income?” Moore cited former presidential candidate Chris Dodd, who said that if the cap was lifted, the resulting income would be able to fund social security for 75 years. He also told the audience to remind their neighbors that President Bush wanted to “put social security in the hands of Wall Street five years ago ... We’d all be Lehman Brothers.”

Proposal Six: Change the way we do elections. Moore offered several suggestions, including holding elections on the weekend so that more people can get to the polls, allowing multiple parties access to the debates and discarding voting machines in favor of paper ballots.

Proposal Seven: Change the Pledge of Allegiance to reflect “the America we all believe in.” Moore closed his lecture by reading his proposed pledge: “I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America / and to the republic for which we stand / one nation, part of one world / with liberty and justice for all.”

I’m.... speechless. Truly speechless. Band high fructose corn syrup? Draft only the children of the rich? CHANGE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE???  I’m telling you… if Obama has friends like this he certainly needs no enemies. If Moore et al keep these types of stunts up I predict McCain will have no problems at all winning in November.

*shakes head*

Fred Thompson give Moore something to think about

This was just so funny that I had to share it with you all. PJTV caught up with Fred Thompson last night at the RNC and asked him about Moore’s statements in the last week. Thompson’s reaction was simply priceless. Here, just watch:

Classic. I wonder what Moore’s response will be to this one? ;)

Moore set to publish an “Election Guide” in the fall

I must be honest… I’m not quite sure what to make of this yet:

Michael Moore is coming out with a new book. The tome, titled “Mike’s Election Guide,” a manual of mockery for the 2008 presidential election, will be published Aug. 19 by Grand Central Publishing, Jimmy Franco, a spokesman for the publisher, said Friday.

Promotional material for the book reads: “Perfectly timed to coincide with the national political conventions—and to capitalize on massive campaign coverage.”

That is the sum total of all the details I’ve been able to find as of now, so I have no real idea what this book will be about. “Manual of mockery”? What does that even mean?

Moorewatchers… any guesses as to what types of shenanigans Moore is cooking up this time? 

The End of Obama

Michael Moore has endorsed Obama.  This should be the death knell for the Obama campaign, since not a single candidate for political office endorsed by Michael Moore has ever won.  The endorsement is aboout what you’d expect, the usual nonsensical ramblings of a multimillionaire socialist.  Read it yourself if you like, I just want to make a couple of observations.

I don’t get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan.

No you don’t, Michael, you live in a penthouse in Manhattan.  Jim and I know your home address.  You own property in a swanky part of Michigan.  (You know, where you held your film festival, rather than in Flint, the town you claim to come from but don’t.  Why help out the disadvantaged in Flint when you can suck up to the rest of the millionaire liberals who own gigantic private estates?) So, either you’re registered to vote in two places (New York and Michigan) or you’re lying your ass off to perpetuate the farcical image of yourself as an average Joe.  Both of these sound equally plausible.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years.

And here we see the classic liberal self-image as a pathetic waif being beaten by an all-powerful machine.  This is one of the things I find more vulgar and disgusting about liberalism than anything else, their incessant need to view themselves as victims.  I guess this is why they believe that the government is the solution to ever conceivable problem.  If people weren’t pathetic victims they might be able to find solutions to some of their own problems, and if that were to happen (God forbid!) it would deny liberals the ability to derive self-satisfaction from pointing to a government program and saying, “See what a wonderful person I am?  I supported that proposal!”

It’s foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country.

Thus says a guy who has made himself filthy, stinking rich by working with massive corporations.  But let’s not let a little rank hypocrisy get in the way of your own perceived sense of victimhood, huh Mike?  Just keep dressing like a slob and wearing your baseball caps, the world is full of idiots who will actually buy your little persona.

Moore shopping for ass-kisses

Mikey put out one of his lengthy, semi-coherent rants again this morning.  These days, I’m getting about half my email, but today I seem to have won the blowhard lottery; this and two older, screechy screeds from the AFA crying that Ford wants to *gasp* sell cars to TEH GAYZ.  It’s like my inbox is being punished.

After the jump, Mike’s words.  After that, my summary.  Feel free to skip to that part and then read Mikey’s diatribe afterward to see if I accurately summed it up.

A new opinion on “Captain Mike Across America”

As the last reviews for “Captain Mike Across America” trickle through my inbox, it always seems to be more of the same; it’s a poorly made film with bad editing decisions leading to an narcissistic and self-indulgent final product. However, this new review from Insider Online got me thinking a bit more about why Moore made this film and why he would want to release a film like this - especially when it has been received so poorly - right in the middle of his final push for “Sicko”. First, the obvious part - the review of the film itself:

The film itself is nothing spectacular – in fact, as far as tour movies go, it’s not that good. It runs at a long 102 minutes, and begins to get tedious in its delivery rather quickly. There are a few moments that break the mould (when Moore responds to Christian hecklers in the crowd at one of his talks), but for the most part there’s not a lot to take away at the end of it all. Canadians will love it, and it will open to big numbers (as do most of his projects north of the border). In the United States, where it really matters, I’d be surprised to see it get a wide release, much less succeed.

As you can clearly see… same thing; long, boring, tedious, self-indulgent. However, here’s the part that made me sit up and think for a minute:

This film is coming at such a crucial time, before the U.S. primaries that are going to be among the most hotly contested in recent memory, and right before a pivotal election in ’08. In making this film, Moore could’ve taken the opportunity to preach his ideals in a more accessible way, one that will guarantee people see this movie. Because, after all, Captain Mike is less about promoting a democrat agenda, but more about encouraging people – university students in particular – to just get out there and vote. When the 2004 election was won by less that a 5% margin, it became clear that, indeed, every vote counts.

So… is that it? Is Michael Moore attempting to categorize himself as The One Who Gets The Youth Vote Out? Does he hope that the American viewing public, in watching this film, will see him as some sort of savior to the electoral process and a champion of true democracy? Or, more interestingly, does Moore think that perhaps one of the Democratic front runners will watch his seemingly awesome power at driving the youth vote and embrace him into their campaign? If the latter is truly the case, perhaps “Captain Mike” is less of a simple vanity project than it first appeared. Will Michael Moore use this new film to try to launch himself directly into politics and a particular candidate’s campaign?

Of course, for the educated reader, the problem with this whole strategy - and, indeed, the movie itself - is that Michael Moore failed at his endeavor. His Slacker Uprising tour did *not* in fact “get the youth vote out” and his candidate, John Kerry, did not win the election. Nothing that Moore attempted, both on the tour and through his website and mailing, made any significant difference in the youth turnout of the 2004 election. In fact, some have hypothesized that Moore’s passionate appeals garnered him the exact opposite result that he had intended; his vigor promoting Kerry galvanized the right, turning out *their* vote thus sealing the election for Bush. Still, from everything I’ve read “Captain Mike” is clearly edited to show the exact opposite of all of this. In “Captain Mike”, Moore is the dashing hero, the rockstar to whom rockstars themselves flaunt, drawing enthusiastic and passionate crowds of young voters who respond to his magnetic presence with cheers of glory and promises that they will take up his gauntlet and vote for Kerry in the election. And it is this image - Moore as a rockstar, Moore as a galvanizing force, Moore as The One to whom the youth of America respond - that Moore is trying to sell to the public, and perhaps the candidates themselves. The question now becomes who will forget history and buy what Moore is selling? Will this hat-trick of a film have the effect Moore seems to desire? 

As always, stay tuned....

Hillary Opposes Socialism, Just Like Mikey

Man, Hillary Clinton went off on some uppity negro reporter who had the temerity to ask a legitimate question rather than simply shut up and accept that white liberals know what is best for him.

During a forum at the National Association of Black Journalists convention Thursday, Clinton was asked why as a candidate for president she was “still insisting” on bringing “socialized medicine” to the United States, when people were “pulling away” from similar systems in Canada and Great Britain. Worse, the questioner argued, socialized medicine hurt rather than helped poor people.

Totally legitimate question, right?

Michael Moore: 9/11 Truther, Democrat cheerleader

This video is not remarkable for the confirmation that Moore is, at least in part, a 9/11 Truther.  The important part is at the end.  After the jump, take a gander at some crazy meeting some more crazy.