Why, Part III
Just to add my $.02
As much as I agree with what Lee and Jim have posted below, there are two points I’d like to add.
First, as LeeArtmonkey said, we discuss Moore because he has provoked discussion on issues—gun control, Bush, healthcare. And so, to some degree, we are exploiting that to show where he (and the far-Left ideals he reflects) are wrong, where they are mistaken, where they are lying. Many reviews of Moore’s movies say something along the lines of, “Well, he’s not 100% accurate, but at least he’s provoking a discussion.” Well, discussion does not mean one side get to fulminate unimpeded, no matter what McCain-Feingold says. We’re a part of this discussion. Granted, we’re a bunch of guys drinking beers in the balcony, cracking jokes and tossing Molotov cocktails on stage. But that’s a discussion . . . of a kind.
The second reason, for me personally, is that Moore takes the thunder away from better, more responsible film-makers. Details below the break.
You want some good liberal documentarians? Try Errol Morris, the brilliant film-maker who made The Thin Blue Line, which got Randall Adams out of prison, and Fog of War, which provides, indirectly, massive insight into what’s gone wrong in Iraq. Morris spoke out against Iraq when he won his Oscar. But watching his films, I would have no idea whether he’s liberal, conservative or independent.
In just the last few years, we’ve seen a number of good, responsible documentaries that should provoke thought and outrage from the Left: Jesus Camp, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Ghost of Abu Ghraib, Deliver us From Evil—that’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure I’m missing about six dozen titles.
Worse, the line between documentary and polemic has become blurred. So An Inconvenient Truth blends solid science with speculative panic-mongering. Who Killed The Electric Car? has to saddle itself with half-truths. It’s not that a documentary has to be absolutely 100% non-partisan. Or even present both sides fairly. Hell, I’m a huge fan of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! and I wouldn’t claim they present both sides in a 100% non-partisan way. Nor would I say that about the other films mentioned above.
But there’s a difference between presenting an argument and distorting the argument. A difference between presenting one side and presenting one fantasy. A difference between allowing your opponents to speak and putting words into their mouths.
The time and effort people invest in Michael Moore’s films is time they are not spending with better film-makers. Film-makers who may have an agenda and an opinion, but present it fairly and reasonably.
It is possible to make the case that Bush is a terrible president—but F911 is just political porn for Demcrats. It is possible to make the case that America is an incredibily violent nation, but Bowling for Columbine makes that point in a roundabout and factually erroneous way.
No one is going to claim the American healthcare system is perfect. It is possible to make the case for socialized medicine—although I will fight it strongly. But it is not possible to have an honest discussion that begins with sob stories, staged incidents, luminous depictions of socialized medicine, distortions, half-truths and outright brassbound lies.
Somebody’s got to be the BS detector.
Comments
Where can I get my BS Detector pin?
Thats it man. Moore doesn’t encourage debate. He poisons it.
It is you beer-drinking-molotov-toting-hicks who poison debates. I think I am in dire need of a BS detector pin after reading what is posted on this site.
Hmm, How ironic that ^^^^ is.
Do you feel you contributed to this discussion js67?
Moore doesn’t encourage debate. He poisons it.
How true!
you beer-drinking-molotov-toting-hicks
Liberals always paint themselves as being more intelligent, but DEAR GOD, why must they always resort to such simple-minded cartoonish stereotypes???
Liberals always paint themselves as being more intelligent, but DEAR GOD, why must they always resort to such simple-minded cartoonish stereotypes???
How true . . . I don’t tote no molotov cocktails.
Posted by Buzz on 07/09/2007 at 09:42 AM (Link to this comment | )
Liberals always paint themselves as being more intelligent, but DEAR GOD, why must they always resort to such simple-minded cartoonish stereotypes???How true . . . I don’t tote no molotov cocktails.
The story I’ve been told is my grandpa was active in the Hungarian revolution in 56… so I tend to hold the molotov cocktail in high regard. :) I take the whole thing as a compliment. Throwing them at socialist tanks is a good thing.
Posted by bismarck on 07/09/2007 at 08:24 AM (Link to this comment | )
And now what? You have to drink wine to be a leftist? Beer is out?you beer-drinking-molotov-toting-hicksLiberals always paint themselves as being more intelligent, but DEAR GOD, why must they always resort to such simple-minded cartoonish stereotypes???
Looks like social dems are done in Germany… stick a fork in em…
Make my beer a Newcastle or Guiness and I’m in. The damn anti-globalists and blitz idoits have all the molotovs in my neck of the woods, I’ll see if I can get a hold of some cherry bombs…
RSS (Subscribe)
Excellent.
I think we should all get personalized ”BS Detector” pins.
(...and mine would say “ArtMonkey”, not “Lee”.)
Heh.
(S’okay… Reading Lee’s stuff for so long, I
actually take the mistaken identity as a
compliment.)
Good call on the attention Moore grabs from genuine documentarians, by the way. Though it should have, that never really occurred to me.