Authorities investigate Moore on Cuba

moeaholic · May 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

What about the middle ground sway factor so to speak? If it's a spectacular commotion, even the people that hate him have to see what it's about. DVD rentals count as well.

of course there's always the fence sitters, but in all honesty it's not going to change things that much. without all this free PR, he'd get all his regular followers (and i don't mean that in a negative way) to see the movie. with all the free PR, personally, i see a very miniscule amount of people deciding to give it a shot. so small of a percentage, it really doesn't make hardly any difference.

i'll admit, i don't like michael moore. he's lost something over the years. i used to catch his show when i could (the name escapes me right now, was it the awful truth?), but over time he just seems more.......i don't know, egomaniacal (for lack of a better word) to me. i've given him a shot in the last couple years, a friend of mine let me borrow a couple of his books, but my opinion of him hasn't changed. i don't like to bad mouth the guy. i used to, but when i think back on it now, it just seems really childish to do that. he definitely does have an ego, as do all the other fringe fanatics (again, for lack of a better description) on both sides of the aisle. but as far as winning over new fans, i just don't think it's going to be a huge shift of people swinging over to watch one of his 2 hour movies.

farfromglorified · May 2007

callen wrote:

Bowling for Columbine?

Its a really good flick....you may not support his stance..but it is good..and to deny that is sicking your head in the sand. I feel folks that get sooooo riled up about Moore are simply being shown reality...and can't deal deal with it....goes against past programing.

I've seen all of Moore's films. They are terrible documentaries from philosophical, evidentiary, and cinematic perspectives. They are amusing documentaries from entertainment and creative perspective.

If you want to see real documentary film making, check out the Up Series by Michael Apted. That's a premise that I don't agree with but at the same time a film I respect greatly.

farfromglorified · May 2007

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

well said, byrnzie. i agree, i haven't seen too much in the way of hate and anger coming from him.

whether people want to admit it or not he has accomplished quite a bit for many causes since his humble beginnings as a journalist and editor.

What has he accomplished? Seriously. Are auto workers in Flint better off? Are guns banned? Did Bush not get reelected?

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

What has he accomplished? Seriously. Are auto workers in Flint better off? Are guns banned? Did Bush not get reelected?

Are you serious?? So the games not worth playing unless you win? That explains a lot. So spreading awareness doesn't count for shit? I guess Ron Paul should shut the fuck up then.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · May 2007

moeaholic wrote:

of course there's always the fence sitters, but in all honesty it's not going to change things that much. without all this free PR, he'd get all his regular followers (and i don't mean that in a negative way) to see the movie. with all the free PR, personally, i see a very miniscule amount of people deciding to give it a shot. so small of a percentage, it really doesn't make hardly any difference.

i'll admit, i don't like michael moore. he's lost something over the years. i used to catch his show when i could (the name escapes me right now, was it the awful truth?), but over time he just seems more.......i don't know, egomaniacal (for lack of a better word) to me. i've given him a shot in the last couple years, a friend of mine let me borrow a couple of his books, but my opinion of him hasn't changed. i don't like to bad mouth the guy. i used to, but when i think back on it now, it just seems really childish to do that. he definitely does have an ego, as do all the other fringe fanatics (again, for lack of a better description) on both sides of the aisle. but as far as winning over new fans, i just don't think it's going to be a huge shift of people swinging over to watch one of his 2 hour movies.

So you're saying advertising does not work...

Smellyman2 · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

I've seen all of Moore's films. They are terrible documentaries from philosophical, evidentiary, and cinematic perspectives.

Philosophical - meaning unlike yours
Evidentiary - backup those claims
cinematic - all evidence points to otherwise.

your mind is clouded by hate, which I guess MM's is too. lol

Byrnzie · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...so would you say that Michael Moore's identified problem with this world is a lack of documentaries? What positive change or objective reality has arisen from Michael Moore's works, other than the works themselves?

What I've done in comparison? I live my values. I see little evidence that Michael Moore does that.

I'm not so arrogant as to presume that Michael Moore has any problem with this world. It is obvious that he has a problem with a number of issues about which he feels strongly. He's been making documentaries highlighting the cause of the little man against big business, and given a voice to people who wouldn't otherwise have had one.
He's brought a lot of issues to light that needed bringing to light. It's then up to people to either act or not act.
I suppose you'd rather his films had never been made?
I find it interesting that people living in a country whose media system is a complete corporate whitewash, can feel so slighted, and offended when just one person has the balls to stand up and rock the boat. Seriously farfromglorified, don't panic just yet mate. I'm pretty certain that your comfortable little life is safe from these radical elements for the time being.

kenny olav · May 2007

it's a stupid and unfair embargo. Michael Moore has the upper hand on this one. no one can say Cuba or any other country is perfect. but i dont think any reasonable person can argue that its anything but a fucking shame that people suffering from the effects of work they did in the aftermath of 9/11 are not getting the health care they need.

mookie blaylock 10 · May 2007

Kenny Olav wrote:

it's a stupid and unfair embargo. Michael Moore has the upper hand on this one. no one can say Cuba or any other country is perfect. but i dont think any reasonable person can argue that its anything but a fucking shame that people suffering from the effects of work they did in the aftermath of 9/11 are not getting the health care they need.

very good point, KO.

farfromglorified · May 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Are you serious?? So the games not worth playing unless you win? That explains a lot. So spreading awareness doesn't count for shit? I guess Ron Paul should shut the fuck up then.

I'm not saying "the game is not worth playing". I'm simply saying that you can't claim accomplishment before you actually accomplish something. If I were running around this board claiming that Ron Paul had actually accomplished something substantive for the Libertarian movement, I hope someone would ask me the same questions.

farfromglorified · May 2007

Smellyman wrote:

Philosophical - meaning unlike yours

No. Meaning completely absent. There are plenty of documentaries with philosophies unlike mine that I still respect, and I've already cited one above.

Evidentiary - backup those claims

Hehe...watch his films and ask yourself how well represented the evidence contrary to Moore's contentions are presented. He pretends it simply doesn't exist.

cinematic - all evidence points to otherwise.

"All evidence"??? The films masquerade as documentaries when they're poorly pieced together info-tainment specials. It would be like giving a nightly news Emmy to Bill O'Reilly.

your mind is clouded by hate, which I guess MM's is too. lol

I don't hate Michael Moore. I despise him (at least to the extent that you can despise someone you don't really know personally) and his work. I certainly wish him no ill, nor would I suggest that he has no right to do what he's doing. Furthermore, as I indicated early, I wouldn't even consider him worse than others in his field or those who take similar approaches to topics.

If my mind were "clouded by hate", I'd be illogical in my approach. I'd be suggesting his films be banned. I'd be suggesting that others like him but who are closer to my own opinions are better than he is. I'd be suggesting that the US government should punish him for going to Cuba. I'd be suggesting that someone should harm him, or take his property. I'm suggesting none of those things.

farfromglorified · May 2007

Byrnzie wrote:

I'm not so arrogant as to presume that Michael Moore has any problem with this world. It is obvious that he has a problem with a number of issues about which he feels strongly. He's been making documentaries highlighting the cause of the little man against big business, and given a voice to people who wouldn't otherwise have had one.
He's brought a lot of issues to light that needed bringing to light. It's then up to people to either act or not act.
I suppose you'd rather his films had never been made?

Not at all. They are his films. What business would I have suggesting that he shouldn't have made them? Whatever he chooses to make is his choice and his right.

I find it interesting that people living in a country whose media system is a complete corporate whitewash, can feel so slighted, and offended when just one person has the balls to stand up and rock the boat.

Funny you should bring up "whitewash" in this context. If you think Michael Moore represents anything other than a reverse whitewash of what you're talking about above, you really don't understand what that term even means.

Seriously farfromglorified, don't panic just yet mate. I'm pretty certain that your comfortable little life is safe from these radical elements for the time being.

Hehe...what's so safe about it? Even you are making poorly-vieled threats.

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm not saying "the game is not worth playing". I'm simply saying that you can't claim accomplishment before you actually accomplish something. If I were running around this board claiming that Ron Paul had actually accomplished something substantive for the Libertarian movement, I hope someone would ask me the same questions.

Well, I wouldn't because even though I disagree with a lot he says, I can see the good he is bringing into the mainstream now through exposure and spreading awareness. And I view that as an accomplishment. I think it's an accomplishment anytime someone stands up for what they believe in. They broke the mold in a sea of complacency and conformity.

farfromglorified · May 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Well, I wouldn't because even though I disagree with a lot he says, I can see the good he is bringing into the mainstream now through exposure and spreading awareness. And I view that as an accomplishment. I think it's an accomplishment anytime someone stands up for what they believe in. They broke the mold in a sea of complacency and conformity.

Sure -- I already indicated this in my original question. I was asking what he's accomplished beyond the films themselves, and I'd ask the same thing if someone claimed that Ron Paul had accomplished some great thing.

Michael Moore should certainly be applauded for speaking his mind and standing up for what he believes in. But so should George Bush or Adolf Hitler. That doesn't mean what they're saying is right. It doesn't mean what they're saying is immune from judgment. And it doesn't mean what they're saying isn't an indication of insidiousness or even evil.

Here's the problem with the arguments I'm hearing. If this were Sean Hannity we were talking about, none of you would be saying what you're saying. But I'd be saying exactly the same things.

angelica · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Then you're not listening. His statements are vitriolic and completely anti. He's a zero who stands for nothing except floating abstracts.

Hehe...Whitman, Thoreau and Twain wrote about and were people who actually did things about their problems. Comparing Michael Moore to them is like comparing a film critic to Martin Scorsese.

I thought Michael Moore was awesome when he got my attention years back when on the show "The Awful Truth". I view the man as an idealist who is very well-intended. I also believe he's made a very distinct difference, and has called to light many subjects that needed to come to the forefront of mass awareness. He was a strong influence on my daughter and her boyfriend becoming politially aware and active.

At the same time, I'm kind of surprised what people are saying about him in this thread. I personally thought it was pretty obvious he's angry. His style is not objective truth telling, but more along the lines of emotionally riling people in order to get results. His perspective is pretty clearly biased. By using his slanted methods beneath the surface, yes, he influences people. In my opinion, he tells the truth, but the way he tells it is obviously full of unresolved anger/animosity. And I don't like that people are being emotionally led with this type of subject matter, because for the majority, that happens unconsciously, so they believe what he's saying is THE truth, when really it's a distorted version of the Truth. And therefore it's the perpetuation of imbalance. So, again, I wonder why so many are glossing over his fairly evident flaws in this thread. At the same time, I believe he means well, and he's done more good than bad.

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Sure -- I already indicated this in my original question. I was asking what he's accomplished beyond the films themselves, and I'd ask the same thing if someone claimed that Ron Paul had accomplished some great thing.

Michael Moore should certainly be applauded for speaking his mind and standing up for what he believes in. But so should George Bush or Adolf Hitler. That doesn't mean what they're saying is right. It doesn't mean what they're saying is immune from judgment. And it doesn't mean what they're saying isn't an indication of insidiousness or even evil.

Here's the problem with the arguments I'm hearing. If this were Sean Hannity we were talking about, none of you would be saying what you're saying. But I'd be saying exactly the same things.

Whether you agree or not, I believe Moore to be sticking up for the little guy, I believe he truly cares for those less forunate than him and he fights for them. He could have choosen any path in life he wanted to (I do believe him to be quite bright...where I do disagree with him is in some of his tactics) but he chose the less self absorbed path, imo. I'm sure you'll disagree but I'm only explaining my perspective on Moore and why I see him differently than Hannity or Bush.

farfromglorified · May 2007

angelica wrote:

I thought Michael Moore was awesome when he got my attention years back when on the show "The Awful Truth". I view the man as an idealist who is very well-intended. I also believe he's made a very distinct difference, and has called to light many subjects that needed to come to the forefront of mass awareness. He was a strong influence on my daughter and her boyfriend becoming politially aware and active.

At the same time, I'm kind of surprised what people are saying about him in this thread. I personally thought it was pretty obvious he's angry. His style is not objective truth telling, but more along the lines of emotionally riling people in order to get results. His perspective is pretty clearly biased. By using his slanted methods beneath the surface, yes, he influences people. In my opinion, he tells the truth, but the way he tells it is obviously full of unresolved anger/animosity. And I don't like that people are being emotionally led with this type of subject matter, because for the majority, that happens unconsciously, so they believe what he's saying is THE truth, when really it's a distorted version of the Truth. And therefore it's the perpetuation of imbalance. So, again, I wonder why so many are glossing over his fairly evident flaws in this thread. At the same time, I believe he means well, and he's done more good than bad.

I can definitely get on board with the sentiments here. I don't agree that, all things considered, he's done "more good than bad", but that's simply because I believe his views to be harmful and wrong and that he hasn't accomplished much to begin with. I can understand why those who are more inclined to agree with him would think otherwise.

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

angelica wrote:

I thought Michael Moore was awesome when he got my attention years back when on the show "The Awful Truth". I view the man as an idealist who is very well-intended. I also believe he's made a very distinct difference, and has called to light many subjects that needed to come to the forefront of mass awareness. He was a strong influence on my daughter and her boyfriend becoming politially aware and active.

At the same time, I'm kind of surprised what people are saying about him in this thread. I personally thought it was pretty obvious he's angry. His style is not objective truth telling, but more along the lines of emotionally riling people in order to get results. His perspective is pretty clearly biased. By using his slanted methods beneath the surface, yes, he influences people. In my opinion, he tells the truth, but the way he tells it is obviously full of unresolved anger/animosity. And I don't like that people are being emotionally led with this type of subject matter, because for the majority, that happens unconsciously, so they believe what he's saying is THE truth, when really it's a distorted version of the Truth. And therefore it's the perpetuation of imbalance. So, again, I wonder why so many are glossing over his fairly evident flaws in this thread. At the same time, I believe he means well, and he's done more good than bad.

Yes, that's what I was refering to when I said his 'tactics'. I think it would serve him well to try a more level headed approach instead of slinging mud because it's been slung at him. Take the high road.

angelica · May 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yes, that's what I was refering to when I said his 'tactics'. I think it would serve him well to try a more level headed approach instead of slinging mud because it's been slung at him. Take the high road.

And I was going to agree with your post, too. I agree with what you're saying exactly. And the guy means well, and his intent is pure, that much is obvious. And that can't be said for many with that type of power.

farfromglorified · May 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Whether you agree or not, I believe Moore to be sticking up for the little guy, I believe he truly cares for those less forunate than him and he fights for them. He could have choosen any path in life he wanted to (I do believe him to be quite bright...where I do disagree with him is in some of his tactics) but he chose the less self absorbed path, imo. I'm sure you'll disagree but I'm only explaining my perspective on Moore and why I see him differently than Hannity or Bush.

I'm not sure why Michael Moore isn't "self-absorbed". At this point, Moore could setup his own welfare system for displaced auto-workers in Flint, for instance. But I'm not suggesting he should do that, I just have trouble accepting the argument that he's some altruistic prophet.

Anyone can claim that they "stand up for the little guy". It's not hard to invent a reason. Bush does it. Hannity does it. Al Sharpton does it. They all do it. Everyone seems to proclaim their love for "the little guy" while they're telling him what to do, what to believe, and what to worship.

Authorities investigate Moore on Cuba

Comments

Categories