- #1
- 718
- 2
I'm watching his show The Awful Truth, and it's pretty good. Most of his stunts are nothing more than trolling, but at least it's entertaining.
Opinions?
Opinions?
lalbatros said:How could we stay neutral with the Columbine High School massacre?
Actually he was too neutral, because he had to sell his video.
What are we waiting to stop this neutrality and change something?
Are we waiting for ColumbineXX ?
Action can never be neutral.
Being neutral is siding with the violent.
marlon said:I want to know what happened, i do not want to hear some dude's personal opinion on the matter in question. This is not what making a documentary is all about.
Moonbear said:He's entitled to his opinions, but it's dishonest to call what he does a documentary. It's more of a feature-length editorial.
brendank said:He is a propaganda maker. Nothing more. Nothing presented in his any of his books or movies should be taken as absolute truth.
My sentiments as well.FredGarvin said:I didn't mind "Roger and Me". I thought it was pretty good. I didn't care too much for the scenes when he would blindside someone on camera, but that was his shock factor at work. I thought he did a very good job of outlining what GM did to the city of Flint. However, I think he has changed his motivations since then. I honestly think he subscribes to the notion that every new documentary has to shock more than the last. His actions seem more hell bent on that than providing a good, informational documentary.
I would like to see more documentaries by Ken Burns, and more producers like him as well. It would be great if he follows the Civil War documentary series with the rest of US history before and since. :tongue2:I think he wants badly to be lumped in with people like Ken Burns, but it is never going to happen.
Chi Meson said:Right now I'm listening to Newt Gingrich on NPR, and dang it if he's not sounding like a rational centrist. Is it me?
If they are as good as his Jazz series, I'll watch all, in most likliehood, 1000+ hours.Astronuc said:I would like to see more documentaries by Ken Burns, and more producers like him as well. It would be great if he follows the Civil War documentary series with the rest of US history before and since. :tongue2:
Why do people associate Michael Moore with the "left?" Honestly if you dumped him in the east block of Europe mid-80's and let him loose speaking about the king-makers and power-brokers of the time as he does now he would be killed (read:disposed of) very quickly.The left wing anti Bush policy is too obvious.
Anttech said:For sure he is Anti-Bush, but that IMO doesn't make him *left* wing. Or does it?
That's to the left of the American political spectrum, Anttech. I doubt anyone thinks he's actually a communist...Anttech said:Why do people associate Michael Moore with the "left?" Honestly if you dumped him in the east block of Europe mid-80's and let him loose speaking about the king-makers and power-brokers of the time as he does now he would be killed (read:disposed of) very quickly.
For sure he is Anti-Bush, but that IMO doesn't make him *left* wing. Or does it?
I don't like or dislike him, but I believe he has a purpose...
FredGarvin said:I didn't mind "Roger and Me". I thought it was pretty good. I didn't care too much for the scenes when he would blindside someone on camera, but that was his shock factor at work. I thought he did a very good job of outlining what GM did to the city of Flint. However, I think he has changed his motivations since then. I honestly think he subscribes to the notion that every new documentary has to shock more than the last. His actions seem more hell bent on that than providing a good, informational documentary.
I think he wants badly to be lumped in with people like Ken Burns, but it is never going to happen.
So what does that infer then Russ? What is Left according to the American system? Someone who is against the goverment? Or was that just in the good old days of the cold war?russ_watters said:That's to the left of the American political spectrum, Anttech. I doubt anyone thinks he's actually a communist...
This is just like calling someone "right wing" doesn't acutally mean you think they are a Nazi.
For all the time you spend arguing in the politics forum, you don't know what "left wing" and "right wing" mean?Anttech said:So what does that infer then Russ? What is Left according to the American system? Someone who is against the goverment? Or was that just in the good old days of the cold war?
Since you acknowledged above that you don't know what "left wing" is, how can you then say that he isn't it?I don't think he is left wing at all...Just Anti-Bush..
Always the joker But you have a point, sortoff, I do know what it means to be left wing socially or ecconomically, and neither have any anti-bush criteria. That was kinda my point, but I will guess you knew that.For all the time you spend arguing in the politics forum, you don't know what "left wing" and "right wing" mean?
Are these his policies, Id like to see that for real, because all I understood was he was anti-bush, anti-Iraq war anti-government lies.. etc etc.. Not FOR anything, which is really what you have to be to have a political persuasion...The simplest way to put it is that Americans cover perhaps 2/3 of the political spectrum, oriented slightly to the right of say, Europe. The issues are all the same, it is just a difference in degree. Moore's issues (a few of them) are things like anti-corporate-ism, anti-globalization, anti-American culture, pro-government control, pro-welfare, etc. Moore's stance on these issues is as far left as anyone in the US, which is the definition of "left wing". Transplanted to Europe, he'd probably be only slightly left of average.
No I was asking you what it means to be left, ie your perception. I wasnt confessing that I don't know what it is... Bit like when a teacher asks a student what does 1+1 equal, it doesn't infer he doesn't know what it is..Since you acknowledged above that you don't know what "left wing" is, how can you then say that he isn't it?
russ_watters said:Anyway, I never answered the question in the OP...
I don't like Michael Moore because he is dishonest.
I infer his beliefs from his movies. To me it is pretty clear that what he talks about in the movies are his actual beliefs.Anttech said:Are these his policies, Id like to see that for real
Not true at all. You can, of course, word any negative as a positive, but "pro life" is still anti-abortion, for example. Put more directly the original two political parties in the US were the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists"....because all I understood was he was anti-bush, anti-Iraq war anti-government lies.. etc etc.. Not FOR anything, which is really what you have to be to have a political persuasion...
I don't see where anyone suggested that being anti-Bush makes one a socialist or communist.Regardless being anti-current administration of USA doesn't make him a commie or Socialist.
Hippies typically are socialists/communists. The principles of socialism/communism are at the very core of most hippie beliefs (though hippie beliefs are often vague/unformed...).Nor does being a hippy anti-war cnd type.
Some people like to use labels that way, but labels generally have pretty precise and/or well accepted meanings. Labeling someone "right wing" or "left wing" is much more common/accepted/objective than, say, the "neoconservative" label that gets thrown around so much in the P&WA forum. You will, for example, hear the former on the network news, but you won't ever hear the latter.to me it seems like a label people like to use for anything that is against what they believe in, bit like the *Nazi* label to anyone who is for border control, or slightly right wing in beliefs.
This doesn't have anything to do with perception and yes, I figured it might be a test. Frankly, I think the test reveals more about the tester than the testee in this case. You were testing to see if the label was applied for emotional rather than objective reasons because you, yourself see and use labels in those terms. IIRC, you have been pretty active in the one-person's-terrorist-is-another's-freedom-fighter "debate" on the side of not having/using an objective/consistent definition. I always argue that labels/definitions need to be precise and objectively applied. You should know that by now.No I was asking you what it means to be left, ie your perception. I wasnt confessing that I don't know what it is... Bit like when a teacher asks a student what does 1+1 equal, it doesn't infer he doesn't know what it is..
Greg Bernhardt said:I love Newt Gingrich! For president!
No? then why the *Beep left wing blah blah blah* to any anti-bush comments?I don't see where anyone suggested that being anti-Bush makes one a socialist or communist.
Errmm.. I wouldn't agree with that 1 bit. Hippies are not for forced labour, shared faming, removal or rights to property. Neither is Moore as far as I know. Hippies are typically Politically passive, or tend to be for Greenpeace, for saving the planet, and against conflict. Probably the only socialist part is that they are for economic regulation to the extent that they believe life shouldn't be about the greed drive but rather about love and self-happiness and 1 with nature.Hippies typically are socialists/communists. The principles of socialism/communism are at the very core of most hippie beliefs (though hippie beliefs are often vague/unformed...).
No Russ, I have been for non-bias and against hypocrisy. I tend to call a spade a spade, I am against conflicts and manipulation of the 3rd world and less fortunate. Compassionate maybe, I am not on what you call *the terrorist* side, I don't agree that terrorism solves anything. I also don't believe that terrorist are just evil people and are typically born crazy nutters, but are products of the environment they are forced to live in. Empathy doesn't mean agreement. Seems you don't know me at all, after all those *debates* I got into with you.This doesn't have anything to do with perception and yes, I figured it might be a test. Frankly, I think the test reveals more about the tester than the testee in this case. You were testing to see if the label was applied for emotional rather than objective reasons because you, yourself see and use labels in those terms. IIRC, you have been pretty active in the one-person's-terrorist-is-another's-freedom-fighter "debate" on the side of not having/using an objective/consistent definition. I always argue that labels/definitions need to be precise and objectively applied. You should know that by now
Because from what I know about him, he isnt. He just doesn't agree with Bush and wants to expose what he sees as hypocritic, he is also a passive AFAIK. Since he is agianst the government and its hypocracy I doubt he is for more government regulation, although I don't know, because I have never heard him talk about these things.How can you say that Michael Moore is not left wing?
But you like very much Bush, so what does that make you?I don't like Michael Moore because he is dishonest.
I don't like him, but I'm not sure I'd call him a fraud - I think he's pretty open about the kind of nut he is.LightbulbSun said:I hate to bump such an old thread, but I just wanted to say that Michael Moore is a fraud. He's definitely an anarchist at his core. No one should take him seriously.
The Awful Truth is a satirical television series that aired in the late 1990s and early 2000s, hosted by filmmaker and activist Michael Moore. The show focused on exposing societal and political issues through a comedic lens.
The show received mixed reviews from both critics and audiences. Some praised Moore's unique approach to addressing serious issues, while others found it to be overly sensationalized and lacking in depth.
One of the most controversial segments was "Buy an HMO CEO," where Moore attempted to purchase a health insurance CEO's conscience. Another was "The Death Penalty," where Moore interviewed death row inmates and their families.
While the show did not have a direct impact on policy or legislation, it did bring attention to important issues and sparked conversations among viewers. It also helped launch Moore's career as a prominent documentary filmmaker.
The Awful Truth is similar in style to Moore's other films and shows, using humor and satire to shed light on social and political issues. However, it differs in that it was a weekly television series rather than a feature-length documentary.