Exploring the Entertainment Value of Michael Moore's The Awful Truth

  • Thread starter ShawnD
  • Start date
In summary: It would make for a better president than the winner in most cases.In summary, the conversation revolves around the opinions of the participants on Michael Moore and his work as a documentary filmmaker. While some find his work entertaining and thought-provoking, others see him as biased and not a true documentary maker. The conversation also touches on the need for neutrality in documentaries and the role of personal opinions in shaping them. Some participants express admiration for other documentary makers like Ken Burns and suggest that they should be emulated instead. The conversation ends with a discussion on politics and the possibility of Newt Gingrich running for president.
  • #1
ShawnD
Science Advisor
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Its the trolling that turns me off. :yuck:
 
  • #3
It don't want to see "Bowling For Columbine II".
 
  • #4
I HATE that guy. He is not neutral as a docu maker. The left wing anti Bush policy is too obvious. Also Bowling for Columbine gives a very unilateral view onto reality. I just don't trust such a guy. IMO, he operates and thinks in the same way as the people he is complaining about, only he likes to present himself as being "at the other end of the political spectrum".

No Sir NO, i do NOT like nor trust that man.


marlon
 
  • #5
Nope, not at all.
 
  • #6
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
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.

One should be emotionally shocked because of Columbine but that is NOT the same as being neutral. Especially when portraying real time events as a docu maker. The fact that the events are horrible does not change that. 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.

marlon
 
  • #8
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.

This is the problem I have with him as well. If you want to create films depicting your opinions and views on the world, fine, but don't try to pass them off as documentaries. A good documentary presents enough factual information for the viewer to draw their own conclusions, not just a one-sided view that supports the preconceived notions of the script writer.

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.
 
  • #9
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.

This is exactly how I see it. I'm grateful to the guy, though. We do not have enough high-profile folks that are that far on that side of the political spectrum. It's comforting to look to the "right" and see Rush & O'Riley off in the distance, and then look "left" to see Moore about just as far away off.

Mind you, each one of those guys holds at least one opinion that I share. So It is not wise to to throw out all of what someone has to say just becuase you don't like the guy as a whole.

Edit:

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?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
He is a propaganda maker. Nothing more. Nothing presented in his any of his books or movies should be taken as absolute truth.
 
  • #11
I've never seen his work, but I liked the commercials showing King George on the golf course. :biggrin:

I tend to stay away from obviously biased sources like Moore, Rush, and Fox News.
 
  • #12
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.
 
  • #13
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.

Nothing anybody says should be taken as "absolute truth." This status is not exclusive to either extreme.
 
  • #14
If he went on a diet and got a brain, then I'd like him.
 
  • #15
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.
My sentiments as well.

I think he wants badly to be lumped in with people like Ken Burns, but it is never going to happen.
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: :biggrin:
 
  • #16
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?

I love Newt Gingrich! For president! :biggrin:
 
  • #17
Gingrich vs Obama would be interesting.

And I think we need to go back to the runner up for president be VP.
 
  • #18
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: :biggrin:
If they are as good as his Jazz series, I'll watch all, in most likliehood, 1000+ hours.
 
  • #19
The left wing anti Bush policy is too obvious.
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...
 
  • #20
Anttech said:
For sure he is Anti-Bush, but that IMO doesn't make him *left* wing. Or does it?

That is true! A dedicated Reagan lover way back when and now an Independent, I am probably more conservative than liberal - in many ways a libertarian - but you won't find many who hate Bush any more than I do.
 
  • #21
I'm not sure you're supposed to think of Moore as left. He seems like the kind of guy who would vote for Nader just as a way of stating that he doesn't like any of the candidates running, and he points out problems in the system regardless of which party is doing them. In one of the episodes of The Awful Truth, he ran an ad campaign for people to have write-in votes for "http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0426-09.htm [Broken]" just so there was more than 1 candidate. Officially the republican candidate won, but on the show it seemed that Ficus won the vote by something like 4:1, but the vote counters refused to count the Ficus votes.
Stunts like that don't exactly fix any problems, but they do draw attention to show how some candidates are not even elected, they just win because nobody else runs against them. The republican who won had no campaign office, he didn't run any ads, and he wasn't even in the district at the time of the election. It shows a kind of disconnect between the people and their government.

It's not really documentary making. It's more like Penn & Teller's show, but with a different opinion, and fewer scientists :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
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...
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.
 
  • #23
No I don't...Enough Said.
 
  • #24
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.

+1
donot like his style
but do like the way he gets the neo-conned sheep to hate him
Ken Burns he is not
but he does make movies that make one think
 
  • #25
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.
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?

I don't think he is left wing at all...Just Anti-Bush
 
  • #26
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?
For all the time you spend arguing in the politics forum, you don't know what "left wing" and "right wing" mean? :confused:

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.

Clearly anti-government doesn't have anything to do with it since when a democrat is in power, there are plenty on the right-wing who become anti-government. Since the government doesn't typically stray from the center very far (it is, after all, a democracy), those on the extremes on both sides advocate overthrow of the government.
I don't think he is left wing at all...Just Anti-Bush..
Since you acknowledged above that you don't know what "left wing" is, how can you then say that he isn't it?

BTW, "Roger and Me" was released in 1989, two years before Bush took office...
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Anyway, I never answered the question in the OP...

I don't like Michael Moore because he is dishonest.
 
  • #28
For all the time you spend arguing in the politics forum, you don't know what "left wing" and "right wing" mean?
Always the joker :smile: 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.
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.
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...

Regardless being anti-current administration of USA doesn't make him a commie or Socialist. Nor does being a hippy anti-war cnd type. 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.

Since you acknowledged above that you don't know what "left wing" is, how can you then say that he isn't it?
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..
 
  • #29
russ_watters said:
Anyway, I never answered the question in the OP...

I don't like Michael Moore because he is dishonest.

Truer words were never spoken.

marlon
 
  • #30
Anttech said:
Are these his policies, Id like to see that for real
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.
...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...
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".
Regardless being anti-current administration of USA doesn't make him a commie or Socialist.
I don't see where anyone suggested that being anti-Bush makes one a socialist or communist.
Nor does being a hippy anti-war cnd type.
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...).
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.
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.
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..
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.

Also, that part of your quote was in response to a direct question from me...and only answered half of it. So I ask again (rephrased): How can you say that Michael Moore is not left wing? Do you honestly believe Michael Moore is toward the center of the liberal side of the American spectrum? Based on what?
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Greg Bernhardt said:
I love Newt Gingrich! For president! :biggrin:


In that case we need to recycle Bill Clinton somehow. :rolleyes:

Edit: Oh yeah, we did. :uhh:
 
Last edited:
  • #32
I don't see where anyone suggested that being anti-Bush makes one a socialist or communist.
No? then why the *Beep left wing blah blah blah* to any anti-bush comments?
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...).
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.

Please show me a socialist or communist political party that is like this?

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 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.
How can you say that Michael Moore is not left wing?
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.

I don't like Michael Moore because he is dishonest.
But you like very much Bush, so what does that make you?
 
Last edited:
  • #33
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.
 
  • #34
thread closed
 
  • #35
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.
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.
 
<h2>1. What is the premise of Michael Moore's The Awful Truth?</h2><p>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.</p><h2>2. How was the entertainment value of The Awful Truth received by audiences?</h2><p>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.</p><h2>3. What were some of the most controversial segments on The Awful Truth?</h2><p>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.</p><h2>4. Did The Awful Truth have any impact on society or politics?</h2><p>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.</p><h2>5. How does The Awful Truth compare to Moore's other works?</h2><p>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.</p>

1. What is the premise of Michael Moore's The Awful Truth?

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.

2. How was the entertainment value of The Awful Truth received by audiences?

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.

3. What were some of the most controversial segments on The Awful Truth?

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.

4. Did The Awful Truth have any impact on society or politics?

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.

5. How does The Awful Truth compare to Moore's other works?

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.

Similar threads

  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
825
Replies
7
Views
602
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
124
Views
13K
Replies
35
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
872
Replies
15
Views
543
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
4K
Back
Top