Is Michael Moore's The Awful Truth the Most Entertaining Political Commentary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ShawnD
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
113 replies · 14K views
ShawnD
Science Advisor
Messages
715
Reaction score
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
It don't want to see "Bowling For Columbine II".
 
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
 
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:
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
 
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.
 
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 because 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:
He is a propaganda maker. Nothing more. Nothing presented in his any of his books or movies should be taken as absolute truth.
 
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.
 
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.
 
If he went on a diet and got a brain, then I'd like him.
 
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. :-p :biggrin:
 
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:
 
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. :-p :biggrin:
If they are as good as his Jazz series, I'll watch all, in most likliehood, 1000+ hours.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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 " 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:
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.
 
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
 
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 government? 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
 
Anttech said:
So what does that infer then Russ? What is Left according to the American system? Someone who is against the government? 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:
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..
 
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
 
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:

Similar threads

Was Einstein's Riddle a Political Commentary or a Personal Metaphor?
  • Tifinchi
  • · Replies 2 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
2