Good post on 'Bowling', Joe. I will say this: He's an excellent marketer, and knows how to tweak the buttons of controversy.

Although I do disagree on a lot of what he says, I don't mind Moore's politics as much as I cringe at his seemingly frequent bouts of hypocricy and/or inaccuracies. There are many editorialists and entertainers whose opinions I tend to disagree with, but are lucid and clear, and don't make up shiznit as they go along.

Here are a few interesting sources on Mr. Moore that I rounded up earlier today. It would appear that I searched for these all day, but it really didn't take that long with a search engine at hand. There's a lot of good material out there...

-------

(On Michael Moore's website following a book signing in San Diego)

Quote:"Somewhere around 11:30 p.m., I hear a commotion at the back of the auditorium. I see people start to scatter. The San Diego police are coming down the aisle, their large flashlights out (the auditorium lights are still on, so we all understand the implied 'other' use of these instruments). The police are telling everyone to 'VACATE THESE PREMISES IMMEDIATELY OR YOU WILL ALL BE ARRESTED!' I cannot believe what I am hearing."

A comment from someone who was at the book signing...
<a href='http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/780.shtml' target='_blank'>http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/780.shtml</a>

Quote:I was there until the bitter end. What Mr. Moore does&nbsp; not say is that when the activist group that was sponsoring the event told him that their permit to use the public school auditorium ended at 11pm, and further, that the two working-class custodians were not getting paid after 11 and wanted to go home to their families, he refused to sign books outside the auditorium.

Knowing this, he continued to sign books until the custodians called their supervisor, who called the police, who asked everyone to leave. Only then did Moore go outside to sign the remaining twenty or so books.

The police were not menacing people with their flashlights; the crowd did not scatter in fear or run for the exits in panic as Moore's version suggests.

Moore appears very eager to blow this out of proportion for his own publicity purposes.

-----

From Moore's former manager:
<a href='http://forums.warriorsworld.net/other/msgs/7700.phtml' target='_blank'>http://forums.warriorsworld.net/other/msgs/7700.phtml</a> (quoted from London Times]

Quote:"He's the only client I ever fired in writing. He was the most difficult human being I've ever met. There was no one who even came close.

"Michael Moore would never withstand the scrutiny he lays on other people. You would think that he's the ultimate common man. But he's money-obsessed."

------

From the UK's Guardian:

<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1088297,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Colum...1088297,00.html</a>

Quote:But this idea of being under siege is an important part of the radical's self-image in 2003. And Moore knows how to work the image, even claiming recently that the new book was strictly embargoed by his publisher because it was going "to upset" so many people. My guess is that it was done in order to maximise impact and sales.
...
Essentially, he has transformed into a leftwing version of loud-mouthed ultra-conservative shock-jocks such as Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter.
...
Despite sentences like this, concerning the Maginot line: "The only problem was, they built the bunkers facing the wrong way and the Germans were deep into France before you could say, 'Garçon, more stinky cheese please!'" That manages to be both factually wrong and unfunny. Yet it tops the charts.
...
When Moore does present anything like a thesis, it is confused and contradictory.
...
Arguably worse, Moore has been accused of serious inaccuracies of fact, which you can find detailed on a liberal website called Spinsanity. I won't go into them here but I was interested in Moore's response when he was tackled on CNN not so long ago about these errors. The presenter Lou Dobbs asked him about the accusations. Part of the transcript goes like this:

Moore: I think they found some guy named Dan was named Dave, and there was another thing. But you know, look, this is a book of political humour. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know.

Dobbs: Glaring inaccuracies?

Moore: No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy? You know.

------

<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74883,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74883,00.html</a>

Quote:In addition, a Jan. 7 report on the Independent Movie Database said Moore lashed out at the staff of The Roundhouse Theater in North London - which was hosting his one-man show - causing a huge blowup with theater officials. "He reportedly flew into a rage, verbally attacked everyone associated with the theater because he thought he wasn't being paid enough," the IMDB.com piece reported.

Moore apparently complained that he was only earning $750 a night for the show, which drew a packed house during the two months leading up to Christmas.

IMDB quoted an unidentified crewmember who said, "'He completely lost the plot. He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, telling them how we were all con men and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public."

In reaction to his outburst, Roundhouse staff reportedly fought back by refusing to work the next night, causing Moore's act to be delayed by an hour, according to IMDB.

"Eventually he made a groveling apology to staff and the angry audience finally took their seats," the Web site said. "A source reports that Moore then packed his bags and flew to New York the next day without saying thank you or goodbye to anyone."

------

<a href='http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/reporter/reparchive/04_08_99/medley3.html' target='_blank'>http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/reporter/reparchi...99/medley3.html</a>

Quote:Many people find it tough to swallow Moore's jokes about the wealthy and then watch him fly first-class at his publisher's or film distributor's expense to his posh home in New York City's Central Park West, where he also sends his teenage daughter to an elite private school.

------

Good quote I found:
Should a 320 pound man advise us on the evils of overconsumption?

------

<a href='http://www.wweek.com/html/moore040198.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wweek.com/html/moore040198.html</a>
(Moore raging against the Nike machine)

Quote:When Moore asked if there were any Nike employees present, a former Nike employee bravely stood up and identified herself, then told Moore that his New Balance shoes could have been manufactured in the very same factories Nike uses. Moore didn't bite back, instead pausing for a genuine moment of reflection.

------

Food fer thought. :D

Thats funny that he said bowling for columbine was "nonfiction". Thanks Oddball I needed a laugh. :laugh:

Motown Bronco Wrote:Speaking of the New Republic, the film <a href='http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ShatteredGlass-1127149/' target='_blank'>Shattered Glass</a> is highly recommendable. One of the best movies I've seen in the past year.

Word.

Props to Hayden Christiansen for a great performance and taking the risk to take a role in a smaller film while he's such a hot commodity. And if anyone wants to have an even greater respect for the late Mike Kelley, they would be good to see this film. Hank Azaria does a great job with him.

As far as Michael Moore, as probably the only committed centrist who posts on here, I think I can say he is a blowhard without bashing anyone who opposed the war. The problem with Moore is that he opposes every war, but mostly speaks up when its politically expedient to bash the right. Example, he tears into the Kosovo campaign as immoral in Bowling for Columbine, while at the same time endorsing General Clark for President by citing his exemplary record of conducting the war.

Also, if you are going to make a film and call it a documentary, try and limit the frequency at which you stage scenes, superimpose images and text, and take things blatantly out of context. Michael Moore isn't a blowhard because he disagrees with Bush or hates Bush. He's a blowhard because he is a blatant liar.

If the far left wants someone to speak for them, they can do much better than this guy. He has no honor.

Yeah, when Moore's off he's way off. I'm in no way claiming the guy's a saint (or Noam Chomsky, for that matter).

But, still, he ain't the left's version of Rush (for the reasons mentioned above).

He's more like the left's version of Lynne Cheney.

I did not like the Bowling for Columbine, and I will not watch his new movie. In BFC he states and lists many mis truths and inaccuracies the movie is not all that factual, its more of a political agenda if anything.

<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32050-2004May16.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May16.html</a>

<a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/17/moore.film/' target='_blank'>Sounds like it's a hit.</a>

SDSundevil Wrote:I did not like the Bowling for Columbine, and I will not watch his new movie. In BFC he states and lists many mis truths and inaccuracies the movie is not all that factual, its more of a political agenda if anything.

Could you list the mistruths and inaccuracies in BFC?

Thanks.

<a href='http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,638819,00.html' target='_blank'>Maybe even a blockbuster.</a>

Despite my dislike for the man, I will refrain from attacking the film until I see it myself.

But, as far as the praise he's received... What type of reception would any anti-Bush/anti-GOP film do at an 'indie' film festival, attended by many from the media and entertainment industry? In the south of France, of all places?

Odd, this is like showing a film criticizing OSU and BGSU on giant screens to a sold-out crowd in the Glass Bowl (i.e. preaching to the choir).

klutz, here's <a href='http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html' target='_blank'>one</a> of many links describing the inaccuracies in Bowling for Columbine. Lots of reading material.

You have a point, except that there are conservative film critics...and some have been quoted as grudgingly appreciative of this movie.

Oddball Wrote:You have a point, except that there are conservative film critics...and some have been quoted as grudgingly appreciative of this movie.

I may go see the film but the film is unrealistic.

Man, I love these psychic movie critics!

Oddball Wrote:Man, I love these psychic movie critics!

Yeah, when all they have to go on is history. :rolleyes:

How "real" was "Bowling for Columbine"?

If it was so real, why were there so many discrepancies and why are they trying to revoke the Oscar it received? Oh, I know, it was a right-wing conspiracy. :rolleyes:

HINT: There WAS no nuke-producing plant near Columbine.

Kev, that is a brilliant way to review movies. Based on that, I'll save you a lot of money at the video store. Never watch "Clerks" or "Chasing Amy" because Kevin Smith directed a stinker called "Mallrats". Also, there's this guy named "Spielberg" who directed this horrible movie called "Hook", I'd avoid his work, too.

Best of luck to you and Medved on getting Moore's Oscar back. Really, I mean it. :wave:

Oddball Wrote:Kev, that is a brilliant way to review movies. Based on that, I'll save you a lot of money at the video store. Never watch "Clerks" or "Chasing Amy" because Kevin Smith directed a stinker called "Mallrats". Also, there's this guy named "Spielberg" who directed this horrible movie called "Hook", I'd avoid his work, too.

Best of luck to you and Medved on getting Moore's Oscar back. Really, I mean it. :wave:

There's a difference...and I've seen all the movies you state......they are PORTRAYED as fiction. Moore's movie, however, is portrayed as a DOCUMENTARY, Ie. TRUTH.

If a Republican was to do that I'd be the FIRST to stand up against it. Your willingness, rather UNwillingless, NOT to reveals alot about you. You don't care about the "Truth", just an agenda.

I've seen Moore's films, and enjoyed them for exactly what they are. Your agenda doesn't allow you to. His premises are not wrong in any way.

GM moving jobs to Mexico was bad.

This country has a culture of fear.

How he gets there is another matter, a fact that I have readily admitted. Much of the criticism towards his movies is nitpicking, but some is valid. The fact of the matter, though, is that he is an artist whose vision shows through in his work. He does not make unbiased work. So what?

In "Bowling" he set out to make an anti-gun movie, but in fact didn't make one. Why? Because he was honest enough about his art, at least, to document what he actually found, and not stick to what his pre-conceived notions were. Maybe you could try that sometime?

You haven't seen "Farenheit 9/11", and any judgement you have about it is nonsense based on nothing. How's that campaign to get his Oscar back going, btw? :laugh:

Oddball Wrote:I've seen Moore's films, and enjoyed them for exactly what they are. Your agenda doesn't allow you to. His premises are not wrong in any way.

GM moving jobs to Mexico was bad.

This country has a culture of fear.

How he gets there is another matter, a fact that I have readily admitted. Much of the criticism towards his movies is nitpicking, but some is valid. The fact of the matter, though, is that he is an artist whose vision shows through in his work. He does not make unbiased work. So what?

In "Bowling" he set out to make an anti-gun movie, but in fact didn't make one. Why? Because he was honest enough about his art, at least, to document what he actually found, and not stick to what his pre-conceived notions were. Maybe you could try that sometime?

You haven't seen "Farenheit 9/11", and any judgement you have about it is nonsense based on nothing. How's that campaign to get his Oscar back going, btw?&nbsp; :laugh:

Ok, IS there a Nuke factory outside of Columbine that made the kids do it?

Ok, WAS there a Pro-Gun rally at the time they stated, or did they "paste" that in to fit their agenda?

A documentary to me, well, maybe not liberals, is TRUE through and through without ANY false scenes.


Face it Odd. He sold it as a Doc. and it wasn't. Good film to you or whatever, that's fine, but don't sell ****** that isn't true as a documentary.

You don't quite grasp the concept of documentaries, do you? Most have definite points of view. Moore's are no different.

I have conceded twice in this thread that Moore sometimes plays looser with the facts than he should, yet you continue to use this as a rationale for reviewing a film that you haven't seen. A little linear thinking might help this conversation.

RebelKev Wrote:There's a difference...and I've seen all the movies you state......they are PORTRAYED as fiction. Moore's movie, however, is portrayed as a DOCUMENTARY, Ie. TRUTH.

If a Republican was to do that I'd be the FIRST to stand up against it. Your willingness, rather UNwillingless, NOT to reveals alot about you. You don't care about the "Truth", just an agenda.

So the only criteria for "TRUTH" is the film genre -- documentary?

Is that all "TRUTH" is to you?

I think I know what you mean here, RebelKev. I think you intended to get across the idea that a documentary is supposed to be factually based, meaning a documentary is designed to display facts.

Facts are not "TRUTH" or at least I hope facts are not Truth. It would be disappointing to know that TRUTH is so simple, and even if facts are "TRUTH" then all the facts I am surrounded by everyday are quite unfulfilling. I can examine any sort of facts around me such as the temperature of the room is moderate, the phone book is under the telephone, the clock reads 1:58 (CDT), my co-worker is b*tching at her desk, the coffee in the kitchen is burning up and stinking up the whole office.

I would hope TRUTH is much more than simply -- facts!

I think it is a truism for one to say that Moore's movies are not "TRUTH" per se. I have yet to see a movie that is indeed the TRUTH.

I consider a documentary just like any kind of written work found in a library. Some are good, well researched opinions of the facts while some are poorly written, sloppily researched hodge-podges of unrelated information. All non-fiction books in a library are arguments based on the research and reasoning of the writer(s). And I have yet to read a book that documents the TRUTH.

I also consider one who claims 'Michael Moore has an agenda' is merely stating factual information that can be seen simply by watching 'Bowling...' The nature of his "agenda" is oftentimes misconstrued because so many people have latched onto what particularly offends them in 'Bowling...' What particularly offends one is different depending on each individual, but simply because you are offended by one aspect to the film does not make that Moore's "agenda."
For example, if one has a hairy hard on for Charleton Heston then they usually tend to think Moore's agenda is to discredit Heston. Or, if one was offended about the murder rates in Japan, Germany and Canada as compared to the murder rates of the U.S., then they tend to think Moore's agenda is to ban, outright, all firearms. Niether of these were Moore's agenda.

And, what House or Senate Bill was signed into law banning agendas??

Like I've said before, Moore's BFC was a great film because it underscored the collective mentality of Americans--we are scared of our own shadows and we react violently when we are scared. This film was social criticism, which is necessary for a healthy society and culture.

Moore's "facts" in 'Bowling...' (such as the location of a particular rally, how many deaths occured by gunfire in one nation compared to that of the U.S., or the exact time Heston and the NRA came to Flint, MI) need not be precise to show that Americans are, by and large, scared to death of everything! All one has to do is open their eyes and look around. If anything, I thought the GOP crowd would at least applaud Moore's efforts for casting the news media in a bad light.

I think those who hate Michael Moore have the advantage of the "foot-vote" or the "dollar-vote" in this instance. If you don't want to hear Moore's agenda, then don't pay to see it, flip the channel when it comes on TV and basically ignore him and his antics.

I don't understand why you people want to suppress agendas you don't agree with. :drink:

Question to RebelKev:
What exactly is "TRUTH?"

Motown, I'll post a response to the criticisms and inaccuracies in BFC tomorrow. I have to work today, but thanks for the link. :cry: