Fahrenheit 9/11

[Raikus]

Again I say that Moore, being a left-winger, is not making stuff up for attention. If anyone believes this is the case than you're either to absorbed in Bush's lies or you're too much of a cynic to think SOMEBODY out there knows whats really going on.

Not only does he make it up (as recounted time and time again) he profits off of it. The man profits off of bending the truth and fabricating lies. That nearly makes him a politician--the thing he supposedly so despertly despises. That's my main beef with Moore. It's okay to have opinions, but to constantly try and create trouble and dissent to line your own pockets... that's low.

Moore creates his own agenda, then makes the story end on that agenda, whether or not the facts support it. Don't tell others they need to open their eyes and stop being naive when you refuse to do so yourself.

[cine]

Can you give ANY supporting evidence that he bends the truth and fabricates lies?

[Raikus]

Ah, correction, DS... the brutal truth.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

In case you haven't notice, truth holds no value with Moore.

[Cecil]

Not only does he make it up (as recounted time and time again) he profits off of it. The man profits off of bending the truth and fabricating lies.

does anybody have a link to someplace where all the "lies" in bowling are listed?

[Raikus]

*slaps head*

Ah, correction, DS... the brutal truth.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

In case you haven't notice, truth holds no value with Moore.

[Jeremy Blackman]

and p did this one

...or did he?

[Cecil]

*slaps head*

ouch!

[Cecil]

im not taking sides here, but heres what josh becker said on his website when someone made similar claims of "lies" in moores "roger & me"

"All movies are lies, particularly documentaries. There's no such thing as a completely true documentary, since the filmmaker is deciding what to use and what not to use. It's always going to be slanted some way due to the process."

[cine]

There's too many stupid points that this amateur tries to make. I'm just going to be brief because it would be a waste of my time to critique the ENTIRE thing on here. First, he quotes an internet film critic who was talking about a less successful MM film from 5-6 years ago. Just a tad bit irrelevent, since both concepts are entirely different. Lemme briefly go over his points.
1. Moore defends his side and Hardy simply denies it and says, "you got caught" like a child who thinks he's right. Observe what Moore says and how Hardy defends his side. He really IS an amateur at this.
2. Moore chops up Heston's quotes and Hardy tries to explain the real transcript. What he doesn't seem to clue in on is that Heston's speech is defending why he's there! "we have the same right as all other citizens to be here" It's not false that they didn't want the NRA there, otherwise he wouldn't make his speech based on that.
3. Hardy makes a couple poor points about Moore changing a few dates, but completely omits all the main, crucial points about the cartoon segment. Hardy's defense here is a joke.
4. Case in point regardless: a small boy still brought a gun to school and shot a girl. Bully or not - Moore made it clear a little boy shot the girl. He wasn't documenting WHY he shot her. He's saying nobody knew why because that was the case.
5. All Moore did was put "aid". Hardy tries to say that Moore implies Afghanistan blew up the towers as a result of the aid. Obviously not the case.. and he has no reviews from people that were led to believe that was the case. I for one thought of bin Laden being trained by the CIA, which Hardy unfortunately ignored.
6. Bottom line: Hardy has nothing to support himself. however you look at it, the US dominates the numbers.
7. That's Moore's take on it, and even Hardy then says "This is pretty mild compared to the rest of Bowling, granted."
8. I dunno what point Hardy was trying to make with the racism but anybody watching the entire sequence on the Cops issue knows he didn't fabricate fuck all. Just listen to his interview with the guy who created the show.
9. Hardy has no defense here since he admits they had a good point with Fear.
10. Hardy messed up royally here. The Amateur says "Guns (supposedly the point of the film)". Where did he learn film criticism? Anywhere? The point of the film was not 'guns'. Thats pathetic. He didn't go anywhere with this point.

Anyway thats all I have to say to debate with this only source that Moore is a lie. and profits off all his stuff.. even though all the money he made on the book tours went to each respective city's charity/foundation.
Thats all.

[Raikus]

There's plenty of more sources, but somehow I don't think it will make any difference to you.

And about the all proceeds going to charity, you need to double check your facts there. Because somehow he has enough money to afford cushy living in Upper Manhattan and cares about money enough to cancel his shows if he thinks he's not getting enough.

But enough. There's really no point to continue.

[cine]

Hey I'm not saying the man doesn't make any money. He's made cheap docs and had great box office success. I didn't say he gave THAT away. Lord knows he pockets so much of that. I fully support the quote cecil pointed out: "All movies are lies, particularly documentaries. There's no such thing as a completely true documentary, since the filmmaker is deciding what to use and what not to use. It's always going to be slanted some way due to the process."
and in this case, its slanted more to the left, which is a refreshing change, in my view. Simply put, I like seeing somebody else with a different view for a change than the U.S. government.

[RegularKarate]

Yes, I agree, that IS what you should change your AV to.

[Cecil]

taken from indieclub.com, posted by a guy named JerryAZ:

"After all the "discussion" about Michael Moore's B4C "Documentary" Oscar win, and whether it should be considered a documentary at all...

I'm wondering if it isn't time for some better guidlines/rules regarding documentary filmmaking. Certainly, "reality" TV has blurred the line between telling the truth and twisting the truth for the sake of entertainment. Along this line, Lar von Trier, the Dogme95 filmmaker, has put together a similar set of 9 rules for documentary filmmaking. There's an interesting article in the Winter 2003 issue of Filmmaker Magazine that lists the rules, "The Dogu Code of Conduct" and talks about films being made using the rules. Apparently, the Scandinavians and British are quite bullish on making "dogumentary" films.

The rules are clearly designed to eliminate/minimize manipulation, direction and typical "tricks" that can deceive the viewer. Personally, I think it would be great to make a doc this way. Certainly, had MM followed such rules, B4C would have been a much different movie. Sorry I don't have a link for the rules, and I'm not about to type them in here. However, a couple of the most interesting rules to me are: #2 - The beginning of the film must outline the goals and ideas of the director. (This must be shown to the film's "actors" and technicians before filming begins.) Rule #3 - The end of the film must consist of two minutes of free speaking time by the film's "victim." This "victim" alone shall advise regarding the content and must approve this part of the finished film. If there is no opposition by any of the collaborators, there will be no "victim" or "victims." To explain this, there will be text inserted at the end of the film.

Your thoughts?"

i did a small search on google, and on the dogme95 site, to get all the rules but i couldnt find anything.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Lars von Trier makes incredible movies, but I think he has a dellusional sense of what "rules" can do, and I think he makes them just to break them.

[Raikus]

I've got that issue of Filmmaker. Great article. Here's the guidelines for dogme:

1. Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
  2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).
  3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).
  4. The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
  5. Optical work and filters are forbidden.
  6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
  7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
  8. Genre movies are not acceptable.
  9. The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
  10. The director must not be credited.
 Furthermore I swear as a director to refrain from personal taste! I am no longer an artist. I swear to refrain from creating a "work", as I regard the instant as more important than the whole. My supreme goal is to force the truth out of my characters and settings. I swear to do so by all the means available and at the cost of any good taste and any aesthetic considerations.
Thus I make my VOW OF CHASTITY."
 Copenhagen, Monday 13 March 1995