| |
Omni
|
Whew, so I saw this movie last night...
First of all, I think I can say I came to this movie almost completely unbiased--mainly because I've never heard of Michael Moore until about a year ago and have never seen any of his other works. So I wasn't quite sure why people seem to hate him, or why I noticed that the first three rows of the theatre were full when I came in and then halfway through the movie I noticed they were vacant again...
I went to see it with some friends of mine, a hardcore Democrat, a hardcore Republican and Bush fan, a girl who didn't want to see F9/11 but didn't want to see Spiderman 2 either (since she had already seen it twice), and a third friend of mine, who I imagine probably doesn't really care about politics all that much.
First, Moore seems to have good dramatic timing and use of repetition for humor. The contrasts of Bush telling America to fly in planes and have fun/Rumsfeld warning the world that terrorists will attack us at any opportunity is good.
I could pretty much call when the scene would change. Mission Accomplished quickly shifts to troops blowing up stuff on the battlefield to the tune of "Burn, mother......, burn...". The transition from troops in the tank listening to music on Christmas Eve to troops breaking into rooms was also predictable..but that's not really bad. That's good timing.
He seems to leave the camera on...at interesting times. Some of the people he interviews, such as that woman who sent her son to Iraq, ...don't seem to mind that he leaves the camera on while they pour out tears and misery to him. That's a little unusual. They'll just moan and cry on film for what seems like minutes.
I loved the Bush & Co. superimposed over the old western scene. That was pure comic. My Republican friend got a kick out of that (Smoke 'em out!). Was that Gunsmoke or Bonanza, to anyone who knows? ...I don't quite watch much old shows.
Bush seems to have many, many twisted and obscured connections to Saudis. Lots of Saudis. I mean, I was tired of seeing Saudis by the time this film was over. I was also tired of big business, coincidentally.
I was tired of a lot of things: I was tired of watching the Haliburton ads, I was tired of watching the Iraqis, I was beginning to wonder if those poor mothers of soldiers were really crying or just staging it. Maybe I'm too cynical.
What was well done was the actual Twin Towers scene...which means that Michael Moore can use surround sound. That was well done. Also what had a nice dramatic touch was the Bush-in-the-classroom scene.
But it didn't make me like Bush anymore unlike my Republican friend who seemed to hate the whole movie, and I was too busy wondering about the authenticity of the interview subjects to be touched too deeply by those. I come away enamored with neither side and disgusted by American business and politics.
Although, Moore seems to present a certain dose of factual information. There's not much point commenting on that, because I assume there's not much point.
But I would like to know why Republicans seem to classify it as propaganda trash not worth seeing. I mean, of course it's propaganda, but it's like what Bill O'Reilly says: it's propaganda that is "so belligerant" it doesn't mean anything.
I don't think that's true. The movie does bring up some challenging points which seem to be disregarded by those who leave the theatre early and my Republican friend. And I want to know, what's the big deal? Do you hate the guy that much?
Makes me want to run for President and fix everything. Maybe I'd put my friends on my cabinet. It'd be the first ...not bipartisan, but truly varied administration...in my dreams, anyway.
Posted on 2004-07-11 17:44:09
|
loretian
|
The movie is extremely misleading. He leaves out many facts and if you listen to the actual words he's using, you realize he's not actually saying nearly as much as he makes you think he is (which is why he claims it's factual while it actually being misleading)
For example, he'll say something like "And I'd like to ask the President why such and such was allowed to leave the country immediately after Sept. 11" He's not actually saying anything of value there, but the implication and what most people come away with is that Bush or his administration was responsible for allowing a certain person to leave the country. Of course, the reason he didn't actually come right out and say it is because Bush had nothing to do with it.
Or, he mentions that a certain family met with America and had business plans and connections. Immediately, you think Bush has all these connections, but the reason he uses "America" instead of "the Bush administration" is because it was actually Clinton that had the meeting with the family. Again, of course, he never mentions that little fact.
Apparently, he also misleads by failing to mention the date and when many things occur, which changes the relevancy dramatically. The aforementioned meeting with the family occurred in 1997, with the Clinton administration, just a short while after he was re-elected.
Both the fact that it was Clinton who actually met with the family, and the fact that it occurred in 1997 are extremely relevant. Movie goers will come away thinking that Bush met with the family in the last few years, when in fact, neither of these two things is true, and Moore can claim he didn't lie about anything.
Posted on 2004-07-11 17:53:49 (last edited on 2004-07-11 17:57:48)
|
Omni
|
Issues: Strikethrough = Resolved
Declaring war on Iraq (based on perceived threat)
Al Queda-Iraq Connection (yes connection, no relevancy, misinterpreted)
Plane shipping out Bin-laden Family (not his fault)
Media Bias (I hate the media)
Saudi Family (the government has the connections, not Bush)
Okay, okay. The part about that is definately misleading. EDIT: And I can see how misleading that is because I recognize the usefulness of obscurity in some cases...but perhaps not there.
But what about Saudis investing in Bush's business attempts and the elder Bush having an influential position on the board of entity responsible for said funding EDIT: and said entity happens to receive a significant amount of financial pie related to American defense and other "government subsidized" industries? I mean, that just sounds bad.
Posted on 2004-07-11 18:01:41 (last edited on 2004-07-11 18:05:32)
|
Alex
|
Quote:Originally posted by Omni
Declaring war on Iraq (based on perceived threat)
Wait... the US didn't actually declare war on Iraq, did it? Come to think of it, I haven't heard of this happening for a long time, but I was under the impression that Congress had to "declare war" before a war could be initiated... I'm not entirely sure what your constitution says about this... maybe someone could clarify this?
Posted on 2004-07-11 19:57:51
|
RageCage
|
congress declaired that bush can do what ever it takes to fight terrorism I believe. And as for declairation of war, the president is also teh commander and chief of teh US army so he can attack anyone he wants but its just not offical till congress says it is.
Posted on 2004-07-11 20:53:41
|
Omni
|
I was not debating that "Bush declared war on Iraq", I was simply mentioning that Loretian had already told me earlier about the reasons why Bush saw fit to see Iraq as a security threat. Thus it would be "why he wanted to fight Iraq", not exactly "why he declared war on Iraq".
Perhaps I should have been a tiny bit more specific...also, yes, only Congress can formally declare war. Our Constitution's a pretty neat little thing. Bummer we're slowly trying to turn it into a moral authority.
Posted on 2004-07-12 00:32:31
|
Alex
|
Yeah, I know you weren't debating that, it was just something I noticed. But it would seem that in this respect, from mid way through the 20th century until now:
Your presidents have been very naughty.
Posted on 2004-07-12 01:54:08
|
Omni
|
Last I checked, one of those, Washington Post or Washington Times, is hyper conservative. The other is hyper liberal. I think the same goes for New York Post/Times, but backwards...I can't remember which.
McKinley? Oh, yes, the Phillipines have been compared to the Iraqi effort, I think. One flaw in the comparison was that the Phillipines colonial pursuit was actually met with a modest amount of success, according to history books.
The 20th century was a little unusual for America. The first 15 years were all about colonialism, because we got into the game late, then we got tied up in some world wars, the great depression, more world wars, then the red scare, Korea, Vietnam, Nixon, Iran-Contra, Iraq, etc... All in all, it was a busy second century.
Posted on 2004-07-12 05:14:14
|
Omni
|
Myself: But what about Saudis investing in Bush's business attempts and the elder Bush having an influential position on the board of entity responsible for said funding EDIT: and said entity happens to receive a significant amount of financial pie related to American defense and other "government subsidized" industries? I mean, that just sounds bad.
Let me go beyond the bounds and try to answer my own argument.
Looking back, this is probably not something Moore made up. However, what was he trying to get the viewer to think? Sure, the Bushes have business links to a Saudi company that happens to be attached to investment in American defense. But does that inherently mean that Bush meant to send us to war for money?
Not really. I believe that's a connection that Moore wants you to make, when in reality he can only give convincing circumstantial evidence. If it had been "the Bushes have links to a Russian company", well, it wouldn't be as shocking, would it? It's almost like the "Saudi" term is a trigger word that makes you think "Bush is selling us out", and Moore knows it, I guess.
Posted on 2004-07-13 02:04:08 (last edited on 2004-07-13 02:05:10)
|
mcgrue
|
Why is this thread still active?
Posted on 2004-07-13 04:07:34
|
Omni
|
Because thinking is still cool! Hahaha!
Posted on 2004-07-13 05:13:05
|
zaril
|
What would Jesus do?
Posted on 2004-07-13 08:28:44
|
mcgrue
|
Politics isn't about thinking. It's about yelling and futility.
The only minds changed are those of the weak willed by the loud and persistant.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Posted on 2004-07-13 10:51:10
|
loretian
|
If you don't move, you don't win.
Politics are important, and people's opinions and minds are changed, though usually it not in one fell swoop.
Your cynicism regarding politics is reasonable; but, for the most part, we do a pretty good job of not yelling and shouting and flaming each other. (
Except for Troupe, who is fat and stupid  ) I don't see why you have a problem with it.
Posted on 2004-07-13 14:46:20
|
mcgrue
|
It's simple: I am against all public discourse. ;)
Posted on 2004-07-13 16:29:00
|
loretian
|
I am against being hungry.
Posted on 2004-07-13 16:43:30
|
mcgrue
|
I am strongly against Meiosis and/or Mitosis.
Posted on 2004-07-13 18:21:29
|
Gayo
|
I said this to Grue yesterday: I'm in favour of political discussion, but I think that with this many people participating at once it becomes a cacophony of voices and it's hard to resolve things. Message boards are scary, but they're still not as scary as Usenet. Brr.
Posted on 2004-07-13 20:47:20
|
Troupe
|
Quote: Originally posted by loretian
If you don't move, you don't win.
Politics are important, and people's opinions and minds are changed, though usually it not in one fell swoop.
Your cynicism regarding politics is reasonable; but, for the most part, we do a pretty good job of not yelling and shouting and flaming each other. (
Except for Troupe, who is fat and stupid ) I don't see why you have a problem with it.
;_;
Posted on 2004-07-13 22:05:33
|
Khross
|
I'm going to have to disagree with that... The Germans were militarily superior to the Russians in every respect except numbers. They seriously kicked the USSR about, despite simultaneously fighting the British in Europe and North Africa, and also subduing all of continental Europe. The thing that saved the Soviets from total defeat was the delay in Hitler's invasion of Russia and his army getting itself frozen to death in the terrible Russian winter. I suppose nobody can say what would have happened, but it looks to me like - had Hitler attacked the Russians at the right time - they wouldn't have remained in the war for long.
While it's true that the Germans inflicted a higher ratio of casualties per soldier than the Soviets and pioneered modern Blitzkrieg tactics in Poland and France (what we call "Shock and Awe" today), not to mention being forced to delay the invasion of Russia by several months due to Italy's untimely and unsuccessful invasion of Greece, the German army was hardly superior in every way.
For example, when the Germans encountered the Soviet T-34 in quantity in July 1941 they had no heavy tank that could even compare; every German armored vechile on the Eastern Front had suddenly become obsolete. The T-34's 76mm cannon was more powerful than any German tanks', its revolutionary sloped armor provided more protection for less weight, and extra wide tracks provided excellent mobility during the harsh Russian winter. German Fieldmarshal Ewald von Kleist called it "the finest tank in the world."
Hitler's insistance on an offensive campaign after the failure of all three German army groups to take Leningrad, Moscow, and the oil rich Caucasus (Stalingrad) also contributed to a Soviet victory. Had Hitler taken Heinz Guderian's advice, falling back and establishing a sort of liquid defensive line until the Spring-- who knows? However, the Soviets were fast learners, had a seemingly inexhaustable supply of manpower, and a strong industrial base (machinery transported to Siberia and such, far from German reach). Napoleon managed to capture Moscow in 1812 and still was overcome by the Russians. I think the same might have happened to Germany.
Posted on 2004-07-14 01:56:53 (last edited on 2004-07-14 03:31:29)
|
|
|
