yesterday a friend of mine was over and he insisted on watching the stupid 9/11 movie. i saw the very beginning and then enforced a channel switch to the HD giants game. the movie came with a pretty serious disclaimer at the start than parts of it were made up. i dont think it portrays itself as very real. also, the moore documentary calls itself a documentary, meaning it ducuments reality, not a political opinion piece. moore certainly delivered that as factual reality. but the stupid abd thing even calls itself a docu-drama, doesnt it?
Sooo . . . I take it that means you didn't actually see the film? I defend it for clever film making and it did set a world record for highest grossing documentary at $200+ million. I'm a movie fan and it's an interesting film, you should see it. You don't have to like it, I really didn't like it all that much either, but it is worth a look. I don't defend it as a political statement because I don't like Moore's inflammatory style. I think he offends people as much as he convinces people. But I don't think it is "deceitful". Moore pretty much hits you right between the eyes, overtly makes his point, and doesn't pull any punches. My problem with Moore is that, like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, he contributes greatly to the politically partisan bickering in this country at the expense of the Greater Good.
I don't think so. All documentaries have a message and a political message qualifies and is common. The difference is that a true documentary uses real footage and does not use fictional dialog. "Docudramas" blur the lines. This is understandable in films like "Gettysburg" where the principals are dead and documents and recordings of actual dialog does not exist. But fictionalizing events of a few years ago with prinicpals available to contradict it is not reasonable to me. It just begs a rival film to come along next year and sensationalize thing in the other direction. All the while the actual truth gets ignored.
it is clever in the same way that professional wretling or the backstreet boys are clever. it appeals to fools. it is not worth a look, unless you are curious as to how far liars will go to trick poeple. i bought a pirated copy from an african street vendor. this can only be attributed to willful ignorance on your part.
Both "The Path to 9/11" and Michael Moore's films intend to deceive. Moore deceives through spinning and manipulating events that took place. "Path to 9/11" creates events that did not happen.
Deceit. As in using staged footage or using fictional dialog. You know what I'm talking about. Not deceit, as in being one-sided. Political diatribes are one-sided by definition.
moore did that. for example, he took a small title from an opinion piece in a newspaper called "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won Election" and blew it up and put it on the front page as if it was a news story. staged dishonesty. deceit. again, it can only be ignorance that keeps anyone from acknowledging that moore's movie is anything other than lies. i am not disputing that the abc thing is lies too. maybe the abc thing is a politically motivated hackery of the truth. i dunno, i dont take it seriously. it seems unlikely it is as purely opposed to the truth as moore is though.
Well, you are the expert on blythe ignorance around here. But you still don't understand what a lie is.
