Farenheit 9/11
I've finally been catching up on my movie watching these last few days. A few days ago, i watched The Terminal. I really enjoyed that show and recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it yet-definately worth the watch.
Yesterday, i watched White Chicks with some friends. It's hillarious, but i wouldn't rank it that high up on my list. Worth watching once perhaps, but it's not one of those movies that you would want to watch over and over again...you get the point.
From there, i went to catch Farenheit 9/11. This is an interesting documentary...very controversial though. I think that Michael Moore has a point in this movie that he wrote, directed and produced. Nonetheless, i also feel that many of his points have been exaggerated and possibly even distorted to some extent.
This brings me to something i was thinking about. When you exaggerate something, assuming your audience consists of people who think, the audience will be aware of this exaggeration, but will most likely accept the basics of what you are saying. On the other hand, without any exaggeration, but just the truth (from Moore's perspective), we might question even his basic points-the points that we would have accepted without question, had there been exaggeration. Okay, did that make any sense to you? It's actually a method of persuasion, which i covered in Social Psychology.
Anyway, so i was thinking that the whole exaggerating bit is probably intended so that when we take the frosting off the cake, most of the cake will still be left there. Well, these are just some of my random thoughts.
Back to the movie. I would recommend that you watch it just to get a different perspective on things-to understand it from someone else's point of view. Then when you're done with that, go read this book: "What's So Great about America" by Dinesh D'Souza. You'll get another perspective on what's taking place in the world at this point of time. I'm not too sure if there are any other books that would be good to read relating to this whole issue...tell me if you know of any other good ones.
From there, i feel that we can all feel free to form our very own opinions and impressions, knowing that we understand the whole situation from various perspectives and are not being biased in any way. Coming from different backgrounds, environments, experiances, etc., we are bound to have diverse views on this whole issue of America and the rest of the world. It is important to be aware of that.
Note: I just read that there is another documentary that was recently out in the U.S. by Mike Wilson, called "Michael Moore Hates America" (MMHA). It looks like the war of documentaries for America has begun. Check it out: www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
Peace!
posted by daenielle @ 9:37 PM
3 Comments:
you're quite true...about the exaggerating thing...
your mind always defies what is at hand, and once it has accomplished reducing or inserting its points, it is content...
thus, if already skimmed, it will try to skim more...all it needs is contentment by having to say, It has dome something about the matter...and in the process it sometimes renders untrue to itself because contentment is all it cares.
what i find interesting about the whole polemic thing is that in many cases it is preaching to the converted. i like what moore is saying, and while there is little in what he is saying i didn't already know, i can see why some people have problems with the way he presents his information.
but in his defense i am not sure he ever said it was an impartial view.
because i agree with the thrust of people such as moore, al franken, noam chomsky etc i am going to read and view their work more willingly than i would the works of ann coulter or rush limburgh etc.
at the end of the day we are always going to be attracted to people who support or confirm our own world views.
whether that is a good thing or a bad thing i am not sure.
pat
I don't think that the people who have problems with the way he presents his information are talking about his partiality.
It's alright to be partial to a particular ideology, politic or viewpoint but moore goes beyond just elucidating his views. He cheapens what he has to say by his vicious attacks on the Bush family, corporate America, 'rich white men' (it's funny how he falls into that category now), Republicans, Democrats, etc.
It seems as though Moore only finds you tolerable if you are some sort of minority, a tree or Noam Chomsky.
I've done lots of readings on the Web about this duo and stumbled upon this great article that writes to expose chomsky and moore for their deception and lies.
Excerpts:
"Noam Chomsky is best known for his missives against the USA and Israel, who are misportrayed as the cause of all the world's problems.(13) In this, he echoes the Islamo-fascists who rail against the "Great Satan" and "Little Satan", an idee fixe so intellectually nailed to the floor that he successfully avoids any mention of the genocidal butchery and crimes committed by the "Saharasian" Soviet Union, Red China and the multiple branches of the COMINTERN (100 million dead from that nasty bunch)(14) -- except perhaps to either blame their crimes on the USA and Israel, or deny that they occurred at all. But most people reading Chomsky won't know about his friendly relations with the Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis, except perhaps in France where those relationships have been more widely exposed. Chomsky wrote a glowing endorsement-foreword to a 1980 French-language autobiography by Robert Faurisson, who is best known for his many writings which claim the Holocaust never happened and the Nazi gas chambers did not exist.(15) In 1984 Chomsky gave the publishing rights to one of his books to a French neo-Nazi publisher, rescuing it from bankruptcy,(16) and he co-authored another book with a radical terrorist apologist, Edward Said, published in 1983 by a notorious neo-Nazi publishing house in the USA.(17) His books and audiotapes are openly sold and/or indexed on neo-Nazi websites, along with the writings of Adolf Hitler and nearly every historical revisionist and Holocaust denier imaginable, with no apparent embarrasment or objections by Chomsky.(18) And as late as 1986 he allowed one of his articles to appear in the Journal of Historical Review, mouthpiece for the antisemitic neo-Nazi Institute for Historical Review, which gives favorable attention to most all his other writings.(19)"
and for Moore...
"And then there is Michael Moore -- his lampooning of corporate America was, at least, an entertaining contribution to the social debate, but now he's moved on to more serious subject matter. Since making his millions by skewering capitalism, he's also plunged into the conspiracy swamp and is preparing a new disinformation film Fahrenheit 911, financed with $3 million from Disney/Miramax, that will blame Bush and the CIA (and Mossad?) for the 9-11 terror attacks.(26) Moore has shown himself to be expert in the use of "lies of omission" -- as well as of commission -- which most people won't know about unless they consult his critics. His film Bowling for Columbine stimulated small "town meetings" across the USA, mostly by folks of liberal sentiments who were so outraged by what he showed them, they felt they had to "do something to save America". However, many other Americans only became outraged at Moore, especially once the full extent of his lies and distortions were revealed (ie, myself). How many will have noticed, his splicing of the images of Charlton Heston, figurehead for the National Rifle Association, from at least two different speeches at two different times, misrepresenting them as happening only immediately after the Columbine tragedy? I didn't spot the deception, but now that others have made me aware of it, I can see it, easily, as Heston wears two different suits and ties in the two different speeches from two different dates. Moore undertook a carefully crafted lie, designed to make Heston appear as a cruel-hearted Bastard who did not care one bit about children being shot dead in public schools. In fact, Michael Moore was the real Bastard, using the deaths of those kids to advance his own political agendas, and that is only one example of his methods. The devil is in the details, which in this case one can find most clearly gathered and discussed at the "mooreexposed.com" web site of David T. Hardy,(27) a Tucson lawyer with genuine working-class roots and a respect for facts, who has devoted considerable time and energy to revealing the quite elaborated deceptions in Moore's books and films"
There's a lot more from this article, it's truly worth the 15 minutes it'll take you reading it. In the interest of the truth as well as being open-minded enough to read something contrary to what merely attracts you, I would urge you to read this article and decide your own facts. The article is also well-bibliographed for fact-checking as Moore did quite well in his books but managed to escape doing in his movies BFC and F911.
I really really don't like him, initially purely out of gut instinct arising from the bad taste his movies and books left in my mouth. This article suggests that I was right all along. I hope you will come to a similar conclusion and to any Americans reading this, PLEASE PLEASE cast your vote responsibly without listening to the fabrications and manipulations of one corpulent Micheal Moore.
Masters of Deception: Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and the 9-11 Conspiracy Industry.
by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
http://www.orgonelab.org/MastersOfDeception.htm
Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory, Inc.
A Non-Profit Science Research and Educational Foundation (Since 1978)
Greensprings Center, PO Box 1148
Ashland, Oregon 97520 USA
E-mail to: demeo@mind.net
Post a Comment
<< Home