babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Take Back Michael Moore's Oscar!

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Take Back Michael Moore's Oscar!
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 25 April 2003 12:03 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
http://www.revoketheoscar.com/

OH the hilarity. I am having a coughing fit from laughing.


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 25 April 2003 12:06 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you aren't already familiar with what he did, check:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233

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

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html


http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp[/URL][/QUOTE]

Hmm..I wonder why they chose to out up a bunch of news sources rather than also pointing to Moore's own website for a little balance

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: audra estrones ]


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 25 April 2003 12:08 PM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Just two websites devoted to critcizing Moore and his film have experienced 250,000 unique visitors since his award."
just how do they define unique? possibly because they all have the same opinion?

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 25 April 2003 12:15 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
hands up if you want to use the site's "email the Oscar Academy" feature to instead send letters of support?
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 25 April 2003 12:35 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just did.....

quote:
Dear members of the Academy:

I am writing you from the revoketheoscar.com site's own Web forms to express my dissatisfaction with the site organizers' attempts to curtail artistic freedom with this misguided campaign of theirs.

It is distrubing to see how quickly these folks set aside American Constitutional law regarding freedom of expression and your right to award an Oscar to whomever you wish when Michael Moore's perspective is in conflict with their own.

I trust you'll do the right thing and ignore their petitions. You can help keep America great by protecting the rights of its citizens to express dissenting views.



From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 25 April 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dear members of the Academy:

At the 75th Academy Awards, the award for Best Documentary was given to Bowling for Columbine. I applaud the academy's decision, as I think it is one of the most wide-reaching and influential documentaries in recent memory.

I truly hope the efforts of the people at "Revok The Oscar" will be treated with all the respect and seriousness they deserve. As in, none at all.

thanks very much,

audra williams



From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 25 April 2003 01:02 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder if they are reading the outbound traffic before it goes.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 25 April 2003 01:08 PM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ever write a letter to an MLA from another area?
check your e-mail.

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 25 April 2003 01:17 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dear members of the Academy:

At the 75th Academy Awards, the award for Best Documentary was given to Bowling for Columbine. Please keep it that way. This film was clearly the most popular and most influential documentary produced in English in 2003. To award the Oscar to any other film would be farcical and would therefore indelibly tarnish the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' fine reputation .

Thanks in advance for your sanity.

Sincerely yours,

Ron

[ 29 April 2003: Message edited by: ronb ]


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 25 April 2003 01:48 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dear members of the Academy:

At the 75th Academy Awards, the award for Best Documentary was given to 'Bowling for Columbine'.

That Michael Moore has a point of view that is at odds with much of mainstream American and Canadian opinion is hardly news. That his documentary reflects that viewpoint should not be cause for surprise.

Aside from its being the most commercially successful documentary in history, the firestorm of controversy generated by 'Bowling for Columbine' is proof-positive that the Academy has made the right decision.

The film has clearly touched on issues that run deep in the American society and has probably provoked more discussion and reflection than any film in recent memory.

I commend the courage and wisdom of the Academy in this regard.

Sincerely,

{My real name}


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
speechpoet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3693

posted 25 April 2003 03:24 PM      Profile for speechpoet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dear members of the Academy:

Me unhappy. Why man with opinion different from me win shiny statue? How this happen in land of free and home of brave? Me want SMASH tiny statue and bad man! Me want only movie about flag and Betsy Ross and maybe puppies.

Why nice man Rush-on-radio not win shiny statue? Me agree everything he say.

Sincerely yours,

C. R. O'Magnon


From: Sunny Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 April 2003 03:32 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's the best one so far!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 25 April 2003 07:31 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Brilliant.
From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
speechpoet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3693

posted 25 April 2003 08:26 PM      Profile for speechpoet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Me blush.
From: Sunny Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 25 April 2003 08:32 PM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
you write good letter.
From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
rob.leblanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2475

posted 25 April 2003 09:47 PM      Profile for rob.leblanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That was great! I think I'll write up a letter of support as well.

I'm suprised no uppity people have started a petition to revoke the oscar from Roman Polanski based on what he did.

This has nothing to do with the web site, but more specifically the rules for the Oscars: Does the documentary actually have to be non-fiction? Because I have seen quite a few fictional documentaries (Burn Hollywood Burn and Man Bite Dog to name a few) that I thought were brilliant. So do the documentaries actually have to be non-fiction?


From: Where am I? Where are YOU? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 April 2003 09:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Does it take an "uppity" person to believe that someone who fucks children after drugging them shouldn't be given world-famous awards?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 25 April 2003 10:31 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, but it raises a completely different ethical question - one that has troubled people for eons - to what extent can an artist's creations be separated from his or her own actions? This was often raised in the case of artists who supported dictatorial regimes, were racist, grossly sexist (I'd say Polanski's past behaviour is an example of that) etc.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 28 April 2003 01:33 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just used their sight to send a web form urging the panal not to be pressured by the neo-cons and to applaud their initial decision.
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
kuba walda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3134

posted 28 April 2003 01:50 PM      Profile for kuba walda        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At least in the documentary category -- everyone who votes acutually has to have SEEN all five enteries.
From: the garden | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
rob.leblanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2475

posted 28 April 2003 03:28 PM      Profile for rob.leblanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, I didn't really mean to regard someone who feels that what polanski did should justify him not getting the award as "uppity". It was a poor choice of words. To be honest, I spent a bit of time trying to find an alternate word. My real meaning was that should people be deinied awards for acts that they have committed when those acts do not relate to the work they have done to win the award.

I'm sorry if i pissed you off. I honestly did not mean to.


From: Where am I? Where are YOU? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3712

posted 28 April 2003 05:25 PM      Profile for leftover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Revoke Moore's Oscar? Definitely. His work was not a documentary-it was a low quality satire but the stupid audiences(especially in Europe) took it seariously.
From: ont | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 28 April 2003 06:02 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
His work was not a documentary-it was a low quality satire but the stupid audiences(especially in Europe) took it seariously.

I apologize in advance, but I can't resist: *ahem*

I suppose that must be what they meant on the poster when they quoted a reviewer as calling it "Incendiary!".

*ducks and scurries away*


BTW: It was not a satire. A polemic, maybe. Propaganda? Absolutely. A documentary? Obviously.
Worth watching? In doobeedoodbeedoobitably.

[ 28 April 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
leftover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3712

posted 28 April 2003 07:18 PM      Profile for leftover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, it was a satire. No one could be as dumb in real life as Moore. He was putting us on.
From: ont | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 28 April 2003 07:23 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes. He is a tricky one, that Moore. We'll have to keep an eye on him. I suggest we rename him Captain Wily.
From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 28 April 2003 08:13 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
No one could be as dumb in real life as Moore.

Mike Moore is a friend of mine. He's funny and warm. He's caring and compassionate. He's a brilliant writer. Mike is one of the brightest minds I know. When he takes a run at someone or something, he does so after trying to understand the opposite point of view.

You have no f---ing idea what Mike Moore is like in real life, or you wouldn't have written that kind of garbage.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 28 April 2003 08:29 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You have no f---ing idea what Mike Moore is like in real life, or you wouldn't have written that kind of garbage.

Pretty much everything that Leftover writes is garbage, so anybody he calls "dumb" should take it as a compliment.

[ 28 April 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 28 April 2003 09:08 PM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is certainly a sense in which Michael Moore plays the character of Michael Moore on screen. However, I believe Leftover is grossly mistaking documentary for journalism. They're not synonymous.
From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 28 April 2003 09:50 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, they certainly aren't. However, there is much debate about journalistic ethics (which I don't always find tremendously "ethical" in my understanding of the word, although it is technically correct) and their relation to the form of documentary.

Certainly Moore's film was not a drama, with actors playing roles as such -- but as many documentaries are, it was the presentation of a specific viewpoint. If the filmmaker's opinion is biased or neutral, it makes no difference, as far as I know, to the definition of the form.

I am interested to know why, specifically, leftover believes the film to not fit within the genre category... If it is simply that he dislikes or disagrees with the opinions contained in it, then his assertion is incorrect.

I have to say, no documentary ever presents "the" truth. There is always something that one has to either leave out, modify slightly, etc, in the making of a doc. Some filmmakers go further than others with it.

(Although I should note that I am of the opinion that Moore has a fairly high level of integrity...)

[ 28 April 2003: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 29 April 2003 01:48 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pissing and moaning about Moore's oscar is stupid. Who bloody well cares if he is or isn't a jackass or if his movie is or isn't technically a "documentary"???

Geez, complaining about this is almost as bad as complaining about election results form almost 4 years ago


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
leftover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3712

posted 29 April 2003 03:25 PM      Profile for leftover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Certainly I have never met Moore but I have seen much of his material and find it odious. Its easy to be a critic but maybe I have missed his works on how to improve society. Does he have any practical solutions?

You call my posts garbage but I think you call anyone's posts which are of opposite opinion to yours garbage. The hatred I see here is amazing.
Lots of unhappy, frustrated people. Actually this is common among left-wingers. Does it arize from political and economic impotence?


From: ont | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 29 April 2003 03:37 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Certainly I have never met Moore but I have seen much of his material and find it odious.

Good for you. I feel the same way about most of the posts by you and the other right wing trolls.
quote:
You call my posts garbage but I think you call anyone's posts which are of opposite opinion to yours garbage.

I don't call the opinions of everyone who disagrees with me garbage, just the ones from ignorant assholes like yourself.
quote:

The hatred I see here is amazing
I guess you've never gone to Free Republic, Free Dominion or any of the other right wing hate-fest forums.

If you want to dole out insults to leftists, like calling Michael Moore "dumb," then don't be surprised that someone's going to insult you back.

[ 29 April 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3712

posted 29 April 2003 03:45 PM      Profile for leftover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I rarely attack people like you do Andy. If I did as you do I would be banned. Double standard here.

Actually I have never visited the sites you mentioned . I am not a troll either. (well, maybe once or twice)

Still I find the left wingers emotionally challanged as per my previous post.


From: ont | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 29 April 2003 03:51 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On one hand....
quote:
I am not a troll either. (well, maybe once or twice)

but on the other...

quote:
Still I find the left wingers emotionally challanged as per my previous post.

Ever considered, you know, getting out from underneath the bridge you live under? See the world, maybe?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 29 April 2003 03:55 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leftover:
I rarely attack people like you do Andy. If I did as you do I would be banned. Double standard here.


I attack people when they attack first. If you had a legitimate criticism of Moore, I wouldn't have insulted you. But you called him "dumb," and referred to his works as "odious." If you can't understand what the problem is, then you are truly an idiot.

Then you claim to not be a troll and follow up with:

quote:
Still I find the left wingers emotionally challanged as per my previous post.

That is a classic troll statement. Do you even read the shit you write?

[ 29 April 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3712

posted 29 April 2003 03:57 PM      Profile for leftover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My observations about left wingers are not meant to troll. Just many years of observation.
From: ont | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 29 April 2003 04:02 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 29 April 2003 04:04 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Proof positive that observation does not automatically lead to comprehension.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 29 April 2003 04:04 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
My observations about left wingers are not meant to troll. Just many years of observation.

How nice of you to grace us with your presence then, o wise one. Come, let me sit by the fireplace to hear your words of wisdom. Because your views are just so interesting...

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 29 April 2003 04:04 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leftover:
My observations about left wingers are not meant to troll. Just many years of observation.

So if I went to a right wing forum and said, "In my years of observation, I've found that right wingers are greedy, prejudiced, hateful, immature, ignorant lying hypocrites," they wouldn't consider that trolling. Get real.

From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3712

posted 29 April 2003 04:25 PM      Profile for leftover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The levels of insults against me support my obsevations. I have only once made a rude remark towards an individual babbler here. My other remarks were at left-wingers and Moore. i.e. I do not insult individuals, rather the lot of you.
I do this in a type of self defence because of the hyperblic level of personalized attacking.

[ 29 April 2003: Message edited by: leftover ]


From: ont | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 29 April 2003 04:44 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, but you see most right wingers are thin skinned, lack even the most basic analytical skills, are given to shrill bouts of hysteria and can never address an argument without personal attacks made against the opponent. For example, attacking Michael Moore as opposed to the content of his book or film.

Oh, and I am not insulting you at all.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 29 April 2003 04:49 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Am I correct in assuming that no rational argument regarding Bowling for Columbine's status as a documentary are forthcoming?
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 29 April 2003 04:50 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok, so lets bring up the level of the discussion a bit, leftover, since most of us will attack if provoked. My understanding of the movie was that it seeks to discover why the United States is an inherently violent country. In the segment which uses "Wonderful World" to ironic and satiric effect, a by no means exhaustive list of some of the unprovoked acts of American aggression is given. The list is so well-known to most babblers that I won't waste my time reproducing the list of democracies and other types of sovereign government that have been subject to unprovoked attack by the US in this century.

When gun ownership and per capita murder rates are normalized for the US and any other country, the US always comes out on top (excepting perhaps for South Africa or Nigeria).

The US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, yet its crime rate is higher than almost anywhere else.

You don't think this is suprising for a country that is supposed to be "free" and "Christian"?

While Michael Moore offers several more or less convincing reasons why this might be, he doesn't pretend to have it all figured out. Bowling for Columbine is a diagnosis, not a prescription.

Enter into a rational discussion, leftover, and point out any flaws in the general thesis. You can nitpick, sure. As I said in an earlier post, the movie is a polemic, it's propaganda. It's still a documentary and a damn fine one at that, IMO.

If MM is so "dumb", you explain the facts I mention at the beginning of the post, otherwise, you may have to consider that it is NOT Michael Moore who is the stupid one.

Added in edit:

quote:
However, I believe Leftover is grossly mistaking documentary for journalism. They're not synonymous.

You are right. Documentary still has some credibility .

[ 29 April 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
leftover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3712

posted 29 April 2003 05:46 PM      Profile for leftover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My pissed-offedness stems from MM's lack of prescription for curing what he sees. I admit that much of his polemic rings true. Its just ALL negative.
I am guilty of attacking him, sure, and I get trashed for that. But then some of you turn around and attack me, not MY opinions. So let us be consistent. At least no one has yet criticized my spelling.

From: ont | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 29 April 2003 05:54 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
My pissed-offedness stems from MM's lack of prescription for curing what he sees.

I think he might see dumping Bush and company as a step in the right direction!


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 29 April 2003 06:06 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Identifying a problem is the crucial first step towards solving it.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 29 April 2003 06:20 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
..and I wonder how many of Michael Moore's critics would want their doctor to prescribe medication before having diagnosed their condition...
From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 29 April 2003 06:26 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leftover:
I do not insult individuals, rather the lot of you.
I see, insulting a whole group is much better that insulting an individual (which you did anyway, against Michael Moore).

So if someone makes a derogatory comment against blacks, Jews or [fill in racial, national or religous group here], that's okay because he isn't talking about individuals, just "the lot" of them. That makes a lot of sense.

[ 29 April 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3712

posted 29 April 2003 06:29 PM      Profile for leftover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK MM claims to be the Doctor Where is his cure?
From: ont | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 29 April 2003 06:32 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Be aware of the corrosive effects of living in a climate of fear.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 29 April 2003 06:35 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If MM is so "dumb", you explain the facts I mention at the beginning of the post, otherwise, you may have to consider that it is NOT Michael Moore who is the stupid one.

quote:
OK MM claims to be the Doctor Where is his cure?

Quod erat demonstrandum .


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 29 April 2003 10:41 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And where is Moore's cvure for SARS? Well?? We know he has identified the problem. Where is the cure, Michael?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 29 April 2003 11:29 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now back onto topic...

quote:
You don't think this is suprising for a country that is supposed to be "free" and "Christian"?

Maybe it stems from the lack of those things... while Americans are relatively free, one thing is for sure- that it isn't a Christian country. It is a country with many Christians living in it, but obviously something is wrong. I'm not saying that everyone should convert to Christainity, I'm just saying that we should all act like good Christians (whether you choose to accept the mythology or not) and perhaps the would would be a better place.

But even if Moore IS as "dumb" as leftover says, I still don't see any good reason for taking away his oscar.

***Note that when I refer to Christian mythology, that the term "mythology" does not necesarily mean that the religeon is in any way true OR false.

[ 29 April 2003: Message edited by: Gir Draxon ]


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 29 April 2003 11:39 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not saying that everyone should convert to Christainity, I'm just saying that we should all act like good Christians

What exactly is a good Christian? Oh nevermind, this is too funny to bother.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 April 2003 11:49 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe it stems from the lack of those things... while Americans are relatively free, one thing is for sure- that it isn't a Christian country.

Your founding fathers may indeed have said that the USA wasn't actually founded as a "christian nation", but far too many people today act as though it were, both in power and out of power.

Every Congresscritter and Senator except Quakers and Bernie Sanders have probably sworn their oath of office on a Bible; certainly state legislators do as well. Every President has sworn the oath of office on a Bible at least in the 20th century, except for Richard Nixon (he was a Quaker).

Every courtroom in the USA may be prohibited from displaying the ten commandments, but every witness, unless the witness asks in advance, is automatically sworn in on a Bible.

In many ways, big and small, Christian fundamentalists have been attemping to "bleed through" the wall of separation of church and state - and they have been helped along by dint of the original American population being largely white and Christian (as by then I believe they had kicked out most of the Indians and at the time they did not count blacks as citizens).

Even today holidays in Canada and the USA are essentially secularized Christian holidays.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 29 April 2003 11:52 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What exactly is a good Christian? Oh nevermind, this is too funny to bother.


Give up the "right" to bear arms, and turn the other cheek.

yeah, it is kinda funny.

[ 29 April 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 30 April 2003 05:30 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, what would Jesus do, Gir? As I recall, he was a big proponent of giving freely to the poor. Might be something to think about, on a personal and public level.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 30 April 2003 06:10 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
Well, what would Jesus do, Gir? [...]


Yes, but... the greater question -- perhaps more pressing given the nature of the aggressive consumer culture of modern America, of which Bowling For Columbine, and - of course - the questions raised therein, are but a byproduct; is "What would Jesus do, for a Klondike Bar?"


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 April 2003 08:06 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I see, insulting a whole group is much better that insulting an individual (which you did anyway, against Michael Moore).

If we're not allowed to insult public figures anymore on babble, then a lot of people are going to have to sit on their hands when they feel the urge to make ad hominem attacks against Dubya.

I don't really see the big deal, personally. Leftover's first post in this thread was that he thought it was a bad documentary - he gave it a bad review. Of course, he did say that the audiences who took it seriously were stupid - but then, how many times have I seen people on babble say that the people who vote for Dubya were stupid? We don't like generalizations about left-wingers, but he made them after people called his posts "garbage" because he disagreed and expressed his disagreement in terms that the regulars around here use all the time. And how many generalizations have I seen on babble about "right-wingers"? I've made a few myself and I'm not the only one.

A little consistency would be nice. It sucks that people have different viewpoints, but unless you take the high road, you can't expect much sympathy.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 30 April 2003 08:25 AM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
A little consistency would be nice. It sucks that people have different viewpoints, but unless you take the high road, you can't expect much sympathy.

Right wingers have plenty of their own forums to spew their nonsense and hate. But when they come here and start insulting our side without justification, then they can just forget about me being civil. It seems that every week there's another crop of three or four people who pop up here just to be assholes.

It's not just about left-right disagreement. I've given hell to leftist jerks as well. I can handle a good debate that involves actual facts instead of just stereotypes and insults. It's about respect.

I wouldn't go into someone's home and start disrespecting their religion or politics, no matter how much I disagreed with them. Maybe I'd express some disagreement if they raised the topic, but I'd do it with tact and respect. If someone came into my house and started acting like a jerk and making snide comments about my beliefs (as opposed to just debating), I'd tell him to shut up, fuck off and get the hell out. And if he didn't go willingly, I'd physically remove him from the premises. I'm sure they'd do the same to me if the roles were reversed. There's your consistency.

[ 30 April 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 April 2003 08:40 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, but this is a political discussion board, Andy. Political debates happen on political discussion boards. That's the difference between coming here and spewing political opinions and coming to my house and spewing political opinions.

And as I said before, his first post in this thread, the one that people reacted to, was relatively mild, and certainly no more insulting than the things that get said by the regulars when they feel passionately about something. I've met left-wingers who thought Michael Moore's movie was very flawed, and that the audiences who loved it were, for the most part, very uncritical.

[ 30 April 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 30 April 2003 09:21 AM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yeah, but this is a political discussion board, Andy. Political debates happen on political discussion boards.


These trolls don't debate. They make a snide insults, stereotype all leftists and don't back their comments up with any facts. If any of us behaved on non-leftist boards the way they behave here, we'd be banned immediately without any warning. Hell, a lot of non-leftist boards will ban you for expressing different opinions even if you debate respectfully. These trolls should be thankful that they get a grace period on babble.
quote:

And as I said before, his first post in this thread, the one that people reacted to, was relatively mild...


He called Moore audiences "stupid," called Moore "dumb" and his work "odious", stereotyped all leftists as "unhappy, frustrated and emotionally challenged." If someone said that to my face I wouldn't consider that mild, so why should I roll over and play dead when someone insults me from the safety of his computer?

If it seemed like I jumped on Leftover prematurely, it's because I have read some of his posts on other threads too, and they're pretty much the same.

quote:

I've met left-wingers who thought Michael Moore's movie was very flawed, and that the audiences who loved it were, for the most part, very uncritical.


If leftover wanted to actually discuss those flaws he could have, but instead he resorted to playground namecalling. Turnaraound is fair play.

[ 30 April 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 30 April 2003 09:35 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Am I correct in assuming that no rational argument regarding Bowling for Columbine's status as a documentary are forthcoming?

Well, he did interview a number of people in a straightforward manner: the Columbine victims, the wacko brother of the Oklahoma city bombing, some avid militia types in Minnesota (?), Matt Stone, Charleton Heston. A chunk of the film covered the post-Columbine actions of many of the victims' parents. Another chunk covered the action to get K-Mart to remove semi-automatic and fully automatic ammo from their shelves. It had some non-documentary bits thrown in (I'm thinking of the Matt Stone cartoon, specifically), and it presented Michael Moore's personal views about the culture of fear, but I think it has enough of the documentary "formula" (if such a thing exists) to be called a documentary.

Sorry for posting on topic.

Edited to add: I thought you were looking for supporting arguments, not arguments against! Teehee!

[ 30 April 2003: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 April 2003 09:53 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, geez, Sarcasmobri, how do I argue with you when you agree with me?!

Documentary form -- There are a couple of different kinds of doc, and there are a number of different structures and devices you can employ in making one. Most historical documentaries now use at least some level of dramatic recreation, which some might argue aren't strictly aboveboard, because unless you were there, how do you accurately recreate? However, it's a powerful device, it can enhance the visual interest and content of the piece.

I've see this used lots of different ways -- excerpts for an 18th C midwife's journal acted out. (I forget the name of that one, it was American, I beleive, on PBS) Others will use much less, just brief moments of, say, feet marching past, etc, a man running, a crowd, something very brief, generic, but germaine to the story.

In a sense, this is what Moore is doing with the animated bit. He just didn't use real people. And he used satire, which is part of his individual style as a filmmaker. You don't see a Michael Moore film without expecting a level of satire.

So I would say, no, it doesn't step outside the boundaries of documentary form, he just plays with it. Nothing wrong with that.

Edited to add: Most people decry the loss of objectivity in documentary, and some decry the recreation/dramatization device as not "real". But you know, I was in an Allan King workshop (NFB documentarian in the early days, now mostly directs stuff like Road to Avonle, but what they hey, it's a living...) and in those days, you had some serious technical issues to deal with in terms of mobility and being inconspicuous. This seriously impacted their ability to get "spontaneous" stuff, and he readily admits that some of the stuff he is famous for was, to some degree, scripted and staged. Now, he went a fair bit further with that than I was comfortable with, but the fact remains that documentary never was completely pure.

[ 30 April 2003: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 30 April 2003 10:28 AM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On a side note, I think Michelle raises a good point :
quote:
We don't like generalizations about left-wingers, but he made them after people called his posts "garbage" because he disagreed and expressed his disagreement in terms that the regulars around here use all the time. And how many generalizations have I seen on babble about "right-wingers"? I've made a few myself and I'm not the only one.

A little consistency would be nice.


Speaking for myself, I didn't mind that leftover hated the documentary, or even that he wants to take MM's Oscar away, but that he attempted to justify his stance with a lot of bombast and unsupported assertions.

What burns my ass about this style is that it comes almost exclusively from the right-wingers on the board and it's the Right that always accuses the Left of emotionalism and soft-headedness, and having no regard for facts etc, etc...
On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons for questioning Michael Moore's presentation of ideas in Bowling for Columbine.

I don't know how much of this is true, but at least it addresses specific issues in the film.

Though I don't agree, I don't find the linked website offensive.

[ 30 April 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 April 2003 10:38 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sisyphus:

Speaking for myself, I didn't mind that leftover hated the documentary, or even that he wants to take MM's Oscar away, ]


His very first post in this thread:
quote:
Revoke Moore's Oscar? Definitely. His work was not a documentary-it was a low quality satire but the stupid audiences(especially in Europe) took it seariously.

Sounds to me like he want sto take it away and he called the audiences stupid before anyone had said anything at all to him.

We see this a lot. Show up, use a shotgun approach to insults to hit as many people as possible and tehn claim you are a victim when the predicatble retribution begins.

We can call them the self-pity Trolls.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 April 2003 10:54 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't know how much of this is true, but at least it addresses specific issues in the film.

Okay, so after a quick skim, I see that the main thing objected to is editing...

How do you make any film without editing?! Even DW freaking Griffith edited!!!

And, contrary to the article, you cannot edit speech heavily to construct people saying things they didn't say. You can condense it, perhaps reorder it (most people are less coherent speaking than writing) so that it makes more sense in the story arc (yes, docs have a story arc, just as dramas do. They tell a story, too.), but completely deconstructing and making it into something else is nigh on impossible. You need a gap in the words, the speech has to be in the right cadence, or it is obvious that it's fake. Spoken word entails a good deal more than individual words.

What I find interesting is the claim that BFC is not a doc as per the Academy's own rules... But no definition of those rules is published.

To sum it up: The guy is talking out his ass. Liking or disliking the message is not part of the criteria for genre.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 30 April 2003 11:16 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We can call them the self-pity Trolls.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 30 April 2003 11:59 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
How do you make any film without editing?!

Extremely challenging. But not impossible.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 April 2003 12:10 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The thing about a film (especially at 96 minutes! ) done in one shot, is that it has to be extremely carefully constructed and controlled. Very little margin for error, very little flexibility. This is possible for something dramatic, as the film you linked to was, but even more difficult when you are talking about documentary.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 30 April 2003 12:20 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Speaking documentaries - how does something like this new form of pop-culture-entertain-umentary like the Spring Break movie coming out fit into things? The one where they're following around however many students at their first spring break party weekend?

Furthermore - what about "reality" tv? Is this considered a form of serial-documentary? What has to be in place in order to qualify as an actual documentary?


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 30 April 2003 12:25 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
True. this movie was done in one take, too. It's not a documentary either.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 30 April 2003 01:43 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure if Empire is a documentary or not, it sure makes people unhappy...

Would Moore have been able to make Bowling for Columbine without a single edit? Not without alienating all but the most hardcore cineastes. Arguing that editing pollutes the purity of film is an interesting point of view to be sure - those Lumiere Brothers films are captivating, are they not? - but largely irrelevant to someone attempting to put bums in seats.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
cruisedirector
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2849

posted 01 May 2003 04:46 PM      Profile for cruisedirector        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Has Michael Moore responded to these folks who are campaigning against him?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 01 May 2003 05:55 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't call Empire a documentary, I would refer to it as an experimental film. Personally, I don't like Warhol's work on film.

quote:
Would Moore have been able to make Bowling for Columbine without a single edit? Not without alienating all but the most hardcore cineastes. Arguing that editing pollutes the purity of film is an interesting point of view to be sure - those Lumiere Brothers films are captivating, are they not? - but largely irrelevant to someone attempting to put bums in seats.

No, he couldn't have, just in terms of the sheer amount of material. And I think Moore wanted more than just getting bums in seats (although that's a nice thing in itself), I think he was trying to convey a message, and the complete alienation of the mainstream would have been couterproductive.

Anyway, I don't see single take films as necessarily using an alienating technique. If done well, you should barely notice. Like the opening scene in The Age of Innocence, which was a long take... the person I was watching it with hadn't noticed.

And, as captivating as the Lumiere films were (and I agree with you, they are delightful), a lack of editing was not an aesthetic choice -- the technology was limited, and it just hadn't been thought of, yet.

quote:
Speaking documentaries - how does something like this new form of pop-culture-entertain-umentary like the Spring Break movie coming out fit into things?

I'd say it's a documentary, albeit of a sort I wouldn't want to be associated with. Really exploitive, and I'm sure the kids are egged on considerably by the producer and director... Ick.

quote:
Furthermore - what about "reality" tv? Is this considered a form of serial-documentary? What has to be in place in order to qualify as an actual documentary?

In my thinking, you could class it with documentary, or a sub-class of documentary, perhaps. Documentary is, basically, non-fiction, "documents" an event or experience or collection of the above under a theme.

My main objection to reality tv is the quality of the product and the message it usually carries. I think it tends to be exploitive and unethical. That doesn't mean it isn't a documentary form, just that I think it sucks.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 01 May 2003 07:27 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyway, I don't see single take films as necessarily using an alienating technique. If done well, you should barely notice.

This reminds me of the first time I saw "Paris Texas" in a fairly crowded theatre. There is a scene very close to the end of that great film that is an EXTREMELY long single take of an extraordinary exchange between Harry Dean Stanton's character and Nastasia Kinski's. It starts with "Yeah, i know that feeling" and continues for what must be at least 15 glorious minutes of pure dialogue shot in one uninterrupted perversely slow half-circle dolly. The reaction of the audience to the scene was hilarious, myself included. The scene is engrossing and excrutiating at the same time, at around the 5 minute mark people began shifting uneasily in their chair, by the tenth minute some folks were writhing around in their seats, coughing nervously, twitching... jonesing for the sweet relief of an edit that wasn't going to arrive for an eternity. Fantastic.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 01 May 2003 07:37 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hah! Fun to play with the audience a little... But the device was probably used for a good reason.

Have you ever seen any Hungarian New Wave films? I remember one, but can't for the life of me remember the title, where they used very long takes and circular pans. One scene in particular, a confrontation between two men, circling around them both, no break... My gawd, the suspense it built! Beautiful!


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 02 May 2003 11:22 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mephisto is the only Hungarian film I can remember seeing, but I doubt that it qualifies as New Wave. Hell, it may not even be Hungarian.

Indeed the device was used very deliberately, Wim Wenders being the master that he is. If memory serves, a new larger magazine was designed specifically for the scene. If you haven't seen Paris, Texas, run don't walk to your local (preferably Indie) Video Store and rent it. Sam Shepard wrote it, Robby Muller shot it, Wim Wenders directed, it's a classic of American alienation.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 02 May 2003 11:48 AM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's been along time since I've seen Paris,Texas... That film mde me a fan of both Harry Dean stanton and Ry Cooder. My recollection is a wonderful, lonesome, sad movie. That monologue at the end is what the whole previous 3 hours of silences and slow pans of the desert has been building to, no? I remember that the intensity and focus of that scene is such a contrast to what went before that it caused the art-house audience I saw it with to gasp and, when it was over, chatter to dispell the tension... It was like a weird experiment in human bio-psychology. Around the same period I remember seeing a film called Stranger than Paradise that seemed to be a series of single-take static shots. The characters would walk in and out of the frame. I found the effect distracting. As I recall, the main female character was Hungarian.

Maybe I've been irrevocably corrupted by North American film technique, but I don't think I could watch either of those films again, though my memory of Paris, Texas is that it was a masterpiece.

Edited to add: Has anyone seen Aguirre, Wrath of God? I've been tempted, but I hesistate...

[ 02 May 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 02 May 2003 11:54 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mephisto is the only Hungarian film I can remember seeing, but I doubt that it qualifies as New Wave. Hell, it may not even be Hungarian.

Actually, I think it's German. I wouldn't have come across Hungarian New Wave had I not been taking Film Studies classes... Opened worlds for me. And now that I think of it, I yearn to start that MFA I've been threatening to do...

Mephisto was a gorgeous film, all the same, one of my all-time favourites.

Mmmmm, Klaus Maria Brandauer... Not good-looking, but riveting, somehow, all the same.

I just looked at the schedule for the *only* indy film theatre in town, and Russian Ark is playing this month... I hope we can catch it.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 02 May 2003 12:15 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
After Wings of Desire, Aguirre is my very favourite film. Wacky, wonderful, politically searing, brilliant, disturbing, haunting, beautiful, amazing movie. Klaus Kinski is... I don't know what he is, words fail me. Do not hesitate.

Yes. The collective audience exhale at the end of that scene in Paris Texas is quite unique in my experience. Jim Jarmusch worked for Wenders, and Wenders then helped Jarmusch secure funding for Stranger Than Paradise, which was precisely as you have described it. Wenders is clearly an influence on good old Jim. Ever seen Down By Law?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 02 May 2003 01:01 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Being a great Tom Waits fan (both in music and film) I rented Down By Law some fifteen years or so ago. I turned it off about mid-way through, bored stiff. It's of interest to me only in that I hadn't realized, when I saw " Life is Beautiful", that I had seen Roberto Begnini before.
From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 02 May 2003 01:56 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah. Some films just don't translate to the little screen. Video's been a mixed blessing in that regard. In a strange way we now have an absolute control over the films we watch that we used to surrender to the filmakers when we were all sitting in a theatre, and this isn't necessarily the greatest development, IMO.

I noticed this myself when I rented "Taste of Cherry" recently. It's a beautiful, strange Iranian film that definitely takes its own sweet time about coming to the point, and an enigmatic and surprising point it is too, but I simply couldn't wait for it to be over. I know I would've experienced the film completely differently in a theatre, but how often will my desire to see that film line up perfectly with it being programmed at the local art house?

I've never been a fast-forwarder myself, but I can feel that option hovering over every film now made, not to mention the more severe "stop" that you mentioned. In a movie theatre, it takes a whole hell of a lot of badness to get me to give up on what I'm watching and walk out - the Devil's Own is the last movie I can remember walking out on in the theatre - but on video...

2001 - stunningly mind-altering in the theatre, unwatchable on TV. Down By Law might fall into this category, and so might Aguirre, frankly. It isn't the fastest paced film ever made. I've never watched it on video, but I've seen it at least 5 times on the big screen.

BTW, I find DVD's even more disorienting. Now you aren't even constrained to watch the film unspool in any order, you can skitter backwards and forwards all over it instantly, at will. Really destroys the illusion of integrity somehow. I'll never forget the first DVD I watched - it was Before Night Falls - I felt like I was watching myself watching a movie, the whole experience was hypothetical and hallucinatory. I'm a little more accustomed to it now, but not totally.

[ 02 May 2003: Message edited by: ronb ]


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 02 May 2003 03:04 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've never been a fast-forwarder myself, but I can feel that option hovering over every film now made, not to mention the more severe "stop" that you mentioned.

It's funny, but I feel that the FF option does more violence to a film than the "STOP".

The issue of this control that the video-watcher has over the film was exploited in a brilliant and DARKLY (oh SO darkly) humourous segment of Michael Haneke's cerebral, satiric and gut-wrenching "Funny Games".
(I saw this film on video at a friend's house. He had bought the film in the US. I'm not even sure that the film is available in Canada. I have never seen a more disturbing fictional film, though I have seen films where much more violence was shown onscreen.)

The film follows the last few hours in the life of a middle-class family who fall into the hands of sadistic psychopaths at their summer cottage.

At one point, where all seems lost, the wife manages to grab a gun away from one of their tormentors and to gain the upper hand. Using a video remote, the criminals rewind the film's action to a point just before this loss of control
and remove this last whisper of hope from their victims.

I'm not sure I would have preferred Down By Law at the theatre. 2001 on TV is OK for me, though I saw it first at the theatre. The issue of pacing is an important one (re: my comments about being corrupted by American cinema). I have found Ingmar Bergman's films unwatchable because of this, but spaces in the soundtrack don't annoy me per se. I think it's a question of rhythm, rather than pace.

[ 02 May 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
speechpoet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3693

posted 02 May 2003 05:00 PM      Profile for speechpoet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zoot Capri:
One scene in particular, a confrontation between two men, circling around them both, no break... My gawd, the suspense it built! Beautiful!

Well, someone has to throw this into the mix: that sequence at the beginning of The Player where you have a character talking about the extended tracking shot that you're currently watching on the screen.


From: Sunny Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
marcy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3562

posted 04 May 2003 08:18 PM      Profile for marcy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is this factoid relevant to anything? Only one non-Protestant has ever been elected US president!!! That was JFK (1960 - 63). Moore's central point in Bowling ... is that the root of American violence is fear emerging from racism. The "founding" pilgrim-types were rigid, world-fearing and suspicious Puritans. They believed that various forms of public humiliation and torture - mortifying the flesh - were the only hope for sinners of all sorts. The Quakers, whose pacifism and lack of hierarchy were somewhat exceptional, were never very influential. Weld that too-confident religious certainty (and truly scary sadistic leanings) with the structural and systemic racism that legitimized slavery, and you've got a recipe for a disastrous stew of agressive and drek-loaded pop culture, unrepentant glorification of violence (broadly defined) and constant references to God and the USA being on the "same side." Whatever that is. These, and the notion that transforming everything into a commodity is a moral good, are major elements of contemporary, mainstream American society. It's socially immature and retains numerous archaic features, the death penalty, valourization of the military, a curious inability to recognize (its own) jingoism, a pride in physical monuments - such as theme parks and Las Vegas - and a consistent failure to comprehend satire, The Simpsons notwithstanding. Michael Moore's documentaries inform/remind viewers of these - and other - things about his own place, his nation. ...What was that Goddard film about one big long car crash??? Am I making this up - le weekend? Well, where's the next car crash? Not Syria, not Iran, not North Korea, but right here - British Columbia.
From: vancouver | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 05 May 2003 01:39 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Since the website (revoketheoscar.com) doesn't give details when doing a whois, it took some other sniffing around to find out who is behind this stupid campaign.

The webmaster behind it is a fellow named Jim Kenefick. You can find his web page here ...

http://www.kenefick.net/

Here you'll find such politically correct links as his link to the "Stile Project".

Read his blog and you'll see that he's also behind the moorewatch web site ...

http://www.starkthoughts.com/comments.php?id=86_0_1_0_C

Also, look to the left of the page and you'll find this "patriotic AmeriKan" distributes MP3s that are copyrighted and in itself is illegal.

You'll also find this right wing turd involved in this site ...

http://www.right-thoughts.us/index.php?id=P278

... I'm assuming because he's using a PayPal account to try and collect "tip" money. Although he's setup a different PayPal account to try and get money for the revoketheoscar website.

It's kinda nice to put a "face" behind these endeavours by a single looney who masquerades behind a number of domain names. Do a tracert to revokeoscar and a few of his other "sites" and you'll end up at the same IP address ... domain name: marilyn-manson.com

We have to assume he's trying to get some kind of tax write-off because he claims to be a "minister" in the Universal Life Church ...

http://www.kenefick.net/jim/ulc/index.html

In short, don't let these phoney right wing campaigns orchestrated by a loser like Kenefick get you too concerned. Looks like he's just trying to milk the right wing nuts for some PayPal contributions.

Then again, maybe we should all feel sorry for this guy. Here's what he has to say about himself ...

quote:
I suppose this is the brutal honesty portion of our program. I'm having a really bad year, and I've been on 4 different anti-depressants so far. I'm in weekly therapy, I want to rip the head off each person in line in front of me at the grocery store, and I'm pretty sure I'm not worth the digital display I'm currently being viewed on.

... you can find more about his miserable existence here ...

http://www.kenefick.net/jim/me.htm

PS fixed a typo

[ 05 May 2003: Message edited by: rbil ]


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 06 May 2003 11:20 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, I just realized that one of my Predictions for 2003 came true! I'll have to work harder to make my satire even less realistic next year. Here's the excerpt...

quote:
Author and Filmmaker Michael Moore will win the Academy Award for Best Documentary for his film Bowling for Columbine. After considerable political pressure from the NRA and other conservative groups, the Academy will attempt to withdraw the award and give it to another, less controversial nominee. According to a defiant Moore, however, “The only way they’re going to get this Oscar away from me is to pry it from my cold, dead hands.”

From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 May 2003 12:12 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Back to camera effects for half a mo'...

Claude Lelouch sometimes orbits his scenes with the camera. After too much of this, though, one gets a bit dizzy. Lelouche has done this trick in many films, but it is especially effective in the grand finale scene of Les uns et les autres.

[ 07 May 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 27 October 2003 03:05 AM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to Webster's New Lexicon Dictionary;

Documentary Film="A nonfiction film composed of camera images taken exclusively from reality, later cut etc., given a sound track, and treated as an art film."


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 27 October 2003 11:55 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This again? Sweet Baby Judas. Let it rest. Nobody cares man.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 27 October 2003 01:18 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The real threat to Columbine's status came when it was rated "R" by the MPAA. Kids of Columbine age can't easily access a documentary focusing on a subject that directly effects them.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 27 October 2003 02:21 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Nobody cares"?

Obviously-that's why this thread started, that's why 'Revoke the Oscar' websites have appeared, that's why there is /are so many posters on the 'Bowling For Columbine Discussion Board'...

Heh-even the Anti-Bush and Anti-guns agree that Moore has lied, although many try to 'sweep it under the carpet'with this 'Nobody cares' mentality...

"Nobody cares" as long as 'we' get to hear what 'we' WANT to hear-is more like it....

[ 27 October 2003: Message edited by: Denner ]


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 27 October 2003 02:31 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Denner:
...that's why 'Revoke the Oscar' websites have appeared, that's why there is /are so many posters on the 'Bowling For Columbine Discussion Board'...


I thought there was only one 'Revoke the Oscar' website, and I wasn't aware that there's a Bowling for Columbine discussion board.

From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 27 October 2003 03:04 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Question: when one thinks an issue is stale, irrelevant, time-wasting and dumb, is it anti-Babblistic to actually point that out in a post?
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 27 October 2003 03:07 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Answer: I sincerely hope not.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 27 October 2003 04:25 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hinterland-no I don't believe it is-but neither is it 'Anti-babblistic' for someone to come in here 'late', see something that appeared to have been overlooked-and post it...

'Ballistic' may be...

(Last post before arrival of 'Denner' was on May 2003-)"Better late than never". This thread also wasn't 'locked'...say, some of you aren't starting to look 'picky' now, are you?

Andy-there may be only one 'website' but, when Oprah had her discussion board on the Moore 'Bowling' thing going-there were PLENTY of 'revoke the Oscar' poster arguments there...

Are there more than one 'revoke the Oscar' websites? (for Moore)Okay, I don't know-so will concede on that 'li'l ol' point'...(Actually, 'redshift', in an earlier post here, indicated that there were two?)

[ 27 October 2003: Message edited by: Denner ]

[ 27 October 2003: Message edited by: Denner ]


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 27 October 2003 05:19 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry, dude. I was simply trying to save you from embarrassment. By all means. drone on and on about this exceedingly dull topic. Free country, etc. I'm simply pointing out that the only people who ever cared about Moore's "lies" are folks who are incapable of seeing the irony in howling in outrage over Moore's lack of journalistic integrity because Bill O'Reilly has told them about it. But, hell, even most of that crowd has moved on to despising Al Franken these days, except the hardcore NRA wingnut fringe.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 27 October 2003 05:29 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Can someone be arrested for the indiscriminate use of sneer quotes?
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
EarthShadow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3391

posted 27 October 2003 05:40 PM      Profile for EarthShadow        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You wish.
From: somewhere in a circle | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 27 October 2003 07:20 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not familiar with any 'Bill Riley' or 'Al Franken'?

I only know that I don't care much for lies and liars...(if I did-THAT should be "Embarrassing")...if Moore is one of those="Revoke the Oscar" should apply! (see dictionary quote re 'documentery film')

"NRA"? I'm not a member-never was-where'd that 'theory' come from? Where does it leave you now?

No apology needed Ron, my only 'embarrassment' would come from being too late to see this when it was first mentioned, but, like they say (and I said; "Better late than never" (with my 'dictionary quote')

"Sneer quotes"-I believe 'Babble' does have a 'punishment' for them, it's this=[razz]
(incidentally, I'm NOT 'razzing' anybody here-I'm letting you know it's available-in case you missed it....


[ 27 October 2003: Message edited by: Denner ]


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca