Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=2959&mesg_id=2983
Posted by signified, Tue Nov-11-03 04:05 PM
> - That's your opinion. Moore has an academy award,
>widespread crticial acclaim, awards from every major film
>festival and the highest grossing doc of all time to prove
>You don't get all of that from a really bad film.

Critical acclaim? Nobody can reasonably assert that there is any 'criticism' that exists in a serious manner in the US Newsmedia. Dont simply dismiss this as chomskean ranting, I am serious. The critical acclaim of the US Newsmedia is as cheap and easy to secure as a Haliburton oil deal.

> - He never tried to answer why it happened, he didn't have
>an answer. The whole point of the film was there is no clear
>answer and it's probably a whole range of issues that he
>addressed in the film. Gus Van Sant came to the same
>conclusion in his new film about it, Elephant, there is no
>straight answer for an insane act like that.

I wasn't speaking about Moore attempting some convoluted psychobabble about the Columbine killers (which he did actually, when he talked about the munitions plant employees and how 'daddy goes to work and builds missiles, how is this any different' *cringe*). The entire topic of the columbine killings seemed ancillary to the greater issue of gun violence, to me.

However what I was talking about was his treatment of the Foreign Policy retrospective, the links between availability and death, the implication of the U.S. on a global scale (apart from the Canada part, which got a double *CRINGE* for its cornball portrayal). He should have ATTEMPTED to connect the dots, because his incoherent thesis was weak and it proved him to be impotent in his capabilities.

>Explain that one again. Republicans let a bad film win the
>academy award so that Democracts would look bad? Exactly how
>did Bush and Cheney infiltrate the academy awards to pull
>this one off? And since so many people obviously love the
>movie, more than any other documentary ever made, how is it
>making anyone look bad?

Its making them look bad because the Right Wing tends to seek critical proofs whereas the left tends to waffle and strike a moral pose. The reason it is damaging, and I have explained it thoroughly above so I wont get way into it again, is because it gives the Right the freedom to claim that there is a *critical reproach* in this 'democracy'. But they only allowed it because it was so poorly done and unconvincing. They dont speak about Chomsky or Said on the news because that is a REAL threat to the minds of those watching and learning, but they can speak about Moore until the cows come home because he sucks and he typefies everything that is wrong with the leftwing today.