2995, RE: I thought it was a great ...|
Posted by keithdawg, Fri Nov-07-03 01:22 PM
>What moore does is touch on (with kid-gloves) the
>interrelation of these things.
Okay, perhaps, the American populace requires 'kid-gloved' approaches to these issues. He is in fact reaching the public and causing them to look at issues which they’d typically have no interest in. You may chide him all you want, but he has reached a broader audience then any of the intellectuals/activists mentioned below. Sure, he didn’t make the Citizen Kane of documentaries, but really, he obviously is not the complete cinematic farce you condemn him as, for the Academy gave him an Oscar, which in one of the few artistic awards around that carries actual merit.
>He doesn't pose poignant
>questions, he makes empty-handed guestures which appropriate
>the more rigorous discipline espoused by individuals like
>Chomsky, Said, Herman, Zinn, and others.
Yes, these guys are clearly out of his league, but are they doing as much to catalyze thought among the masses?
>He is a leftie
>everyman who leeches the substance of their arguments and
>then tosses it into a film (as mentioned, a very poorly done
>film). Giving credit to him for the substance of the film is
>in ignorance of a great history of intellectual dissent.
Who the hell said he was a novice in intellectual dissent? Sure, I'd love to see Chomsky make an accessible film that the public eats up, but he hasn't (Manufacturing Consent was obviously the superior film, but has had little influence on the population).
>bearly even understands dissent, as evidenced in his
>ridiculously weak dialogue with those interviewed ("why is
>this so", asks Moore? "I dont know." Moore replies, "I dont
>know either" etc.) and his waffling stance overall, which is
>predicated on his fear of actually SAYING or MAKING tight
>logical correlations between trends.
I see where your coming from here, but I think he is trying to leave an opening for the audience to reach their own conclusions. I personally thought Marilyn Manson did an excellent job of breaking down the correlations.
>Lefties need to quit dick riding this man simply because he
>is a leftie. His material sucks and his creativity is nil
>(note the cheesy fifties archetype appropriated wholesale
>which he feebly attempts to pass off as satire). What we
>learn from him is how dangerous a feeble mind can be to the
>cause of the leftwing. Serious intellectuals only need laugh
>at the incompleteness of nearly everything he says or
>produces. Sentiment does not garner respect, and thats
>something that Moore needs to learn.
'Serious intellectuals'? Moore may be extremist, but he is no more extreme than the intellectuals you champion. I've read many chomsky claims that are much more farfetched than the arguments implied in Bowling for Columbine.
Either way, you have conceded that Moore is presenting intellectual leftism that has been done bofore. You do support the intellectuals you say he's leaching off of, so how can you be so upset with him, even if he is merely a conduit to get pre-existing intellectual leftism to the masses?
"You fasten all the triggers,
For the others to fire,
Then you sit back and watch,
As the death count gets higher"-Bob Dylan
"Maybe you'll be president,
But know right from wrong,
Or in the flood,
You'll build an Ark,
And sail us to the moon"-Thom Yorke
"I'm in heaven trying to figure out which stack they're going to stuff us atheists into,
When Peter and his monkey laugh and i laugh with them,
I'm not sure what at,
They point and say we'll keep you in the back polishing halos, baking manna and gas"-Modest Mouse