>First of all it is possible to provide some coherence to the
>events and to relate the geopolitical implications of US
>policy upon the mindstate of fearful individuals. All the
>film admits is that it is *incapable* of providing that
>coherence to the argument. What, just because the film told
>you so you thought it was true? Secondly, nobody thus far
>(myself included) has referenced the idea that the issues
>dealt with are understandable in absolute immutable terms.
>The A/B analogy is a bit ridiculous seeing as how I have
>been arguing for a greater complexity and depth to Moores
>thesis this entire time. The kind of depth that addresses a
>complex interrelation of trends (foreign/domestic,
>economic/social, and geographic) leading to the current
>situation in America. Moore doesnt attempt this, or even
>attempt a simple crystallization for the viewers to digest,
>he just throws his flabby arms up into the air and concedes
>defeat. He is a coward for that reason - for not even
>attempting a complex understanding in the first place.

Obviously we disagree here. I'm not believing because the film told me to. I just don't think there is a conclusive answer to the questions Moore poses. Sure, he could have presented a hypothesis, but that's all it would be. Is there a concrete answer? Maybe, maybe not, but I haven't seen a convincing one yet. I think you're criticizing Moore for not making the film you wanted to see. He's taking an approach you didn't like, and that's the problem. I don't think the content is the real issue here. And let's not forget, Moore knows his audience. They are not the people who frequent Okayactivist. They are average people, who will quickly change the channel the minute he starts using words like geopolitical. Maybe that's an upsetting thought, but as a film maker, it's something he has to take into consideration.



>My critiques are apt. Each and every one of them. You enjoy
>the nasal monotone delivery of Moore's voiceovers? The man's
>voice isn't fit for a cable access show, and his choice of
>reading the voiceovers was clearly a vanity play. Still
>awful no matter how you flip it. And perfectly timed
>editing? Is that the litmus test for a good documentary
>film? Perfectly timed editing is the LEAST I expect from any
>production. Its how it was edited, spliced with cheery 50's
>vomitus and Moore wheezing nasally, and how the piece
>presented its ideas through the editing. All of it was
>trash.

This is all a matter of opinion. I totally disagree about everything regarding the voiceovers. I thought they were well done, and carried a certain sense of concern about the issues. Obviously it's something we won't agree on, since it's all subjective. As for the editing, I think you're underestimating its importance. But I'll save that, it's not really relevant to the discussion.

>If there is any reason for the film getting acclaim it is
>simply because people are SETTLING for Moore because of a
>nicely timed historical co-incidence. Nobody in their right
>mind would consider this film worthy above its historically
>contingent political context.

I think the film got acclaim because it was well done, nothing more. If it was really as poorly done as you thought, it would not have been so popular among critics(whether you hate them or not, they do have expertise on film making).


>Do you live in Canada? The portrayal of Canada was a farce
>for a number of reasons. Firstly because of the locations
>that Moore choose. Sarnia - a city in the boonies with a low
>crime rate, which seems to suit Moores thesis about Canada
>well even if it is completely fallacious. Then Windsor, also
>a low-key urban metropolis in Canada. Its handy for him to
>use Windsor as an example because its right across from
>Detroit so it gives the impression that the mean differences
>are not geographically but culturally defined. They're not,
>especially to the extent that Moore says they are.

I do live in Canada, Ottawa to be exact. I would hardly describe Windsor as an urban metropolis. Let's be realistic here. Windsor is the butt of jokes here in Canada. It is seen as dirty and unappealing. However, it doesn't even compare with Detroit, in terms of violence and crime. The point was to show how different two cities of relatively equal size are so different, when they're only separated by a river, and artificial border. You don't think the differences are culturally defined? How do you explain the monstrous difference in gun deaths?

Lastly,
>and most importantly, he goes to Toronto because Toronto is
>a big Canadian city with the highest crime rate. BUT - and
>this is crucial to how Moore manipulates his version of the
>truth to suit his hypothesis on Canada - he goes to a bougie
>neighborhood to knock on peoples doors, probably the Annex,
>or the Esplanade, which doesnt speak for the majority of
>Torontonians in terms of the locking door issue.

He didn't go to an upscale neighborhood, he went to a middle class neighborhood. The same middle class neighborhood that in the United States that would have a big fence and 5 deadbolts on the door. I lived around Hamilton for a long time, and most people there didn't lock their doors either. I know our door was almost always open. To me, this depiction was totally reflective of how things were for me. It's just a different mentality here, all you need to do is ask someone who has lived in both countries.


Secondly,
>he interviews people in middle-upper class neighborhoods
>with little racial diversity, in order to suit his thesis.
>He visited a 'ghetto' - didn't cite the name, it looks like
>some place on Finch in the north end of the city, but he
>DIDNT go knocking on doors there or interview people there.

They showed that ghetto because in most Canadian cities, that's the extent of a ghetto. Don't get me wrong, I don't suggest there is no poverty here, but nothing on the level of a New York or Chicago ghetto. Maybe there are worse ghettos here in Canada than the one Moore depicted, but not many, and I think that was the point.


>Apart from the upper class neighborhoods people in Toronto
>generally do lock their doors, do take steps to protect
>their own safety, and also do commit violent acts against
>one another (a highschool gangwar just killed 1 17yearold
>teenager here after he was stabbed in the gut admist a
>throng of people carrying bats and chains and other
>weapons). It happened, funnily enough, near the 'ghetto'
>which Moore placidly strolls through at 2pm in the
>afternoon.

Again, middle class neighborhoods also practice the unlocked door policy, I've seen it myself. Of course their are acts of violence, the film didn't say violence was non-existant. Of course people have security systems, locks, etc. That's not the point. The point was that there wasn't violence on a scale anywhere near that of what happens in the US. I think you've misinterpreted a lot of what the film said about Canada.