>"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."

Merit? No. The quality of the Academy Awards has been notoriously low in terms of recognizing achievement in the realm of filmmaking, including documentary filmmaking. He award was a token guesture from the rightwing influences who wish to keep a stronger grip on the population while still being able to claim the 'freedoms of democracy'. As in, "Look... Michael Moore made a (crappy) film which is highly critical of the United States and its government, ergo there IS a democracy at work here." If the Oscars were about artistic achievement then Dark Days would have won, or City of God, or Baraka perhaps. The Academy Awards are nothing but starry-eyed basking in the vaccuous glamor of hollywood and special effects and celebrity. For you to think otherwise is naive. Lets face facts about Moore's 'winning documentary' here and just admit that it DOES make the leftwing look feeble, both in its inept thesis, overarching moral posture, and limited factual content. Many right-wingers were smiling as the Moore took to the stage to publicly embarras himself during the acceptance speech.

>"Yes, these guys are clearly out of his league, but are they >doing as much to catalyze thought among the masses?"

I will grant you the sheer numbers, however not in ignorance of how views are influenced by the way an individual presents them. I would say that Coppola's Apocalypse Now had a greater influence then BFC did in its approach artistically and intellectually in its dealing with the theme of human recklessness during the Vietnam war, and throughout history overall. However it could be argued that yes they are. That the intelligensia responds more acutely to well-reasoned and thorough arguments, and that by and large those who are in a position to influence public policy are individuals of this sort.

>"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."

I think that Moore, in the position he is in and as shown by his incisive dealings on the nike issue, had a responsibility to step up to the plate (like a man) and actually suss out the conclusions of his work in a more direct way. Its that same kind of open ended wishy-washy posturing that is the reason for the lack of leftwing strength. Be risky, be intelligent, be willing to actually DRAW a conclusion.

As always, Manson was on point in his commentary. He wont be remembered as the prophetic forebearer of a new-era consciousness because he is based on social-critique, but you cant deny how straight-forward and to the point he is in his dealings. Great stuff from him.

>'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?

Chomsky makes farfetched claims but supports them with book-length references in turn. You cannot take issue with that because he offers you every opportunity to follow up and learn for yourself. Moore doesnt do that at all, bearly makes a coherent argument at all.

How can I be upset with him? Because I have standards which I feel are a requisite for any serious argument. They are references, logical coherence, clarity, decisiveness, tact. Moore exhibits none of these things with his faux-intellectual scribbles, which are really just moral poses that he strikes without TELLING us why or HOW or WHAT is equal to what, and how he feels things interrelate. I chide him for being weak and ineffectual. His 'greatness' or ability didn't cause the movie to reach such a wide audience, the public's interest in anything that is contrarian or extreme did. If Moore had made a film about cross-dressing feltchers that played to general audiences it would have been just as successful. Thats because it really had nothing to do with Moore. But its a shame that he actually had something to do with it, because in the end it turned out poorly as a result.