> I don't think the
>>content is the real issue here.
>
>Well the content is the issue, as I have been stressing over
>and over. You can say that its not the issue but I've made
>my case quite clearly as to why it IS the issue.

What I was trying to say was that your complaints don't seem based as much on the content as on his techniques. Maybe I'm misreading you, but that's how it seemed. I haven't read the rest of the post in-depth, just scanned it. But you didn't respond to my point about the content depth. Do you really think this film would have had much of an impact if Moore went as deep as you would prefer. Like I said, you start tossing around words like geopolitical, and the average guy changes the channel to see what's on ESPN.



>Underestimating its importance? I am stressing its
>importance in terms of Moore's overall presentation. I am
>taking issue with the actual STYLE of the editing itself.
>You used the term 'perfectly timed' which, although I might
>have mistook your meaning, is only a weak indicator of a
>well-edited film.

I don't think it's a weak indicator at all. It is crucial to the film. Editing is the crux of the presentation. If you don't like his voice, that's your opinion. Obviously most don't share it, since the film did so well. It's not really worth debating though, because the aspects you object to are completely subjective.


>I've already responded to this argument in the thread.
>Critics are notoriously cheap and easy to come by,
>especially in American newsmedia. And again, I dont think
>anyone praised the documentary itself, more the political
>relation it bore to a shitty prez in office and a lousy term
>and that is, as I said, only historically contingent. There
>is nothing good about the actual documentary itself, nothing
>that makes it stand out.

This is a cop out. Critics dislike films just as often as they praise them. Whether you agree with their decisions is another matter. I read over some reviews and almost all of them comment immediately on how "hilarious" or "sorrowful" the film was. These are comments that reflect the presentation of the film, not simply its subject.

And additionaly, as I also
>mentioned, Moore is taking credit for a long history of
>intellectual dissent in a very empty-handed way with the
>film. So there is no room to give credit at all in this
>case.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

>Actually he did go to an upscale neighborhood. Rent is
>upwards of 1500 a month in the Esplanade for a 1 bedroom.
>Same with the Annex. It looks a bit downtrodden but it is
>definitely upscale, which again, suits Moore's deceptive
>hypothesis to a tee.

In a comparative neighborhood in the US, do you think those doors would be unlocked?

>You are citing Hamilton as an example? That doesnt really
>count. Any decentralized area of sprawl will always
>experience less crime. But most importantly, you are
>obsfucating in the same way that Moore is. If Canada is
>really as he portrayed it in the film then why wasn't he in
>Regent Park knocking on peoples doors?

Because Regent Park is not reflective of the average Canadian city. It's the exception, not the rule. And Hamilton is hardly decentralized. This is not Mississauga. There is a very big downtown core, surrounded by suburbs. Hamilton or Windsor is far more representative of the average Canadian city than Regent Park would be.


>Ever been to New York? Any project development with a
>parkette looks the same at 2pm in the afternoon. Have him go
>to Jane/Finch at 10pm and see if he can draw the same
>conclusions.

Please. Compare the worst ghetto in Canada to the worst in America, and it's not even close.


>So let me get this straight. Moore's point about the
>difference between the amount of violence in the US and in
>Canada is proven by him knocking on doors in a upperclass
>suburb of Toronto, and by filming a ghetto parkette at 2 in
>the afternoon? Dont you see how assinine that is? Further
>proof that this film is utterly weak.


No, you've missed the point here. The purpose of the scene was not to show the difference in the amount of violence. The purpose was to show the difference in culture and mentality between Americans and Canadians. Canadians don't live under this same culture of fear is what Moore is arguing. Obviously, this is debatable, but I think his portrayal of Canada still stands.