Ray did not say that Michael Moore's films are not documentaries. Michael Moore advocates for America's poor, unemployed, laid off, disenfranchised, exploited and downtrodden. He uses ambush tactics and paints a one sided world view to make his point. This offends many as it holds an unrecogisable mirror up that challenges people's self view and view of America. This is a directors perogative as it is a writers. Historical events are always distorted in films and books. that is not a valid reason to not read a book or watch a film in my view. Watching a film of a Socialist by a socialist may open your eyes or confirm your convictions or simply entertain. I enjoyed the extraction sequence and action in Act of Valour even if the cheesy acting, jingoism and flag waving and overt propaganda overshadowed an average production.
Sent from my iPad On 19/04/2012, at 5:45 AM, Nick Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > You're right, they are not documentaries, as he distorts everything > without hesitation and ignores anything which clashes with his > motives. Moore is so bad he would probably falsify the truth even it > did fit his traitorous socialist agenda (which of course it never > will). > > At least Oliver Stone is trying (usually) to tell a story for > entertainment. I still don't like his gross distortions of historical > events though. Was JFK good? I refused to go see a movie by a > socialist about a socialist, so I never saw it. Platoon was good. > You hear so many different perspectives on the war by various people, > depending on if they were here or in country, etc. One of our CAD > guys here was there, but had a pretty good experience compared to a > lot of others. > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Raymond E. Feist > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Apr 18, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Nick Andrews wrote: >> >>> Just like Michael Moore trying to make a documentary? Or Oliver >>> Stone? Except Oliver Stone has made a few good movies. >> >> >> Moore's films are only documentaries in one sense, he's documenting stuff he >> wants to show the audience. He's an advocacy film maker, an unapologetic >> one, and often people mistake "documentary" for "objective." They usually >> aren't. If someone does a documentary on starvation in Africa, it's hardly >> "objective," but that doesn't make it a bad documentary. What Moore does >> that pisses people off so much is show things in a very nasty light for some >> people and gloss over things about other people that should be noted. With >> Moore and some other documentary film makers like Spike Lee for example, the >> slant is so obvious some people call their films "docu-ganda" or >> "shockumentary" or "exploitation documentary." The only real question is >> simply "did they do a good job presenting their point of view?" More's hit >> and miss. >> >> Anyway, Oliver Stone has always had a political point-of-view. Even if JFK >> has almost zero basis historically, it's still a pretty compelling movie. >> Wall Street, Platoon, Salvador, and Born on the Forth of July were >> compelling film making. Alexander was flawed but interesting, as was Money >> Never Sleeps and Any Given Sunday. >> >> Best, R.E.F. >> ---- >> www.crydee.com >> >> Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by >> stupidity. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Nick A > > "You know what I wish? I wish that all the scum of the world had but > a single throat, and I had my hands about it..." Rorschach, 1975 > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin, > Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 > > "Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names > the streets after them." Bill Vaughan > > "The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." Plato > >
