"Always the message, never the messenger" ~ moi
When Moore makes movies, he's a film maker. Whatever content he chooses to put in his film is totally up to him. He never hides his agenda. He puts the information out there and we, the audience, use our critical analysis and accept it based on our own knowledge and experience.
Some people wouldn't go see Moore's films because they refuse to put money in his pocket for his cause (whatever the heck that means). I think it's accurate to assume that these people have been watching all the great indie and foreign films as supposed to some slasher/violent or some low standard Hollywood type of movies that don't offer any value.
“Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11” are excellent movies that deliver important messages. You don't have to be a liberal or a conservative to go see them because I know many conservatives who have seen Moore's films, you just have to be an audience who appreciates good films and are willing to be informed.
5 comments:
So was Farenheit 9/11 an "important" message or Michael Moore's "important" message?
See matters of importance are also matters of opinion. Careful, your message could be flawed...
Steve, thanks for dropping by. In my humble "opinion" Fahrenheit 9/11 is an important film of our generation. It's important because it's one of the few pieces out there that attempted to record one of the most significant events in the US in the non-news format. I've heard that there are some other "documentaries" on the 9/11 event that are better made than Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11". I'll look it up a little bit later and will post it here.
Speaking from a movie fan point of view, "Fahrenheit 9/11" isn't even as good a film as "Bowling for Columbine" but its message affects broader group of people. "Bowling for Columbine" main focus is on the gun and violence in the US.
Ok Steve, here's one I found regarding the 9/11 related work. It's a documentary called "Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & Selling the American Empire" Here's a snippet from Roger Ebert....
"Traditional-style investigative documentary about the neo-conservative influence on the Bush administration's responses to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, how effective those tactics have been, and how the "blowback" from them has affected the world. Covers some of the same ground as Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," but with a more serious attention to detail. Interviewees include: former high-ranking military and intelligence personnel, Scott Ritter, Jody Williams, Daniel Ellsberg, Mark Crispin Miller, William Hartung, Kevin Danaher, Chalmers Gohnson, Benjamin Barber, Noam Chomsky."
Hi Tawan;
I have to agree with you regarding Michael Moore's films. You do not have to agree or disagree with him entirely and he is very up front about his agenda so that can certainly be considered while watching. There are always things I like and dislike about every film I see. Even with Moore's extremely evident bias I think his film should and did force us to look at the Bush administration and ask important questions. Often throughout history people have not asked important questions about their government's actions until it was too late to change the direction taken. I find the Patriot Act highly offensive and am frightened by the fact that the current administration is altering the rights guaranteed to all citizens under the constitution. Very scarey indeed!
Elizabeth
Elizabeth, thanks for a well put comment. You said it a lot better than I could and I agree with your assessment about looking at how the Bush Administration operates and asking important questions.
Post a Comment