During the bailouts, many people were angered over what the government was doing with taxpayers dollars. Most people, including Economic professor William K. Black (same man who pointed the finger at Wall Street during the savings and loans scandal) thought that this maneuver by the banks was a way to pay off their already large bloated salaries before they retired.
Michael Moore, the champion of liberal conspiracies and socialist of America’s predicaments draws on Black’s argument and details the recent scandal that Americans are forced to be in. Unfortunately because Moore instills himself into his documentaries, most people think he is more of a sell-out than the humanitarian that he believes he is. I think that he points out great arguments, but when he attacks the system itself by himself, it tends to be a little flawed and disgruntled.
What Moore does is bring out arguments that should be worth talking about. Moore starts out his movie by talking about how we got into the housing crisis mess that we are currently in. During the movie he focuses on the travesties that have befallen on the people who have families. Because they are falling apart because of money, and have no idea where they are going to end up living, you find yourself choked up with emotion. Capturing these plights makes the movie powerful and it’s what Moore does that is the most powerful and moving of all his documentaries. What Moore does in this film that he hasn’t done in others is interview some of America’s top officials talking about how the banks swindled the American people. This made the film more credible and more interesting. It’s a powerful argument and one that Moore is unafraid to take on because of the reputation that he has.
The one thing that I didn’t like about the movie was that Moore believes that we have to instill democracy to save our future. He builds up all this doom and gloom and then tries to present a way out like your usual typical Hollywood ending and it doesn’t work. Yay for what Moore points out, boo for his Hollywood ending… It almost ruined the entire movie for me, but my interest in the subject kept it interesting… At least in my point of view.
At first he was obsessed with Hollywood and the movies that came out of Hollywood, and then Peter saw David Lynch's 'Eraserhead.' The mind blowing surreal movie changed his perception on movies forever, and he hounded for more. Because of the dark tone that David Lynch incorporates in his films, Peter generally seeks out films that are identical. His favorite films tend to be politically based, dark and surreal, and have a sense of realism or poetry in them. His favorite genre is horror, but he does enjoy a comedy (more dark than light) now and again. There are times, however, that he does enjoy a little entertainment. 
Loading ...
I thought there was too much self-promoting, and I agree with you on the Hollywood ending, although that did seem to move many people in the audience.
I agree with jon… but guys, it’s the typical Michael Moore movie… it’s all about him… I mean since Bowling for Columbine he hasn’t made a focused and balanced documentaries… Have you seen Slacker Uprising? or how Michael Moore, almost got John Kerry elected… it was like wow… way to have an inflated ego…
I think the Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room… is a much better documentary about capitalism…
I agree with you frenchie. Moore’s documentary was more of a blame game… which I’m alright with in the current predicament we are in.
I couldn’t disagree more with your statement… I think the blame game is not a good thing when you do something supposed to be journalism… I mean it comes to the question… what are documentaries? journalism or propaganda? Or are they simply opinion?
That’s what I’m wondering those days… like you know how much I don’t like Farenheit 911… I think it’s scattered, and just playing the blame game… but maybe it’s only Michael Moore’s opinion… and that’s why I prefer Ian Curtis’ Power of Nightmares, because there is not an opinion formulated just plain facts and that’s why I like in documentaries…
An Inconvenient Truth, was Al Gore presenting his Truth, and there are many inacurracies in it, and to some extend it was the typical green propaganda…
What I really hate about Michael Moore’s docmentaries and a slew of others lately, is the good-doer egomaniac, who tells you how he is right and he is saving the world… like I saw that documentary Sharkwater… I don’t think the ocean is good enough for the director’s ego… It’s just ridiculus, to me it’s drowning whatever messages, you are trying to deliver.
Try watching Hoop Dreams. Great documentary, they just let things happen instead of giving an insight. But could we consider Wikipedia the ultimate resource with news these days? More authors than just one.
However, even journalism is scattered these days. One of the reasons why I didn’t want to go into it.
You are so perfect to work for Fox News… Because we all know wikipedia is the truth… remember when the Sopranos ended and all the fans edited the creator’s page and trashed him… or when they announced Sinbad, the comic was dead, and he had to edit his own page…
Wikipedia is something that user can edit… that means anyone can edit anything… News is something that is supposed to be verified…
There has been too many scandals with Wikipedia, like Tecmo and EA having employees edit their pages to remove anything talking about their lawsuits about work conditions. Or the Sony critic that went on every single Sony/Columbia movie page and gave them a rave review.
It’s not the number of authors that make something news… it’s the factual nature of it.
Lefrenchie, Michael Moore is a commentator, not a journalist. There is a pretty big difference. Being a commentator, and a film maker at that, Moore has a much broader license than a beat reporter. He is free to present his opinion, and even to manipulate the facts if necessary. He doesn’t hide his liberal bias, he flaunts it, and this is really his strongest point. He is both a hero and a scoundrel, and few people have no opinion of him. Check the user ratings for Capitalism on IMDb. Mostly “10s” and “1s”, with little in between.
Keep in mind, documentaries have been more focused on entertainment since Salesman in 1968. Moore has a message, an entertaining format and an audience to reach with it. Hopefully, people will confirm and build on Moore’s claims, or possibly refute them, but there’s no denying the basic message. Corporations are controlling every aspect of our economy and our political system, and even our daily lives.
Lefrenchie, Michael Moore is a commentator, not a journalist. There is a pretty big difference. Being a commentator, and a film maker at that, Moore has a much broader license than a beat reporter. He is free to present his opinion, and even to manipulate the facts if necessary. He doesn’t hide his liberal bias, he flaunts it, and this is really his strongest point. He is both a hero and a scoundrel, and few people have no opinion of him. Check the user ratings for ‘Capitalism’ on IMDb. Mostly “10s” and “1s”, with little in between.
Keep in mind, documentaries have been more focused on entertainment since ‘Salesman’ in 1968. Moore has a message, an entertaining format and an audience to reach with it. Hopefully, people will confirm and build on Moore’s claims, or possibly refute them, but there’s no denying the basic message. Corporations are controlling every aspect of our economy and our political system, and even our daily lives.
I agree with you on the points you’re making about more… I understand he is a commentator, what I have a problem with, is when commentators or filmmakers are promoting their film as factual… when they are not… for that matter, Michael Moore is no better than Glenn Beck… They present themselves as almost investigation journalists when they are simply entertainers…
The IMDB scores and the pro/anti Michael Moore are really things I don’t rely on to make my opinion on documentaries… Impartial people is very rare and we have more fanboys than anything else.
It’s all black and white for people these days… Sad that the moderate people aren’t more vocal…
My point on IMDb was that people love, or love to hate, Michael Moore. Few people are indifferent. He raises very valid points – Our system is corrupted by corporate titans who control every aspect of our economy and our political system. Who do you think has written the health care “reform” legislation on its way up for a vote in Congress?
How he presents his case might be controversial, but it rallies many progressives and leads conservatives not to discredit his contentions, but to attack Moore personally. You have yet to name any particular datum in the movie that you dispute. Can you name a few?
That re-inforce my statement… people nowadays are just fanboys… they love or hate things, they don’t have any fair and balanced vision of things…
Every single movies on imdb has a gazillion 0 and 10 and barely nothing in the middle, when it comes to political oriented films the middle is non existent.
The end doesn’t justify the means, and just because you agree with his overall message doesn’t mean that you need to forgive him when he lies.
The whole big corporations are destroying America is a cute message, but who are Walmart prime consumers?
People are part of the system and are happily living in it… They all are shocked by the excess of capitalism, but when it comes to the core of it… people are just jealous, if they were in a position of being benefactors from the system they would not critisize it.
People love their brands.
Politicians who were criticizing the subprimes were considered looneys and communists by the population 10 years ago, those people were defending the system that got them houses they couldn’t afford, but now that they lost their homes they criticize it too…
Looking at the problem of Capitalism through a narrow prism and finding one scapegoat is just pointless and inacurate in nature…
His case has nothing controversial, quite the contrary it’s the standard rethoric that has been opposed to Capitalism for decade. Personally I think that no society based on an economical system can claim to be civilized.
Michael Moore takes cases that serve his cause, and make them as the general rule… From Farenheit 9/11 to Capitalism… Is Michael Moore’s Slacker Uprising tour the main person responsible for young people going to vote for John Kerry in 04?… Do all Canadians take an extra medical insurance when they go to America for a day? Is everything absolutely free in the French healthcare system?
I agree with Michael Moore on most of the overall points of his movies, but those points sustain themselves, they don’t need a manipulation of the truth to make them stronger, it actually weakens the message.
The Daily Show is a pefect example of what Edutainment is… Jon Stewart always remind the audience he is just a comedian, and whenever he makes a point he just states facts, and show the absurdity of them, he doesn’t manipulate the truth.
Michael Moore and Fox News have the same ways of making a point… wether it’s making comment and not reporting… both of them are doing partisan hackery, and cannot be trusted.
I agree with Jon. Moore is the only one that is really attackign this issue. Jon Stewart is great, don’t get me wrong, but he has a tendency to delve away from some serious matter. Pointing fingers at wrongdoers can be a good thing sometimes. Humor just keeps it underground and out of the spotlight. I believe that the republicans have figured this one out and have used it to slander president Clinton, and now Obama. On the other side, Wikipedia does have the links attached at the bottom of the screen which make it more potent and a great resource to check the validation of the argument that the editors make. Just saying that it does have a handiness to it and it does present a great case!
What’s your deal with Wikipedia? I mean I like Wikipedia, and use it quite often, but from there to say it’s the ultimate ressource in the world there is such a gap… Several blogs are used are references… Perez Hilton is used as a reference in over 200 articles, even my blog is quoted in about 100 articles, and all it is, is a gathering of information I collected on the internet that have several sources… but no one mentioned the sources I used… I triple checked my sources… but did the guys who used my word double checked it or just read it once and put it there?
Moore is the only one attacking the issue… Does that mean that no matter how trunkated his arguments are we need to defend him???
I’m feeling like there is a difference here… I’m defending the Truth… you are defending a political statement, and are ok with saying anything as long as it’s going on your side of the argument…
To me, Roger & Me was a way better Michael Moore documentary about capitalism, because it was not pretending to be a factual thing…
Jon Stewart doesn’t stick on serious subject… wow shocking for a comedian…
Well Wikipedia is a very common resource and easy to use. It’s also an easy way to locate things because of the links at the bottom, esp. when you want to search for a particular subject. (since google is a little more confusing to look for identical things related to that particular subject)… Forums are also a good source too, as people on forums can locate things and shed light on them to the public. Also I take back Michael Moore as the only one being the one to attack the issue at hand. Although he has a hugeee rep. (although like you I hated fareinheit 9/11 because it was pointless and drab) and like Edward R. Murrow (another serious attacker in the news room) he can use his rep. to shed light on subjects (although like I said before, Moore isn’t a journalist, but a socialist… would it be different if he was a journalist?). (a side note: William K. Black, who’s featured in the movie Capitalism, has a an interview with Bill Moyers, one of the last “attacking liberal journalists of our time”)
I think it’s harder for movies to be considered ‘truth’ because a movie is considered a private entity. But would you take the credibility factor of let’s say Mcnamara in the “Fog of War” over Moore’s own credibility as a filmmaker? As a person… because Moore recieved so much negativity after farenheit (remember it was the highest grossing documentary of all time), we may never know.
As for humor and serious subject matters… we need both. In my case, I think serious matter sheds more light on subjects and that’s just my opinion. It’s blunt and sticks to the case. These days, however, metaphors are used quite frequently to get people’s point across (I think it’s because people are very PC on subjects and don’t want to offend anyone and also most journalists abide by a system because they want to keep their jobs (and sometimes their articles are shoved aside because it tends to slander things, which offends more people)). And I agree that comedians are a great resource for shedding the light on subjects, but like I said before, humor can only go so far. Frost/Nixon is an excellent film btw. lol.
There seems to be two dividing truths here. Republicans use serious matter to get things across (I think they learned from earlier newscasts as was the case with Nixon and the JFK debate… we all know how Nixon learned to manipulate the newscasts) and Democrats use humor more often. (this is of course in my own opinion.)
To seek the truth… you have to do it yourself. There are always going to be guiding principles along the way, but ultimately the decision lies with you. There are always going to be credible witnesses to everything (I think that’s why we never solved JFK), but the truth is up to you. In a system that recieves news so fast because of the implimentation of the internet, does that mean it’s the truth? News companies and gov’t’s tend to side with the people, and they flow with the people. A great example is with Vietnam. In my mind, if there wasn’t negative press on the war, we probably would have won it. (esp. if there wasn’t any press at all). What about WW2? Was it bigger because we were attacked and threatened? Hitler’s rise as the most hated man in history is a great example of this. There are tons of people that are worse than Hitler, but because we see it constantly in our movies and our culture… Using the name Hitler is like using a swear word.
And lastly, I like Stewart, and I like his point of view, I just wish that others like Moore (although I said again, he does point out some credibility issues) would get the same type of treatment as Stewart (maybe it’s how politics work these days). Anyways… Done defending Moore and done arguing this subject… lol Peace Out!
I hate this common assumption, that Democrats are good and funny and Republicans are evil and not funny… Reducing those two groups as stereotypes is what is destroying this country… Abe Lincoln was a Republican sucka!
You’re right, Glenn Beck is frickin’ hilarious. I can see a comparison between him and Michael Moore, since both have a sort of populist following and use humor in their message, even to the point of self parody/degradation. There is a huge difference, though, and I don’t think this is “just an opinion.” Beck, like O’Reily and most of the Fox News people are characters reading off of a script. When Bush II was pres, there were people in the whitehouse who would have weekly meetings to basically dictate what Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative media would tell the public. These people are puppets of the sytem. Fox News and conservative talk radio shows are heavily funded by a vast network of right-wing interests — the people behind Limbaugh literally give the show away to small radio stations, which is why it has such a large distribution. They get the funding because they support a sort of anarcho-capitolism that favors the big-wigs, while left-wing radio stations like air america had to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps and prove they’re worth. I find people like Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity particularly abhorrent because they are wolves in sheep’s clothing — defenders of a diseased status quo while appearing to be “rogues” fighting against the system. You dont’ have to agree with Michael Moore’s views to recognize that he isn’t just a shrill for the Democratic party — he has criticized president Clinton just as harshly as he did Bush. Whether for good or ill he is a force to be reckoned with, and though he doesn’t have the ethics or accuracy of, say, Frontline or Bill Moyers, people actually pay attention to him.
We agree on that part… my biggest beef with Michael Moore and the Glenn Beck crowd is more the way they never remind people that they are not truthful… I dunno if you remember last year, when a study came out showing that a lot of the hardcore right wing nuts didn’t understand that Colbert was a parody, they thought he was the same as O’Reily and Hannity… I dunno if the problem I have is really Michael Moore, or people who believe in him blindly… you know like the rethoric “don’t critisize Michael Moore because he is attacking the subject” is the same as the one says don’t attack Beck or O’Reilly because they are saying what the liberal media is hiding… where’s the difference those rethorics? It reminded me of a click of MSNBC where they ask people on the street if Fox News is biased and the girl on the street says yes, then they ask her if MSNBC is biased and she says yes but that’s ok cause she agrees with them…
I agree with some of the things that the right-wingers complain about; the bailout of wallstreet was ridiculous. But these guys are going way beyond just being the voice of opposition, they are accusing the pres of being some sort of fascist dictator. Yeah, I know that left wing protestors did the same thing, no one gave them a fricking Cable TV Show! I still say there’s a huge difference between what’s happening now and what happened a few years ago when the GOP was running the show. Hundreds of millions protested Bush’s illegal wars and the media ignored it. The teabagging protests were promoted and organized completely by Fox News people. When Bush was president, if he made a public appearance there would be snipers on the rooftops to keep the people in line; now it’s the people bringing guns to the President’s appearances.
My main issue is, it’s not a question of Conservative vs. Liberal, the only debate shown is between Extreme Right Wingers and Conservative Democrats. Obama and McCain are the most liberal thing we can get, and despite the public’s support of leaning to the left, both of those people seem to love caving in to right-wing pressure. Though his tactics may be extreme, compared to Fox News, there’s nothing extreme about Michael Moore’s views, unless you think the politics of Canadia and Europe are “Extreme.”
Here’s a fun article from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/27/celebrity-halloween-masks-business-media-costumes_land.html
As I said before I don’t think Michael Moore is extreme or controversial… I just think in the art of deception he is there with the Fox News guys…
Canada hasn’t any real politic… They criticize Americans for electing George Bush, but Steven Harper is the Canadian W…
If you want to talk extreme, well some people on Fox News are really trying to freak people out when give results of European elections… I mean 16% for Socialists, 5% for Communists, and 10% in Sweden for Pirates…
I don’t know exactly what this picture is of, but it makes me lol nonetheless.
damnit, we can’t embed images here?
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/4872/sarkozy.gif
are you 420? I don’t get whatcha talking about bro… what pic?
You so can embed pics… i do it all the time… are u using the right tag?
I swear I used the standard tag.
Weird, still doesn’t work…