Here's a movie that alot of people are rapidly becoming unsure of what to do with. Is the Bush administration whacked? Yes. Is Michael Moore a pompous prick? Yes. Is the current state of the world beyond the digestion of any human being? Yes. Are these subjects so large and complex that it would take years to figure out even if everyone involved just stopped what they werte doing and waited for the judgement call, just like a disputed play in the game of football? Yes. So what do we take out of a movie that clames to have all the answers? Depends on who you are. I have some problems with this movie, largely its double-talk. Moore is not trying to make an expose, or sort out the truth of the past four years as he's just trying to convince people to not vote for Bush in November.
In general, my qualms with this movie, and its double-talk, stem from Moore's style of film making. He's a big fan of presenting information in a way where people will draw false conclusions, and covering his own tracks with the "I never said it meant that" line. We, as people, take information in in a largely sequential manner, then sort it out later based on things like pattern recognition and past experience. We sort out random divergant topics from each other by their lack of relationship. For example, I say "I'm going to the store. It's raining outside." Our minds will take those two pieces of information, process them sequentially, then realize that they're not really connected ideas. Or we'll get confused and wonder why the rain would make someone want to go to the store. Or I say "I like the taste of watermelon. I'm going to the store." You'll likely assume I'm on my way out to get some watermelon. If I come back without watermelon, you'll wonder what I was talking about. Here's the catch: I've done nothing to expressly admit a relationship between watermelon and the store, aside from juxtaposing those two ideas. I have not bound the two clauses together with a "because." We tend to fill that in on our own. Moore uses this in a visual sense. He places ideas and video clips next to each other, related or not, specifically because they will create a certain picture. For example, Moore makes a comment about Bush's priorities and competancy, then places next to that home video shots of Bush on the ranch sharing a story with his friends and family about the dogs chasing an armadillo. Some people see these clips and think "Wow, Bush doesn't care about being president" and others are like "what does that have to do with anything?"
Aside from the anachronistic timelines and manufactured information flow, he also cites some bizzar references. My personal favorite for "what does this have to do with anything" is when Moore crashes bridge night at the local community centre and interviews an eighty year old lady. I do recognize the value of the indivindual opinion, but the woman is not exactly privy to information that would shed more light on the situation than Fox News.
Lastly, at least as far as I'm going to mention of Moore's filmmaking policy, is his addiction to wandering the streets of Flint Michigan as if his home town is the nexus point for all bad things. This is indicative of one of Moore's biggest motives: he wants to be the star of the show. In my mind there was very little in the movie that was actually about uncovering the truth of the past four years, or of making sense of reality, regardless of wether or not we like it, and alot of Michal Moore "interviewing" himself (presenting the answers he would give to the questions he wants people to ask him.) He wants people to flock to his opinions and vote his way.
That said, jsut because Michael Moore is heavily biased to the point of nonsense, that doesn't mean his points are foundationless. He brings up topics that need to be discussed, that our civilization will have to find the answers to if it is to live with its past. it's unfortunate that he doesn't bring any answers to the table aside from name calling and slander. I think the greatest indication of his reputation was displayed when he tried to get congressmen to enlist their children. Most refused to talk to him. Is this because of a guilty conscience, or is it because they know that being interviwed by Moore means being placed in the worst light possible? Funny, congress was his martyr at the beginning of the movie, now they're his kicking toy.
Total: 94
