Posts by northerncrane4

It’s a well-known fact that there are more film festivals in the world than there are days in a year.

I suppose somewhere in that mess, "Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind" was bound to pick up an award.

Nicholas Hill5 said:I’ll say it again—you remind me more and more of Moore...🙂

We're all just high-society socialists living in million-dollar mansions—same difference.

L. NimoyInvadesMetal~ said:But you have to admit—some things in Fahrenheit 9/11 aren't illogical or untrue (even if that’s not really the point here, just the film itself).

That's exactly the issue. Once you see them twist blatant facts three separate times—even in spots that aren't central to the plot—you start questioning everything else. At least, I do.

Nicholas Hill5 said:Then he proudly showed off his skills to his mom, dad, brothers, sisters, uncles, and aunts. 😛

The difference—my characters are fictional. 🙂

Nicholas Hill5 said:Nice analogy—but you’re starting to pick up some of Moore's traits. And I'm not talking about his weight...😉

And? Sweat? 😛

Nicholas Hill5 said:I'm almost entirely with you on this. There’s just one catch—if it turns out that what the director is trying to force on us is actually the truth, then we might have to admit that this kind of manipulation was justified. Or even worse—that it was the only way to show Americans the reality of the situation.

I’m feeling particularly descriptive this morning. So:

Chubby little Mike received a 5,000-piece puzzle for his birthday. The box featured a picture of George W. Bush and osama bin Laden sharing a tender, wet kiss. Now, Mike set to work on the puzzle. But being the anxious kid he is—desperate to show his mom how smart he is—he didn't bother checking if the pieces actually fit. He just shoved them together as fast as possible. By the end, he had some glaring gaps, so he grabbed a puzzle of two little white kittens from his last birthday and used those pieces to plug the holes. He proudly showed off his "skill" to his parents, siblings, aunts, and uncles. They knew what the picture was supposed to look like because they saw the box, so they praised him anyway—mostly because it's easier than dealing with his outbursts. It's not easy for him; his awkward looks make him a target for kids at school, which just fuels his anxiety and makes him lash out at home. But in this scenario, everyone sits down at the table, happy and satisfied, to eat cake.

Richard Hernandez13 said:I can't stand Moore and *Fahrenheit 9/11*—his brand of filmmaking is cheap, his arguments are forced, and half the facts are just straight-up fabrications. He’s nothing more than a populist using low blows; a total opportunist.

I said exactly what I meant to say.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Don't even try to excuse him with those "external" excuses—you know, the whole "he's just being subjective" bit, or claiming that documentaries have some inherent obligation to be objective.

He isn't being subjective—he just is. Biased..

Richard Hernandez13 said:You claim that letting a shot "fade to silence" gives you a chance to wrap things up—but who actually directed that shot? Who decided where the camera should point? The director. And why was that specific angle chosen, or why was that cut placed exactly there? It all comes down to their own subjective judgment.
Ultimately—the documentary filmmaker is basically telling us to take a look. His. It’s all a matter of perception—everything is subjective.
Moore is just a bit louder—and definitely unpolished—than most.

Let me try putting it this way:
As a documentary filmmaker, you develop this intuition—you sense that something significant is about to unfold in a specific spot. So, you show up, roll the camera, and wait. Most of the time? Nothing happens. But then—don't hold your breath—this one guy walks down the street right toward a group of cops. He approaches them and says to one of the officers, "Hey, Mike, I just absolutely wrecked my nine-year-old sister." The officers just stare at him like, "Get lost, moron." But he won't stop. He keeps going: "She was spinning like a cement mixer!" Mike tells him, "Cut it out," but the guy isn't finished: "The kid's a beast—three times wasn't enough, she wanted more." That’s when Mike hits him with a baton, the rest of the squad jumps in, and they cuff him on the spot.

Since you're playing the part of Michael Moore making a documentary on police brutality—you’d probably just cut right to a clip of a baton strike.

My apologies for the vulgarity—I tried to explain this politely, but it just wasn't working.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Come on, don't overreact—it’s not like he personally showed up at your doorstep to sit on you.

No, it’s not him—it's my neighbor, who watched that movie and felt the sudden urge to do exactly that. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Richard Hernandez13 said:"The best way to respond to a movie is to make your own"—that crazy Frenchman said it, and he was right. Some people actually listened to him.

First off—you were clearly trying to take a jab at me with that comment—but since we’re all just using handles here, you missed the mark entirely.
And besides—that argument is pure sophistry. Making a movie isn't the same thing as writing a book. Filmmaking costs money—real money—and distribution costs several times that much. If you want proof, just ask Michael Moore and the massive machine he runs.

Nicholas Hill5 said:Hey there.😎

P.S.
Finally starting to see the light... (And yes, I was right.)

Are you sure about that?
By the way—you’ve had an unread DM sitting in your inbox for days.

tatiana said:That’s exactly why I prefer Madman—it doesn't lecture you with its own agenda.

Oh, here we go with the gems. Claiming unemployment is higher in Canada just because more people are registered? That’s what we call biased data manipulation.

There’s far too little discussion regarding antidepressant culture. It’s almost as if nobody wants to take aim at Big Pharma? Apparently, it’s much easier to bash a grocery chain or some aging actor instead.

In "Columbine," the most powerful moment is that cop in downtown LA who pretends to hear something just so he can slip away after being asked an awkward question by some guy. Now *that* is a documentary.

Richard Hernandez13 said:So what defines a "real" documentary then? Is it just raw footage from a security camera?

It’s hard to say. It helps when you don't notice those jump cuts—the ones designed to cut someone off mid-sentence just so the second half says something completely different. It helps when the voiceover doesn't feel so forced, trying too hard to explain every single image on screen. It helps when a filmmaker actually stays quiet—letting a shot breathe in silence so you have a chance to reach your own conclusions. It makes me think of Werner Herzog’s documentary "Lessons in Darkness" about Desert Storm.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Man, you’re basically accusing me of being dishonest. 🙄 Just like Harmon in his prime.

😕 Where on earth did you get that from? I’m accusing him of being over the top—he's constantly forcing his opinions on everyone. It’s like watching Obrad Kosovac in his prime.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Moore is a damn provocateur—a film essayist, not a journalist. That much should be obvious to any sane viewer.

Then let her write a script about a corrupt U.S. President colluding with global terrorists—and try to debate the point through a feature film. This movie had its agenda long before production even started. It’s impossible that a director would suddenly realize they were wrong mid-shoot and decide to incorporate those corrections into the final cut.

Richard Hernandez13 said:If some people choose to take everything they see on screen at face value—mistaking someone else's opinion for their own—that’s their business. It has nothing to do with our actual point here: that documentary films don't inherently need to be objective to earn their title. Documentaries—too often just fluff..

We’re discussing one specific movie here—the whole point of this thread. This film wasn't designed to uncover the truth; its only goal was to ruthlessly cater to its target audience. It caters to people who show up knowing exactly what they’re going to get—and exactly what will be served to them. In that regard, Michael Moor is nothing more than a war profiteer, right on par with George W. Bush.

kozz said:You're generalizing.

Generalizing what? That people are subjective? That documentary audiences expect objectivity—that they don't want lies or data being massaged to look like facts? That documentaries are prone to manipulation?

kozz said:Just because the word "document" is in the genre title doesn't mean it carries a strict definition. A documentary simply presents real events using the recording capabilities of film—the camera—which is what sets it apart from a feature film.
Whether a director takes those presented or spoken events (which should be factual "bases") to form their own opinions and express them in the film is a perfectly legitimate process—it doesn't break any rules about "what a documentary should be"—just as the viewer has a legitimate right to agree or disagree with those views.

No. Once you use directorial commentary to "explain" to the audience what they are actually seeing, it stops being a documentary and becomes a pamphlet. "Fahrenheit 9/11" isn't a documentary; it's a political pamphlet.

kozz said:As an example of what I mean, take the scene where Bush reads a children's book to kids nearly seven minutes after the plane hit the second tower—those are the facts. He did it because he was either:

a) an incompetent who didn't know what to do because he lacked the leadership skills required for a President of the United States (if you believe Moore)
b) trying to "keep things under control" and not lose his cool or upset the children (if you listen to the Bush "spin doctors")

Whether you accept a) or b) comes down to a personal assessment of what was seen.

It isn't a matter of personal assessment if the director spends the whole time hammering home that "a" is the correct answer.
Let's not kid ourselves. You're talking about some imaginary, ideal viewer capable of filtering truth from fiction. This director doesn't care about that viewer at all. He cares about making money by telling the masses exactly what they want to hear. The director knows there is a massive segment of the American and global population that (rightfully so, though that's beside the point here) truly hates George W. Bush, and they'll happily pay for a movie ticket just to watch him get torn apart. The filmmaker is speaking from a position of someone who, regardless of the film, hates George Bush. Am I really the only one seeing the conflict of interest here?

kozz said:I agree that people mostly believe what they see, and visual media is the best tool for "galvanizing" the masses—after all, as they say, you trust your own eyes more than anything else.

Though this film relies much more heavily on what the masses hear.

Richard Hernandez13 said:There’s nothing stating that documentaries "ideally ought to be objective." That applies to journalists and historians.
A film is a different beast entirely. You become subjective the second you turn that camera on.

Of course they "ideally ought to be objective." Subjectivity doesn't just start when you hit record—it starts when you pick up a pen or sit down at a keyboard. You're subjective because you're human. Ideally, documentaries should be objective. The very root of the word is "document." Audiences expect documentaries to be objective. And that's precisely why they're so easy to manipulate—something Michael Moore knows perfectly well and exploits without shame.

cosmicmarlin67 said:I guess I really am "as dumb as they come."

Yeah. Case closed.

urbanhawk28 said:I’m just wondering when someone will finally have the guts to make an investigative documentary about one of our many scandalous local issues.

Please—we already have our own bearded, overweight guy tackling "controversial topics" with that exact same level of objectivity.

Jeremy Flores10 said:Another terrifying thing I realized while watching "Bowling for Columbine"—it's all just media campaigns designed to scare people. Honestly, they just throw random nonsense at us to trigger fear—terrorists lurking in toilets or some killer apple riding a broomstick. It’s ridiculous. How does the public swallow this stuff? It's like they aren't even thinking. A total failure on the part of American journalists!

But Moore uses a completely different tactic.

C2V3N said:So his old man was a janitor?! 😁

His dad was a doctor from New York City.

Tyler Price3 said:Isn't she from Ukraine?

She is—but her father isn't.

Tyler Price3 said:He already had the idea for The Fifth Element back when he was sixteen.

More likely he just watched the animated "Heavy Metal" back then.

Tyler Price3 said:Look, I get it—he was basically a pushover, and it was all about Milla Jovovich this and Milla Jovovich that. She was his muse, so obviously he stuck her in that mediocre flick.

Maybe Srpče just wanted to play Joan of Arc—or maybe she was just looking to push some boundaries.

casualotter21 said:I haven't seen much from Brian De Palma—but "Snake Eyes," starring Nicolas Cage, Gary Sinise, and Carl Gugino, was excellent. I just watched this 1980 film of his for the first time, and honestly? I was totally blown away.
👍 👍

De Palma knows what he's doing—especially when he actually puts in the effort.