Guest F14CRAZY Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Post deleted by F14CRAZY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_barra Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Michael More got his fifteen minutes of fame and is never gong to let us forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawja Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 It's been a bit more than 15 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF1 Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 And let's not forget that <span style="font-style: italic">Farenheit 911</span> is the highest-grossing documentary ever made. Obviously, a lot of people saw it -- and liked it.<span style="font-weight: bold">-- ALF</span> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1 Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Post deleted by CHAS1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest F14CRAZY Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 I don't wish to mix in politics, terrorism, gun control, any other Michael Moore films, etc. Roger and Me is about Flint and GM and doesn't really have any politics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89REATTAJIM Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Think it's a shame that you have to run a disclaimer on your post. Will try to see the movie. I enjoy seeing places that I am familiar with. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawja Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Roger and Me is about Flint and GM and doesn't really have any politics</div></div>Perhaps you should watch it again then. The whole point Mr. Moore was trying to make was that he felt GM wasn't practicing good corporate citizenship by shuttering all the plants in Flint and moving production to low-wage countries. The film illustrated the effects of those decisions on the people that for generations had devoted their lives to the company and the destruction that it created in the social fabric of that benighted city as it struggled ineffectually to recover.The casual disregard of the executive class who made those decisions was amply demonstrated as well.Alf: You forgot to mention Academy Award winner, and a best-selling author, not to mention saving a man's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest F14CRAZY Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 I said that because I didn't want a debate relating to democrats, republicans, liberals, September 11th, etc. It's about GM and Flint.I think it was more about economics that politics. There wasn't any intervention by the government and it was a free enterprise thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest F14CRAZY Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 A Riviera and a Lesabre billboard were also shown.Graffiti was being made against "import" car brands. Too bad that the import brands are moving into the US while GM moves out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jibby Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I saw <span style="font-style: italic">Farenheit 911</span>, but I didn't like it... nor did I dislike it... I just didn't have an opinion. I don't know whether there was any particular reason for that nonchalance. Most likely, it's because I had already known some of it, and wasn't surprised, by the rest of it. As for Buick City and/or Flint, Michigan... I've never been there, so I can't really say much, excepting, that my ignorance on the matter, would probably be the reason, why I don't care to see that movie.But it's refreshing to know, that the populace, has an interest in the American Motor Vehicle. Whether GM decides to outsource, or not, doesn't concern me, at the moment, if it will save the company from going under... but I do feel that it will be necessary to come back to Flint, when the profits from such a foreign endeavor, will allow it to happen. That, coupled with some good leadership decisions, will allow for a good company. Otherwise, I <span style="font-style: italic">will</span> have some of the same disgust, that some of you have, with the outsourcing thingy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reatta Man Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Be careful of ANY film designed to manipulate your opinion. These are NOT documentaries. Producers will often try to make the public think their manipulation film is actually a documentary, when it IS NOT. A true documentary DOCUMENTS what happened in an event or sequence of events, with NO editorial opinion expressed. I've produced many of these for the Air Force, government, and non-profit agencies, and I can tell you that true documentary producers, writers and directors go to tremendous lengths to keep opinions out of the final product. Let me tell you some of the ways you can spot a psuedo-documentary and how a producer or director will interject visual or verbal information designed to evoke an emotion or change your opinion:1. WEATHER -- In "Roger and Me" Michael Moore would show the 'oppressed peoples' in snow or cold weather doing something difficult, but the 'rich elite' would be shown at a springtime party or social gathering in bright colors, enjoying themselves among other people taking leisure, or they would be shown in a wood-clad warm office in a suit and tie, as if they never had to deal with poor weather. Did you ever wonder how he could go from a winter scene to a spring scene in an instant, when Michigan weather would require these events to be shot months apart? A true documentary would follow a logical timeline, not jump around to manipulate the viewers' emotions. 2. SIMULATIONS SHOT TO LOOK LIKE NEWS -- One of Michael Moore's tricks (and other producers like him, such as Oliver Stone) is to use a free-moving camera to look as if it was shot hand-held by an amateur actually showing a staged event to give the impression that the event was 'caught live' or made to look as if the subjects didn't know they were being filmed or taped. They will also interject other elements, such as making the tape or film look grainy, such as the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assasination. Believe me, I can take any piece of tape or film and make it look grainy, old, slightly out-of-focus, change it from color to B&W, and do 100 other things to make it look authentic, or originally shot by an on-the-scene amateur. With digital editing, you can also take things out of a film, or put things in that were never there, and 99.99% of the public would never know it. 3. NARRATION -- Be careful of emotionally-charged words being read by a narrator. One person can be a 'dedicated supporter' while his opponent can be a 'radical religious zealot.' Words mean things, and they can change emotions when used over just the right scene or event. Michael Moore has never shot a true documentary in his life. I'm not trying to express a political or social opinion here--just let people know that they are often being manipulated without knowing it. It's one thing when advertisers do this to try to get you to buy Tums vs. Rolaids or Toyota vs. Buick, but when they are trying to rewrite history or change social or national policy by making a fake documentary, that is something else altogether. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest F14CRAZY Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Agreed. Nevertheless, GM pretty much left Flint which really wasn't good for the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jibby Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Yeah well, big business sucks... that's why we live in a Capitalistic Dictatorship, that pretends it's a Democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reatta Man Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Better than living in a Socialist state that pretends its a capitalistic democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jibby Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 True, I suppose. I guess it's all about how you look at it, and how the label sounds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manikmekanik Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 ....and are disillusioned by his misguided ragings of dissention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_barra Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 Actually, the USA is a Republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jibby Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 This is beyond the scope of this thread, but I wonder if it legally states, anywhere, exactly <span style="font-style: italic">what</span> the country is... you know, regarding this whole thing. You know, beyond the Pledge of Allegiance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest F14CRAZY Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 The other day my government teacher said that the US economy is between socialist and capitalist. He made the point that though there's not tons of government control, the government has over 200 parts in a pizza (FDA, health department...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now