| stof said: @ Onyxmeth. What exactly has been flat out wrong in his movies before? I tried asking this before and the best I got were links to critics who just disagreed with his political opinions. But having another view doesn't mean someones wrong, it means you disagree. As for the name. I'm not sure if it's just unfortunate for the way it will make people think it has a totally different subject matter, or it it was a deliberate move to whittle those people out. Sort of a "oh, you think he's actually opposed to the entire Capital world system? you don't really get it and I'm not going to discuss it with you" kind of thing. It's probably the former. |
So do you pick the ground of "flat-out wrong" for any particular reason?
Would you similarly claim that he attempts to give a "fair and accurate" view of the events he depicts? Or would you argue that this is not important and that it would be unreasonable to expect him to given what he is doing?
You seem to genuinely think his movies reflect reality....so it stands to reason that you also think he is fair and accurate, right? I certainly get that impression when you describe his films as "informative".
Of course it's obvious the point of this post is to change the scope of the discussion a bit, but if you want to call something informative I think it is reasonable that it not be misleading in its key details and that it be representative of the full facts without omissions and overstated positions (within reason obviously, a documentary can't always be factually perfect).
I don't watch Moore's movies so I don't know anything off the top of my head I can point to, I'm just asking the question generally. But to me if the furthest you will go in his defense is that he avoids outright lies then I think you make the case against him pretty well all by yourself. So I'm just curious if you will go the extra step in endorsing his films? Lets say I was interested in watching his new film, what can I expect? Are his movies informative enough that I could watch them and not find them littered with key premises that are either presented through misleading narrative, missing vital relevant information, and/or misrepresent facts in some deliberate way?
Or maybe you really don't think his movies are "informative" and that was just a poor choice of words? I don't know really, but I hope you can fill me in. I'm really, truly, curious to see if you think the notion that his films are intellectually honest is defensible and then if you think they are whether or not you can actually defend them against those who have seen them and disagree.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
