Are any of you fans of his documentaries? I have only seen two of them (Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me) so I don't really know much about him. Though I thought they were excellent. Makes me want to go out and document the life on Ft. Myers Beach. It would make a really good documentary but theres that whole getting jumped/ gear getting stolen/ police harrassing me thing (I live in a shady town). Anyways just curious if anyone else here likes his films.

I don't agree with a lot of things he says but he does bring up some very interesting points and thought provoking information.

He may twist facts a bit, but as long as you take his stuff with a grain of salt and agree that they're just his opinions, his movies are very enjoyable. Hilarious, too!

I wouldn't call them documentaries. More like propaganda, but he satisfies the first rule of making a film: engagement. I was about to use the word "entertainment" as Moore's films are entertaining, but I think "engagement" is the best word.

You can still do it, just get the clearances first and you shouldn't have (m)any problems.

Moore has managed to cut himself a little niche. He also shows that he knows how and where to market himself. So be careful when you copy or adapt his style, because you may find it there is only room for Moore.

Don't worry about whether Moore's films are "documentary" or not. In Bowling, he presented himself as a curious citizen who followed his train of thought wherever it led him. It didn't try to be objective at all, he was very plain about that. Moore is about dialogue, not exact science. Also, he doesn't own the game, that of concerned citizens exploring the world around them through the medium of film/moving pictures. If you are interested in something, and wish to explore it, documenting your feelings/findings/experiences along the way, with DV, or writing, or whatever, go for it, Dustin, absolutely.

However you look at it HE made fun of people who use rifles for sport or that it's a part of their life. Most of them would not watch his movie knowing this the populace of America would see this and most being from the city would think “Hey! Look at those nuts giving a rifle away at a bank!” Yeah it looks rather weird matter of fact ironic in a way, YET! We don’t live there so we should not judge them or compare our lives to them.

To show his one-sided views, you heard him ask why there are so many more incidents involving guns in the US even though Canada has a very high ownership also. His implication, I believe, is getting rid of the guns would reduce this. But looking at it from the other side you might wonder if it would since Canada does not have that problem.

I bring that up to show the two sides. I DO NOT want to get into the gun issue.

No, it was a legit question.

The statistics he showed in the film about not only the death by shooting rate in Candana were correct but so were the ones for the rest of the other countries.

It's a damn interesting question why in other countries where gun ownership is just about as high as in the US there aren't as many deaths by them.

I don't think for a second he was saying that getting rid of guns would solve that problem--- but if the US had as low a death by gun rate as canada it wouldn't be an issue.

When you have the numbers right in front of you and they are so different it really does make you wonder and ask why from a sociology point of view.

Bob, he actually does go forward from that question when he brings up the fact that Canadian gun ownership is as high or higher than in the U.S. He also shows that he was a gun owner and was brought up as a shooter. So he does say that it isn't gun ownership. After this he goes onto the rant about American culture.

People have to see the film to see what we are talking about.

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Loh : Bob, he actually does go forward from that question when he brings up the fact that Canadian gun ownership is as high or higher than in the U.S. He also shows that he was a gun owner and was brought up as a shooter. So he does say that it isn't gun ownership. After this he goes onto the rant about American culture.

People have to see the film to see what we are talking about. -->>>

Yes exactly. There is a breaking point in the film when he comes to a conclusion that its not the gun ownerships in our country, but instead, the culture and the way we live, and the way the press teaches us to live.

POV on his intended message aside, I think that if you have a story to tell, tell it. If you live in a shady part of town where you are afraid your gear will get lifted, get cheap gear.

Can you get maybe an old camcorder at a pawn shop. Hi-8? Something small and unobtrusive...Maybe VHS? The cameras are bigger but cheaper. The image quality may be low, but if the story you want to tell is gritty and run down, use that.

To avoid the cops, get a buddy to post look out. It works for the scum that sell drugs, it'll work for you. If stopped, lie. Tell them you are just taking home movies. Be nice, be polite, carry id. Do what the cop tells you, till he's gone. Then finish your business.

Just get a good story. That's more important than video quality. Make the story and the hardware match.

One of the best things you can ever do as an indie filmmaker of any type, is make friends with at least one police officer. Do it anyway you can, and do any favors you need to in order to earn that friendship. Even if it just means being a friendly face and saying hi to the one that you see on occasion. Work your way in!

It will help you deal with permitting problems, and will help keep you out of trouble, and will keep you out of the line of sight of these well-meaning enforcers of the law.

They just need to make sure you're not up to no good on their watch, and if you're cool with them on a personal level, you are golden.

I found a solution. I have a few friends who were body builders. They will follow me around when I decide to shoot the video.

I didn't see "Bowling For Columbine," but I loved his first movie and his series that he had on tv for awhile.

However,
I'm troubled that he is twisting facts, and basically being dishonest about things in his film "Farenheit 911." It smacks of a political agenda, as did his Cannes award (dont get me started on the french right now). He's become a spin doctor- as bad or worse than the ones he critisizes. Its a bummer to me, becausee I sure liked his sense of humor--before.

J Patnaude :>(

Sorry, folks: borrowed response from the aborted Fahrenheit 9/11 thread...

Unfortunately we will no longer hear people's opinions about Michael Moore films. Why? Because every time Michael Moore is discussed on this board, it brings out the worst in people. The discussion inevitably turns into a shoving match between those members who support Moore's message and those who oppose it.

Such polarization accomplishes only one thing: it drives a wedge into our community, splitting it apart. It really is best if we don't know each other's political leanings; if we stick to only technical discussions, then we can stay friends.

I would much rather take the "censorship" rap and suffer the associated consequences of locking this thread, than watch community members argue pointlessly with each other over sensitive political issues.

The most radical right-winger is not going to change the mind of the staunchest liberal, and vice versa. It does not matter how much you support Michael Moore or how much you hate him... there is always someone from the opposing viewpoint who feels stronger about it than you do. Arguing about Michael Moore on this message board will not convert anyone over to your side, or change anyone's opinion. It'll simply escalate hurtful feelings to the point of causing people to leave this community. Just like the topics of sex and religion, politics is a deeply personal thing which always rubs some people the wrong way, no matter how well-intended the initial post is. It's just like throwing a match on gasoline.


Discussing Michael Moore here always invokes political debate.
Because it polarizes our community, political debate is strictly verboten on DV Info Net.
Therefore, if you want to discuss Michael Moore, you'll just have to go elsewhere.


Sorry it has to be that way, folks... since our board history has proven over and over again that some of our most professional and respected members always seem to tumble irresistibly into this emotional trap, I have no real choice but to remove the trap.

This discussion is closed. All responses, including several shameless political leanings, have been removed (but post counts not affected). Please don't put me in this awkward position again. Thanks,