You can either dwell on the fact that Moore does put his own spin on things and hate him and discredit him for that, or you can acknowledge the fact that the bank in question was rewarding customers for opening up accounts with rifles. Which is really what the whole scene was about. It's the same thing with the big controversy that arose about the Farenheit 9/11 interview with that congressman who when asked if he would enlist his kids in the military to go to Iraq and he replied with "I have three cousins over their right now and a brother-in-law" or whatever it was, and Moore didn't put that in his movie. It still doesn't excuse the fact that only one congressman has a child enlisted in the military. He's a propagandist we're all aware of that, the entire world is aware of that, there's no need for you to warn everyone. The fact is, he's a damn good propagandist. In order to truly appreciate a movie like Moore's, you need to be able to sift through what is his opinion, and appreciate it for being just that (his opinion), and recognize the reality of what he is saying. Sure not all of it is reality, much if it is slanted because much of it comes from the mind of Micheal Moore himself, but it's not like he can just make this crap up and slap it up on the big screen and start setting records with it. The connections/ties and inconsistencies he points out are all facts in reality, what are not facts are the conclusions the movie makes from these ties and inconsistencies, that is Moore's opinion. I think it's funny when people get so defensive when the topic of Micheal Moore comes up simply because the man's opinion is so influential it scares them. I don't know, like I said, I'm not going to claim it's a great movie, but I liked it. I guess, to the people who want to discredit Moore because he's good at what he does, all I have to say is, I have yet to see a convincing movie claiming that we don't have a gun problem in the U.S. or that we did have very good reasons to invade Iraq. Seriously, I think someone should make one, then we could watch them both, back to back, we each could pick our favorite movie and no one would have anything to complain about.fragged one wrote: but they *didn't* give him a free gun in the bank. it was set up beforehand.But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."
Interesting choice of words, since american's propensity for trust and ignorance seemed to be the exact reason Moore made the film in the first place. (to make people aware of it, not play off of it)he's just playing on american's propensity for trust and ignorance.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:281, old post ID:2675
. i dislike propaganda in general...it doesn't quite work that way. although, i can't think of any way that anyone could twist facts, and make up reality in the way that moore does.
