Evil Ernie

Adam,

I was fine with your review until the last paragraph. Much like the last 30 minutes of Kill Bill 2--you just pissed on a decent review with your comment on Farenheit 9/11. How can you say that it isn't a documentary? Documentaries are, by nature, muckraking. They have traditionally been the domain of progressives/liberals (Pennebaker, Mayles', etc). Documentaries have also been propagandist in nature--Leni Reifenstahl being the obvious example.

Are you aware that EVERY documentary ever made has a bias and a point of view? If you had to watch 2 hours of "perfectly balanced" narrative you would pull your hair out from boredom. Michael Moore has been blatantly one-sided since he started. I personally love his perspective, even when I don't necessarily agree with it.

I'm on a rant now. (Not a Dennis Miller reference--he's awful). Americans want their opinions pre-packaged and handed to them. I think it's because they are too ignorant and/or lazy to search out their own news and opinions. The reaction to Farenheit 9/11 has a case study in how ignorant people are put off by strong opinions that are well crafted. Much like the ACLU, Michael Moore is helping to create a critical dialogue in this country. The newsmedia is late and lame when it comes to war coverage (Abu Ghraib for example). If muckrakers like Moore weren't around government would run unchecked. IMHO.

Adam

Evil Ernie,

I'm sorry I pissed you off with my attack of Farhrenheit 9/11. Perhaps I didn't word it properly. Moore's latest film is more propaganda (or satire--which ever you prefer) than documentary, and if you disagree, that's your poragative. If you read my Fahrenheit review you'll notice that I didn't hate that picture. In fact, I liked parts of it for the same reason you did. I admire that Moore fashioned a movie that gets a dialogue going. However, a shred of objectivity would have been nice. Even Bowling for Columbine offered up a taste of both sides of the gun control issue. Or how about a movie like Stevie in which the documentary subject easily could have been made out to be a villain. Instead, film maker Steve James opted to create a full bodied portrait of a troubled human being. And how about Capturing the Friedmans? That film takes a look at several different angles of a child molestation case. And what about the excellent Super Size Me, a movie clearly inspired by the works of Michael Moore. Yes, it's an attack, but it's playful as opposed to hateful, and in it's defense, it does take a look at subjects who haven't been physically affected by fast food. And the list goes on. All I'm saying is that if you take every negative side of a person's life and project it up there on the screen, that person is going to look like a villain. It's all in the editing. We all know that Michael Moore hates the way Bush runs this country (as do many Americans) so he's made a movie about it. That's fine. That's what Michael Moore does and I certainly don't hate him for it (he has a right to his opinion just like everyone else). I even met him once at a convention shortly after he made The Big One (a movie I thought was infinitely more profound than Fahrenheit 9/11). He's incredibly gracious and it was a thrill to talk to him. I don't like what he's become though. If he feels Fahrenheit 9/11 is so accurate, than why is he so afraid to debate political figures? I'll tell you why. The answer is in the question. He's afraid. When he puts one of these films together, he has all the time he needs to manipulate the truth. When he interviews someone up there on the screen, he's had time to do homework. Unfortunately, those he's interviewing don't have that same luxury. They're caught with their guard down. The playing field is never level. Moore knows this and that's why he's never up for a debate. It could be argued that he's just a film maker and nothing more. That might be true. But if he's going to put a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 out there for everyone to see and pass it all off as truth, shouldn't he be there to back the information up? He claims all facts in this picture are accurate. That may be the case, but he sure likes to leave a lot of facts out. And when it comes to discussing this stuff in a public platform, he appears a bit uncomfortable. Even on a show like Conan O'Brien, he didn't seem too sure of himself. And to make matters worse, he dodges being interviewed for "Michael Moore Hates America". Ironic given that Moore couldn't get an interview with Roger Smith (of GM fame)for his movie Roger and Me. Now he's declining to be interviewed for someone else's picture because he's afraid of being portrayed in a negative light or being treated the way he treats some of the subjects in his films. In the end, Moore has become what he despises. It's too bad, because I do think he's a talented guy, but now he's stepping over the line. He is no longer that working class hero who tried to take on the system. Now he's just another Hollywood big shot. It's depressing. I know he's a passionate man and I know he believes in this country, but I stand my ground. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a movie full of half truths. This isn't fiction or an attempt at some kind of a bio pic. This movie has been presented as truth and there are plenty of people who will take it as such. Just the other day, some thirteen year old came in to my music store and said that Fahrenheit 9/11 made him realize what an a-hole Bush is. I'm not suggesting this kid is stupid, but I'd say he's misguided. And thank God he isn't old enough to vote. If Fahrenheit 9/11 gets people to dig deep and do their homework, it's served a positive purpose. Sadly though, there are those people who won't do the homework. They'll take everything Michael Moore tells them at face value. They'll believe that all Marines target the poor when recruiting. They'll believe that Baghdad was like Disneyland before the bombs fell. They'll believe that George Bush is the Anti-Christ. The truth is, all this horrific garbage that is going on right now could have just as easily happened during the Clinton administration. If it did, I doubt Moore would have a made a movie about that.

I guess I too am going on a little rant. By what I just wrote you'd think that I hate Michael Moore. I really don't. I don't hate anyone. There's far too much hate in this world. I just don't think Fahrenheit 9/11 is the masterpiece many others think it is. And this isn't coming from some faithful Republican either. I like and dislike various elements of both sides of the political coin.

The only reason I mentioned Fahrenheit 9/11 in the Team America review, is because this film is already being critisized for being too offensive. If anything, it's more of a satire on action films and celebrity than anything else. No one has a sense of humor anymore. If we lose our sense of humor, than the terrorists have won.

Again, I'm sorry for irritating you with my Fahrenheit 9/11 reference, but given the subject matter in Team America, I felt it appropriate. I hope you continue to read the site.

Evil Ernie

Adam,

I appreciate your passionate response, but I mostly still disagree with you. It doesn't seem inconsistent for Michael Moore to decline to be interviewed. The folks who want to interview him want him to be the story. He is very closely tied to his subject matter--by constantly appearing on screen. But the real story is still Iraq (or guns or corporate responsibility). I also have no problem with his "ambushing" the politicians and corporate people in his movies--they should easily be able to respond if they are worth their salt. These are smart people who climb the corporate or political ladder...and they suddenly turn into morons when MM shows up? Come on! His production team uses the existing loopholes to their advantage. They waltz into Iraq with the passes and permission and then make fools of the administration for giving it to them.

It seems as though you have a problem with a tough case brought to bear on a subject--especially if the subject is a person. Your response sounds as though you feel Farenheit 9/11 was a personal attack on GWB. I viewed it as an attack on the whole administration. You mentioned Saving the Friedmans--that movie was overrated and one-sided in my opinion. The viewer was made to care for a pedophile! I don't take offense to that, but I acknowledge the director's bias there as well.

It also sounds as though you've got a problem with MM's MO. Look, he's a bit of a demagogue, and he stacks the cards in his favor. But can you fault him for that? He's making a frigging movie while Bush is a national demagogue and has Colin Powell lie to the UN. The stakes for MM are that people think he's a fat asshole. The stakes for Bush are dead Americans and Iraqis. Let's focus the wrath in the right direction.

One last point: I just don't think that Farenheit 9/11 would have this amazing impact on people (and box office) if it weren't "mostly" true. Yes, it's very one-sided. However, the one side he depicts is dead on. Maybe we'll all be cheering MM after he makes his movie about insurance companies--an enemy we can all hate.

Adam

Evil Ernie,

Your points are well taken but I'll have to agree to disagree. Particularly the end of your comment. Just because a film makes an impact doesn't make it true, "mostly" or otherwise. I can respect that you feel Fahrenheit 9/11 is "dead on" but I definitely don't agree with you. And quite frankly, Capturing the Friedmans is much more objective than you give it credit for and it's hardly overrated. Anyway, having an opinion makes the world go round. Thanks for stating yours and allowing me to share mine.

Evil Ernie

Adam,

Yep, you and I are going to disagree on the two points you mentioned. I feel that the filmmaker got in a little too deep with the son in Capturing the Friedmans (the son who plays the clown). I think that the director should have made a better connection between the son playing a clown at children's parties--and his father being a pedophile who taught children in his basement. Also, the director seemed to get caught up with the son being an apologist for the father.

The fact that the filmmaker has now made a short film about the clown son seems to indicate that he "owed" him. (Why on Earth would he make a short movie about a party clown otherwise?) It has been said by critics that he had to pay back the son after his cooperation with Capturing the Friedmans made that movie possible. I still feel that a better director would have been harder hitting about the whole thing. I just felt like the movie tried to gloss over the impact on the Friedman's victims. It lost objectivity because the director didn't want to "turn" on his subject. (To me, this equals bad documentary.)

As for my comment on Farenheit 9/11 being "mostly" true. I should clarify. I don't think everything that makes an impact is true. If that were the case Julie Roberts would be elected to some sort of office. Thinking people often feel that MM is true in spirit--he may go too far in method. The method may be juxtaposition of images or jump cutting. Some folks have a hard time with him "ambushing" interviewees. Having said that, many of those people still agree with his main point: unnecessary war with little of no justification, etc. Either way, Farenheit 9/11 is still a documentary. I guess my original point was that I disagreed with your definition of documentary.

Adam

Evil Ernie,

The reason that director Andrew Jarecki's relationship was so deep with David Friedman is because it was with him that the genesis of the project started. Your referring to Arnold Friedman as a pedophile who teaches kids in a basement, leads me to believe you saw a different movie than I did. Arnold was a sick man. There's no doubt about that. However, Jarecki (with the help of some pretty informative interviews and footage) casts a shadow of a doubt over the entire case that makes up the film. It is clear many of those kids were badgered into exaggerating and even making up accusations that constituted the prosecution's case. This doesn't make what Arnold did, right. If he touched one of my kids, I'd probably want him dead. Still, I don't believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of all the charges for which he was convicted. There was something fishy about that entire matter. The present day interviews with some of Arnold Friedman's apparent victims didn't sit well with me. One of the kids even goes on to say that he wasn't molested, but there was a lot of pressure at the hands of the police offiers handeling the case, so he confessed he was. What would he have to gain by saying that. There are numerous holes in that entire case, and Jarecki looks at most of them. At any rate, just because a jury says so doesn't always make it right. Check out Errol Morris' brilliant Thin Blue Line, one of the best examples of injustice ever captured on film.

As far as David being an apologist for his father, your absolutely right. He's his son. It doesn't matter if there was proof that his dad was a pedophile. David was in denial (and perhaps even abused himself). He didn't want to face certain facts about his father, but that's human nature. There are a lot of people like that. If you found out that your dad was a murderer, you'd probably have a hard time coming to terms with it. Proof or not. The guy was in denial and quite obviously the product of a dysfunctional upbringing. To this very day, he doesn't believe his dad did what he was convicted of. In the end, Capturing the Friedman's is as much a portrait of family dysfunction as it is a look at child molestation.

I also have to call you on an error about the short Just a Clown. That film was started first. While it was being shot, revelations surfaced that would drive Jarecki to make Capturing the Friedmans. He had always set out to finish the short. Just a Clown wasn't made as some sort of a half assed payoff. It was the driving force of the entire project.

And I don't understand what you mean by "thinking people often feel MM is true in spirit." Are you implying that anyone who might disagree with MM's opinions or find him untrue, is incabable of thinking? If so, that's ridiculous. Again, everyone has an opinion. And I wouldn't have a problem with Moore's ambushing of interviewees if he were up to the same sort of treatment himself. You know the saying; "He can dish it out, but he can't take it". Lame! Although, I suppose I know how he feels. Since I write reviews for this site, I open myself up to all kinds of scrutiny. I'm aware that if I'm going to trash something (or praise it), there's going to be people out there who are going to tell me how they feel if they disagree (as you've done). But I'll always back myself up and I'm first to admit when I'm wrong or when I've made a mistake (which happens a lot--I'm only human). But most importantly, I'm not an ego freak. I don't think I'm better than anyone else. I do this because I love movies. Moore's making Fahrenheit 9/11 goes way beyond his loving the U.S.A. and everyone knows it. Still though, like yourself, I love that the movie gets people talking.

Again, I like Michael Moore a lot. Roger and Me, The Big One, and Bowling For Columbine are all great films. Fahrenheit 9/11 is provacative but uneven and unfocused. I know you disagree. It's clear that you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. That's fine.

I will bow down to one thing though. I'll give you this. I'm willing to say that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary--but it's more Spinal Tap than Capturing the Friedmans.

And by the way, since this is the Team America message board, I was wondering what you thought of that movie.

Evil Ernie

Adam,

I firmly disagree with you about Capturing the Friedmans. That movie is totally overrated and not nearly critical enough in its approach. I appreciate you setting me straight about the timeline--Just a Clown started prior to CTF. However, I still maintain that the filmmaker's relationship with the family left him in an odd position editorially.

Me, the person with me, and several other viewers near us all felt that the movie left a bad taste in our mouths. I concur that the story leaves you wondering if it was just a coincidence...the legal case was weak. On the other hand, what the father did to the family and his actual victims was horrific. It seems entirely disingenous of the filmmakers to say: "This guy was a predator preying on children...just not these children. Judge him differently."

The clown son (I cannot remember the names to save my life) is a case study in selective memory. There is also the strange concept of why the father would touch some children but not his own (or not both of them--I can't remember which is true). I understand why the son is an apologist for the father. But the film made me feel like it was also an apologist for the father--and I should be too. It's an interesting conceit to turn the movie on the idea that someone is an admitted pedophile--he taught children in his basement--they say they were molested--he maintains he didn't do it--his emotionally disturbed son is the main character--he ruined multiple lives--but not the lives in question!! Let's also make a movie about how Hitler is not responsible for certain deaths during the Holocaust. I agree that someone should not be convicted of a crime just because they have been guilty of it in other instances. However, this is not a dramatically satisfying concept for a movie; and it actually creates more doubt than it resolves. I walked out of the movie thinking that we need CTF 2 to resolve some of what came out in CTF. Judge not this pedophile because he was the victim of poor representation and a media witchhunt!

There have been more convincing cases similar to this where the subject wasn't even what they were accused of--in this case he was a pedophile anyway. The effects on the son were the most interesting part of the movie--but because they chose to frame the movie around the son there wasn't enough "narrative distance" to be honest about the whole situation.

As for my comments on MM. I should have qualified my statement about "thinking people." If I had said "some thinking people" or "frequently thinking people" it would have read better. I wasn't trying to imply that you must agree with MM (or me). To your point about ambushing interviewees I still think you are totally wrong and giving those folks more respect than they would give you. MM doesn't allow himself to be amubushed because he is savvy, and he won't let people put him on the spot in such a manner. It isn't inconsistent to do something then not allow it to be done to you--it's shrewd or smart in my opinion. MM is merely using the so-called loopholes available to everyone: reporters and politicians alike. Also, MM goes on numerous talk shows and allows himself to be argued with and pummeled by the conservative freaks out there. He does open himself up to criticism--he just likes to control it.

WOuld you defend Charlton Heston? MM "ambushed" him and people were up in arms. He deserved what he got. I say that if you make decisions and say things publicly then you should be willing and able to defend it on the capitol steps or in your driveway. If you're not ready to defend your actions then say: "I'm not ready to speak on that--I respect what you're saying, but you need to set up a time to meet with me--I will do some research and prepare to answer your questions thoughtfully and honestly." There! An idiot's guide on how to talk to MM if he shows up in your workplace. Instead, political and cultural leaders look like assholes in MM's films and he gets accused of being unfair. That's life: films about pedophiles and politicians get attacked for being either too critical or not critical enough. Film criticism is an honorable tradition, but let's separate film criticism from criticizing the subject of the films.

Stevie

What the heck is a golden shower and a pearl necklace?

runtboy

Well Stevie let me explain. A golden shower is a sweet sex move in which the chick crouches over the man or woman I guess and proceeds to urinate upon him or her. The pearl necklace is one of my personal favorites. When the man is on top he places his member between the woman's breasts and copulates with them until he unleashes his pearl jam all over her neck and chest, which looks like a fat pearl necklace. Now stevie go try it out.

Please put this out boneman--please!!!

Stevie

runtboy,

what's your mother's address?

The Real Stevie

Hey runtboy, that wasn't me talking about your mother. Thanks for the info though, i called up my girlfriend and got her to try it. It was awesome!