dreaming of michael...
So, I saw the Michael Moore movie today. And I had carefully embargoed my expectations going into this. As always, I was delighted that someone made the movie and that people were watching it. It's just that Moore's "method" sometimes begets more questions than answers -- well that and rapidfire statistics. For instance, in "Bowling...", I liked the Charleton Heston interview and I detested the Dick Clarke chase -- why? where was he going with this? how does this have to do with the movie? what was the movie about?
Anyhow, with a good deal of enthusiasm and a little relief too, it's a good movie. Of course he bites off more than he can chew, and of course there are undertapped issues, but he does a good job. And frankly, Kerry could use the swing voters.
My only qualms is that he doesn't at all address issues in foreign policy -- to Moore, it seems, foreign policy is driven almost exclusively by the Carslyle group. Heh, it seems that Moore has presented, to put it Michiko style, a pastiche of the current arsenal Bush Books. (On a side note, he doesn't stray much from the topic of the film -- this is focused Bush bashing at its most entertaining.)
Aside from this, I'm rather surprised that my parents were kind of pleased at the whole screenwriting thing. My mother actually liked the Dancetroupe review, or at least the word choice behind it. There you go, kids: it pays to study just a lil' for the GRE's.
Finally, a group question. How many grams of protein do you need in your diet to exercise regularly? I'm talking lower limit here.
Oh, and I'm thinking of starting up a little book club in the area. Mainly out of boredom and initiative to read more. Less Dan Brown and more Kundera, probably. And if that makes me an intellectual cliche, stick in some Jay McInerny to make it all around cliche.
posted by devdoot majumdar at 11:25 PM
7 Comments:
I think the movie was mostly about how a corrupt president makes the decision to go to war for all the wrong reasons. Sure because of that he makes lots of bad decisions in foreign policy, but that's not central. Also, there is only so much he can say in 2 hours (or whatever it was). I mean, if he really wanted to discuss foreign policy, he would have to comment on how the US blindly supports Israel in all questions and how that's why the Arabs hate the US. But then again, it is not Bush's fault the Jewish lobby is so strong that many decisions in foreign policy are taken with the interest of Israel and not the USA in mind (they are not the same :). He certainly did not do anything about it (Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense - interesting), but it is not originally his fault. So foreign policy is a whole nother story. Fahrenheit 911 was about the administration's dishonesty (to put it very mildly).
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
check out both these sites, some of it is legit arguement ... i have a deathwish for michael moore, i cant wait to see 15 year old anti establishment punk kids sneaking to see the movie about the "cause"
interesting column, wonder how much of it is fairly stated. i want to see that movie, if only for debate/discussion purposes.
Protein in a 5-page nutshell: http://bodybuilding.about.com/cs/nutrition/a/aa061103.htm
Optimum Nutrition whey protein powder (strawberry or chocolate) is a surprisingly good-tasting option.
Well, it seems like that you kind of liked the movie.
Do you think it has any factual information to change voter's mind ?
Newpapers in general talk very badly of him.
Is it worth seeing really ??
Yeah. Most of the information in the film isn't a Moore exclusive, which turns out to be a good thing. It is, instead, a pretty thorough compilation of the current battery of bush's falterings. Certainly, some of them have greater proof than others, and some of them are more disputable than others -- and for that you have to consult the books (Richard Clark's book, the House of Saud book, the Woodward book, etc). Even so, it's an enlightening film to watch, and if you're skeptical, I feel it's even better.
As for newspapers, I heard today that about 90% of critics recommend the film. Each critic normally points out that yes, the facts are presented in the most entertaining way as possible, and as a result one must still be skeptical. If you're reading the Washington Times, well then maybe it's not the best film to watch, but in general, Moore does a good job. He's just not on camera much, and much of the footage is plain, old newsfootage from the big networks -- lending the film a little more credence, at least in my book. If you watch it with a skeptical mind, I think you'll find it more informative than unnerving.
Good ..
I would let you know how I find it ..
Post a Comment
<< Home