[lit-ideas] Re: Denby on Moore's flick

  • From: Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:02:03 -0400 (GMT-04:00)

-----Original Message-----
From: Scribe1865@xxxxxxx
Sent: Jun 29, 2004 11:59 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Denby on Moore's flick

In a message dated 6/29/2004 4:00:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,=20
straker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Thanks to Stephen for posting this rather even-handed review of the film. M=
last  point about motives preceding judgments was raised by Denby in this=
acute paragraph. -EY
The great documentary filmmakers of today=E2=80=94Frederick Wiseman, Marcel=
and Andrew Jarecki (of =E2=80=9CCapturing the Friedmans=E2=80=9D)=E2=80=94k=
now that truth in an=20
absolute sense is unattainable. It=E2=80=99s not even imaginable. Who would=
 validate it? Who=20
could say that another interpretation besides the filmmaker=E2=80=99s was o=
ut of the=20
question? Movies are made by men and women, not by gods hurling thunderbolt=
of certitude. But the great documentary filmmakers at least make an attempt=
however inadequate, compromised, or hopeless, to arrive at a many-sided=20
understanding of some complex situation. Michael Moore is not that kind of =
nor does he want to be. He calls himself a satirist, but he=E2=80=99s less =
a satirist=20
than a polemicist, a practitioner of mocking political burlesque: he doesn=
discover many new things but punches up what he already knows or suspects; =
doesn=E2=80=99t challenge or persuade an audience but tickles or irritates =
it. He=E2=80=99s=20
too slipshod intellectually to convince many except the already convinced, =
eager to throw another treated log onto the fire of righteous anger.=20

A.A. Michael Moore out and out said in an interview on Booknotes that he do=
esn't like Bush and will use whatever money he makes to attack Bush by maki=
ng movies about him.  He said it in so many words, so he is being totally a=
bove board  with this movie. =20

I still think that Bush is getting a much fairer shake with this movie, whi=
ch at least is based in truth, however fast and loose Moore plays with time=
 lines and settings, than Clinton ever got from what the American Spectator=
 did, which was publish out and out hysterical fiction that wasn't even rem=
otely related to reality.  No one was aghast at that and Clinton survived i=
t just fine.  Poor cry baby Bush needs the whole country to know how unfair=
ly he is being treated.  Maybe Bush should let his actions and policies spe=
ak for him.  If the country was doing well, who would care what Moore put i=
n his movie.

Andy Amago

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: