Capitalism, a Love Story

So yes, i went to see the latest Michael moore propaganda-fest. What can I say? I like those movies. Moore's a decent filmmaker and Bowling for Columbine has been my favourite 'pizza' movie since I saw it (that is to say, the film I always feel I should watch while eating pizza takeout). Mind you, I'm under no illusions about these being documentaries, although Bowling for Columbine feels almost even handed compared to what we get next. Moore is not, in my honest opinion, making documentaries, he is making propaganda.

Now, I don't mind this either, because he's pretty up front about it being propaganda. Put it this way, you do not walk into the Moore movie thinking you are going to see something fair and balanced, because you are not. You are going in to watch a man putting forward his opinion in an entertaining fashion and backing it up with facts and figures and stories all of which have been rigorously checked to be accurate, all in order to change the audience's minds about a certain subject (gun control, the Iraq War, healthcare, capitalism).
Again, this is fine by me. It's honest,and to be fair I already share Moore's views on most of these (and while I do consider his portrait of the NHS in Sicko to be rather rosy, I do remind myself what country he's coming from, so I guess it would look rather rosy to him).

So basically, a question to you, gentle readers, while I would like your opinions on C,ALS if you've seen it, this goes for any of his films:
How far are Moore's films propaganda?
And,
By this definition, is properly labled, factually accurate propaganda still a bad thing?

Mind you, as Paramour pointed out, I have a rather elitist view of what a documentary consists of, having grown up an a steady diet of painfully fair BBC documentaries, where any attempt to push an agenda is clamped down on with the power of a thousand pile-drivers.
(Note, I do not include Faux Snooze under the category of 'good' propaganda, as it is neither honest, nor properly labled -- 'fair and balanced', yeah right)

Incidentally, I though C,ALS was probably his best film since Bowling for Columbine, as he doesn't meander so much and closes each thread of enquiry he embarks on, unlike in Sicko where he just jumped all over the place. Unfortunately, while it does pack a powerful punch, Moore cheapens the emotion by carrying on some really dumb stunts. He doesn't do it too often, and it doesn't detract too much from the full value of the piece, but grief man come on.

Capitalism, a Love Story

So yes, i went to see the latest Michael moore propaganda-fest. What can I say? I like those movies. Moore's a decent filmmaker and Bowling for Columbine has been my favourite 'pizza' movie since I saw it (that is to say, the film I always feel I should watch while eating pizza takeout). Mind you, I'm under no illusions about these being documentaries, although Bowling for Columbine feels almost even handed compared to what we get next. Moore is not, in my honest opinion, making documentaries, he is making propaganda.

Now, I don't mind this either, because he's pretty up front about it being propaganda. Put it this way, you do not walk into the Moore movie thinking you are going to see something fair and balanced, because you are not. You are going in to watch a man putting forward his opinion in an entertaining fashion and backing it up with facts and figures and stories all of which have been rigorously checked to be accurate, all in order to change the audience's minds about a certain subject (gun control, the Iraq War, healthcare, capitalism).
Again, this is fine by me. It's honest,and to be fair I already share Moore's views on most of these (and while I do consider his portrait of the NHS in Sicko to be rather rosy, I do remind myself what country he's coming from, so I guess it would look rather rosy to him).

So basically, a question to you, gentle readers, while I would like your opinions on C,ALS if you've seen it, this goes for any of his films:
How far are Moore's films propaganda?
And,
By this definition, is properly labled, factually accurate propaganda still a bad thing?

Mind you, as Paramour pointed out, I have a rather elitist view of what a documentary consists of, having grown up an a steady diet of painfully fair BBC documentaries, where any attempt to push an agenda is clamped down on with the power of a thousand pile-drivers.
(Note, I do not include Faux Snooze under the category of 'good' propaganda, as it is neither honest, nor properly labled -- 'fair and balanced', yeah right)

Incidentally, I though C,ALS was probably his best film since Bowling for Columbine, as he doesn't meander so much and closes each thread of enquiry he embarks on, unlike in Sicko where he just jumped all over the place. Unfortunately, while it does pack a powerful punch, Moore cheapens the emotion by carrying on some really dumb stunts. He doesn't do it too often, and it doesn't detract too much from the full value of the piece, but grief man come on.

Ada Lovelace day

I'm exhausted after a day at my uni's Literary Festival, and in no shape to summaries the myriad of ways women have contributed to this internet age, so i'll just leave with the news that this blogger has been able to use the net to track down a childhood song she always loves and had never been able to find.
Thank you Ada!

Ada Lovelace day

I'm exhausted after a day at my uni's Literary Festival, and in no shape to summaries the myriad of ways women have contributed to this internet age, so i'll just leave with the news that this blogger has been able to use the net to track down a childhood song she always loves and had never been able to find.
Thank you Ada!