Capitalism, a Love Story

[skull_bearer]

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.

Comments

[totenkopf6.livejournal.com]

Can't comment on any of Moores films as I have not seen them.
However, I do take issue with the idea of the BBC as "fair and balanced" - it most certainly is not! At work I have to suffer through radio 4 all day, which seems to push certain political agendas with only the thinnest veneer of impartiallity. I think they are more balanced on TV perhaps, but on radio they certainly aren't.

[multiclassgeek.livejournal.com]

I think you can judge the impartiality of the BBC by the fact that both the main parties accuse it of being biased against them.


As for Moore, the simple truth is that a Wall Of Facts doesn't cut it these days; Why take the time to examine the actual data when a telegenic talking-head is feeding you rhetoric and lies in an easy-to-digest way (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, etc)? Moore is extending the principle of pamphleteering into the medium of celluloid. We know the cited facts are carefully chosen to support his point, but that's the nature of a documentary.

I'm quite tempted to see C,ALS because I *still* don't get the Teabaggers - A grassroots movement that seeks to maintain the corporate-ruled status quo? LOLWUT?

[foldingstar.livejournal.com]

Yup, they are biased. But I do enjoy them. I love Bowling more than any of the others. I have not seen his latest offering though. I must admit, even though I enjoy watching the movies, I am not a fan of Moore himself. I think he has made some pretty contradictory statements in the past and is probably a huge lover of himself! But then who isn't.

Also, BBC? Not biased? I think it can be biased, but then is it even possible not to be biased in some way? Trying to just represent the facts can be difficult, when the interpretation of facts can easily be twisted. Also, the facts can represent different things for different people.

[arkan2.livejournal.com]

First I should say that I'm uncomfortable with your distinction between "documentary" and "propaganda." Documentaries are biased, too. Being "fair and balanced" is a bias just like any other. To take an example from one of your biggest interests (and prove Mike Godwin right yet again) what do we think a "fair and balanced" documentary on the Holocaust would look like? One which gave the Nazi point-of-view equal credence as that of the victims? (But at least some current journalistic standards, the answer is apparently "yes.")

There's also the matter of exactly how you "balance" an argument. Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman once wrote about a ten-year-anniversary TV spot reflection on the Vietnam War (which may not have been an actual documentary). They point out that the attitude of the people taking the "dove" perspective in the program was that the United States' war on Vietnam was sound in principle, and that the US has the right (nay, the moral duty) to foreign military intervention in the interests of upholding all that is good, and that the only problem with the Vietnam campaign was that it did not, could not, achieve that lofty goal. (Similarly, the chief argument against the Iraq War among some people in the United States seems to be "It won't work/isn't working.) The position that the United States had no more right to intervention in Vietnam than the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan, Hungary, or what was then Czechoslovakia was entirely excluded. By the sounds of it, so was a Vietnamese viewpoint (any Vietnamese viewpoint) or a Cambodian, or a Laotian. Is that fair and balanced? (Ye gods but I do go on, don't I?)

That said, I do agree that Capitalism: A Love Story is not a documentary. Bias is inevitable, but there's such a thing as professionalism and Moore has little patience for it--he's too busy putting on a show. Which is fine by me, as Moore is a terrific showman, but it means that (unlike Chomsky, Herman, and other figures on the left) I can't take his analysis for serious scholarship.

Capitalism is the only Moore film I've seen to date, but from that example, I'd venture to say that his films are about 70% propaganda,%30 showmanship, with maybe a spot of journalism here and there.

As to your second question ... of course, I'm biased by agreeing pretty much completely with Moore's viewpoint (indeed, in my opinion, he doesn't take his criticism far enough). However, I do suppose that "properly labled, factually accurate propaganda" (a rare thing in this day and age) is all right. It's comfort food for those who agree with you, snark bait for those who don't, and an interesting (though probably not compelling) spectacle for those who are on the fence.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

I haven't yet seen "Capitalism: A Love Story", but about Moore's films in general I'd say they were all biased documentaries. But then every documentary is biased in that usually hundreds of hours are filmed and choices are made to edit all this footage down to what could be reasonably marketed for distribution, whether the goal is a two-hour movie (most of Moore's films) or a six-part miniseries (Shoah). Fred Wiseman is a good example because his documentaries feature no narration or interviews, they're purely edited footage of actual events taking place. The very-rarely-seen "Titicut Follies" remains one of the most disturbing portraits of a mental institution ever recorded on film. And yet in the end, Wiseman still must make choices about what footage to include and what to cut out. And every documentary filmmaker has a point of view that affects their choices in editing the footage they've filmed.

I believe a Propaganda film is one which is purely rhetoric and images assembled to create a message, whereas the purpose of a documentary is to reinforce the message through the use of unscripted footage in the form of interviews, filmed statements on record, etc, with involved and/or interested parties. In that way Leni Riefenstahl's "Olympiad"(documentary) is quite different from "Triumph of The Will"(propaganda). You can clearly see the difference in how Riefenstahl treats the footage of Jesse Owens, with both reverence and admiration for his beauty and strength, despite the fact that her Nazi philosophy would consider him subhuman. "Triumph of The Will", however, uses footage specifically filmed at the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg and edited in such a way to convey the specific message of the film's title.

BTW, did anyone else see Jon Stewart's brilliant response last night to Glen Beck's anti-progressive rant? I'm hoping that Daily Show clip shows up on YouTube.

[shadowvalkyrie.livejournal.com]

I love Moore's stuff as well, and agree: not documentaries by any means, but biased towards an agenda I sympathise with, and presented in an entertaining way. And considering the slant the US media appears to have overall, he's a much needed compensation more often than not.