The Castration of Michael Moore

Alric Knebel wrote:
>>>
> A perfect sample of what
> I'm talking about was by Dereck just a couple of days ago, when he
> mentioned Moore's old TV show. Moore turned a photo-op by Pat Buchanan
> into a satire about white guys as endangered species. Clearly that was
> Moore taking an already ridiculous photo-op and showing it as ridiculous
> by making it more so. Jon Stewart would have turned such an original
> moment into a "moment of Zen" at the end of his show. Moore's use
> wasn't a bit dishonest, and maybe some people really don't get satire.
> But maybe it's the OBJECT of the satire they're really objecting to.

[See related thread on "the Critique of Wishful Thinking"...]

No, we're objecting to abuses of Satire, that calls itself Satire when
it hasn't got its own definition straight. (And that's taking into
account Moore's latest protests that he's now making "Real documentaries
to spur us into action", and not mere "satire"...)
Hearkening back to that Fox sketch-show that launched attacks it thought
were humor, and thinking it was the Daily Show...Left or right, you can
*call* your "satire" what you like, but get your terms straight first.

Going back to the Moore vs. Stewart comparison, take a standard
"fake-evidence" Daily Show joke, eg:
====
Stewart: "As the election continues at the Vatican for the new Pope,
the chimney will display black smoke if no new vote has been
reached...The moment a new pope has been elected, however, the chimney
will look like this:
<Mary Poppins chimney-sweeps stepping in time>
====

....I don't think anyone had any problems mistaking that bit of deadpan
"faked evidence" for the real thing. ^_^
Which defines the humor definition of Satire: "Real people or events
expanded to fictiously ridiculed absurdism, to sarcastically define real
editorial point."
See related listings under "Gulliver's Travels", "Doonesbury", and "Not
Necessarily the News".

Moore making Pat Buchanan look like he was complaining about
white-people (and not logging execs) was a bit of a drive-by attack,
however, and could very reasonably *have* been meant as "evidence",
particularly since few other "gag" clips were used in the piece.
The clips accompanied very specific narration about "how white people
feel", and one very distinct meaning was meant to be inferred, even if
the wrong one. (We might've been laughing if it was a well-known clip
whose context we recognized, but not if he was the one showing it to us
first.)

Stewart's "Moment of Zen" would've been simply to show the clip without
narration or context, and getting us to laugh at the stunt at all, which
would be satire, ie., of how desperate Republicans look in
photo-ops....And even then, not so much "satire", so much as "Did I just
imagine seeing that? 0_0'' " found-humor.
OTOH, to show us a clip that's not widely known among other real clips
and "tell" us what it's supposed to mean, however--or imply that it
belongs alongside the other "real" clips--would be about as "satirical"
as the Soviet Ministry of Information showing a burned-out factory from
1953 while narrating about US unemployment...That documentary style
would be covered under a different term, but shh, we don't use *that*
word. ;)

Derek Janssen
ejanss DeleteThis @comcast.net
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore 

On Jul 9, 12:13 am, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 11:51 pm, Calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 11:35 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > All possible, for all I know ...except for implications of deliberate
> > > dishonesty (if any), where I'd first need a smoking gun...
>
> > In contrast to implications of deliberate dishonesty (if any)
> > concerning corporations or Republicans in office, in which
> > cases nothing at all is needed (by you).
>
> I know that constant rage makes it hard for you tell people apart,
> but... find any instance where I've praised the Democrats in office
> over the Republicans. Pack extra rations for your search (...and keep
> an eye out for the fossils of your own footprints).

The issue isn't whom you have praised, but whom you haven't
needed a smoking gun from. And you left corporations out of
your ad hominem rebuttal attempt.
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore 

>>>>
>> A perfect sample of what I'm talking about was by Dereck just a couple
>> of days ago, when he mentioned Moore's old TV show. Moore turned a
>> photo-op by Pat Buchanan into a satire about white guys as endangered
>> species. Clearly that was Moore taking an already ridiculous photo-op
>> and showing it as ridiculous by making it more so. Jon Stewart would
>> have turned such an original moment into a "moment of Zen" at the end
>> of his show. Moore's use wasn't a bit dishonest, and maybe some
>> people really don't get satire. But maybe it's the OBJECT of the
>> satire they're really objecting to.
>
> Moore making Pat Buchanan look like he was complaining about
> white-people (and not logging execs) was a bit of a drive-by attack,
> however, and could very reasonably *have* been meant as "evidence",
> particularly since few other "gag" clips were used in the piece.
> The clips accompanied very specific narration about "how white people
> feel", and one very distinct meaning was meant to be inferred, even if
> the wrong one. (We might've been laughing if it was a well-known clip
> whose context we recognized, but not if he was the one showing it to us
> first.)

Or, to use a more Moore-specific example:
In F/911, Moore wants to show us how the 00's-Bush political climate
wants to create a sense of nameless fear and panic to keep us relying on
the gov't, and we see a montage of increasing network "fear" newscasts--
Raised terrorism alerts, unsafe car seats, radon fumes, the Internet,
prescription drugs, getting your feet stuck in department-store
escalators...
(Er, somehow I don't think that last one was a *real* network newscast.
But at least we had a lot less trouble spotting it. ^_^ )

As we explained earlier, if satire is ridicule for the sake of humor,
humor involves being distanced from your subject enough to render the
target the harmless object of tomatoes, for those intelligent enough to
see through the "serious" facade....If, however, you DO take your target
seriously enough to be perceived as a "threat", your "ridicule" is
simply orchestrated counter-attack--
For example, if I was to do one ridiculous parody of Every RichA Thread
Ever Posted, it would be "Existing real event expanded into buffoonishly
fictitious ridicule", and it would be funny as Satire. (Trust me.)
If, however, I wrote a ridiculous RichA post, forged his headers and
posted it under his name, it WOULDN'T be funny, and in fact, rather
dopey, immature, and seeming as if it was the act of feeling personally
"threatened" by the subject of the parody, which certainly wasn't the
intended point.

Granted, Moore's "escalator" gag was closer to textbook definition than
his Buchanan gag, but maybe we can excuse the latter off as overeager
inexperience--
Comedy is easy, but Satire is hard. :)

Derek Janssen
ejanss.RemoveThis@comcast.net
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore 

moviePig wrote:
>>
>>Or, to use a more Moore-specific example:
>>In F/911, Moore wants to show us how the 00's-Bush political climate
>>wants to create a sense of nameless fear and panic to keep us relying on
>>the gov't, and we see a montage of increasing network "fear" newscasts--
>>Raised terrorism alerts, unsafe car seats, radon fumes, the Internet,
>>prescription drugs, getting your feet stuck in department-store
>>escalators...
>>(Er, somehow I don't think that last one was a *real* network newscast.
>> But at least we had a lot less trouble spotting it. ^_^ )
>>
>>As we explained earlier, if satire is ridicule for the sake of humor,
>>humor involves being distanced from your subject enough to render the
>>target the harmless object of tomatoes, for those intelligent enough to
>>see through the "serious" facade....If, however, you DO take your target
>>seriously enough to be perceived as a "threat", your "ridicule" is
>>simply orchestrated counter-attack--
>
> Since when can't satire be advocacy?

It has to be humor first to be "satire", otherwise it's advocacy--
"Satire" comes from the same Greco-Roman root as "Satyr", meaning
low-comedy lampooning of the establishment.
The word "Soapbox", however, comes from what you stand on to make a
speech in public and hope everyone ooh's and aah's at your point.

>>Granted, Moore's "escalator" gag was closer to textbook definition than
>>his Buchanan gag, but maybe we can excuse the latter off as overeager
>>inexperience--
>>Comedy is easy, but Satire is hard. :)
>
> Are you claiming Moore proffers faux material which he hopes much of
> his audience will mistake as real? ...and which he disingenuously
> defends (to the rest of us) as satire?

I'm saying he got too used to hiding behind his "Satire" mantra as a
coverall excuse (ie. of why it was really "our fault" if we "didn't get
it" by complaining), rather than apply more professional standards of
journalism that the guys with the Harder Jobs had to do.

Of course, back then, he was claiming he wasn't *really* a journalist,
so it was okay...But now he IS going around claiming to be a
journalistic "documentarian" and using the same techniques.
Sooner or later, you have to give up double standards and pick one
profession--Which unfortunately means having to lose all the "fun stuff"
of the other before someone catches you at it.

Derek Janssen (it's all part of Growing Up)
ejanss RemoveThis @comcast.net
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore 

On Jul 9, 8:37 am, moviePig <pwall....DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 12:24 am, Calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 12:13 am, moviePig <pwall....DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 8, 11:51 pm, Calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 8, 11:35 pm, moviePig <pwall....DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > All possible, for all I know ...except for implications of deliberate
> > > > > dishonesty (if any), where I'd first need a smoking gun...
>
> > > > In contrast to implications of deliberate dishonesty (if any)
> > > > concerning corporations or Republicans in office, in which
> > > > cases nothing at all is needed (by you).
>
> > > I know that constant rage makes it hard for you tell people apart,
> > > but... find any instance where I've praised the Democrats in office
> > > over the Republicans. Pack extra rations for your search (...and keep
> > > an eye out for the fossils of your own footprints).
>
> > The issue isn't whom you have praised, but whom you haven't
> > needed a smoking gun from. And you left corporations out of
> > your ad hominem rebuttal attempt.
>
> (You bet my remarks were ad hominem. In fact, they're a complaint
> that yours weren't.)

People often cite rules of netiquette, but that is one I haven't seen
before. Maybe you could get it added to the FAQ.

> Politicians lie... much more plainly/often than filmmakers ought be
> presumed to. (Check your periscope; I think that's common
> knowledge.) And, yes, corporations are amoral -- the bigger the
> more ...which is the *only* thing they can be trusted for. (Maybe a
> little Windex on that periscope...)

You seem here to be actually agreeing with what I said, but
substituting 'politicians' for 'Republicans in office'. Just think
of four names: Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld; and then
think of how many times you have required sight of a smoking
gun concerning any accusation before jumping on the
bashwagon.

You say, "... than filmmakers ought be presumed to." (lie)
So Michael Moore can slam a corporation, making accusations
or insinuations without evidence, and you will presume anything
he wants you to about the corporation; but about him, oh no,
that wouldn't be fittin'.

If you think filmmakers, from directors and actors all the way down
to the caterers, don't have political agenda that they will use all of
their arts, rarely resorting to actual evidence, to advance then I
think you should at least save some of that Windex for your own use.
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore 

On Jul 9, 9:53 am, moviePig <pwall....RemoveThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Listen carefully, now. Anyone, anywhere, *can* lie.

Yup.

> The question for
> people like you and me, who seldom have concurrent hard proof,

Sometimes we do have concurrent hard proof of something,
in defense or offense, but in this venue that is useless because
no matter what we offer, someone can Google up contradictory
'evidence' to nullify whatever we had. It's best just to go with
our beliefs and opinions, unsupported, and look for other ways
to trip up our adversaries.

> is: in
> which arenas (e.g., politics or filmmaking) are lies most strongly
> motivated? ...and readily excused? (...and even expected?)

I did listen carefully, but I can't give the answer that you seem to
believe in. At best I can only, in a sense of fairness, say equally
in both arenas.

'Narrowly opinionated' as I am and you're not (as you have assured
me on both counts) I don't hold my views for the pursuit of power or
money or fame. Like many others, possibly including you, I simply
care philosophically about what is going on in the world. I grant
the same innocence of purpose to politicians, corporate directors,
and filmmakers. In principle, that is; but we all can be corrupted,
somehow. We all *can* lie.

In your cynicism, which I believe you have agreed that you have,
it looks to me like you see the corrupting influence of money and
power to be irresistible, but not that of fame.
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore 

On Jul 9, 10:52 am, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> ... Still, in filmmaking, I see
> *considerably* more freedom and accountability than in politics.
> E.g., although Moore undoubtedly does like the spotlight, he also has
> the freedom to identify honest-to-god bad guys and then to go after
> them. And his actions (i.e., his films) are completely open to
> lasting public view and understanding... rather than, say, being
> buried in complex midnight-minutes of a Congressional Record, or
> excused as "just politics".

I haven't seen Sicko (the movie) yet, but I have seen 'Roger and
Me', 'Bowling for Columbine', and 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. I've forgotten
the first one, but remember feeling positive toward it. In the
second
one, besides the two things that Mr. Knebel took issue with,
concerning Moore's tactics with Wal-Mart and Charlton Heston,
I had at least three more objections, to: the unsupported but easy
claim that the NRA is a bad thing; the insinuation that the economic
situation that led a mother to find employment in another city,
leaving her child to become involved in crime and die (in Detroit
iirc)
was the fault of corporate America; and the 5-minute cartoon history
of the U.S., which was as blatant and dense a piece of propaganda
as I have ever seen.

For 'Fahrenheit 9/11', having been watching, hearing, and following
everything going on with the Bush administration, being retired
and free to do so, it was obvious to me that some clips that Moore
presented were not given in context, and others were used to
ridicule, based on assumptions that Bush was the way that the
ridicule was intended to suggest, a closed circle of proof by
editing and commentary.

My objections aren't expected to convince you of anything, but
are some of my reasons for not being impressed with Moore's
"freedom to identify honest-to-god bad guys and then to go after
them".

You say, "And his actions (i.e., his films) are completely open to
lasting public view and understanding", but I don't think he cares
so much about the long view. Based on his stated goal of
defeating Bush's re-election, and his award of the Cannes grand
prize for his efforts (before their failure), I can't see him looking
very far ahead. But maybe 'Sicko' will cast him in a better light.
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore 

moviePig wrote:


> (I never saw Moore's tv show.


The episodes I saw were fantastic. They're available on DVD, I believe.
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore 

Calvin wrote:

> On Jul 8, 11:35 pm, moviePig <pwall....RemoveThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>...
>>All possible, for all I know ...except for implications of deliberate
>>dishonesty (if any), where I'd first need a smoking gun...
>
>
> In contrast to implications of deliberate dishonesty (if any)
> concerning corporations or Republicans in office, in which
> cases nothing at all is needed (by you).


Uh oh, Calvin ran out of Midol again!
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore 

On Jul 8, 1:09 pm, George Peatty <peattyg47-1....RemoveThis@copper.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 02:21:23 +0200, "Castrator"
>
> <castra....RemoveThis@OFFwithhisballs.com> wrote:
> >I predict "The Castration of Michael Moore" will gross
> >more than "Sicko".
>
> I don't want to see Michael Moore castrated, I want him to suffer a fate
> far worse. I want to see him in tears, saying with all the feeling he can
> muster, "I'm sorry. I've been wrong about .. everything .. "

i love watching you a-holes squirm when you see how successful MM is
gives me a nice smile
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore 

On Jul 9, 12:51 pm, Calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> Nobody likes the war, except Muslims.

Before the literalists pounce, I meant *some* Muslims,
not all Muslims.
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore 

On Jul 9, 2:55 pm, moviePig <pwall....TakeThisOut@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Nah. Whatever else... if Derek were a Rightie, Calvin would tell us.

Unless he was a closet rightie; then it wouldn't be my place
to out him.
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore 

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:03:03 -0400, Derek Janssen
<ejanss.TakeThisOut@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

>moviePig wrote:
>>>
>>>Or, to use a more Moore-specific example:
>>>In F/911, Moore wants to show us how the 00's-Bush political climate
>>>wants to create a sense of nameless fear and panic to keep us relying on
>>>the gov't, and we see a montage of increasing network "fear" newscasts--
>>>Raised terrorism alerts, unsafe car seats, radon fumes, the Internet,
>>>prescription drugs, getting your feet stuck in department-store
>>>escalators...
>>>(Er, somehow I don't think that last one was a *real* network newscast.
>>> But at least we had a lot less trouble spotting it. ^_^ )
>>>
>>>As we explained earlier, if satire is ridicule for the sake of humor,
>>>humor involves being distanced from your subject enough to render the
>>>target the harmless object of tomatoes, for those intelligent enough to
>>>see through the "serious" facade....If, however, you DO take your target
>>>seriously enough to be perceived as a "threat", your "ridicule" is
>>>simply orchestrated counter-attack--
>>
>> Since when can't satire be advocacy?
>
>It has to be humor first to be "satire", otherwise it's advocacy--
>"Satire" comes from the same Greco-Roman root as "Satyr", meaning
>low-comedy lampooning of the establishment.
>The word "Soapbox", however, comes from what you stand on to make a
>speech in public and hope everyone ooh's and aah's at your point.
>
>>>Granted, Moore's "escalator" gag was closer to textbook definition than
>>>his Buchanan gag, but maybe we can excuse the latter off as overeager
>>>inexperience--
>>>Comedy is easy, but Satire is hard. :)
>>
>> Are you claiming Moore proffers faux material which he hopes much of
>> his audience will mistake as real? ...and which he disingenuously
>> defends (to the rest of us) as satire?
>
>I'm saying he got too used to hiding behind his "Satire" mantra as a
>coverall excuse (ie. of why it was really "our fault" if we "didn't get
>it" by complaining), rather than apply more professional standards of
>journalism that the guys with the Harder Jobs had to do.
>
>Of course, back then, he was claiming he wasn't *really* a journalist,
>so it was okay...But now he IS going around claiming to be a
>journalistic "documentarian" and using the same techniques.
>Sooner or later, you have to give up double standards and pick one
>profession--Which unfortunately means having to lose all the "fun stuff"
>of the other before someone catches you at it.
>
>Derek Janssen (it's all part of Growing Up)
>ejanss@comcast.net


I wonder why you go to such lengths to dissect Michael Moore. It
seems very strange.
Thumper
 >> Stay informed about: The Castration of Michael Moore