The Castration of Michael Moore

External Since: Sep 07, 2005 Posts: 351

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 06:26:15 -0500, Alric Knebel
<alric@[cableone.net]> wrote:

>Derek Janssen wrote:
>
>> 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"...)
>
>He does satirical documentaries. You just don't get it. It's simple.
>
>

He gets it. It's who is being satirized that he objects to.
Thumper
>> 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.
>
>It was satire, and it was funny. If it wasn't funny, I wouldn't have
>kept watching.
>
>> 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. ^_^
>
>Dereck, maybe YOU mistook the other thing as real.
>
>> Which defines the humor definition of Satire: "Real people or events
>> expanded to fictiously ridiculed absurdism, to sarcastically define real
>> editorial point."
>
>And that sounds like what he did. He took Buchanan's ridiculous sit-in
>over nothing, and made it say what it was really about. That was
>clearly satire.
>
>> 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.)
>
>I think YOU misunderstood it. Moore did lots of funny stuff on that
>show. Most of it was funny and this thing you're talking about wasn't
>even the norm you've painted it out to be -- which I think YOU
>misunderstood -- since he usually produced his own footage. I remember
>he'd have this goofy chicken visiting corporate offices. It was all
>pretty goofy and funny. What I'd like to know is, how did you find out
>what the footage was really about? Hmm? Did you READ somewhere about
>Moore's "tactics" and this was an example? I mean, I loved his show
>back then (TV NATION), and I can remember only a few skits off of it.
>Something doesn't smell right here, about your fixation on that
>particular stunt, and letting it define his whole method, when that's
>clearly NOT his method. I don't think for an instant that Moore wanted
>you to seriously believe what you believed he meant. It was Pat
>Buchanan. Have you heard some of the things he's said in the past?
>Moore was more than likely counting on you hearing THOSE things.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>I just COMPARED it to a Moment of Zen. I see the difference. It's that
>type of stunt, and easy to make fun of, and Moore did it. You just took
>it out of context.
>
>> 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. ;)
>
>I'd like to know where you learned what the clip was really about, if
>Moore himself didn't show you. Where you aware of the clip BEFORE Moore
>showed it?
>
>> Derek Janssen
>> ejanss.DeleteThis@comcast.net

External Since: Jan 22, 2006 Posts: 819

Calvin wrote:

> 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
> 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.

Dense, unquestionably, but Moore was more likely hoping that having Matt
Stone in his movie (who actually went to Heritage HS in Littleton, not
Columbine, sorry) meant Matt must've agreed with him and would've given
him a free South Park cartoon for it--

Evidently not, and Moore had to do his OWN plagiarizing of "A Japanese
History of the US" all by himself.

Derek Janssen
ejanss.DeleteThis@comcast.net