Zeitgeist

[Seth]

I agree with the prof about documentaries post bowling for columbine. I'm not saying I have a huge repertoire of documentary film viewing, but I've experienced countless figureheads(teachers mostly) who tell a bunch of kids that the film is excellent because of some popular notion. I almost cry when i think of 'an inconvenient truth' cuz of all the exposure it has received. Watching any news program on tv is like sitting through an elementary class where the teacher can't drop the baby talk and just present the facts. maybe i will cry

ps. zeitgeist is a waste of time

[Typhoid]

I've never seen Zeitgeist, however I will throw my hat into the ring on the topic at hand.


The beauty about propaganda documentaries, and propaganda news is one special thing called "forming your own opinion". While, yes - many people do lack this power and knowledge and sometimes blindly follow the first few shiny words they see, the vast majority of the human populace is allowed to voice and believe what they want. But in order to make up your mind fully, you must be educated on both sides of the subject.

Michael Moore didn't ruin documentaries, nor did he create a sub-genre. He's simply making documentaries that only show one side, and a slanted one at that. Now here's the neat part. It's a movie. Regardless of being a documentary, it's still Michael Moore - so you have to go in watching it knowing what's going to take place. Nobody is expecting an academy award winning performance from a Moore film, nor should anyone be expecting to see anything other than one sided-ness. And why shouldn't it be one-sided? He's trying to convince people of siding with him. It would be a terrible strategy to win people over to the side you want, while talking up the other side. Slander works much better than honesty.

[Seth]

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Art...dercurrent.htm

i dare you to read that.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I've never seen Zeitgeist, however I will throw my hat into the ring on the topic at hand.


The beauty about propaganda documentaries, and propaganda news is one special thing called "forming your own opinion". While, yes - many people do lack this power and knowledge and sometimes blindly follow the first few shiny words they see, the vast majority of the human populace is allowed to voice and believe what they want. But in order to make up your mind fully, you must be educated on both sides of the subject.

Michael Moore didn't ruin documentaries, nor did he create a sub-genre. He's simply making documentaries that only show one side, and a slanted one at that. Now here's the neat part. It's a movie. Regardless of being a documentary, it's still Michael Moore - so you have to go in watching it knowing what's going to take place. Nobody is expecting an academy award winning performance from a Moore film, nor should anyone be expecting to see anything other than one sided-ness. And why shouldn't it be one-sided? He's trying to convince people of siding with him. It would be a terrible strategy to win people over to the side you want, while talking up the other side. Slander works much better than honesty.

I'd have to argue that notion. Has Michael Moore really changed any minds since Bowling for Columbine? No, because he has been thoroughly exposed. Those that agree with him see his films and those that disagree with his point of view disregard him entirely. He preaches to the choir.

And as for a "one sided documentary", thats a contradiction in terms. Documentaries are suppose to attempt honest reporting at all times to reduce the level of bias, while Moore steeps himself in bias and embraces it. Call you what you will, but documentary is not the appropriate term.

And while you claim not to expect academy awards from Moore and his style, here's the problem: He's won an academy award.