It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Moore film a Brit hit

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 03:23 PM

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Oh please. How old are you? You rely on the 'catagories' you're told about do you? LOL Wake up, tune in and grow up, man.

Since when did any documentary report not have an editorial aspect?

Maybe that's what's so obviously wrong with some of America's news audiences, it seems more than a few of you think your news, like your documentaries, are completely free of editorial influence, line or direction and are the 100% unvarnished actual complete truth.

Oh dear.LMAO.
[edit on 23-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

From your two posts on this thread, it's obvious you are a harsh, angry person. Suggestion: Relax, take a deep breath and count to 10. You will feel much better, I promise.

- LMAO. You are funny. No I'm actually very easy going and hugely amused by the wriggling of the Bushy mob as they continue their attempt to howl down this movie. Not very successfully either if I may say so.

First of all, what does my age have to do with it?

- well I don't wish to insult you but you were talking like a child. I mean get real, since when was any media free from any and all slant and who ever said F 9/11 was? It's about MM's view on what happened not a religious Holy and totally impartial truth.

Secondly I am 33. I was making a comment that you had said since when does the film have to be 100% factual representation. Well, that what the hell a documentary is. I am glad you got a lugh though.

- F 9/11 is factual but I am asking, since when did that exclude an editorial view?

..........and how come it's considered natural and normal to expect a standard of perfect impartiality from MM that obviously couldn't be cared less about in the 'mainstream media'day in day out, hmmmm?

Here are some film definition of what a documentary should be:

Documentary is the creative treatment of actuality."
-- John Grierson, Cinema Quarterly 22.1, 8.

"Documentary defines not subject or style, but approach. ... Documentary approach to cinema differs from that of story-film not in its disregard for craftsmanship, but in the purpose to which that craftsmanship is put."
--Paul Rotha, Cinema Quarterly, 2.2, 78.

"A non-fiction text using 'actuality' footage, which may include the live recording of events and relevant research materials (i.e. interviews, statistics, etc.). This kind of text is uually informed by a particular point of view, and seeks to address a particular social issue which is related to and potentially affects the audience."
--Paul Wells, "The Documentary Form: Personal and Social 'Realities,'" An Introduction to Film Studies, 2nd ed., ed. Jill Nelmes, 212.

"[A]ny film practice that has as its subject persons, events, or situations that exist outside the film in the real world."
--Steve Blandford, Barry Keith Grant, and Jim Hillier, The Film Studies Dictionary, 73.

"A nonfiction film . Documentaries are usually shot on location, use actual persons rather than actors, and focus thematically on historical, scientific, social, or environmental subjects. Their principle purpose is to enlighten, inform, educate, persuade, and provide insight into the world in which we live."
--Frank Beaver, Dictionary of Film Terms, 119.

"A nonfiction film about real events and people, often avoiding traditional narrative structures."
--Timothy Corrigan, A Short Guide to Writing About Film, 4th ed., 206.

"Film of actual events; the events are documented with the real people involved, not with actors."
--Ralph S. Singleton and James A. Conrad, Filmmaker's Dictionary, 2nd ed., 94.

"A documentary film purports to present factual information about the world outside the film."
--David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, Film Art: An Introduction, 5th ed., 42.

"A film or video presentation of actual events using the real people involved and not actors."
--John W. Cones, Film Finance and Distribution, 154.

"A type of film marked by its interpretative handling of realistic subjects and backgrounds. Sometimes the term is applied widely to include films that appear more realistic than conventional commercial pictures; at other times, so narrowly that only films with a narration track and a background of real life are so categorized."
--Edmund F. Penney, Facts on File Film and Broadcast Terms, 73.

"A term with a wide latitude of meaning, basically used to refer to any film or program not wholly fictional in nature."
--James Monaco, The Dictionary of New Media, 94.

"A film that deals directly with fact and not fiction, that tries to convey reality as it is instead of some fictional version of reality. These films are concerned with actual people, places, events, or activities."
--Ira Konigsberg, The Complete Film Dictionary, 2nd ed., 103.

"Unlike most fiction films , documentaries deal with facts--real people, places, and events rather than invented ones. Documentarists believe that they're not creating a world so much as reporting on the one that already exists."
--Louis Giannetti, Understanding Movies

- yeah, you should have read your list first.

BTW I gather MM has said his film isn't so much a documentary as a polemic.

I'm still waiting for the anti-MM side to show where the film lies, I heard he's thinking of putting up $10 000 a time if you can point out any actual lies.

Better get your thinking cap on, huh?

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 03:37 PM
Well from the way you type, I hardly think that you are easy going. And all I was saying that know what, nevermind, it really is pointless trying to debate with someone like you. Good day sir.

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 03:53 PM

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
Well from the way you type, I hardly think that you are easy going. And all I was saying that know what, nevermind, it really is pointless trying to debate with someone like you. Good day sir.

- you have a nice day now!

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:08 PM
Kozmo, your avatar is clearly telling.

Notice the location of where your nuke is going off. IN SAUDI ARABIA.

Thats one of the points made by Michael Moore. Bush was far more interested in protecting the Saudis in the 9/11 fiasco than he was US. Because everyone who was in the military in the past 15 years knows the Saudis are number 1, bar none, the biggest supporters, financers, and creators, of terrorism.

Yet we did not go after them did we? NOOOOOO. We went after Iraq, a country that could have been left alone. Saudi Arabia should have been our target. The Arab penninsula is our problem. Not Iraq. Upon properly taking out the Saudis and thier corrupt govornment, the terrorist organinizations would have fallen apart for lack of funding. Remeber, 50% of Saudis think Bin Laden is a national hero.

So, Michael Moore, despite his obvious liberal opinions, stated alot of facts. The Saudis, the backstabbing rats they are, are bed buddies of George Bush, and have alot of oil.

If this war was really about terrorism, wed have taken on the Saudis and sevred ties with them. But no, they have george Bush in thier pocket, and they are both scratching each others backs.

How else do you explain why several pages of the 9/11 report blacked out mention of the Saudis?

War is the answer, your half right, but we picked the wrong country to tangle with. the real villan rides Iraqs southern Border.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in