You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Michael Moore & Me
- Thread starter nelg
- Start date
So?
Those two examples are well known and have been debated endlessly, even on these boards. Moore makes POV-'documentaries' in which he does not deny his agenda, and he's quite skillful at it. It's mostly the latter point that make him controversial (read: uses (m)any means to promote his political ends as well as himself).
Whether people agree with him or not, I'm a bit saddened that there's a market for making a documentary telling people that documentaries such as Moore's might not be entirely straightforward in their storytelling. Such a thing should be glaringly obvious, no matter from which camp the narrative is emanating.
PS: This thread might be better suited for RPSC.
Those two examples are well known and have been debated endlessly, even on these boards. Moore makes POV-'documentaries' in which he does not deny his agenda, and he's quite skillful at it. It's mostly the latter point that make him controversial (read: uses (m)any means to promote his political ends as well as himself).
Whether people agree with him or not, I'm a bit saddened that there's a market for making a documentary telling people that documentaries such as Moore's might not be entirely straightforward in their storytelling. Such a thing should be glaringly obvious, no matter from which camp the narrative is emanating.
PS: This thread might be better suited for RPSC.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
That's ridiculous, or at best isolated to that specific ridiculous location if it exists. In no way could that be an indicator of any sort of systemic behavior, and I highly doubt that things went as portrayed.
true editing always works wonders but somehow it was very convincing.That's ridiculous, or at best isolated to that specific ridiculous location if it exists. In no way could that be an indicator of any sort of systemic behavior, and I highly doubt that things went as portrayed.
(from memory) they even had a guy from the police department PR department onboard with a clipboard with a printed up clear 3 picture graphic which went something like, high iq == lawyer (this pissed me off honestly but anyways), medium (policeman), low == cleaner perhaps
the policedep's pr guy argument was someone that scored high in the iq test would feel frustrated as a policeman ( obviously ignoring why someone would want to be a policeman, ala breaking heads, see the seedy life of the mundane cutting edge etc )
sorry mr multimillionare we will not let u climb this mountain you will be much happier sitting at home in front of a cosy fire
No one will ever beat Leni Riefenstahl. At least her works for the Nazi party are true works of art and have gone down in cinema history as masterpieces.
Please say you didn't truly meant that...
Do you find "artistic" to support in any way a regime that caused the death of nearly 60 Million people ?
Please say you didn't truly meant that...
Do you find "artistic" to support in any way a regime that caused the death of nearly 60 Million people ?
What's the problem with that?
Effective communicators should be acknowledged as such regardless of the palatability of their message. Effective propaganda is "admirable" in its own way, regardless of the message.
I guess in these days of Rightthink and Rightspeak it's difficult for people to allow themselves to draw the distinction. People who do bad things are bad people, ergo everything a bad person does is despicable. Keeps it nice and black-and-white and easy on the thinking.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
What's the problem with that?
Effective communicators should be acknowledged as such regardless of the palatability of their message. Effective propaganda is "admirable" in its own way, regardless of the message.
I guess in these days of Rightthink and Rightspeak it's difficult for people to allow themselves to draw the distinction. People who do bad things are bad people, ergo everything a bad person does is despicable. Keeps it nice and black-and-white and easy on the thinking.
ditto.
I guess the world must be nice and simple if you can't or refuse to see the difference.
Speaking of the artistic value...As I watch through triumph of the will I fail to see one single shot of the crowd saluting hitler as a whole during the nuremberg rally. That would have made the most powerful shot ever.
Instead she is filming this shit when that happens.
A static camera at this or this (a bit more to the left) angle would have done a better job than her.
Also I wonder why she's using the eagle. I think the eagle stands for freedom and pride, not oppression and shame.
Instead she is filming this shit when that happens.
A static camera at this or this (a bit more to the left) angle would have done a better job than her.
Also I wonder why she's using the eagle. I think the eagle stands for freedom and pride, not oppression and shame.
Because 'oppression and shame' were really what Riefenstahl was trying to convey in a movie called Triumph of the Will...Also I wonder why she's using the eagle. I think the eagle stands for freedom and pride, not oppression and shame.
I'd say you answered your own question perfectly.
Because 'oppression and shame' were really what Riefenstahl was trying to convey in a movie called Triumph of the Will...
I'd say you answered your own question perfectly.
Yes but it's a documentary.:smile:
Also I wonder why she's using the eagle. I think the eagle stands for freedom and pride, not oppression and shame.
Whose eagle are you referring to? And whose freedom? Whose pride? Whose oppression? And whose shame?
If you don't understand why Mr Hitler represented freedom + pride v. oppression + shame to Germany at that time then you need to re-read your history books for a bit of historical context. Fortunately, the lessons were learned second time round. Unfortunately, they've been forgotten since.
Whose eagle are you referring to? And whose freedom? Whose pride? Whose oppression? And whose shame?
If you don't understand why Mr Hitler represented freedom + pride v. oppression + shame to Germany at that time then you need to re-read your history books for a bit of historical context. Fortunately, the lessons were learned second time round. Unfortunately, they've been forgotten since.
I don't think you can represent yourself with the eagle if you're an oppressor. And if you're in a country where freedom is of value you ought to be ashamed if you're oppressing and blaming others for you problems. Hitler was an hypocritical stupid irresponsible lying fuck and has no right to use the eagle.
Same goes to america too. Racism is a shameful part of your history, and any racist idiot who thinks he can represent himself with the eagle can go fuck himself.
Thank you.
Also I wonder why she's using the eagle. I think the eagle stands for freedom and pride, not oppression and shame.
You tell that to the pigeons.
Cheers
You tell that to the pigeons.
Cheers
The eagle is righteous in it's killings. It does not blame others for it's problem and then comes up with the brilliant solution to exterminate and oppress them.
The eagle is righteous in it's killings. It does not blame others for it's problem .
How do you know ?
How do you know ?
Are you considering otherwise?
The eagle was first used by the Romans. Their glory is why other nations have used the eagle(also no coincidence why many state buildings in the west resemble Roman architecture). Sure the Romans had pride, peace and prosperity but not without lots and lots of bloodshed and oppression.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 6K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 2K