Zeitgeist

[Bond]

Who's watched this shiat?

[GameMaster]

A number of conspiracy theories are presented but none about aliens :(

[Happydude]

i still haven't gotten around to it...

[Professor S]

Is this a "documentary"? I don't watch them anymore since Michael Moore essentially destroyed the genre, making it into a biased soap box artform instead of a form of even handed, thought provoking journalism.

[Dylflon]

Is this a "documentary"? I don't watch them anymore since Michael Moore essentially destroyed the genre, making it into a biased soap box artform instead of a form of even handed, thought provoking journalism.

Michael Moore did not ruin documentaries as a genre.

He created a new sub-genre that you don't like.
Michael Moore is essentially liberal Fox News.

[Professor S]

Michael Moore did not ruin documentaries as a genre.

He created a new sub-genre that you don't like.
Michael Moore is essentially liberal Fox News.

No, he makes propoganda films, not a documentary sub-genre as you call it. Nothing he does remotely smacks of documentary filmmaking, but instead visual op-ed pieces that spawn rhetorical answers from opposing viewpoints. Say what you will about FoxNews ], but as biased as they are at least they normally invite an opposing viewpoint on their opinion programs and panel discussions. Op-Ed filmmakers and even MSNBC (Matigan and Olberman) rarely offer the opposition that chance to be heard.

Documentaries are meant as opservation, not argument, and now it seems like every filmmaker out there follows in suit, even those who spawned propoganda to answer Moore's own garbage.

The problem is, how do you tell the difference when someone is spinning the truth. "An Inconvenient Truth" is full of more deception than true fact and omits volumes of contrarian data, yet it has severely changed the way that millions view the world and has even influenced nations because Gore REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE ANYONE WHO DISAGREES. Does it matter that the earth has been cooling for the better part of a decade? Does it matter that about half of the scientists that Gore cited in his film disagree with his conclusions? Nope. Because ideas and egos matter in these abberations matter, not facts or even honest discussion.

This type of filmmaking is not only irresponsible, regardless of you political leanings, but its dangerous because it plays on people's apathy and ignorance.

[Dylflon]

You do know that there are documentaries that don't do what Michael Moore does, right?

I meant that Michael Moore is like Fox News in that he isn't there to look at something even handedly, but rather to propagate one set of ideas or values. This is what Fox News was created to do as well. This is essentially the main point of a documentary called Outfoxed.

Although you (Professor) might say that it's not valid because whoever made that documentary probably is doing the same thing Michael Moore does and then everything would come in a full ironic circle.

I'm not trying to argue with you about Michael Moore or his documentaries. While I do agree with some of his ideas, I don't necessarily agree with how he presents them through distortion of reality.

Mainly, what I was trying to say was that you can't claim that all documentaries are ruined because of one dude. Because frankly, that's silly. There are amazing documentaries made every year that present their subjects fairly and in a thought provoking manner.

Saying (or insinuating) that no documentaries are good because of Michael Moore is like saying all comedies are bad because the Wayans keep producing spoof movies every year or all action films are bad because of Steven Segal films, or that all dramas are bad because Atonement was really boring.


P.S. I never get why you bother defending Fox News. I mean, really.

[Professor S]

Ok, I will qualify my answer:

The Michael Moore documentary style dominates the artform culturally and financially, but there are other documentaries out there that no one watches or cares about.

To say my comments are silly because I ignore films that no one knows about and affect nothing culturally is quibbling over small points. The point is that Michael Moore changed the documentary artform for the worse and elevated bias over substance. If you want to argue that there are other documentaries out there, fine, I concede that meaningless fact.

And I don't defend Fox News, in fact I concede that they are biased, I only give a fair comparison to other news sources that seem to avoid your poison pen. MSNBC is far more biased that FoxNews ever was for the reasons I stated above. Fox News gives the opposition (which is non-stated admission of bias) a forum, and other news sources such as MSNBC do not. Thats not defending Fox News, I'm simply clarifying things because of people's omission of context.

For the record, I think CNN is the closest to being even handed right now, and I think much of that is owed to the rise of Anderson Cooper.

[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/Articles/Zeitgeist_Technocratic_Undercurrent.htm

i dare you to read that.

[Professor S]

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.