(no subject)

[teleidoplex]

Finally saw Fahrenheit 9/11. What an amazing piece of work. Moore's narrative style is really developing a much more nuanced flow and complexity. This seemed to be the most coherent and even-handed of his films to date (although I haven't seen The Big One, which I've heard is very well-done).

One comment back to all the people who have seen it already. I read from several people that they "wished he would put the camera down and give that poor woman a hug" (or variations on that). So I was watching for what they were talking about because I had heard it so many times. Because I was prepped for it, I think I noticed something that they might not have. Assuming they were talking about the scene near the end where Lila goes to the White House and breaks down when she finds it more difficult than she anticipated, I think that Moore *did* put the camera down. In the shot you can see there is another camera behind her (that quickly gets out of the shot). The main camera shows her bent over from her grief. But then there is a definite cut, and the next shot seems to be from the other camera that was behind her. I don't think this was an immediate jump, because Lila is in a different position relative to the things around her, and she has obviously composed herself.

I guess what I'm saying is that, contrary to the critiques I've read about this situation, I think Moore *did* put the camera down. Whether or not he "gave her a hug" is open to conjecture, but he did fairly obviously give her some time to compose herself. And actually, I'm glad that we don't see him giving her a hug onscreen, or comforting her in any obvious way because that would have felt very emotionally manipulative, and I would probably have interpreted it as an attempt by Moore to become character in her grief, which I would have had problems with.

I think that turning the cameras off, giving her some time to compose herself until she felt comfortable to restart, and then switching angles to smooth out the disjunction caused by such a cut, was a subtle and sympathetic way of handling the situation.

Comments

[bneuensc.livejournal.com]

I didn't notice the camera cut, but I stand by my opinion that Lila made a conscious choice to use her grief and pain as a means of striking back at the people she holds responsible; it's not like Moore had ambushed some unsuspecting woman and forced her into a breakdown. There was emotional manipulation going on (though not as bad as if Moore had gone and hugged her on-screen) -- and I don't blame them for it. Calm, rational, emotionally flat persuasion is not nearly as effective as something that grabs you by the heartstrings, and this is a documentary very definitely designed to affect.

[drydem.livejournal.com]

See, I wouldn't call it a documentary. I would call it propaganda. Propaganda I agree with, but propaganda nonetheless. Speaking with academics, I wouldn't say that there is any such thing as an objective documentary, but one designed purely to achieve political goals seems less designed to document information and more to propagate faith.
I'm not saying it wasn't a valid point, but I'm also saying we should read everyone suspiciously, not just those with whom we disagree.

[bneuensc.livejournal.com]

I'm not so sure I would go as far as to call Fahrenheit 9/11 propaganda and not a documentary, because there was plenty of information embedded in it. For me to call something propaganda, it has to have a much higher proportion of hot air and sweeping, unfounded generalizations. "Jews are conspiring to take over the world" is propaganda; "the Bush family has the following links to the Saudis and the bin Laden family" is documentary. At least in my view. The fact that it had political goals and (more to the point) wore them openly on its sleeve does not, for me, make it propaganda -- not in the pejorative sense, anyway, and in the non-pejorative sense, I'd say that anything designed to persuade you to a certain point of view is propaganda. (And that includes advertising.)

Which is not to say that we shouldn't look critically at the information contained in Fahrenheit 9/11 (or anything else, for that matter) -- we should. We always should.

Good point. So...

[jasonpratt.livejournal.com]

...does anyone know whether the 'protester' who accused Moore of staging the scene has been identified yet?

I say this because... {ahem} Well. We're dealing with someone awfully manipulative, who regularly _does_ stage incidents in order to make his point, and who will add things to scenes to ramp up their impact (like fictitious mental voice-overs).

The sceptical side of my mind asks whether this is a guy we should be trusting to deliver valid information and analysis.

I'm sure I can't be the first person to wonder whether the 'protester' was a plant. Any info on this yet? Interviews with the protester via a reputable source, now that the film is in theaters? Anything like this to verify the scene wasn't a Moore setup all along (except in reverse)?

Even if Lila was herself set up by Moore, that wouldn't by itself nip his points, of course. I'm just thinking: as long as we're being sceptical about information and opinions being fed to us by the media--why should we be so willing to trust Moore, of all people?

Myself, I think propaganda is less in the quality of the data given, than in the tones of the presentation. The basic facts in most American WWII propaganda films were correct; it was how they were delivered that rendered them propaganda:

namely, without charity and justice to the opposition.

And yes... {wry g!}

[jasonpratt.livejournal.com]

...that includes me being charitable and fair to Michael Moore. {proactively hoisting myself on my own petard}

Who, by the way, I have very mixed feelings about. Rather like Mel Gibson, earlier this year. I substantially agree with the basic message in both films. I admire both filmakers for being talented at doing what they do, and for having the guts to try. I have serious problems with the ways in which the messages are presented, nonetheless.

(The types of things being said before and after by both films' releases, are quite similar, too--just reversing the general groups. {ironic g!})

(editing blip! {wince})

[jasonpratt.livejournal.com]

'before and after' should have replaced 'by'.

Come to think of it, I have no idea what 'by' is doing in there at all... {staring increduously}

I certainly don't think the same types of things are being said _by_ both films. Whatever--need a nap, probably... {wry s}

[princess706.livejournal.com]

My biggest issue was the "haves and have mores" scene form the film. The whole $1000-per-plate dinner was real. That really did happen. Bush really did say that but it was YEARS AGO while he was running for governor. Moore fails to bring that up.

I think that makes a big difference. It's *not* a presidential faux pas. Moore doesn't think it's a big deal becuase it's all about Bush and Bush's attitude.

As a consumer, I just wonder how much else of the movie really needed date/time stamps on it. I hate feeling skeptical, as I loved the movie.

And kitsune? Thank you. I feel better now about Lila. :)

[bneuensc.livejournal.com]

Right on all counts; it is indicative of Bush's attitude (since I don't think it's changed much since then), but it would have been good to see more date/time stamps, as you say. As I said, I'm in favor of thinking critically about what we saw.

totally unrelated and welcome home

[princess706.livejournal.com]

I really like your new *BOOM!* icon.

I also decided that you (being the more-badass-than-mom, 33% cooler than everyone I know, amazingly wonderful and beautiful woman that just got back oh-my-god-how-was-the-seminar! chiquita that you are) needed the ability to have more pretty things. If you want them. Or not.

But now you have the option. Enjoy.

You're amazing.

::mwah::