I looked that site. I looked quickly, so I may be wrong, but I would hesitate to use it to "shoot down" the movie. The author of the site makes a lot of assumptions about what the Michael Moore intended to incite in the viewer, and seems to debate trivial details.
For example, the author of the web site gets upset about a Willie Horton ad. He makes a big point about whether the add was paid for by the Bush/Quayle campaign, or just by supporter of Bush/Quayle in cahoots with the Bush/Quayle Campaign. That's just silly to my mind - the distinction between official/non-official ads is solely a way to protect funny money and get around campaign finance laws. It was pretty obviously a Bush/Quayle, regardless of the funny money games.
The author of the web site never tackles Moore's main point about Willie Horton ad - that it was racist ad calculated to play into white fears about white on black crime. I suspect the author doesn't tackle that issue because Moore (and every political analyst I have ever read) says that was
exactly the point of the ad. The only difference I have ever seen is that that the Democratic analyst call it "cynical and manipulative" where the Republicans call it "clever" - but both are very clear that it was a very effective use of the race card.
I don't want to belabor that one point, but the whole site feels that way to me. It picks at the details, but doesn't really confront the issues.
As another example, the author whines on about how the NRA event in Denver was not a rally, it was a regularly scheduled meeting. Who cares?
He whines on about juxtaposing Heston's "cold dead hands" remark with weeping children. The "cold dead hands" thing has always seemed really stupid to me, but I think it's fair game.
The fact is that I didn't want a gun ban any more the day after Columbine than the day before. If the "cold dead hands" quote is a dramatic way of saying "no gun ban" - which I think it is, then it's fair game to juxtapose the weeping children with that quote.
In fact, we don't believe that a gun ban would have prevented Columbine - many of us believe that a gun ban would encourage more Columbines. Michael Moore was just making that point.
If you say something as stupid as, "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands" - you should expect it to be used anywhere and everywhere.
I think that the web site mentioned above is wrong headed. If I call an ad a Bush/Quayle ad and it's really just put together by a bunch of Bush/Quayle supporters with the support of the campaign, and not actually with the official campaign money, maybe what I said wasn't strictly true. But the difference was not substantive - unless we are investigating campaign finance.
Look, I haven't seen the movie - I find Moore to be far too annoying and puerile to think of watching him him for more than ten minutes. I have seen bits of it when my son was watching it on TV.
My impression is that Moore completely understands the power of the camera. He understands two things:
- People say stupid things all the time.
- When you control the camera, you get to control what people don't see.
The first point is trivial - if I only show you gun owners making stupid statements, then gun owners will look stupid.
The second point is critical - the Curia figured out a long time ago that the way to control the Pope was
not by lying to him. The way to control the Pope was by choosing which documents you make available to the Pope. Moore understands this.
My sense of the way to criticize the movie is on the second point not arguing about the exact date on which the KKK became a terrorist organization.
Michael doesn't show a woman grateful to have not been raped because she was carrying.
Michael doesn't show an elderly homeowner who successfully defended himself against a burglar.
The main power of the movie is what it
doesn't show - point out what he doesn't show. The rest is picayune details.
Mike
