Roger Ebert Slams Michael Moore for Bowling Inaccuracies

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Silver Bullet

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,335
Location
Arizona
Roger Ebert addresses the subject of documentaries. A reader had questioned Farenheit 451, Moore's documentary that attempts to turn voters away from Bush. In the following article:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html
The question was whether documentaries should contain opinion.

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.
Click to expand...

Much as I dislike Ebert's politics, I am gratified that he has a commitment to the truth. Too bad the same can't be said for Michael Moore.
 
Vonnegut....moore..ther are both geniuses:barf:

Maybe not....

I sent Ebert a nice message...

I am always impressed when a liberal has integrity
 
Hmmm...Roger Ebert is now being critical of Moore?

With any luck, and just a pinch of justice, this could be the beginning of the karmic smackdown that Moore so richly deserves.

Oh, and a quick note on Kurt Vonnegut. As already mentioned, he didn't write Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury did. I may disagree rather vehemently with Vonnegut's politics, but the man is a literary genius.
 
With any luck, and just a pinch of justice, this could be the beginning of the karmic smackdown that Moore so richly deserves
Click to expand...

I doubt it, at least not for a while. Michael Moore's star is on the rise. Fahrenheit 9/11 won best picture (or whatever) at Cannes, and is getting rave reviews here in America. He's preaching to the Hollywood choir, wanting that second Oscar. Look at last year's Oscars: many of the winners (Penn, Robbins) were the stooges who came out in public against the war. The Oscars isn't about quality, it's about reward to those who support their "cause".

Michael Moore is the Bellesiles of the film world.
 
Speaking of Fahrenheit 451... Ray Bradbury, classic American science fiction author, had some interesting things to say about moore.

Said he was an inconsiderate jackass and his endorsement was what sunk the Wesley Clarke campaign. He also should have notified him about the title of his upcoming propaganda flick but moore didn't have the common decency to. Sounds like a fair assessment to me. :D

Kurt Vonnegut is a bleeding heart liberal? You'd think from his short story Harrison Bergeron that he'd be libertarian. The story is about how the politically correct crowd goes overboard on equality. They try to make everyone equal, not just before the law but in every way. Physically strong people walk around with weights tied to their arms and legs to make them tire more easily. Beautiful people wear masks to cover their faces. Smart people wear noisemaking earmuffs to distract their concentration.

Basically the kind of nightmare scenario if the politically correct leftwing crowd gets in control. Oh and the handicapper-general, the one in charge of making sure everyone else is crippled has no handicap devices and uses a 12 gauge shotgun to kill the hero Harrison at the end. He's powerless to defend himself, sounds like a scathing criticism of the leftwing doctrines if you ask me.
 
THANK YOU BOOFUS!!!! Sorry, I read Harrison Bergeron when I was a kid, and couldn't remember the name. Kurt wrote that, huh? Thanks for the reminder.
 
Ebert's not being critical of Moore himself but rather the film Bowling for Columbine.

Ebert's doing the right thing here. Going after the film and not the person behind it. While we all might think Moore is one misguided son of a gun it was his film and the lies within it that were passed off as fact that is the real problem.

One, it's alarming that the "Academy" (whatever that is) thought this was actually a documentary.

Two, it's alarming that so many people walking among us think this is factual.

Three, it provided a springboard to make more crap like this to be passed off as fact.

We'll always have bleeding heart socialists among us. That doesn't bother me so much. What bothers me is the bold faced lies that he's telling in film to the people that they suck down like it's the truth; and he's getting away with it!

Kudos for Ebert calling out his work and exposing it. Little late though.
 
So what are the odds of Ray Bradbury getting an injunction preventing release of the movie?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/06/18/entertainment2219EDT0805.DTL

Ray Bradbury is demanding an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for lifting the title from his classic science-fiction novel "Fahrenheit 451" without permission and wants the new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be renamed.

...snip...

Bradbury, who is a registered political independent, said he would rather avoid litigation and is "hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."
Click to expand...

DJ
 
Ray Bradbury may be a big help here. If moore wants to avoid lawsuits he will have to admit that the title is 'satire' and that will be admittting it is NOT TRUE to all the morons who otherwise would buy every word as gosple
 
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2004/06/02.html#a5394

Ray Bradbury: "Moore är en skitstövel"


Michael Moore stole the title to his fictuous documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" from author Ray Bradbury (picture), who in 1953 wrote his dystopic scifi classic "Fahrenheit 451." So what does Ray Bradbury, now 84 years old, think about Moore using his book title for his Bush-bashing movie project?

The answer is, as journalists in the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter found out when they called the author, that he is mighty pissed off. Here's my translation of the juicier bits of the interview.

"Michael Moore is a ****** ******* that is what I think about that case. He stole my title and changed the numbers without ever asking me for permission.

Have you spoken to him?

- He is a horrible human being. Horrible human!

That Ray Bradbury thought Moore could take his Palme d'Or from Cannes and stuff it was extremely clear, even if he never expressed himself with those words, when DN reached the author in his home in Los Angeles. [...]

Do you disagree with his opinions...

-That has nothing to do with it. He copied my title, that is what happened. That has nothing to do with my political opinions.

Bradbury said that he had tried to discuss the issue with Moore, but that the director avoided him.

- I called his publisher. They promised he would call me the same afternoon, but he didn't.

When was that?

- A few months ago, when his plans about the movie was first made known.

The conversation touched politics when Bradbury mentioned that Moore had ruined general Wesley Clark's chances to become the Democrat's presidential candidate. Like several American commentators Bradbury means that Moore's support to Clark was a kiss of death when Clark did not distance himself from Moore's claim that Bush deserted from his military service.

- He slandered the president to general Clark, and Clark allowed him to do it. Clark should have said: "Don't say that. It is not true." That day Clark lost his chance to become president.

I understand. And you supported general Clark?

- No. I support honesty.

According to Bradbury others have asked him about Moore's use of his title, but "I don't want to make a big story out of it."

- I detest all paparazzi journalism that is so common these days. If I just could make him change his title silently, that would be the best thing.

Do you think that is possible, I mean the movie is very famous under that title now?

- Who cares? Nobody will see his movie, it is almost dead already. Nevermind, nobody cares.

But it won the Palme d'Or in Cannes?

- So what? I have won prizes in different places and they are mostly meaningless. The people there hate us, which is why they gave him the d'Or. It's a meaningless prize.

Ray Bradbury was very clear that he considered Moore a dishonest thief, but refused to answer if he would press charges in any way.
 
Another piece of pig vomit

Mikey MOOre. Another piece of pig dung. Another thieving low life cheer leader for murders and liars and all the rest of the anti-American pack of anal orifices that pOOpulate the lOOney left in this country.

Did I cover everything??

Hope so.

rr
 
whereas the likes of Malcolm, Lott and Nemorov (to say nothing of Fox "News") escape with barely a comment
Click to expand...
Please list any works that are more comprehensive and factual on the subject of gun control than Mr. Lott's.
 
Well Lott pulled a really stupid stunt where he wrote false endorsements of his work on the internet. That doesn't invalidate his work per se but it raises serious questions. Imagine what we would say if an anti gun person did that.

By the way who's Malcolm and Nemerov? Joyce Lee Malcolm?
 
VB here!!:scrutiny: :scrutiny: When people like Mike Barnicle get called for plagarisim and can still publish, it sure seems to me, that the journalistic community is highly suspect in reporting the "facts"!
 
Last edited:
If you thought Lott got away with "barely a comment," then you weren't reading these boards back when he pulled that stupid stunt. There IS, however, a difference between publishing outright lies as a scholarly work of nonfiction and playing stupid popularity games on the internet. Believe me, I've banned a lot of people in my time who, in real life, were perfectly decent people, but had three or four accounts here or at TFL and were spending half their evenings patting themselves on the back.
 
I despise Moore, but really! "Stealing" a book title, and changing it, are rather incompatable things. Sure, the title of Moore's latest propaganda piece owes it's strength to the allusion to Fahrenheit 451, but allusion and theft aren't the same thing. If Bradbury brings a lawsuit, he'll lose, big time.

It was rather rude to not notify him, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Michael Moore gets a little taste of his own medicine...
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
JohnL2
J
R
  • Locked
FLASH!!! Michael Moore Lies.
Replies
6
Views
2K
Creeping Incrementalism
C
2
  • Locked
Michael Moore plans Bush-bin Laden film
Replies
1
Views
447
longeyes
L
2
  • Locked
Is "Bowling For Columbine" More Important Than "Innocents Betrayed"?
Replies
3
Views
573
NIGHTWATCH
N
G
  • Locked
NRA: The "Academy" Must Now Share Michael Moore's Cinematic Shame
Replies
0
Views
419
gun-fucious
G
Back
Top