h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This point is actually dealt with in full in the article I linked to: http://michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko . But as you obviously can’t be bothered to go there, here’s the relevant passage:

‘As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image – hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?’

Nicely put, I think.

Incidentally, far from distorting what Heston had to say, Mike helpfully provides a link to a transcript of his Denver speech: http://michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/heston.php .

Maolmuire:

Firstly I say perhaps it might be worth reading the link that Ormy provided, you given an attack there is the rebuttle.

Secondly I would say that your deconstruction of my post is a world apart from Moore on Heston. Basically can you really say that what Moor did substantially changs the meaning? I cant, the speech fleshes it out and makes it look a little less sensational; but crucially IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF WHAT HE SAID. I doubt Heston would say he disagrees with the sentiments as shown in the movie. However you actually made my speech mean somethinfg quite different from what I said a very different tactic.

Thirdly "Either you tell the full truth as best you can or else you are engaged in propaganda"...:-

What? Look mate truth is not some absolute concept it is relative, language is not neutral. Once again I ask what what LIES did Moore tell in BFC? What was a lie eh.

The thing presenting facts to an end is what all documentarys do, everybody who has ever made a documentary has attempted to elicit a reaction of some sort that is what they do.

Still each to his own eh?

My view on Michael Moore is that he's hugely entertaining, so I like his stuff. What makes me laugh is the people who suggest that he edits his stuff to get his own opinion across as if this isn't what every single broadcaster and politician in the world does. he has an agenda just as Bush and everyone else has, and he uses exactly the same tools that they use.

Moore might use sensationalist techniques to get his point across, but then that's often the best way. Why else do we show pictures of starving children more often than adults in fundraising appeals?

Did I forget to mention that I did enjoy "Bowling..."?

Thank you for the link, but I had already read Heston's speech. He finishes his speech ironically with this:

"Those who are hostile toward us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So let us be mindful ... the eyes of the nation are upon us today."

However, Moore made it seem that Heston said "...from my cold dead hands" while the parents of the dead children mourned outside. Thus making him appear callous and indifferent to the sufferings of the victims and their families. But this isn't true, in fact it's a lie. Again with Heston, the interview is edited greatly. Look at the hands of the clock on the wall! He again takes Heston's words out of context and makes him appear to blame America's 'mixed ethnicity'. Infact Heston was talking about the problem of racism, but taken out of context he appears racist. This is a lie. Heston worked with Martin Luther King to break the barriers facing non-whites in Hollywood, and that took real guts.
Moore attempts to show that Heston had another gun rally in Flint, MI just 48 hours after another schools laying: "Just as at Columbine, Heston showed up in Flint to have a large pro-gun rally." Another lie. Heston showed up at an election rally some eight months later. Yet you claim "IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF WHAT HE SAID." I think I have just demonstrated that it does.

Now, I haven't seen the film in quite some time, but I'm sure that I could go through it nearly frame by frame and demonstrate Moore's inaccuracies and lies.

Further you say:
"The thing presenting facts to an end is what all documentarys do, everybody who has ever made a documentary has attempted to elicit a reaction of some sort that is what they do."

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. Jacques Cousteau ended almost every documentary with a plea about the environmnet and how we should be more careful. He did NOT lie, or distort the truth to do so. He had an agenda but remained honest. James Burke did several very good series of documentaries on science and invention and how they have affected our culture and worldview. He too had an agenda, his was education. Shock horror. You really don't seem to have a very good opinion of documentary makers.

"Look mate truth is not some absolute concept it is relative." This seems to be the reason why you defend Moore. Truth is relative. Hmm. To what exactly? Is there no real truth, just opinions and a sort of cultural relativity? Well now , surely you cannot object to anything I have or may ever say as you KNOW there is no objective truth, and even if you disagree with what I say then that's just too bad isn't it? MY truth may be just as valid as your truth even if they would appear to be mutually incompatible. I must say that I find the concept of a relative truth very convenient, thank you.

You know, Maolmuire, each year the Academy awards an Oscar for 'best editing' in a movie. In your opinion, should that award be re-titled 'best lying'? I ask because you seem to have some sort of problem with the whole concept of editing.

But it happens in all film documentaries and in all news media: that's why the people who put together newspapers are called 'editors'. You might feel that it looks in 'Columbine' as though the 'cold, dead hands' quote from Heston is from the Denver speech, but Moore doesn't say that. He introduces Heston with that well-known image, then goes on to show what seem to me to be pretty representative soundbites from the Denver speech. You might feel that the editing is misleading or tendentious, but that isn't the same thing as lying. It's just what all news media does, and it's much less crude than what I hear a lot of the right-wing media does in the States.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason that *I* defend Moore, and the reason I wrote the Guide Entries on him, is that I agree with most (not all) of what he has to say, that I find his style highly entertaining, and that his popularity reassures me that there is still some sanity left in the USA.

Frankly, if I thought that Moore was telling outright whoppers in a bid to help bring down the Bush administration, then I would consider that to be justifiable, because getting that appalling bunch of warmongers, corporate cronies and religious zealots out of the White House is essential for the future of the whole planet. But I don't think he is doing that, mainly because he could never get away with it. So many people (like yourself) are eager to catch Mike out that these days he makes damn sure he can back up everything he says. Take a look at the back of his latest book 'Dude, Where's My Country?' and you'll find 26 pages, in a small typeface, meticulously listing his sources. He's already formed a rebuttal team to counter the attacks on his new film 'Fahrenheit 9/11' that will inevitably happen if Disney ever allow it to be released.

Michael Moore and his work are certainly, gloriously opinionated. As the title of my Guide Entry says, he's a polemicist. But a liar? I don't think that you or anyone else has ever made that charge stick, and there have certainly been plenty of people trying to do so.

<>
I believe that was the point Moore was driving at!

So, does that mean that George Bush didn't lie to get elected, he merely 'edited' his truth?

Adelaide: you’re right, of course. ‘Bowling’ is much more than just a film about the Columbine tragedy. It's a film that uses that dreadful incident as the starting point for a wide-ranging investigation of American gun culture; a culture that, viewed from outside, seems utterly bizarre and horrifying. Moore's perspective is particularly interesting to me because he is both American and a gun owner, so he's looking at the whole thing as a sceptical insider.

I still never cease to be amazed at the way that some otherwise apparently perfectly reasonable American male Researchers on this site seem to be gripped by a kind of rabid, primal castration fear when the subject of gun control is broached. ‘Bowling’ helped me begin to understand where that peculiarly American affliction might come from.

Jimster: well, quite. I think the ‘reasons’ for going to war in Iraq were pretty sharply edited too.

<>

Sorry, Ferrettbadger, I cannot agree less. There is such a thing as absolute truth, and you do Moore no favours by using such relativism in his defence. It is unnecessary, because he is not untruthful.

"Frankly, if I thought that Moore was telling outright whoppers in a bid to help bring down the Bush administration, then I would consider that to be justifiable"

Ah, the truth at last. I believe the above quote speaks volumes.

Ferretbadger cried fowl when I did a Moore job on him, but I only used his words interspersed with my own. Just a little bit of editing on my part. Gosh, why on earth would someone have a problem with that? Does someone here have a problem with editing? Perish the thought!

This bit is good too:

"and it's much less crude than what I hear a lot of the right-wing media does in the States." Isn't that precious? Judging what you have not heard or seen yourself using second hand reports. Hey! That's just great!

I must admit, I absolutely relished this one:

"getting that appalling bunch of warmongers, corporate cronies and religious zealots out of the White House is essential for the future of the whole planet." Can I say once again, ah, the truth at last? I remember a story from my childhood about a chicken who went around crying that the sky was about to fall on everyone's heads. Sound familiar?

Yes, yes, it appears that in getting Bush from the White House ANY means may be used. Which reminds me of another phrase which you may find useful:

"Ze means chustifies ze end." Is it true? Well perhaps only relatively so.

An individuals view of the world is by its very nature is going to be subjective. In this sense there is no absolute truth, check out a little quantum pyhsics for examples of that. Even the passage of time is variable depending on where you view it form!

I can appreciate your argument Maolmuire and at the same time sympathise with Ferrett's.

Anyone can present "documented" evidence in a way that will support their views and is likely to ignore other information that detrects from their case. Even when the evidence that detracts from their case follows on from evidence they are using to support this case.

For instance TPTB could interuppt this sentence to make it look like I dont a proper sentence

Over the years I have gone from thinking of Chucky Heston as a hero to a bigotted old dinosaur and feel that I wont miss him or his ideas when they pass into posperity. It has taken years of reading and hearing tin full what he has to say for this to sink in. Years of seeing the effects of people following his ideas and those of the NRA for me to form this opinion. Years. Moore realistically can only keep our bums on cinema seat for 3 hours max. So unsuprisingly he's going to be pretty punchy in his style. Is he going to show the whole convention to make sure he doesnt get anything out of context. Get real!

Its a post modern documentary it does not insult your intelligence by making a pretence to be impartial. If you think that documentaries ought to be impartial like some others you have seen there's a word for people like you it used to be in the dictionary but they have taken gullible out of the dictionary now. If you think documataries ought not to be so blatanly entertaining, I have film on pot of drying paint, if you would like look at that.

(that was possibly the best pun I have ever made)

When Ferret says he doesnt mind lies unseatin Bush i think he is refering to the principle of those who live by the sword dying by the sword, as it were.

one love

PS, but Count did you actually like this film

It's always nice to hear that my writing has given someone pleasure, Maolmuire.

I was thinking of the globally legendary Fox News when I wrote that line about the American right-wing media. Obviously, over here in the UK I'm thankfully not exposed to that particular channel, but I have read plenty of the ravings of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson and their atrocious ilk online. Now that's what I call obscene material on the web. I'm enormously glad that Michael Moore is around to fight back.

And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that ANY means would be justified to get Bush out of the White House. I'd be genuinely horrified if Bush were to be murdered, not least because that'd probably win the election for the Republicans.

My point was that IF Moore was lying to get Bush ousted then I think that WOULD be justifiable... but it'd also be very foolish of him. For one thing, the truth about Bush is so appalling that there's no need to lie; and for another, Mike has to be scrupulously accurate with his facts because there are so many folks like you dying to catch him out.

And so far, when it comes to pinning any outright factual inaccuracies on him, you've all failed.

I like what Jimster said. That all film directors have a personal agenda - their reason for making their films. And yes, this crosses over to broadcasters and politicians.

The film was not fiction. It was based on a real account of what happend at Columbine. In this sense it *is* a documentary. There are no actors, no story-lines, no beginning and ending to it. It showed the facts as seen by Mr Moore.

I could also watch a BBC documentary about lions and say - 'hey, lions don't actually *do* that, the director is trying to make it seem like a Disney film!' But this still wouldn't mean that the film wasn't a documentary.

Inaccuracies in a documentary doesn't mean a film isn't a documentary. It simply means the director is attempting to show his own version of what he sees to be true.

I didn't see any blatant lies in Bowling for Columbine, though it *was* an exaggeration that people in Canada never lock their doors (I'm Canadian, so I can say this was an exaggeration). But this didn't really bother me.

Sure, Mr Moore stretches a point here and there to make his own point, but whoever said that documentary films were about complete and total facts? A documentary is different from other sorts of films because of its subject matter and how it is dealt with. To think that documentaries *only* show the *truth* and nothing but the *truth* is an exaggerated expectation, at least I think so.

az

Hmmm, the general consensus seems to be that a few inaccuracies (or as some might prefer just 'stretching the point') doesn't disqualify a film from being a documentary even if they are intentional. It would also seem that 'telling a few porkies' in order to accomplish an agenda is A-OK too. Acceptable. Rewardable.

Yet it would appear that the same people have a problem with the US administration's reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Why? Using their own guidelines one would be hard pressed to find fault with Bush's performance.

There also seems to be a problem with what is termed 'right wing media'. I have to laugh at this one. Most media I have encountered in the US is decidedly liberal in outlook. Perhaps someone could give me a list of right-wing media oulets? I'm not kidding on this one; I am genuinely puzzled at the idea of right-wing media. I know a lot of radio talk show hosts are right-wing, but beyond that I'm really at a loss.

As for BFC, I believe that people are making excuses for a film that:

(a) they enjoyed
(b) reinforces what they have believed all along anyway
(c) attacks people and positions they dislike
(d) makes them feel that they are part of those combating said people/positions

And to be fair, I should really give my reasons for attacking BFC:

(a) it's totally biased
(b) mildly put, it distinctly 'colours' the facts
(c) I really have no problem with gun ownership
(d) I really despised the hatchet job on long-time civil rights campaigner Chuck Heston.

Well, there are more, but these are the biggies

Two people can witness the same thing yet their reports of what occurred can differ greatly. I suppose that we'll just have to accept that we view BFC very differently indeed.

<>

Um, excuse me. Why? Are the 'guidelines' one finds acceptable in film-making somehow comparable to those used for governing a country?

Are you serious?

az

Morals, ethics, scruples, whatever you want to call them, are the same for me in my dealings with you as they are for my dealings with everyone else. When I get up in the morning, they remain the same as they were the night before. Are you suggesting a sliding scale of scruples depending on what you are engaged in? Who would trust you if you attempted such a thing?

Are you also suggesting that Michael Moore was unethical?

<>

Civil righst campaigner, Chuck Heston? What does *that* mean?

If you had read the back log you would have seen Mals comments about Hestons involvement in the black civil rights movement of the '60s.

That you failed to notice something that contradicts you're personal view is something very far removed from .

Mal you are wrong on quite a few points.

I did not enjoy the film. Moreover I'd worry for anyone who did enjoy such a film, true there were moments of satirical humour, but satire is not always funny

Overall the film made me feel sad, not a feeling that I enjoy.

Yes Moore makes Heston look like some kind of rigid unthinking idealogue who cannot see the harm that the policies he supports create a great deal of harm to his nation. This is an entirely true situation. having guns so freely available makes it far more likely that innocent people are harmed by them and that accidents of this kind are bound to happen.

There are nowhere near the amount of shootings either accidental or intentional (gang v gang, police v gang, child v teacher, wife v husband) here in the UK that you have on a daily basis in the US. I suppose that as Bill Hicks says drawing the conclusion that: your freeer acess to hand weapons and the high mortality due to shootings in the US are in some way linked, makes me and Moore both communists and liars.

Watching the film did not make me feel like I was doing anything to help the situation. However my youth work previous to that point and since does make me feel like Im doing something to help the situation. Infact if anything the film helped the situation by re-inforcing my views while adding further strands of argument to my learning about the subject of violence in society and blocks to establishing a peaceful and safe community.

You are probably right that most of the people who went to the film were probably of a mind to side with Moores left wing stance anyway. This is not a bad thing in and off its self. If students who are interested in astrnomer turn up at an astronomy class this makes sense, it would only be bad if they accepted everything they heard without questioning it.

On the subject of Bush I'd prefer if the truth were enough to encourage the US electors to unseat him, but when I look at;

his record on the environment, the true inmpact off which may not be felt for generations to come;

the death toll he is responsible for;

the filthy, lieing, greed driven and short sighted foreign policy he has persued;

and how I suspect he will be inclined to worsen his irresponsible and bellicose stance if he receives another (dubious) mandate.

These and other things considered I have to say I wouldnt really mind if he was unseated by electors being exposed to the truth or lies about him though obviously I'd much prefer it to be the truth.

Which bring us neatly onto the right wing media. I do use the term right and left myself but on the whole they are clumbsy and innaccurate even if people do hold a roughly approximate meaning for those words we can use to converse with. The media in the US is right wing from a left wing European outlook. It may not be a right leaning as the KKK might approve of but that does not mean that it is not right leaning.

Many of the creative and performing talents involved in an individual medium may be leftwing, eg. The Simpsons, Roots. However the people who own the media outlets are right wingers. Moreover the people who run media outlets are not only under pressure from their bosses but also commercial pressures through advertising revenues to support right wing politics because big business prefers right wing politicians.

one love

Blickybadger, What makes you think I didn't read the backlog?
What Heston did in the '60s doesn't have a lot to do with what he does now, IMO. People *do* change...