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

Swedes aren't unreliable, but translators might be. Hence my wondering if the report was entirely accurate (which it now appears to be).

"I don't think you can accuse Michael Moore of being polite. And isn't that what people like about him?"( sorry forget who asked)

Yes! I do. I like smart,humorous and irreverent challenging talk!

Jim-L-
The "bank scene* >>I hate to say too much without a link.
I'll look for one.

It is not enough to keep me from watching him!
I am glad he has done this and other topics.

Ann Coulter is a complete nutcase! I have read some of her rants, and the language she uses is amazing - not "bad" language, just hard out abuse and the odd untruth...

<>

Exactly!

Ann C. is a nutcase in my opinion too!

Farenheit 451 is actually the temperature at which paper ignites. In Bradbury's novel "firemen" do not put out fires, they seek out libraries to burn. Bradbury's book was about censorship, and that I think is why Moore chose it to inspire his own title - because he feels Bush has censored and hidden his ties to prominent Saudis, and hidden his reasons for war in Iraq. I love Ray Bradbury's writing, and I think Moore is an impressive filmmaker - I admire them both. I do think Moore should have paid Bradbury for using a title so close to his. I hope these two can work out some sort of settlement. I saw Farenheit 9/11 on opening night, and it was a most intense experience. Didn't change my political views, just made me even more determined to vote. One may not agree with Moore's views, but he is a skilled filmmaker. An example, instead of showing us the footage of 9/11 yet again, Moore just lets us hear it in a pitch black theater. Gave me chills. Farenheit was the number one movie last weekend, despite the fact that it was on fewer than 900 screens. Unheard of for a documentary.

JEllen

It occurs to me that the title is also appropriate because there was so much paper burning in all the offices in the towers on 9/11.

>> ..lets us hear it in a pitch black theater. <<

Sheesh! What a ripoff. Y'pay good money to see a film and they make you sit in the dark and listen to people dying. I wonder now if the theatre seats might be wired to pump out a subliminal Moore's Code message?
" ...- --- - . / .--- --- .... -. / -.- . .-. .-. -.-- / .- -. -.. / ... .- ...- . / - .... . / .-- --- .-. .-.. -.. "


~jwf~

Thanks JEllen - nice thoughts.

I'm curious about the criticisms of Moore's work. I don't consider his films to be straight documentary, but I don't think this diminishes the work really. Moore is quite up front about the fact that he uses humour in his films, so I guess the intent is documentary/entertainment. When I compare this to some of the shite we get on NZ television that is called documentary, I find that Moore's work still holds integrity.

We do still get good documentaries as well, but not of the political or current affairs investigative type. All we get is 20/20 or 60 minutes type stuff, and they usually don't ask the pertinent questions

I think there is a place for Moore's kind of films, alongside other genres of documentary/political comment.

If the accusations about him distorting facts are true, I'd like to see some evidence of this. I mean that seriously. The one concern I have about Moore is that fame/power is going to spoil him (and thus his work).

Every single review I've read of the movie says the same thing: this is Michael Moore's best and most "grown-up" work.

I understand this to mean that it is the movie in which he relies on fewest trademark tricks and sarcasm to make a point.

If this is the case it must be worth seeing. I have managed to divine that if Mr. Moore put aside his bag of tricks and felt he didn't need them to carry his message, the message must stand up on its own. If that's the case it deserves the praise its getting.

Dear Moderators,

I know how much you dislike secret codes and hidden agendae so let me assure you that ...- --- - . / .--- --- .... -. / -.- . .-. .-. -.-- / .- -. -.. / ... .- ...- . / - .... . / .-- --- .-. .-.. -.. is an old fashioned earth version of bubblish and means 'Vote John Kerry and save the world'.


~jwf~

Voting for Kerry might be the sensible thing to do, but will it be enough to save the world?

Does the world need saving, Kea?

As I understand one facet of the pro-Kerry argument, it runs that Americans must elect a President that the rest of the world is comfortable with.

There's a whole Irony mine in there, just waiting to be explored.

Maybe it's just the humans that need saving?

>>As I understand one facet of the pro-Kerry argument, it runs that Americans must elect a President that the rest of the world is comfortable with.<<

Are some Americans saying that? I'm familiar with the sentiment outside the US.


>>There's a whole Irony mine in there, just waiting to be explored.<<

Go on then


I like your points about Moore's work maturing. It'll be interesting to see the latest film in that context, as well as the films content.

Kea,

the opinion of Americans is divided roughly down the middle.
Some are saying that America needs a President that the rest of the world can work with and others are saying that the world should stay out of America's business.

Kerry has supporters abroad - the French government for one, apparently, and the Democrat party is allegedly furious that New Labour have abandoned them and sided with Bush.

Note the use of the word allegedly. I have seen this contention crop up on websites but not seen it in reliable news media. By which I mean the Beeb, I guess.

The Irony Mine:

When George Bush and his administration expressed disappointment in the results of the recent Spanish Election, people said (quite rightly) that it was the sort of comment that should not have been made. How could a foreign country feel it had the right to mess with the internal democratic process of Spain?

Various nations have accused the Bush Regime of going to war with Iraq for an assortment of less than noble motives, one of which was to create a government that would be friendly to the USA. This sort of meddling, which has been going on for nearly a century and which Britain itself is mostly guilty of, is seen as despicable. No nation has the right to determine the government that another nation has.

And yet the French government makes no secret of its support of John Kerry, both vocal and (if certain republican sources are to be believed) financial.

Irony.

And that's just the start.

" I don't consider his films to be straight documentary, but I don't think this diminishes the work really. Moore is quite up front about the fact that he uses humour in his films, so I guess the intent is documentary/entertainment."

You said it better than I did Kea
He drew his audiances due to his quick wit and humor.

People said; "Watch it! Even though it is a documentry it is not dry and boring." His popularity was spread by word of mouth early on.

He is a master at creative marketing.

***********
Ellen - very interesting about Bradburys title.
That makes good sense.
***********

I will keep looking for some reasonable commentary on his previous films. The ones that trash him are easy to find but I am not referring to those. Even if a few scenes had been staged it does not negate his message.

A lot of commentary I have come across is anything but reasonable! Mnay of the sites I have heard of are ultimately NRA-backed.
<>
Exactly!

Gradient, I think in general I support the idea that countries need to be careful in expressing an opinion about another country's elections.

However the US is in a fairly unique position at the moment, in the sense that it is scaring the rest of the world majorly. I can't remember a time within my lifetime where so many people were this directly worried about what another country is up to - and I'm not talking about the politicians there.

It's not just the US' role in Iraq, its a much wider concern, especially because of the rate at which the American cultural imperialism is affecting the whole world. I don't blame that only on the US btw, but I do think that the next election there is going to be crucial to the whole world.

Interestingly the US is one of the main players in the trade talks that are undermining smaller countries sovereignty - NZ has several close shaves with trade agreements that would have seen us lose quite alot of decision making power in our own country


I agree that the Western politicians expressing support for individual candidates in the US is unwise. There is quite a bit of difference between that and actually intereferring in another country though.

I distinctly remember Bush saying in his pre-election speeches and debates that he was not into Nation building.
I recall feeling relieved Foolish of me.
I wish Kerry would use that clip in an ad.

Kerry said the other day in a speech that Bush was not elected.
He stressed how many votes went uncounted.
He needs to be brave enough to put that in an ad also.

.... . .-.. .--- .-- ..-.

I thought Bowling was a very well made film (I'm not saying I agreed with all of it, but it was very well done).

A fine example of the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Cheers everyone,

I think I may have missed out a .-.. and a ---

How can a full stop be .-.-.-?

..--..



http://www.babbage.demon.co.uk/morseabc.html