|
you may well be surprised to find that i agree with you in recommending that another documentary filmmaking spokesmodel would be better for the left, whatever that is--to the extent that moore can be taken as representing a position beyond his own personal one--which is magnified in importance because he is in a position to make and get distribution for films.
i think you overestimate his influence amongst folk on the left--for the most part, his films are agitprop aimed at conservatives--for better or worse--that is obviously the structure of f911 (which i found a deeply alienating film for a variety of reasons). you would have to know some of us in 3-d world to know that, however: there is every reason, in a space of disembodied argument (like here, like tv) to collapse moore into the "left" and act as though all operate with the same standards regarding things like documentation of claims--there is every reason if you are looking to discredit the left along the way. it happens all the time in the conservative public sphere, just like it is happening here.
i would wonder how you actually can prove (an outline of a procedure would be fine here--not asking for detailed documentation) the claim that the left, whatever that is, simply follows the lead of michael moore--to the exclusion of other possible relations (for example, folk might find that moore raises issues useful because they get raised, but only as a point of departure for more careful, informed discussion)--how would you know which relation obtains amongst a group of people who dont know personally (i would expect...maybe i'm wrong about this last bit, but the question still obtains)
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|