Republican-friendly documentaries?? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ubertuber · 09-22-2004, 12:52 PM

All right guys, I need some help.
As you probably do not already know, my job at my school entails supervising the programming efforts of our Residence Life staff...

On October 8, we are going to show F9/11 in our lounge before the Presidential debates. I am desperately seeking a documentary-ish type piece to show that is positive towards Bush, but nothing is coming to mind. It is important that we do not just watch Moore's film and then the debate, as this would amount to an endorsement of one side over the other.

So the question is if anyone can recommend or even name a film/video that I could present to our students to balance out the program. Please PM me or write in this thread if you can help. Thanks!

smooth · 09-22-2004, 12:56 PM

good luck, ubertuber, haha!

actually, what about that piece that was done showing what Bush did after the attack?

ah, here it is: DC 9/11: Time of Crisis

Lebell · 09-22-2004, 12:57 PM

Sorry, but the only one that comes to mind is "The Passion of The Christ".

Hollywood is mostly left leaning, so I doubt you'll find anything.

seretogis · 09-22-2004, 12:58 PM

I suggest just cancelling the showing of F9/11 and show it after elections if you want to strive for an unbiased approach. There really aren't any worthwhile right-leaning documentaries that I've ever heard of.

Redlemon · 09-22-2004, 01:05 PM

You might be able to find something through the American Film Renaissance website; I heard a report on NPR Weekend Edition (stream available over here) on this conservative answer to film festivals.

Here's the list of films:

Quote:

Against Nature
By WAG TV

Beyond the Passion of the Christ: The Impact - WORLD PREMIERE!
By Tim Chey

Brainwashing 101 - WORLD PREMIERE!
By Evan Coyne Maloney, Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg

Confronting Iraq - WORLD PREMIERE!
By Roger Aronoff

Covering Cuba 3: Elian
Produced and Directed by Agustin Blazquez

DC/911: Time of Crisis
A Showtime Production, by Lionel Chetwynd, starring Timothy Bottoms

To End All Wars
By Jack Hafer, starring Kiefer Sutherland

Entertaining Vietnam
By Mara Wallis

George W. Bush: Faith in the White House
A Grizzly Adams Production

Innocents Betrayed

Is it True What They Say About Ann?
By Patrick Wright

Mega Fix - The Dazzling Political Deceit That Led to 9/11 - WORLD PREMIERE!
by Jack Cashill, with assistance by Jayna Davis (www.jaynadavis.com)

Michael and Me - WORLD PREMIERE!
By Larry Elder

Michael Moore Hates America - WORLD PREMIERE!
By Mike Wilson

Operation Eagle Strike
By Kfir Alfia and Alan Davidson of Protest Warrior

The Peace Commies
By Jorge Torres

Relentless

Remembering Saddam
By Don North

The Siege of Western Civilization - WORLD PREMIERE!
By Herb Meyer

Silent Victory
By Long Range Productions

This Just in
Written and produced by Steve Marmel

Descriptions at the link above.

Dingo2879 · 09-22-2004, 01:08 PM

www.bushvideo.com
This is a documentary about Bush and his faith. Not sure if it will help.

Ustwo · 09-22-2004, 01:15 PM

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

Dunno if its exactly what you are looking for, but it might help.

Quote:

Michael Moore Hates America. Despite its provocative title, the film was less of an attack on Michael Moore than an homage to America. Filmmaker and narrator Michael Wilson, a regular Joe from the heartland, embodies all that Michael Moore pretends to be. Wilson comes across as sincere, sweet, in touch with mainstream America, and most importantly, honest. After resorting temporarily to the unscrupulous methods usually favored by Moore, Wilson not only apologizes to the subject at hand, but also includes the whole incident in his film.

In an ironic turn, Moore, who once chased down corporate executives for interviews in his television show TV Nation, now embodies the elusive figure in the limousine. By avoiding Wilson’s repeated requests for an interview, the hunter has become the hunted. Wilson’s attempts to track Moore down are as hilarious as they are heartfelt.

Moore’s conspiratorial tendencies, manipulations, and outright lies are laid bare. But instead of simply calling him a liar, Wilson takes the audience through the bizarre recesses of Moore’s mind. The film even includes an interview with a psychiatrist who diagnoses Moore with ''narcissistic personality disorder'' and calls him a ''pathological liar.'' His extreme self-loathing, evident in his attacks on successful, white, American men like himself, is also examined.

It's a very optimistic film, but liberals in attendance, namely members of the press, just didn’t get it. One could be overheard after the screening saying, ''There’s so much hate in this room.'' A member of the theater staff (who was otherwise fantastic) remarked to a coworker that the subject of another film was a typical ''intolerant conservative.''

Quote:

Added Hubbard, "He really peeled the hide off of Michael Moore."

In one scene, the American soldier who lost both arms in Iraq and who was shown in Moore's Bush-bashing "Fahrenheit 9/11" said he was taken out of context in the left-wing documentary.

According to Hubbard, the soldier said in the new film he had planned to be a technical engineer and could no longer do so because he lost him arms. He emphasized, however, that if he had to do it over again, he would, because "what we're doing in Iraq is important." The soldier said he was furious about the way Moore had portrayed him in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

That might be perfect after the propaganda piece.

smooth · 09-22-2004, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dingo2879

www.bushvideo.com
This is a documentary about Bush and his faith. Not sure if it will help.

From that webpage:

Quote:

According to BBC correspondent Justin Webb, “Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W. Bush.

cthulu23 · 09-22-2004, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Sorry, but the only one that comes to mind is "The Passion of The Christ".

Huh? I didn't realize that Jesus (or a snuff flick starring Jesus) had anything to do with politics. Also, I don't think that the Passion is considered or sold as a documentary. Maybe a docudrama?

onetime2 · 09-22-2004, 01:25 PM

There is a film that is/was supposed to come out that was dubbed the "Republicans answer to Farenheit 9/11" but I can't find any mention of it any more. I'm sure it will be more like an ad than anything else but it may be an option.

Found it, here's a link...

http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

Ustwo · 09-22-2004, 01:30 PM

Think you might have to scratch the Moore hates america, looks like its going to theaters.

Lebell · 09-22-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Huh? I didn't realize that Jesus (or a snuff flick starring Jesus) had anything to do with politics. Also, I don't think that the Passion is considered or sold as a documentary. Maybe a docudrama?

I was just pulling something out of my ass that would generally appeal to the right and that many of them would consider a "documentary".

Appologies if that failed.

ubertuber · 09-22-2004, 01:51 PM

Guys - you rock! I found a copy of DC 9/11: Time of Crisis here in the city. The Village Voice bashed it for being blatantly pro-Bush drivel, which is promising in terms of what I want to use it for. I ordered a copy of Kerry on Iraq. It seems to be more of a commercial than a film though... I am downloading it from their site - I think it is only 11 minutes long.

I really do appreciate the quick assistance!

irateplatypus · 09-22-2004, 02:31 PM

my advice would to not watch either before a debate. i don't moore's work is fertile ground for a cogent and honest debate. if the other one is simply a right-wing version... that doesn't make it any better.

either way, i hope your event goes well. mind me asking which university there in NYC?

irateplatypus · 09-22-2004, 02:32 PM

Edit: yet another double post. sorry, not sure what is causing these. mods, please delete if necessary.

roachboy · 09-22-2004, 03:13 PM

that's funny, irate==when i saw it in the theater, despite my reservations about moore's film, what i was pleased to find was precisely what you say the film prevents--cogent, interested, often informed debate going on afterward.

i dont know why you would think otherwise--have you actually seen the film? there are lots of problems--like moore not fashioning actual arguments preferring istead to juxtapose images/factoids (the bush family-saudi thing leaps to mind)

irateplatypus · 09-22-2004, 03:18 PM

forgive me roachboy... i'm not trying to be flippant or have a joke at your expense. but, i'd be surprised if you said otherwise.

roachboy · 09-22-2004, 03:27 PM

irate--i did not imply anything about agreement with moore .
what mattered was debate going on outside the theater----crowds lingered for a long time to talk about the film.

that is what you watch a doc for, isnt it? to provoke argument, reflection? otherwise, what is the point?

there are problems with the film--even though i am sympathetic with its goal, there remain problems. no-one is forced to any conclusion by the seamless presentation of irrefutable arguments.

the only thing that suprises me--still--is that the right remains afraid of it.

republican-friendly documentaries? why not try that fine video the christian coalition made in an attempt to defeat prop 2 in colorado, the one in which they argue that homosexuality caused god to smite athens, all said with a straight face?

irateplatypus · 09-22-2004, 04:19 PM

no, i don't watch documentaries to provoke an argument. i watch them to be informed fairly and evenly about whatever it covers... that is the point. a documentary is intended to be a medium that is so factually based that it shouldn't spark massive argument. looked up the word in the dictionary just to be sure. if i want someone's politicaly charged views i'll read an editorial or post here on TFP... not watch a documentary.

i really am not concerned with your particular feelings on moore or this movie, i just wouldn't expect you to take a viewpoint other than the one you took. what you take for fear is really a very honest strain of incredulity.

roachboy · 09-22-2004, 04:54 PM

um...if you thin k documentaries are factual, you are even more naieve than i had assumed up to now--the genre developed as a form of critique--they are arguments about how the film-maker thinks the would either is or should be--they are opposed to the dominant cultural order, which is itself an argument institutionalized.

of course they are not objective.
of course they are arguments.
and they are to be viewed as such.
the national geographic/science show variant you watch on pbs is a minor offshoot, a particular variant, with assumptions that are not like those of most documentaries.

dont be so passive a consumer of infotainment.
geez.

and on what basis you you find a film you havent seen to defy creduilty?
why not see it and try making an informed critique?
anything short of that is just tiresome.

irateplatypus · 09-22-2004, 05:08 PM

searched and searched, still can't find a place where i've even implied i haven't seen the movie. in fact i have, i've seen every michael moore "documentary" and some of his movies (haha, i think my parents even have Canadien Bacon dvd). if you can point out to me where you got this notion i owe you an apology. otherwise...

hey, i'm just using the dictionary definition of the word. if you want to use some other definition that's your choice. of course i realize that not all films that are found in the documentary section in Blockbuster are objective, in fact i'd bet most of them aren't. to me, that would just disqualify them from being documentaries rather than twist the word to encompass something it wasn't intended to.

cthulu23 · 09-22-2004, 06:01 PM

That's YOUR definition of a documentary. Hell, even some of the standard, dictionary definitions of documentary apply. By your definition, many of the most acclaimed documentaries throughtout history don't qualify. Who's right? Conservatives that are suddenly deeply concerned with the semantics of the word "documentary" or almost every documentarian out there?

roachboy · 09-22-2004, 06:01 PM

no problem, irate: maybe we just misunderstood each other. who knows?

you go the documentary thing turned around...the genre came into its own in the 1930s as a vehicle for social critique...for many years, it was a left-oriented genre by definition.

ubertuber · 09-22-2004, 06:13 PM

We're going to do the "documentaries" on a different night. My sense is that first, 2 films plus debates would be too long for people to sit still. I also agree with the comments here that fertilizing the ground with Michael Moore and something else like it will not be a good way to generate honest, thoughtful discussion about issues. It will likely just provoke enraged students.

The new plan is to host the debates is one of the lounge spaces here in the Residence Hall (we run a little Cafe there as well). There will be a political science-type person from another school here to watch with us and afterwards to deconstruct what happened. I'm hoping for a bit of a moderated discussion.

Irate - I am at the Juilliard School. It is a great place, but people can be so intent on their art that they exclude other opportunities or aspects of life. It is definitely an uphill battle to introduce the real world to our students. Even with something as large as the Presidential election coming up, we have to start people off from the beginning - what the parties stand for, why one should vote, what issues are currently hot... People here are very passionate, but often uninformed. As a result we see a lot of knee-jerk type reactions. It can be discouraging at times, but all we can do is keep taking baby steps.

I am having my staff put together a week and a half of themed events. There will be a speaker from the women voter's league, possibly someone from Hillary Clinton's office (an outside chance of the senator herself), the documentaries we have been discussing, a reading of a Tony Kushner play, and we are hosting viewings for all of the debates, and of course, voter registration stuff at everything. It is actually quite a production for such a small school.

whocarz · 09-23-2004, 01:56 AM

Please, let's not get into a semantics debate over the word "documentary" again. With sugar on top.

ARTelevision · 09-23-2004, 02:04 AM

America's Heart and Soul is a wonderful documentary film.

Pacifier · 09-23-2004, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

America's Heart and Soul is a wonderful documentary film.

I read a review about that movie a couple of days ago ... I think you wont like the review

ARTelevision · 09-23-2004, 04:57 AM

Yes. When we attended the film, I read many reviews of it. The one you've cited is typical of many out there.

Of course, I don't see the film that way at all.

assilem · 09-23-2004, 07:15 AM

Try fahrenhype 9/11 or Michael Hates America. I think they will both be on DVD pretty soon.

roachboy · 09-23-2004, 09:18 AM

totally disagree with you about michael moore, uber:

what it sounds like you want to do is control the premises of a debate and then pretend that it is "open and honest"--which is, in my experience, the only way republican discourse can hold water--by controlling the premises of discussion.
this is what enables perfectly reasonable, intelligent folk to come to conclusions that i find bizarre about the world--they apply these premises and move in a straight line that is delimited by them.
if you want a debate--open and honest--then these premises should be on the table.

on the other hand, i teach in a university, not a conservatory, so dont know how different that population might be than what i interact with on a daily basis. so the question i have is not about the decision to move a documentary night, but about your postion on moore in particular.

but i do wonder if you assume that the population you encounter is politically naieve because they do not agree with you. the two are not identical.

you want an interesting debate?
show dogville.
the only problem with the film is length.
but it will provoke people.

ubertuber · 09-23-2004, 08:53 PM

roachboy -

I am not hosting or attempting to provoke a debate. I am hosting a VIEWING of the presidential debate on 10/8 (actually all of them, but this is the week I am talking about specifically), hopefully with a deconstruction and analysis afterwards. I apologize if I was unclear about this point in my earlier posts. I merely feel that the debate we watch should provide enough material for discussion for one session - otherwise we will be having an all-out political debate instead of a discussion about THE debate. The goal here is not to convince anyone of one party's superiority, but rather to be able to deconstruct what we can and can not learn directly from the candidates - in other words, to begin to learn a skill that will serve our students beyond this particular night or election. This is why, upon reflection, I am hesitant to cloud the water with partisan material from either side. We can view this material on other nights. 10/8 should be about the candidates themselves and the discussion they engage in.

Also, respectfully, I know the difference between ignorance and disagreement. Hardly anyone here (or anywhere for that matter) agrees with me a majority of the time. I don't expect that, nor does it concern me. What concerns me is students that form opinions only by hearsay or by learning from political idealogues/demagogues such as Limbaugh, Hannity, or Moore. By hosting a live group analysis and deconstruction of a debate that we will have watched together we are hoping to encourage a more self-sufficient method for our students to come to their opinions, even if those opinions are exactly the same as before. This critical thinking, and ultimately the ability to express views that comes along with it, is part of teaching artists to be whole individuals who can bridge the gap to mainstream society to advocate for themselves and for their art.

OpieCunningham · 09-23-2004, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I merely feel that the debate we watch should provide enough material for discussion for one session - otherwise we will be having an all-out political debate instead of a discussion about THE debate. The goal here is not to convince anyone of one party's superiority, but rather to be able to deconstruct what we can and can not learn directly from the candidates - in other words, to begin to learn a skill that will serve our students beyond this particular night or election. This is why, upon reflection, I am hesitant to cloud the water with partisan material from either side. We can view this material on other nights. 10/8 should be about the candidates themselves and the discussion they engage in.

I think you are providing an excellent service - an event to view the debates and discuss them afterwards. I agree with your most recent feelings, any viewing of other material would serve no purpose other than to cloud the issue. As an example, if you were to watch F911 beforehand, the inevitable discussion will arise about why Bush did not address such-and-such a point as brought up by Michael Moore. But Moore is not a part of the debate and therefore the discussion could easily move into areas where the debates themselves become secondary.

The debates will bring up many issues and you will hear much information on the perspectives of the candidates on those issues. In some cases, the debates will bring up essentially meaningless issues. In both cases, any discussion around those aspects of the debate will be specific to the viewing of the debate.

Good luck with it. Let us know how they turn out.

roachboy · 09-24-2004, 07:33 AM

uber:
my apologies to you as well, sir, if i did misunderstand your idea for the viewing.

it seems like a good idea....

if i were doing it, i might set it up with other material, however, even partisan material, as you call it...the reason for this has to do with two main things--first my assumptions about the audience and second the nature of a "deconstruction" (which i assume you do not mean in any technical sense).

the second one first: by "deconstruction" i assume that you mean a kind of critical dismantling of a given text/event?
generally, the way this kind of operation functions is to violate the implied limits of the text/event and link it to other networks of references--to perform a kind of ad hoc fabrication of what amounts to an intertextual network and to run interpretations through that network.
the asumption behind this is that you cant really think about what is being presented if you limit your assumptions to those which frame the event itself (in this case, the "debate")

...which leads to the first--the assumptions you have about the audience. if you can assume that there will be an adequately dense, mutually comprehensible set of networks in place to allow the participants to play more or less the same game as they move from event to a bigger frame of reference--the pre-requsite for developing interpretations/arguments about interpretations--then the way you propose to go about things is fine--but if you cannot assume that, i would consider showing some material prior....not the same day.....maybe as a short series--one or two viewings--which would be geared toward simply providing a set of common referencepoints from which discussion of the debate can depart.

one thing i have figured out from teaching where i do is that you cannot overestimate the naievete of the students in political matters.

this is not a question of their being stupid by any means (nor does it work across the board--there are always exceptions)--rather they do not seem accustomed to political debate, nor are they terribly informed about the questions at hand--most information seems to come from tv---a political effect of the stultifying conformism of most high schools, it seems to me.

i have often been surprised at how much work i had to do simply in exposing students to possibilities of other viewpoints--which i try to present as clearly as i can--and then let them make up their minds later.

underlying this is a bigger problem--trying to prompt students to think for themselves. which is, it seems, something they are not getting much in the way of prompts to do.

if there is anything that shocks and disappoints me about the "way of things" at present, it is this. this and the fact that a kind of reaction-driven conservativsm functions as a default position--an inherited conservatism, not thought out--the image of the dominant discourses in the major media.

vpbar73 · 09-24-2004, 03:56 PM

If your gonna show the idiot film, you have no choice but to show the film that Mr. moore doesn't want you to see.
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

another must is
http://www.kerryoniraq.com
The real Kerry. He cant hide from himself.

09-22-2004, 12:52 PM	#1 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Republican-friendly documentaries?? All right guys, I need some help. As you probably do not already know, my job at my school entails supervising the programming efforts of our Residence Life staff... On October 8, we are going to show F9/11 in our lounge before the Presidential debates. I am desperately seeking a documentary-ish type piece to show that is positive towards Bush, but nothing is coming to mind. It is important that we do not just watch Moore's film and then the debate, as this would amount to an endorsement of one side over the other. So the question is if anyone can recommend or even name a film/video that I could present to our students to balance out the program. Please PM me or write in this thread if you can help. Thanks! __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

09-22-2004, 12:56 PM	#2 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	good luck, ubertuber, haha! actually, what about that piece that was done showing what Bush did after the attack? ah, here it is: DC 9/11: Time of Crisis __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

09-22-2004, 12:57 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Sorry, but the only one that comes to mind is "The Passion of The Christ". Hollywood is mostly left leaning, so I doubt you'll find anything. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-22-2004, 12:58 PM	#4 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I suggest just cancelling the showing of F9/11 and show it after elections if you want to strive for an unbiased approach. There really aren't any worthwhile right-leaning documentaries that I've ever heard of. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

09-22-2004, 01:25 PM	#10 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	There is a film that is/was supposed to come out that was dubbed the "Republicans answer to Farenheit 9/11" but I can't find any mention of it any more. I'm sure it will be more like an ad than anything else but it may be an option. Found it, here's a link... http://www.kerryoniraq.com/ __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

09-22-2004, 01:08 PM	#6 (permalink)
Dingo2879 Crazy Location: Lisle, IL	www.bushvideo.com This is a documentary about Bush and his faith. Not sure if it will help.

09-22-2004, 01:30 PM	#11 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Think you might have to scratch the Moore hates america, looks like its going to theaters. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-22-2004, 01:51 PM	#13 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Guys - you rock! I found a copy of DC 9/11: Time of Crisis here in the city. The Village Voice bashed it for being blatantly pro-Bush drivel, which is promising in terms of what I want to use it for. I ordered a copy of Kerry on Iraq. It seems to be more of a commercial than a film though... I am downloading it from their site - I think it is only 11 minutes long. I really do appreciate the quick assistance! __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

09-22-2004, 02:31 PM	#14 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	my advice would to not watch either before a debate. i don't moore's work is fertile ground for a cogent and honest debate. if the other one is simply a right-wing version... that doesn't make it any better. either way, i hope your event goes well. mind me asking which university there in NYC? __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-22-2004, 02:32 PM	#15 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	Edit: yet another double post. sorry, not sure what is causing these. mods, please delete if necessary. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 09-22-2004 at 04:09 PM..

09-22-2004, 03:13 PM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	that's funny, irate==when i saw it in the theater, despite my reservations about moore's film, what i was pleased to find was precisely what you say the film prevents--cogent, interested, often informed debate going on afterward. i dont know why you would think otherwise--have you actually seen the film? there are lots of problems--like moore not fashioning actual arguments preferring istead to juxtapose images/factoids (the bush family-saudi thing leaps to mind) __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-22-2004, 03:18 PM	#17 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	forgive me roachboy... i'm not trying to be flippant or have a joke at your expense. but, i'd be surprised if you said otherwise. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-22-2004, 03:27 PM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	irate--i did not imply anything about agreement with moore . what mattered was debate going on outside the theater----crowds lingered for a long time to talk about the film. that is what you watch a doc for, isnt it? to provoke argument, reflection? otherwise, what is the point? there are problems with the film--even though i am sympathetic with its goal, there remain problems. no-one is forced to any conclusion by the seamless presentation of irrefutable arguments. the only thing that suprises me--still--is that the right remains afraid of it. republican-friendly documentaries? why not try that fine video the christian coalition made in an attempt to defeat prop 2 in colorado, the one in which they argue that homosexuality caused god to smite athens, all said with a straight face? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-22-2004 at 03:30 PM..

09-22-2004, 04:19 PM	#19 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	no, i don't watch documentaries to provoke an argument. i watch them to be informed fairly and evenly about whatever it covers... that is the point. a documentary is intended to be a medium that is so factually based that it shouldn't spark massive argument. looked up the word in the dictionary just to be sure. if i want someone's politicaly charged views i'll read an editorial or post here on TFP... not watch a documentary. i really am not concerned with your particular feelings on moore or this movie, i just wouldn't expect you to take a viewpoint other than the one you took. what you take for fear is really a very honest strain of incredulity. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-22-2004, 04:54 PM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	um...if you thin k documentaries are factual, you are even more naieve than i had assumed up to now--the genre developed as a form of critique--they are arguments about how the film-maker thinks the would either is or should be--they are opposed to the dominant cultural order, which is itself an argument institutionalized. of course they are not objective. of course they are arguments. and they are to be viewed as such. the national geographic/science show variant you watch on pbs is a minor offshoot, a particular variant, with assumptions that are not like those of most documentaries. dont be so passive a consumer of infotainment. geez. and on what basis you you find a film you havent seen to defy creduilty? why not see it and try making an informed critique? anything short of that is just tiresome. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-22-2004, 05:08 PM	#21 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	searched and searched, still can't find a place where i've even implied i haven't seen the movie. in fact i have, i've seen every michael moore "documentary" and some of his movies (haha, i think my parents even have Canadien Bacon dvd). if you can point out to me where you got this notion i owe you an apology. otherwise... hey, i'm just using the dictionary definition of the word. if you want to use some other definition that's your choice. of course i realize that not all films that are found in the documentary section in Blockbuster are objective, in fact i'd bet most of them aren't. to me, that would just disqualify them from being documentaries rather than twist the word to encompass something it wasn't intended to. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-22-2004, 06:01 PM	#22 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	That's YOUR definition of a documentary. Hell, even some of the standard, dictionary definitions of documentary apply. By your definition, many of the most acclaimed documentaries throughtout history don't qualify. Who's right? Conservatives that are suddenly deeply concerned with the semantics of the word "documentary" or almost every documentarian out there?

09-22-2004, 06:01 PM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	no problem, irate: maybe we just misunderstood each other. who knows? you go the documentary thing turned around...the genre came into its own in the 1930s as a vehicle for social critique...for many years, it was a left-oriented genre by definition. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-22-2004, 06:13 PM	#24 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	We're going to do the "documentaries" on a different night. My sense is that first, 2 films plus debates would be too long for people to sit still. I also agree with the comments here that fertilizing the ground with Michael Moore and something else like it will not be a good way to generate honest, thoughtful discussion about issues. It will likely just provoke enraged students. The new plan is to host the debates is one of the lounge spaces here in the Residence Hall (we run a little Cafe there as well). There will be a political science-type person from another school here to watch with us and afterwards to deconstruct what happened. I'm hoping for a bit of a moderated discussion. Irate - I am at the Juilliard School. It is a great place, but people can be so intent on their art that they exclude other opportunities or aspects of life. It is definitely an uphill battle to introduce the real world to our students. Even with something as large as the Presidential election coming up, we have to start people off from the beginning - what the parties stand for, why one should vote, what issues are currently hot... People here are very passionate, but often uninformed. As a result we see a lot of knee-jerk type reactions. It can be discouraging at times, but all we can do is keep taking baby steps. I am having my staff put together a week and a half of themed events. There will be a speaker from the women voter's league, possibly someone from Hillary Clinton's office (an outside chance of the senator herself), the documentaries we have been discussing, a reading of a Tony Kushner play, and we are hosting viewings for all of the debates, and of course, voter registration stuff at everything. It is actually quite a production for such a small school. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

09-23-2004, 01:56 AM	#25 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	Please, let's not get into a semantics debate over the word "documentary" again. With sugar on top. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

09-23-2004, 02:04 AM	#26 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	America's Heart and Soul is a wonderful documentary film. __________________ create evolution

09-23-2004, 04:57 AM	#28 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Yes. When we attended the film, I read many reviews of it. The one you've cited is typical of many out there. Of course, I don't see the film that way at all. __________________ create evolution

09-23-2004, 07:15 AM	#29 (permalink)
assilem Insane Location: Eternity	Try fahrenhype 9/11 or Michael Hates America. I think they will both be on DVD pretty soon. __________________ The mother of mankind, what time his pride Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host Of rebel Angels

09-23-2004, 09:18 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	totally disagree with you about michael moore, uber: what it sounds like you want to do is control the premises of a debate and then pretend that it is "open and honest"--which is, in my experience, the only way republican discourse can hold water--by controlling the premises of discussion. this is what enables perfectly reasonable, intelligent folk to come to conclusions that i find bizarre about the world--they apply these premises and move in a straight line that is delimited by them. if you want a debate--open and honest--then these premises should be on the table. on the other hand, i teach in a university, not a conservatory, so dont know how different that population might be than what i interact with on a daily basis. so the question i have is not about the decision to move a documentary night, but about your postion on moore in particular. but i do wonder if you assume that the population you encounter is politically naieve because they do not agree with you. the two are not identical. you want an interesting debate? show dogville. the only problem with the film is length. but it will provoke people. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-23-2004, 08:53 PM	#31 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	roachboy - I am not hosting or attempting to provoke a debate. I am hosting a VIEWING of the presidential debate on 10/8 (actually all of them, but this is the week I am talking about specifically), hopefully with a deconstruction and analysis afterwards. I apologize if I was unclear about this point in my earlier posts. I merely feel that the debate we watch should provide enough material for discussion for one session - otherwise we will be having an all-out political debate instead of a discussion about THE debate. The goal here is not to convince anyone of one party's superiority, but rather to be able to deconstruct what we can and can not learn directly from the candidates - in other words, to begin to learn a skill that will serve our students beyond this particular night or election. This is why, upon reflection, I am hesitant to cloud the water with partisan material from either side. We can view this material on other nights. 10/8 should be about the candidates themselves and the discussion they engage in. Also, respectfully, I know the difference between ignorance and disagreement. Hardly anyone here (or anywhere for that matter) agrees with me a majority of the time. I don't expect that, nor does it concern me. What concerns me is students that form opinions only by hearsay or by learning from political idealogues/demagogues such as Limbaugh, Hannity, or Moore. By hosting a live group analysis and deconstruction of a debate that we will have watched together we are hoping to encourage a more self-sufficient method for our students to come to their opinions, even if those opinions are exactly the same as before. This critical thinking, and ultimately the ability to express views that comes along with it, is part of teaching artists to be whole individuals who can bridge the gap to mainstream society to advocate for themselves and for their art. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam Last edited by ubertuber; 09-23-2004 at 08:55 PM..

09-24-2004, 07:33 AM	#33 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	uber: my apologies to you as well, sir, if i did misunderstand your idea for the viewing. it seems like a good idea.... if i were doing it, i might set it up with other material, however, even partisan material, as you call it...the reason for this has to do with two main things--first my assumptions about the audience and second the nature of a "deconstruction" (which i assume you do not mean in any technical sense). the second one first: by "deconstruction" i assume that you mean a kind of critical dismantling of a given text/event? generally, the way this kind of operation functions is to violate the implied limits of the text/event and link it to other networks of references--to perform a kind of ad hoc fabrication of what amounts to an intertextual network and to run interpretations through that network. the asumption behind this is that you cant really think about what is being presented if you limit your assumptions to those which frame the event itself (in this case, the "debate") ...which leads to the first--the assumptions you have about the audience. if you can assume that there will be an adequately dense, mutually comprehensible set of networks in place to allow the participants to play more or less the same game as they move from event to a bigger frame of reference--the pre-requsite for developing interpretations/arguments about interpretations--then the way you propose to go about things is fine--but if you cannot assume that, i would consider showing some material prior....not the same day.....maybe as a short series--one or two viewings--which would be geared toward simply providing a set of common referencepoints from which discussion of the debate can depart. one thing i have figured out from teaching where i do is that you cannot overestimate the naievete of the students in political matters. this is not a question of their being stupid by any means (nor does it work across the board--there are always exceptions)--rather they do not seem accustomed to political debate, nor are they terribly informed about the questions at hand--most information seems to come from tv---a political effect of the stultifying conformism of most high schools, it seems to me. i have often been surprised at how much work i had to do simply in exposing students to possibilities of other viewpoints--which i try to present as clearly as i can--and then let them make up their minds later. underlying this is a bigger problem--trying to prompt students to think for themselves. which is, it seems, something they are not getting much in the way of prompts to do. if there is anything that shocks and disappoints me about the "way of things" at present, it is this. this and the fact that a kind of reaction-driven conservativsm functions as a default position--an inherited conservatism, not thought out--the image of the dominant discourses in the major media. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-24-2004 at 07:43 AM..

09-24-2004, 03:56 PM	#34 (permalink)
vpbar73 Upright	If your gonna show the idiot film, you have no choice but to show the film that Mr. moore doesn't want you to see. http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/ another must is http://www.kerryoniraq.com The real Kerry. He cant hide from himself.