1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Michael Moore's new documentary "Sicko" opens today

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by hockeybeat, Jun 7, 2007.

  1. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    More Michael Moore e-mail:

  2. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Anybody who thinks documentaries are "objective" or don't have a "voice" needs to go back to school

    One difference between a traditional doc and Moore's is that in his films the "voice" is on the screen.
  3. Norrin Radd

    Norrin Radd New Member

    I don't feel the need to argue that.

    But the dictionary seems determined to.
  4. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Yeah, except the meaning in the "dictionary" you quote wouldn't pass muster in any film class beyond the 10th grade.
  5. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Or any English or journalism class, for that matter.

    But go ahead, argue that complete objectivity exists. I'll fire up the popcorn maker.
  6. Norrin Radd

    Norrin Radd New Member

    So . . . . . it's a GOOD thing that documentaries and journalism are no longer seen as "objective"? Is this the desired perception? You both imply this is what is being taught. Wow, things sure have changed since I took Media Ethics 101.


    Here come the straw-man arguments because I dared to point out that the ideal of the documentary is to be objective. That is - pardon me - the very definition of "documentary."

    Doesn't mean a film people want so badly to classify as "documentary" is such. But it does mean that films which present a clearly unobjective point of view should not be classified as "documentary." Lamar Mundane made an incorrect point about the purpose of the documentary, I corrected him.

    Don't kill the messenger.

    And don't put words in his mouth either. If Zeke wants to start some kind of argument that "complete objectivity exists!!!!!" then good for him. But that's not a point I made.
  7. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    Hell, utter, unfettered objectivity doesn't exist in any medium.

    We all have to edit what is important enough to get into an article.

    That filter has its set of subliminal biases.
  8. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Yes, it's a good thing that people realize that documentaries and newspaper articles aren't "objective".

    It really is. "Objectivity" is a myth. Readers have to guage an author's biases for themselves. Welcome to the world.

    Your argument is silly, Norrin, because according to you, no film is a documentary. If you think about it for a while, I think you'll see that. Even if you just put a camera on a streetcorner and release two hours of tape, that isn't "objective". Which street corner did you film, at which time of day, which time of year, and, by the way, why not this other street corner?
  9. Saw it last night.
    I think my son is moving to Europe.
    IMHO, by far, his best movie qua movie. He actually has become quite a good filmmaker. (Roger and Me looks like a Super-8 project by comparison.) The balance between wit and substance, anger and pathos, is really deft in this one, and I'd forgotten how funny those old Soviet propaganda films really were. (Why MST3K didn't ever get a hold of them, I'll never know.)
    As for the substance of it, I thought he framed the issue of the health-care crisis being a matter of this country's suddenly doubting its ability to rise to a challenge brilliantly. Why are Americans not taking this challenge on as Americans? Why can the Canadians -- or, horrors, the FRENCH! -- able to do what we cannot or will not? The shot at Hillary was very well-timed, and makes me feel even better about having her as my fourth choice for the nomination, as futile as that seems to be at this point, and it got awfully dusty in the theater when the 9/11 first-responders met the Cuban firefighters.
    And, god, I love old British lefties.
  10. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    The NRA and others built extensive cases trying to refute "Bowling for Columbine." The right wing went to great lengths, including a rebuttal film, to try to discredit Moore after "Fahrenheit 9/11."

    Cancer doesn't know if you're rich or poor. Lymphoma doesn't know if you're liberal or conservative. ALS doesn't know if you're American or Cuban. Your illness doesn't care if you're a doctor or if you work for the insurance company. Makes you wonder if there's a group out there that would really have its heart in taking on "Sicko."
  11. I agree about objectivity being largely a myth.

    Would the rest of us be as sanguine about it if MM were a right-winger?
  12. Mike_Sielski

    Mike_Sielski Member

    Food for thought:

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page