Michael Moore's new documentary "Sicko" opens today

I think it's worth pointing out that the definition of the NOUN documentary does not include the word "objective."

Norrin, in what way does the definition you posted not apply to Moore's films?

 

I've read that many times and always come away realizing it would require 10,000 words to critique Hitchens' many logical fallacies and conclusions. And in case anybody asks, my price is 25 cents a word.

 

Seeing as Christopher Hitchens is absolutely tied to the war in Iraq being a good idea -- without that, his credibility is where it should be, in the negative digits -- I don't see how you can point to his critique, although others have on here before.

At best, then, if you believe Moore to be a propagandist, you're simply substituting Hitchens' propaganda for Moore's. And J_D, I've deconstructed this Hitchens piece on here before, and wasn't paid a dime. Where do I send the bill?

 

"One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring."

Hitchens with a hell of an inadvertant self-examination in the first graph.

 

Look through all my posts in this thread for a point about Michael Moore.

I'll wait.

Finished?

OK, you didn't find one.

That's because my posting of the definition was in response to Mr. Mundane, who said that documentaries (by any other name, documentary films, which of course is an adjective in front of the noun "film") are not supposed to be objective.

Well, actually they're SUPPOSED to be. Doesn't mean they are, or that they have been. But when something is presented as a documentary, there's a certain level of objectivity and neutrality that is expected to happen.

Sure it doesn't happen often. And sure, it might not be possible for it to happen. We accept that this is the way things are.

But that objectivity is intended to be there when casting something as a "documentary", (as opposed to, say, a "dramatization" or just a "movie") and Mr. Mundane's point was thus incorrect.

 

Let's see, how do I spell it.
Oh, yes.
A,,,,,M....A....

 

Give me an example of a non-biased documentary. Since there is an official dictionary definition shouldn't be hard. B/c we all know all documentarians conform to strict set of guidelines.

 

As to more of the original topic of the thread, how was the actual doc, and what have people's reactions been?

 

Big applause at my theater.

 

I love the Ramones. I own Ramones Raw, a documentary. The director included interviews with Johnny Ramone. Based on some people's criteria, this would be a biased non-documentary.

Johnny and Joey famously despised each other despite their co-existence in the band. Joey was dead when the film was produced. Was I duped? Is the accumulation of interviews, archived video and live concert footage not a documentary b/c it is Johnny-Ramone heavy and does not include Joey's insight on the internal battle?

 

Oh, I have no doubt the AMA will take umbrage and possibly launch a counter-offensive. I just think because everyone, even doctors and hospital CEOs, is a potential health-care patient or loved one of people at the mercy of the system, any attack on Moore won't have quite the commitment and emotional investment as those from other groups that have assailed him.

 

I just saw it and thought it was the best thing Moore has done. And the applause at the end suggests I'm not alone. Too bad something like this wasn't around in the mid-90s when Clinton's plan was on the table to counter all the "evil socialized medicine" propaganda that the AMA, HMO, and Pharmaceutical lobbies were heaping upon us. Health Care is gonna be a HUGE issue in the 08 elections, and its about damn time.

If I had to criticize the film, it would be a couple scenes where Moore falls back into his grandstanding junk (although there's less this time) when it wasn't necessary. This thing was powerful enough without those scenes, all that does is provide openings for those intent on bashing the film. I wish Moore would realize his films no longer need the stunts. Also he's again a little over the top on telling us how much better life in other countries is than here. He could lighten up on that, not necessarily because its untrue, but it ends up turning off too many Americans who'd otherwise be open to his work, and provides ammo for critics who try dismiss Moore's work by claiming he just hates America.

That criticism aside, it was excellent thought-provoking viewing. Go see it.