Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Should Have Said Directly

Progress
Robert — (archived)

Thank you. That clears the way to make some progress.

I think you're confusing directness with simplicity. The simple question "Did you like it?" showed up for me as a complicated one requiring a multilevel answer. Dividing the question into various levels might be more constructive.

Was it a pleasure to watch?
God no. The footage from that day reactivated the emotions I felt on September 11th. It was deeply disturbing.

Did you think that it was skillfully done?
Yes. As an example of an interpretive documentary, it was powerful and effective. As an aside, I pay attention to TV commercials to analyze the techniques; I have an intellectual interest in the subject of mass persuasion. That's why I said that I admired Moore's work--he's good at it.

Was it accurate?
It was based substantially on fact, so I would answer yes. To be more specific, it relied primarily on existing film and video, and there was no sign at all of tampering. Moore works in the realm of context; there's no sign that he fakes the data.

Was it objective?
No. Being an interpretive documentary on a political subject, it was entirely subjective, and I seriously doubt that anyone expected otherwise. Moore's reputation proceeds him.

(In other words, it accurately represented Moore's subjective point of view. That's why I found it impossible to answer a yes/no question that collapsed those two very different concepts.)

The term "documentary" covers a broad range. In what subgenre of documentary would you categorize it?
Political documentary. That category has a long and honored tradition; for example, the candidate's bio presented at a convention; or a look at a politician's record through the eyes of his opposition; or Kerry's service record as seen through the eyes of the Swift Boat Vets. Or, for that matter, the counter-documentary "Michael Moore Hates America".

In contrast, it wasn't a scientific documentary, which one would legitimately expect to be a mere dry recitation of facts leaving one to draw his own conclusion. But who would ever expect scientific accuracy in a political campaign?

Were you persuaded by it?
Heck no. My only expectation was that I would be entertained by political theatre. Further, for the same reason that I'm practically immune to TV advertizing, I was too busy appreciating Moore's style and technique. The best defense against manipulation is to know how the trick's done.

The question "What is it you dislike about MM?" is an entirely leading one, and it's intended to obligate the person answering to think up something negative. That's why I proceeded to list some positives. Try to lead me one way with a question, and I'll try to lead you back the other way in my answer. That wasn't being evasive, that was being balanced.

Happier with those answers?

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (92 posts)