list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Roger & Me on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Roger_Me/29348/default.aspx Title: Roger & Me
Year: 1989
Director: Michael Moore
Plot: Michael Moore's wickedly iconoclastic documentary was inspired by the decline and fall of Flint, Michigan. Once the site of a thriving General Motors plant, Flint went quickly to seed when GM decided to close down and move out. As Moore pokes around what has been described by one magazine as "the worst place to live in America", he finds out how the local populace is coping with GM's betrayal of the American Dream. Among those visited are a family who is evicted just before Christmas, and an enterprising middle-aged woman who set up a thriving business slaughtering and skinning rabbits. Never feigning objectivity, Moore contrasts the impact of the shutdown on the average Joes and Janes with the diffident reaction of Flint's power elite. The latter's patronizing attitude towards the unemployed multitudes is succinctly captured in the scenes in which visiting celebrities Robert Schuller, Anita Bryant, Bobby Vinton and Pat Boone exhort the citizenry to grin and bear it. Even more out of synch is "Miss Michigan" Kaye Lani Rae Rafko, who in her morale-boosting speech to the disenfranchised GM employees begs them to pull for her in the upcoming Miss America pageant! The film's throughline is Moore's futile effort to locate GM chairman Roger Smith, so that he can show Moore first-hand the utter devastation of Flint. Roger & Me is very funny, but it is the gallows humor of soldiers about to embark on a suicide mission. In 1992, Michael Moore more or less updated Roger & Me with his half-hour short subject Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 14
Number of Lists: 23
Number of blog posts: 9
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 03:54:50 GMTRoger & Me1989Michael Moore<a href="/players/P___103383/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Moore</a>'s wickedly iconoclastic documentary was inspired by the decline and fall of Flint, Michigan. Once the site of a thriving General Motors plant, Flint went quickly to seed when GM decided to close down and move out. As Moore pokes around what has been described by one magazine as "the worst place to live in America", he finds out how the local populace is coping with GM's betrayal of the American Dream. Among those visited are a family who is evicted just before Christmas, and an enterprising middle-aged woman who set up a thriving business slaughtering and skinning rabbits. Never feigning objectivity, Moore contrasts the impact of the shutdown on the average Joes and Janes with the diffident reaction of Flint's power elite. The latter's patronizing attitude towards the unemployed multitudes is succinctly captured in the scenes in which visiting celebrities Robert Schuller, Anita Bryant, Bobby Vinton and Pat Boone exhort the citizenry to grin and bear it. Even more out of synch is "Miss Michigan" Kaye Lani Rae Rafko, who in her morale-boosting speech to the disenfranchised GM employees begs them to pull for her in the upcoming Miss America pageant! The film's throughline is Moore's futile effort to locate GM chairman Roger Smith, so that he can show Moore first-hand the utter devastation of Flint. Roger & Me is very funny, but it is the gallows humor of soldiers about to embark on a suicide mission. In 1992, Michael Moore more or less updated Roger & Me with his half-hour short subject Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide14Tag Target (>10)23933http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t31576u7uwv.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Roger_Me/29348/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/4/37973.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/4/2008 7:01:23 PM
Body: Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore spoke with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC yesterday, offering his take on the auto industry’s request for a bailout. At first, he seems to be defending the automakers, but that stance is just an excuse to be critical of Washington’s handling of the situation. He really has no sympathy for the big boys from Detroit at all, and he submits his own solution to Congress: give the Big Three their $38 billion, but tell them you own their ass and make them build hybrids and mass transit options instead of gas-guzzling SUVs. As a onetime fan of Moore’s work, I have to admit this clip presents some of the smartest words to come out of the guy’s mouth in years. I’m not saying I agree with his proposal to Congress for basically nationalizing the automakers, but he definitely carries himself on Countdown quite intelligently. Obviously it’s a subject he’s very familiar with, having started his film career with the GM-criticizing Roger & Me. So, should Washington follow his advice? Check out Moore’s appearance after the jump. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:01:23 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/4/2008 7:01:23 PMDocumentary filmmaker Michael Moore spoke with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC yesterday, offering his take on the auto industry’s request for a bailout. At first, he seems to be defending the automakers, but that stance is just an excuse to be critical of Washington’s handling of the situation. He really has no sympathy for the big boys from Detroit at all, and he submits his own solution to Congress: give the Big Three their $38 billion, but tell them you own their ass and make them build hybrids and mass transit options instead of gas-guzzling SUVs. As a onetime fan of Moore’s work, I have to admit this clip presents some of the smartest words to come out of the guy’s mouth in years. I’m not saying I agree with his proposal to Congress for basically nationalizing the automakers, but he definitely carries himself on Countdown quite intelligently. Obviously it’s a subject he’s very familiar with, having started his film career with the GM-criticizing Roger & Me. So, should Washington follow his advice? Check out Moore’s appearance after the jump. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/12/37255.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/12/2008 3:00:44 PM
Body: I saw Christmas decorations in a storefront Sunday, so I guess it’s already time to break out the holiday movies. And it’s evidently time for distributors to release holiday fare to theaters, even if Desplechin’s A Christmas Tale (Un conte de Noël), which hits theaters this Friday, isn’t exactly the latest crowd-pleasing installment of the Santa Clause franchise. In fact, with such ingredients as estrangement, mental illness, alcoholism and cancer, it doesn’t seem like a very happy holidays kind of film. Even if it is actually a comedy. But then how many holiday movies are completely void of depressing themes and scenes? I’m sure to have grown up thinking more about the homeless, suicide and family dysfunction from films set at Christmas and Thanksgiving than I did thinking about the happiness that comes with these holidays. One of the most tearjerking moments for me as a kid was certainly seeing Mickey Mouse crying over his dead son in Mickey’s Christmas Carol. It’s no wonder so many people get sad this time of year. Movies are influential, and for every bit of slapstick we see this season, there’s potentially room for thoughts of abandoned children to go along with it. Worse for our tearducts are the films that aren’t necessarily thought of as “holiday movies,” which are typically more honest about how much of a bummer holidays can truly be. So get out your hanky and check out our list of ten most depressing holidays in movies: Movie: Planes, Trains and Automobiles Depressing holiday: Thanksgiving It’s likely that John Hughes is a real drag on holidays. His scripts feature kids forgotten at Christmastime (Home Alone and its sequels), poor teens who get cartons of cigarettes as presents (The Breakfast Club) and yuletide kidnappings (Christmas Vacation). Thanksgiving seems to be the most melancholy for him, though, as is clear from the bittersweet road trip movies Dutch and Planes, Trains and Automobiles, the latter of which is up there with the saddest “comedies” ever made. Sure, it ultimately has a happy ending, but those last few minutes leave you bawling as you watch the montage and subsequent scene revealing John Candy’s true living situation. Film: The Apartment Depressing Holiday: Christmas It’s sad enough to be a lonely bachelor on Christmas Eve. It’s even sadder to be loaning out your home as a lover’s hideaway on such a night. Saddest of all, though, has to be returning to said apartment to find a half-dead woman in your bed who has attempted suicide with your sleeping pills (bonus points for her being your crush). The Apartment also has one of the more depressing New Year’s Eves on film, even if it does kind of figure into a “happy” ending. Film: Lethal Weapon Depressing Holiday: Christmas Sgt. Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) is also a lonely man on Christmas Eve dealing with suicide, but here it’s the contemplation of his own. While watching Bugs Bunny’s Christmas Carol on TV and thinking about his dead wife, he loads up his gun and wrestles with his demons. It’s one of the most heart-wrenching scenes to ever be included in an action movie. Film: The War at Home Depressing Holiday: Thanksgiving Like Martin Riggs, Jeremy Collier (Emilio Estevez) is a Vietnam vet, and also like Riggs, he has trouble putting his gun away during the holidays. Unlike Riggs, though, Jeremy’s weapon is directed at his father (Martin Sheen) rather than himself, and that leads to a less-depressing but no less disheartening situation. Film: A Midnight Clear Depressing Holiday: Christmas One of the most bittersweet war films ever made, A Midnight Clear is set during Christmas, 1944, in the middle of WWII and involves an intended holiday truce between American and German troops. Unfortunately, things go wrong. Not only does the film remind us currently that so many soldiers are away from home and potentially fighting on Christmas, it also displays some depressing truths about humanity and war that are saddening regardless of the season. Film: The Ice Storm Depressing Holiday: Thanksgiving This movie (which could also qualify for yesterday’s list of best dysfunctional families) reminds us of how sad Thanksgiving can be on an historical level thanks to the sardonic pre-dinne grace said by Wendy (Christina Ricci) regarding both America’s tradition of killing and robbing the Indians and its gluttonous disregard for the starving people around the world (didn’t we all go through that holiday protest phase?). Oh, and it features one of the most unsettling death-by-electrocution scenes ever. Film: Gremlins Depressing Holiday: Christmas The present holiday of this horror comedy classic is pretty sad considering all the death and destruction being caused by little green monsters, but the real depressing Christmas is the one from the past that Kate (Phoebe Cates) tells about. You know, the one where her father broke his neck and died on Christmas Eve while playing Santa Claus. And by recalling the details so slowly and in depth (she could have just simply said that her dad died on Christmas), she makes it even more somber a story than is welcome at such an already fearsome occasion. Film: Critters 2: The Main Course Depressing Holiday: Easter Obviously taking a cue from Gremlins, this sequel similarly involves little creatures terrorizing a small town during a holiday. And while not quite as gloomy for a young viewer as the earlier, better film, Critters 2 does feature a relatively upsetting scene in which “the Easter Bunny” is attacked by Crites and then crashes through a church window, ultimately bleeding from the mouth, dead. Film: Groundhog Day Depressing Holiday: Groundhog Day Not that anyone really celebrates this “holiday” (neither school nor post office is closed), but whatever. Though treated as black comedy, there is something quite depressing about all those suicide attempts made by Phil Connors (Bill Murray). It’s enough to cast a shadow (yuk yuk) on all the happiness that otherwise would come from Groundhog Day if it actually involved celebratory activities. Film: Roger & Me Depressing Holiday: Christmas Documentaries have the ability to make for the most depressing holidays, because they feature real life events — like a family being evicted from their home on Christmas day. This one is especially grim this year, as it’s possible that with the economy and mortgage crisis what they are that some families across America will be experiencing such a fate this December 25. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:00:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/12/2008 3:00:44 PMI saw Christmas decorations in a storefront Sunday, so I guess it’s already time to break out the holiday movies. And it’s evidently time for distributors to release holiday fare to theaters, even if Desplechin’s A Christmas Tale (Un conte de Noël), which hits theaters this Friday, isn’t exactly the latest crowd-pleasing installment of the Santa Clause franchise. In fact, with such ingredients as estrangement, mental illness, alcoholism and cancer, it doesn’t seem like a very happy holidays kind of film. Even if it is actually a comedy. But then how many holiday movies are completely void of depressing themes and scenes? I’m sure to have grown up thinking more about the homeless, suicide and family dysfunction from films set at Christmas and Thanksgiving than I did thinking about the happiness that comes with these holidays. One of the most tearjerking moments for me as a kid was certainly seeing Mickey Mouse crying over his dead son in Mickey’s Christmas Carol. It’s no wonder so many people get sad this time of year. Movies are influential, and for every bit of slapstick we see this season, there’s potentially room for thoughts of abandoned children to go along with it. Worse for our tearducts are the films that aren’t necessarily thought of as “holiday movies,” which are typically more honest about how much of a bummer holidays can truly be. So get out your hanky and check out our list of ten most depressing holidays in movies: Movie: Planes, Trains and Automobiles Depressing holiday: Thanksgiving It’s likely that John Hughes is a real drag on holidays. His scripts feature kids forgotten at Christmastime (Home Alone and its sequels), poor teens who get cartons of cigarettes as presents (The Breakfast Club) and yuletide kidnappings (Christmas Vacation). Thanksgiving seems to be the most melancholy for him, though, as is clear from the bittersweet road trip movies Dutch and Planes, Trains and Automobiles, the latter of which is up there with the saddest “comedies” ever made. Sure, it ultimately has a happy ending, but those last few minutes leave you bawling as you watch the montage and subsequent scene revealing John Candy’s true living situation. Film: The Apartment Depressing Holiday: Christmas It’s sad enough to be a lonely bachelor on Christmas Eve. It’s even sadder to be loaning out your home as a lover’s hideaway on such a night. Saddest of all, though, has to be returning to said apartment to find a half-dead woman in your bed who has attempted suicide with your sleeping pills (bonus points for her being your crush). The Apartment also has one of the more depressing New Year’s Eves on film, even if it does kind of figure into a “happy” ending. Film: Lethal Weapon Depressing Holiday: Christmas Sgt. Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) is also a lonely man on Christmas Eve dealing with suicide, but here it’s the contemplation of his own. While watching Bugs Bunny’s Christmas Carol on TV and thinking about his dead wife, he loads up his gun and wrestles with his demons. It’s one of the most heart-wrenching scenes to ever be included in an action movie. Film: The War at Home Depressing Holiday: Thanksgiving Like Martin Riggs, Jeremy Collier (Emilio Estevez) is a Vietnam vet, and also like Riggs, he has trouble putting his gun away during the holidays. Unlike Riggs, though, Jeremy’s weapon is directed at his father (Martin Sheen) rather than himself, and that leads to a less-depressing but no less disheartening situation. Film: A Midnight Clear Depressing Holiday: Christmas One of the most bittersweet war films ever made, A Midnight Clear is set during Christmas, 1944, in the middle of WWII and involves an intended holiday truce between American and German troops. Unfortunately, things go wrong. Not only does the film remind us currently that so many soldiers are away from home and potentially fighting on Christmas, it also displays some depressing truths about humanity and war that are saddening regardless of the season. Film: The Ice Storm Depressing Holiday: Thanksgiving This movie (which could also qualify for yesterday’s list of best dysfunctional families) reminds us of how sad Thanksgiving can be on an historical level thanks to the sardonic pre-dinne grace said by Wendy (Christina Ricci) regarding both America’s tradition of killing and robbing the Indians and its gluttonous disregard for the starving people around the world (didn’t we all go through that holiday protest phase?). Oh, and it features one of the most unsettling death-by-electrocution scenes ever. Film: Gremlins Depressing Holiday: Christmas The present holiday of this horror comedy classic is pretty sad considering all the death and destruction being caused by little green monsters, but the real depressing Christmas is the one from the past that Kate (Phoebe Cates) tells about. You know, the one where her father broke his neck and died on Christmas Eve while playing Santa Claus. And by recalling the details so slowly and in depth (she could have just simply said that her dad died on Christmas), she makes it even more somber a story than is welcome at such an already fearsome occasion. Film: Critters 2: The Main Course Depressing Holiday: Easter Obviously taking a cue from Gremlins, this sequel similarly involves little creatures terrorizing a small town during a holiday. And while not quite as gloomy for a young viewer as the earlier, better film, Critters 2 does feature a relatively upsetting scene in which “the Easter Bunny” is attacked by Crites and then crashes through a church window, ultimately bleeding from the mouth, dead. Film: Groundhog Day Depressing Holiday: Groundhog Day Not that anyone really celebrates this “holiday” (neither school nor post office is closed), but whatever. Though treated as black comedy, there is something quite depressing about all those suicide attempts made by Phil Connors (Bill Murray). It’s enough to cast a shadow (yuk yuk) on all the happiness that otherwise would come from Groundhog Day if it actually involved celebratory activities. Film: Roger & Me Depressing Holiday: Christmas Documentaries have the ability to make for the most depressing holidays, because they feature real life events — like a family being evicted from their home on Christmas day. This one is especially grim this year, as it’s possible that with the economy and mortgage crisis what they are that some families across America will be experiencing such a fate this December 25. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/6/37036.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/6/2008 5:01:07 PM
Body: While watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno, it is possible to occasionally forget that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie. Mainly because he doesn’t show up in the film, a rare and appreciated move for the guy who has played “Silent Bob” in 6 out of the 8 theatrical releases he’s directed. Then there’s the cast that is involved, which makes Z&M seem like the offspring of Judd Apatow and John Waters. But there are a number of things that do make it clearly a Smith joint, such as the obligatory employment of Jason Mewes — in the role he was born to play, even moreso than “Jay” — and the potentially pitying use of Jeff Anderson, who may have been the only actor to agree to receiving that accidental Hot Carl. And then there’s the most recognizable element: Smith’s inability let the poop jokes go in order to concentrate on his characters, and the relationships between them. It’s the filmmaker’s Achilles heel, and it’s one of five we at SpoutBlog have noticed are holding back the esteem of five would-be better directors. Director: Kevin Smith Achilles Heel: Interest in sex and shit over character and story Contrast often creates comedy, and in Z&M Smith acquires some of his best, most shock-inspired laughs when two significantly saccharine moments are interrupted by some incredibly foul scenarios. But despite the comedic benefit of pushing the contrived rom-com plot points to the back burner in favor of scat and scrotum, Smith proves that he doesn’t really care about what is going on with his characters, and so neither may his audience. The irony is that one of the major themes in Z&M is the triumph of love over meaningless sex, yet Smith doesn’t love his characters; he simply uses them as tools for his tasteless jokes and gags. And he’s been doing this since the beginning, though he has made two distinct attempts at giving more attention to characters than crudeness (Chasing Amy; Jersey Girl), which resulted in differing effectiveness. After eight features, it seems to actually be best for him to continue concentrating on the sex and shit and leave all his need to be sweet behind. Unfortunately, he’s too nice a guy to go completely balls out (like his friend Mewes), and anyway if he left all care for his characters behind, he’ll just seem like a second-rate John Waters. Director: Michael Moore Achilles Heel: Self-satisfying need to be comedic and important When Michael Moore began making documentaries, his brand of first-person, subjective non-fiction narrative was fresh and satisfying as far as the subject matter of Roger & Me is concerned. And his comedic touch was much appreciated, because he seemed more humorist than activist. But as he kept expanding his scope to more objective issues that are more important or significant to his audience, and as he seemed to become more interested in changing the world, he should have put the jokes up on the shelf, to some extent anyway. Compared to something like The Daily Show, Moore’s films are more intent on presenting an argument than comedy, and they’re sold as more documentary than The Daily Show is sold as actual news. Therefore, Moore should make up his mind. He’s good at humor, and he’s also good at serious documentary — look at a lot of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore’s need for self-importance is pulled back. He can keep on mixing the two together, but he’s not going to win any arguments when he’s twisting facts for the benefit of a gag. Director: M. Night Shyamalan Achilles Heel: Last-minute reveals There’s nothing wrong with twist endings, or twists in general. But the way Shyamalan works them, they come off as punch lines to really long jokes. And most of the time, such as with Signs, The Village and The Happening, the whole movie ends up a joke (in the bad sense) in retrospect after knowing. Even The Sixth Sense, which does still have its supporters (and its Oscar nomination clout), is difficult to rewatch once you’re conscious of how it ends. Shyamalan’s best film, Unbreakable, disappointed many for having a relatively anticlimactic ending, but that’s because the twist wasn’t as much of a reveal as it was a logical direction for the story. Shyamalan should go back to that sort of reveal while also learning that a story (and movie) should be more about the road than the destination. Director: Cameron Crowe Achilles Heel: Writing manic, pixie dream girls as female leads Watching a film by Cameron Crowe, it’s possible to wonder just how he sees his own leading lady, rocker Nancy Wilson. Is she a dumb, obnoxiously flaky girl, like most of the female leads in his movies? Does she say cute but idiotic things like “We peaked on the phone,” “You had me at hello,” and “I’ll tell you in another life, when we are both cats”? I doubt she’s anything like those female characters from Elizabethtown, Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky, because otherwise Crowe wouldn’t have been married to her for 22 years. He would have realized after a week that she’s only exciting from a distance, or for as long as an interesting story arc that will later be nestled into one’s past, because she’s too insane, too desperate, too irritating, and not dependable enough to stick with. It might be interesting to see a sequel to any one of Crowe’s films, because it’s hard to believe any of the couples he’s written have lasted long past the credits. Director: Uwe Boll Achilles Heel: Doesn’t care what anybody thinks of his movies It’s understandable that true artists don’t need to please anyone but themselves. But even Boll would likely agree that he’s no artist. So, then is he an entertainer? Nope, he’s not that either, because he clearly isn’t interested in pleasing his audience with entertaining movies. It’s doubtful that Boll could be a good let alone great filmmaker if he started listening to his critics and improved on his flaws. However, by learning from his mistakes he could at least make action movies that could pass with the standard of Hollywood fare these days. Maybe that’s not what he wants. It would surely keep him out of the public consciousness to no longer be “the worst living filmmaker in the world.” But one day the money is going to run out for his brand of film production, and if he truly wants to be a movie director, he’ll have to eventually display some kind of talent for the work. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:01:07 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/6/2008 5:01:07 PMWhile watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno, it is possible to occasionally forget that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie. Mainly because he doesn’t show up in the film, a rare and appreciated move for the guy who has played “Silent Bob” in 6 out of the 8 theatrical releases he’s directed. Then there’s the cast that is involved, which makes Z&M seem like the offspring of Judd Apatow and John Waters. But there are a number of things that do make it clearly a Smith joint, such as the obligatory employment of Jason Mewes — in the role he was born to play, even moreso than “Jay” — and the potentially pitying use of Jeff Anderson, who may have been the only actor to agree to receiving that accidental Hot Carl. And then there’s the most recognizable element: Smith’s inability let the poop jokes go in order to concentrate on his characters, and the relationships between them. It’s the filmmaker’s Achilles heel, and it’s one of five we at SpoutBlog have noticed are holding back the esteem of five would-be better directors. Director: Kevin Smith Achilles Heel: Interest in sex and shit over character and story Contrast often creates comedy, and in Z&M Smith acquires some of his best, most shock-inspired laughs when two significantly saccharine moments are interrupted by some incredibly foul scenarios. But despite the comedic benefit of pushing the contrived rom-com plot points to the back burner in favor of scat and scrotum, Smith proves that he doesn’t really care about what is going on with his characters, and so neither may his audience. The irony is that one of the major themes in Z&M is the triumph of love over meaningless sex, yet Smith doesn’t love his characters; he simply uses them as tools for his tasteless jokes and gags. And he’s been doing this since the beginning, though he has made two distinct attempts at giving more attention to characters than crudeness (Chasing Amy; Jersey Girl), which resulted in differing effectiveness. After eight features, it seems to actually be best for him to continue concentrating on the sex and shit and leave all his need to be sweet behind. Unfortunately, he’s too nice a guy to go completely balls out (like his friend Mewes), and anyway if he left all care for his characters behind, he’ll just seem like a second-rate John Waters. Director: Michael Moore Achilles Heel: Self-satisfying need to be comedic and important When Michael Moore began making documentaries, his brand of first-person, subjective non-fiction narrative was fresh and satisfying as far as the subject matter of Roger & Me is concerned. And his comedic touch was much appreciated, because he seemed more humorist than activist. But as he kept expanding his scope to more objective issues that are more important or significant to his audience, and as he seemed to become more interested in changing the world, he should have put the jokes up on the shelf, to some extent anyway. Compared to something like The Daily Show, Moore’s films are more intent on presenting an argument than comedy, and they’re sold as more documentary than The Daily Show is sold as actual news. Therefore, Moore should make up his mind. He’s good at humor, and he’s also good at serious documentary — look at a lot of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore’s need for self-importance is pulled back. He can keep on mixing the two together, but he’s not going to win any arguments when he’s twisting facts for the benefit of a gag. Director: M. Night Shyamalan Achilles Heel: Last-minute reveals There’s nothing wrong with twist endings, or twists in general. But the way Shyamalan works them, they come off as punch lines to really long jokes. And most of the time, such as with Signs, The Village and The Happening, the whole movie ends up a joke (in the bad sense) in retrospect after knowing. Even The Sixth Sense, which does still have its supporters (and its Oscar nomination clout), is difficult to rewatch once you’re conscious of how it ends. Shyamalan’s best film, Unbreakable, disappointed many for having a relatively anticlimactic ending, but that’s because the twist wasn’t as much of a reveal as it was a logical direction for the story. Shyamalan should go back to that sort of reveal while also learning that a story (and movie) should be more about the road than the destination. Director: Cameron Crowe Achilles Heel: Writing manic, pixie dream girls as female leads Watching a film by Cameron Crowe, it’s possible to wonder just how he sees his own leading lady, rocker Nancy Wilson. Is she a dumb, obnoxiously flaky girl, like most of the female leads in his movies? Does she say cute but idiotic things like “We peaked on the phone,” “You had me at hello,” and “I’ll tell you in another life, when we are both cats”? I doubt she’s anything like those female characters from Elizabethtown, Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky, because otherwise Crowe wouldn’t have been married to her for 22 years. He would have realized after a week that she’s only exciting from a distance, or for as long as an interesting story arc that will later be nestled into one’s past, because she’s too insane, too desperate, too irritating, and not dependable enough to stick with. It might be interesting to see a sequel to any one of Crowe’s films, because it’s hard to believe any of the couples he’s written have lasted long past the credits. Director: Uwe Boll Achilles Heel: Doesn’t care what anybody thinks of his movies It’s understandable that true artists don’t need to please anyone but themselves. But even Boll would likely agree that he’s no artist. So, then is he an entertainer? Nope, he’s not that either, because he clearly isn’t interested in pleasing his audience with entertaining movies. It’s doubtful that Boll could be a good let alone great filmmaker if he started listening to his critics and improved on his flaws. However, by learning from his mistakes he could at least make action movies that could pass with the standard of Hollywood fare these days. Maybe that’s not what he wants. It would surely keep him out of the public consciousness to no longer be “the worst living filmmaker in the world.” But one day the money is going to run out for his brand of film production, and if he truly wants to be a movie director, he’ll have to eventually display some kind of talent for the work. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/5/30563.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/5/2008 3:01:05 PM
Body: Now that we know, courtesy of Stu at Defamer, that Werner Herzog’s remake of Abel Ferrara’s Bad Lieutenant is not so much a remake as it is like a new entry into a franchise, a la the James Bond movies, we at SpoutBlog wonder what other ’90s indie favorites could be continued with similar yet “completely different” installments. I remember back in the day thinking that Clerks should be a franchise, each film focusing on a different crappy job experience, but now that Clerks II has come and gone, that idea will likely never be realized. Of course, the concept of sequels unrelated to the original aren’t new — just look at any sequel title substituting the number 2 (or II) with the word Too. But nevertheless, here’s a few suggestions for other crazy foreign auteurs to take into consideration: Kids - Looking back, Larry Clark’s then-shocking debut is pretty tame. Nowadays you see teens doing worse things on commercial television. So, how about someone makes another Kids movie every decade or so to expose us to the latest generation of teenagers and how appallingly different they are from the previous generation. It would be like Apted’s Up documentaries, except it wouldn’t follow the same people. Slacker - This is Karina’s suggestion, off the top of her head, so I’ll give her credit. She likes the idea of Linklater revisiting the concept behind his monumental indie, but having it set in other cities, a la The Real World. Unlike the premise of the next Real World, though, I’d be much more excited about a Slacker Brooklyn. Leaving Las Vegas - While we’re on the idea of transplanting locations, and because Herzog is setting his Bad Lieutenant in New Orleans rather than New York, let’s mention some films whose remakes sequels next installments could feature title changes depending on their location changes. Leaving Boston might not have the same ring to it, though. What about King of New York redone as King of St. Louis? Of course, Abel Ferrara is already turning King of New York into a franchise with Pericle il Nero, a prequel that isn’t quite a prequel (strange that he would have a problem with Herzog’s film, then). Swingers - This one is easy. Take some hot new subculture/dance craze/music scene and exploit it, so none of the original followers like it anymore and all of the new followers can be labeled posers (no, of course I’m not bitter). Swingers wasn’t the first movie to do it; Saturday Night Fever and probably a few ’50s rock ‘n’ roll movies were viewed the same way. I wonder what scene is cool with the alternative kids these days … The Big One - Following the success of Roger and Me, Michael Moore made this documentary in which he attempts to get interviews with other corporate heads. But now his films are mostly political and there’s less attention paid towards companies like General Motors and Nike. Sure, we’ve since seen some worthy substitutes, including The Corporation, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room and Super Size Me, but I’d like Moore to return to his hunting of the villains of capitalism and give up on his pursuit of 9/11 answers. Breaking the Waves - Surely most movie execs were shocked at how unsexy Von Trier’s film was. After all, the story of a crippled man who sends his wife out to sleep with men for his vicarious benefit sounds like an erotic, softcore, Skinamax kind of thing. So, when do we get Breaking the Waves Too, about another crippled man with a much younger, hotter wife (just FYI, I personally have always had a crush on Emily Watson)? And since it will be have to be direct-to-video will it still need to avoid the nauseating shaky cam that made so many people sick in the theater? Sling Blade - Having recently seen Robert Duvall in the 1972 film Tomorrow, I now know that Billy Bob Thornton’s “Karl Childers” is not that unique a character. For the next installment, I’d like to see Karl (well, a character like Karl) and his southern gothic story set in New York City. It would make about as much sense as Bad Lieutenant being set in NOLA. Being John Malkovich - Who hasn’t wanted a franchise in which each installment goes inside the head of a different cult-figure actor? Even if it would ruin the original just a little big, I’d love Being Jeff Goldblum or Being Christopher Walken. The latter would be enormously popular. Kolya - This Oscar-winning foreign film showed us that heartwarming tales of old, curmudgeonly Sean Connery lookalikes who learn to love the young child they’re forced to take care of are universal. But I’d like to see the same plot in other countries besides Czechoslovakia, just to be sure. Waiting for Guffman - Oh wait, Christopher Guest has been continually remaking this movie, only without association. Never mind. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:01:05 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/5/2008 3:01:05 PMNow that we know, courtesy of Stu at Defamer, that Werner Herzog’s remake of Abel Ferrara’s Bad Lieutenant is not so much a remake as it is like a new entry into a franchise, a la the James Bond movies, we at SpoutBlog wonder what other ’90s indie favorites could be continued with similar yet “completely different” installments. I remember back in the day thinking that Clerks should be a franchise, each film focusing on a different crappy job experience, but now that Clerks II has come and gone, that idea will likely never be realized. Of course, the concept of sequels unrelated to the original aren’t new — just look at any sequel title substituting the number 2 (or II) with the word Too. But nevertheless, here’s a few suggestions for other crazy foreign auteurs to take into consideration: Kids - Looking back, Larry Clark’s then-shocking debut is pretty tame. Nowadays you see teens doing worse things on commercial television. So, how about someone makes another Kids movie every decade or so to expose us to the latest generation of teenagers and how appallingly different they are from the previous generation. It would be like Apted’s Up documentaries, except it wouldn’t follow the same people. Slacker - This is Karina’s suggestion, off the top of her head, so I’ll give her credit. She likes the idea of Linklater revisiting the concept behind his monumental indie, but having it set in other cities, a la The Real World. Unlike the premise of the next Real World, though, I’d be much more excited about a Slacker Brooklyn. Leaving Las Vegas - While we’re on the idea of transplanting locations, and because Herzog is setting his Bad Lieutenant in New Orleans rather than New York, let’s mention some films whose remakes sequels next installments could feature title changes depending on their location changes. Leaving Boston might not have the same ring to it, though. What about King of New York redone as King of St. Louis? Of course, Abel Ferrara is already turning King of New York into a franchise with Pericle il Nero, a prequel that isn’t quite a prequel (strange that he would have a problem with Herzog’s film, then). Swingers - This one is easy. Take some hot new subculture/dance craze/music scene and exploit it, so none of the original followers like it anymore and all of the new followers can be labeled posers (no, of course I’m not bitter). Swingers wasn’t the first movie to do it; Saturday Night Fever and probably a few ’50s rock ‘n’ roll movies were viewed the same way. I wonder what scene is cool with the alternative kids these days … The Big One - Following the success of Roger and Me, Michael Moore made this documentary in which he attempts to get interviews with other corporate heads. But now his films are mostly political and there’s less attention paid towards companies like General Motors and Nike. Sure, we’ve since seen some worthy substitutes, including The Corporation, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room and Super Size Me, but I’d like Moore to return to his hunting of the villains of capitalism and give up on his pursuit of 9/11 answers. Breaking the Waves - Surely most movie execs were shocked at how unsexy Von Trier’s film was. After all, the story of a crippled man who sends his wife out to sleep with men for his vicarious benefit sounds like an erotic, softcore, Skinamax kind of thing. So, when do we get Breaking the Waves Too, about another crippled man with a much younger, hotter wife (just FYI, I personally have always had a crush on Emily Watson)? And since it will be have to be direct-to-video will it still need to avoid the nauseating shaky cam that made so many people sick in the theater? Sling Blade - Having recently seen Robert Duvall in the 1972 film Tomorrow, I now know that Billy Bob Thornton’s “Karl Childers” is not that unique a character. For the next installment, I’d like to see Karl (well, a character like Karl) and his southern gothic story set in New York City. It would make about as much sense as Bad Lieutenant being set in NOLA. Being John Malkovich - Who hasn’t wanted a franchise in which each installment goes inside the head of a different cult-figure actor? Even if it would ruin the original just a little big, I’d love Being Jeff Goldblum or Being Christopher Walken. The latter would be enormously popular. Kolya - This Oscar-winning foreign film showed us that heartwarming tales of old, curmudgeonly Sean Connery lookalikes who learn to love the young child they’re forced to take care of are universal. But I’d like to see the same plot in other countries besides Czechoslovakia, just to be sure. Waiting for Guffman - Oh wait, Christopher Guest has been continually remaking this movie, only without association. Never mind. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/thefilmpanelnotetaker/archive/2008/3/3/25815.aspx Post By: thefilmpanelnotetaker
Post To: thefilmpanelnotetaker Blog
Post Date: 3/3/2008 2:00:54 PM
Body: A Tribute to St. Clair BourneMuseum of the Moving Image – Astoria, NYFebruary 10, 2008(L to R: Armond White, Esther Iverem, Warrington Hudlin, George Alexander, Clyde Taylor and David Schwartz)(Filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles in the audience)At the Museum of the Moving Image on Sunday, critics and scholars were in person to discuss the career of and show clips from documentary filmmaker St. Clair Bourne, who died in December 2007, and made more than 40 films, mainly about African-American culture and politics. His subjects included Paul Robeson, John Henrik Clarke, Gordon Parks, Langston Hughes, and Making of Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. The discussion was organized and moderated by Warrington Hudlin producer of such films as House Party and Boomerang, and the founder of DV Republic.The panelists included Clyde Taylor, professor at the Gallatin School and writer for the PBS documentary, Midnight Ramble: The Life and Legacy of Oscar Micheaux; George Alexander - business entertainment columnist at Black Enterprise magazine and author of Why We Make Movies; Esther Iverem, journalist, poet and author of The Time: Portrait of a Journey Home; Armond White , film critic at New York Press and author of The Resistance: Ten Years of Pop Culture That Shook the World and Rebel for the Hell of It: The Art-Life of Tupac Shakur.The Museum’s David Schwartz opened the presentation by remarking that Hudlin had the idea to do this tribute to Bourne, who was a prolific filmmaker. Schwartz thanked Hudlin for arranging the tribute and said that Hudlin would someday get a tribute of his own. Hudlin joked, “When I’m alive!” Schwartz continued by saying that this would be one of the last programs at the Museum before it undergoes construction at the end of the month.He then introduced Nonso Christian Ugbode of the Black Documentary Collective, who presented a short clip montage that he cut himself of Bourne’s work. Afterwards, the panelists each presented clips from a selection of Bourne’s films.Clips Presentation:Clyde Taylor (CT) - Clip from Let the Church Say Amen (1974)Taylor said he chose this clip because it was a breakthrough film for Bourne and was made at the point when they got to know one another. Bourne had created his own production company at the time. This film became his ID or calling card. Taylor initiated an African-American film society in San Francisco and invited Bourne to show his film there. They became close friends. This clip is one that reflects a cinema verité style of filmmaking that follows a young seminary student, showing the connection between religion and the black experience.George Alexander (GA) – Clip from Langston Hughes: The Dreamkeeper (1988)Alexander said that Bourne was a generous and giving soul. He got to know him during the centennial birthday celebration of Langston Hughes at the Museum of Natural History. Alexander didn’t know Bourne too well at the time, but knew his work. Alexander worked on Bourne’s book and viewed all his films, and got to know him very well and they became good friends. This clip shows the idea of cultural authenticity, which is the notion that the subject of the documentary was talked about. If you do work about a community, you also have to show the social context.Esther Iverem (EI)– Clip from Making ‘Do the Right Thing' (1989)Iverem said as a young journalist, she was very impressed by the use of journalism on screen in Bourne’s films. She respects real stories a lot more than most narrative films she has to review. She had corresponded with Bourne through email. He was very active with the online community. When he was going through issues with his health, he was still interested in helping other people with their careers. This clip combines so many of his interests and emphases like social activism. It captures so much of what was happening in New York City in the 1980s.Armond White (AW)– Clip from John Henrik Clarke: A Great and Mighty Walk (1996)White said he met Bourne in the 1980s when he was an editor for the New York City Sun. He went to Bourne’s Upper West Side apartment for an interview. Bourne was a very principled and humane person. He didn’t talk like other filmmakers. He came from a family of journalists. It was the journalism aspect Bourne brought to filmmaking that made him special. White showed two clips. The first was the opening sequence of the film. He said this clip helps to show that movies don’t fall out of the sky. People collaborate with one another. The montage gives a sense of Bourne’s style. This is a film of self-identification. Bourne reflected on his own life as a filmmaker and as a n African-American. The second clip is of John Henrik Clarke sitting in a leather chair in a room with books and African sculptures. It evokes a professor’s office or a middle-class family’s den, like that of on TV’s “Father Knows Best.” This documentary has a rich, story-like quality. One of the only Bourne films that is in distribution.Panel Discussion and Audience Q&AHudlin then opened the panel discussion, a mix between his own questions to the panelists and also comments and questions from the audience. [FYI, among those in the audience was filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles, whose Sweet Sweetback’s Badasssss Song was a pioneering African-American independent film of the early 1970s.](WH) How long had you known Bourne?(CT) Since 1976. It was an important moment for black independent cinema, but documentaries were happening as well from such people as William Greaves. Bourne kept that leadership with the Black Documentary Collective.(WH) What were some of the choices he made with his documentaries?(CT) He was committed to handheld cinema verité. No narrator. More personal and intimate. In later years, he got better funded. Archival footage is very expensive. In the later years, he made films of people with profiles of greatness such as Paul Robeson, but he was not the ‘PBSification’ mode.(WH) When you interviewed Bourne for your book, did he talk about any challenges?(GA) He talked about how independent film was about to change. Up until Spike Lee, documentary filmmakers were making films about real life. The Spike Lee made narrative films that were entertaining in a realistic way. For John Henrik Clarke: A Great and Mighty Walk, he employed an MTV editor using quick cuts. In terms of getting funding, frequently people who controlled the money had little experience with African-American stories. Filmmaker Julie Dash talked about the same struggle to incorporate realistic elements. It was always challenging.(WH) In your book We Got to Have It, you talk about the consumer’s appetite. How are African Americans responding to documentaries?(EI) Can’t say that there has been an explosion in our documentaries and African Americans responding to them. What audiences are going to see versus quality of the films is a different thing. In recent years, filmmakers like Michael Moore get a lot of credit for documentaries being played in theaters. A lot of times, these films aren’t made by black filmmakers.(WH) Are there any advantages or disadvantages to fiction vs. non-fiction films?(AW) It’s a choice. You take a risk of not interesting an audience. Most movie goers aren’t interested in documentaries. Bourne took a risk because documentaries tell things to audiences that fiction cannot. I wouldn’t put him in the same sentence as Michael Moore. Moore degraded documentary filmmaking. Bourne believed in the truth of history.(WH) Will anyone defend Michael Moore? He and I are personal friends. When he sold Roger & Me for $4 million, he called me and asked if I needed some money. Fahrenheit 9/11 is the only documentary that has reached blockbuster status.(GA) Moore is aware that audiences evolve. People want to see something that entices them.(AW) Moore has changed the form. Popular films aim to entertain more than to inform. His films are aimed toward a particular political mindset. Bourne didn’t play around with the truth or history.(EI) Bourne had integrity, but we don’t have to honor that by throwing someone else under the bus. It doesn’t mean that Moore isn’t sticking to the facts. Just because he uses those techniques, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have integrity.(Audience Comment) I worked with Bourne and he wouldn’t want us knocking down filmmakers like Moore.(Audience Question) I am amazed and appalled that only one of Bourne’s movies is in distribution. What can we do about it? How do we get his films into circulation so future generations can see his work?(CT) There’s a movement out there to get his films in a box set. Something is in the works.(Audience Question) Was Bourne working on anything up to his death?(CT) A project about the Black Panthers. He got some extraordinary interviews. He also wanted to have a book done on his photos.(EI) He was also developing some fiction narratives. Might depend on who owns the actual rights to his work.(Audience Comment) The Black Documentary Collective will catalog his work.(Audience Question) Why wasn’t a clip from Half-Past Autumn: The Life and Works of Gordon Parks shown?(EI) I would have chosen that clip to screen, but Bourne was the producer, and not the director of that and the Museum chose to screen just clips from films he directed. Half-Past Autumn was on HBO. It was one of his films where he was able to break through the ceiling.(GA) It still fits his desire to chronicle important black people in history who made enormous contributions to African-American culture.(WH) Bourne created the Black Documentary Collective. He created an infrastructure that survives him. The institution he left behind didn’t die away. What is the Collective doing these days?(BCD Representative) We meet the first Monday of every month. We have rough-cut screenings and panel discussions.Towards the end of the discussion, Melvin Van Peebles stood up and said, “I’m clairvoyant!” Bourne knew the problems that he wanted the public to understand. He would have wanted filmmakers to continue to educate the audience. To push forward. Keep on fighting. Hudlin reminded Van Peebles of a button he once gave him that’s a circle with a line through it that means, “No Whining, Keep Working.” Van Peebles said he just made a new feature. At the end of the shoot, he was on his knees scrubbing the floor. “You got to do the whole thing,” he said. “I do any G-d damn thing necessary!”- Notes by The Film Panel Notetaker Originally posted on:The Film Panel Notetaker - Miss a panel discussion? Don't worry! We took notes for you.
]]>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:00:54 GMTthefilmpanelnotetakerthefilmpanelnotetaker Blog3/3/2008 2:00:54 PMA Tribute to St. Clair BourneMuseum of the Moving Image – Astoria, NYFebruary 10, 2008(L to R: Armond White, Esther Iverem, Warrington Hudlin, George Alexander, Clyde Taylor and David Schwartz)(Filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles in the audience)At the Museum of the Moving Image on Sunday, critics and scholars were in person to discuss the career of and show clips from documentary filmmaker St. Clair Bourne, who died in December 2007, and made more than 40 films, mainly about African-American culture and politics. His subjects included Paul Robeson, John Henrik Clarke, Gordon Parks, Langston Hughes, and Making of Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. The discussion was organized and moderated by Warrington Hudlin producer of such films as House Party and Boomerang, and the founder of DV Republic.The panelists included Clyde Taylor, professor at the Gallatin School and writer for the PBS documentary, Midnight Ramble: The Life and Legacy of Oscar Micheaux; George Alexander - business entertainment columnist at Black Enterprise magazine and author of Why We Make Movies; Esther Iverem, journalist, poet and author of The Time: Portrait of a Journey Home; Armond White , film critic at New York Press and author of The Resistance: Ten Years of Pop Culture That Shook the World and Rebel for the Hell of It: The Art-Life of Tupac Shakur.The Museum’s David Schwartz opened the presentation by remarking that Hudlin had the idea to do this tribute to Bourne, who was a prolific filmmaker. Schwartz thanked Hudlin for arranging the tribute and said that Hudlin would someday get a tribute of his own. Hudlin joked, “When I’m alive!” Schwartz continued by saying that this would be one of the last programs at the Museum before it undergoes construction at the end of the month.He then introduced Nonso Christian Ugbode of the Black Documentary Collective, who presented a short clip montage that he cut himself of Bourne’s work. Afterwards, the panelists each presented clips from a selection of Bourne’s films.Clips Presentation:Clyde Taylor (CT) - Clip from Let the Church Say Amen (1974)Taylor said he chose this clip because it was a breakthrough film for Bourne and was made at the point when they got to know one another. Bourne had created his own production company at the time. This film became his ID or calling card. Taylor initiated an African-American film society in San Francisco and invited Bourne to show his film there. They became close friends. This clip is one that reflects a cinema verité style of filmmaking that follows a young seminary student, showing the connection between religion and the black experience.George Alexander (GA) – Clip from Langston Hughes: The Dreamkeeper (1988)Alexander said that Bourne was a generous and giving soul. He got to know him during the centennial birthday celebration of Langston Hughes at the Museum of Natural History. Alexander didn’t know Bourne too well at the time, but knew his work. Alexander worked on Bourne’s book and viewed all his films, and got to know him very well and they became good friends. This clip shows the idea of cultural authenticity, which is the notion that the subject of the documentary was talked about. If you do work about a community, you also have to show the social context.Esther Iverem (EI)– Clip from Making ‘Do the Right Thing' (1989)Iverem said as a young journalist, she was very impressed by the use of journalism on screen in Bourne’s films. She respects real stories a lot more than most narrative films she has to review. She had corresponded with Bourne through email. He was very active with the online community. When he was going through issues with his health, he was still interested in helping other people with their careers. This clip combines so many of his interests and emphases like social activism. It captures so much of what was happening in New York City in the 1980s.Armond White (AW)– Clip from John Henrik Clarke: A Great and Mighty Walk (1996)White said he met Bourne in the 1980s when he was an editor for the New York City Sun. He went to Bourne’s Upper West Side apartment for an interview. Bourne was a very principled and humane person. He didn’t talk like other filmmakers. He came from a family of journalists. It was the journalism aspect Bourne brought to filmmaking that made him special. White showed two clips. The first was the opening sequence of the film. He said this clip helps to show that movies don’t fall out of the sky. People collaborate with one another. The montage gives a sense of Bourne’s style. This is a film of self-identification. Bourne reflected on his own life as a filmmaker and as a n African-American. The second clip is of John Henrik Clarke sitting in a leather chair in a room with books and African sculptures. It evokes a professor’s office or a middle-class family’s den, like that of on TV’s “Father Knows Best.” This documentary has a rich, story-like quality. One of the only Bourne films that is in distribution.Panel Discussion and Audience Q&AHudlin then opened the panel discussion, a mix between his own questions to the panelists and also comments and questions from the audience. [FYI, among those in the audience was filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles, whose Sweet Sweetback’s Badasssss Song was a pioneering African-American independent film of the early 1970s.](WH) How long had you known Bourne?(CT) Since 1976. It was an important moment for black independent cinema, but documentaries were happening as well from such people as William Greaves. Bourne kept that leadership with the Black Documentary Collective.(WH) What were some of the choices he made with his documentaries?(CT) He was committed to handheld cinema verité. No narrator. More personal and intimate. In later years, he got better funded. Archival footage is very expensive. In the later years, he made films of people with profiles of greatness such as Paul Robeson, but he was not the ‘PBSification’ mode.(WH) When you interviewed Bourne for your book, did he talk about any challenges?(GA) He talked about how independent film was about to change. Up until Spike Lee, documentary filmmakers were making films about real life. The Spike Lee made narrative films that were entertaining in a realistic way. For John Henrik Clarke: A Great and Mighty Walk, he employed an MTV editor using quick cuts. In terms of getting funding, frequently people who controlled the money had little experience with African-American stories. Filmmaker Julie Dash talked about the same struggle to incorporate realistic elements. It was always challenging.(WH) In your book We Got to Have It, you talk about the consumer’s appetite. How are African Americans responding to documentaries?(EI) Can’t say that there has been an explosion in our documentaries and African Americans responding to them. What audiences are going to see versus quality of the films is a different thing. In recent years, filmmakers like Michael Moore get a lot of credit for documentaries being played in theaters. A lot of times, these films aren’t made by black filmmakers.(WH) Are there any advantages or disadvantages to fiction vs. non-fiction films?(AW) It’s a choice. You take a risk of not interesting an audience. Most movie goers aren’t interested in documentaries. Bourne took a risk because documentaries tell things to audiences that fiction cannot. I wouldn’t put him in the same sentence as Michael Moore. Moore degraded documentary filmmaking. Bourne believed in the truth of history.(WH) Will anyone defend Michael Moore? He and I are personal friends. When he sold Roger & Me for $4 million, he called me and asked if I needed some money. Fahrenheit 9/11 is the only documentary that has reached blockbuster status.(GA) Moore is aware that audiences evolve. People want to see something that entices them.(AW) Moore has changed the form. Popular films aim to entertain more than to inform. His films are aimed toward a particular political mindset. Bourne didn’t play around with the truth or history.(EI) Bourne had integrity, but we don’t have to honor that by throwing someone else under the bus. It doesn’t mean that Moore isn’t sticking to the facts. Just because he uses those techniques, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have integrity.(Audience Comment) I worked with Bourne and he wouldn’t want us knocking down filmmakers like Moore.(Audience Question) I am amazed and appalled that only one of Bourne’s movies is in distribution. What can we do about it? How do we get his films into circulation so future generations can see his work?(CT) There’s a movement out there to get his films in a box set. Something is in the works.(Audience Question) Was Bourne working on anything up to his death?(CT) A project about the Black Panthers. He got some extraordinary interviews. He also wanted to have a book done on his photos.(EI) He was also developing some fiction narratives. Might depend on who owns the actual rights to his work.(Audience Comment) The Black Documentary Collective will catalog his work.(Audience Question) Why wasn’t a clip from Half-Past Autumn: The Life and Works of Gordon Parks shown?(EI) I would have chosen that clip to screen, but Bourne was the producer, and not the director of that and the Museum chose to screen just clips from films he directed. Half-Past Autumn was on HBO. It was one of his films where he was able to break through the ceiling.(GA) It still fits his desire to chronicle important black people in history who made enormous contributions to African-American culture.(WH) Bourne created the Black Documentary Collective. He created an infrastructure that survives him. The institution he left behind didn’t die away. What is the Collective doing these days?(BCD Representative) We meet the first Monday of every month. We have rough-cut screenings and panel discussions.Towards the end of the discussion, Melvin Van Peebles stood up and said, “I’m clairvoyant!” Bourne knew the problems that he wanted the public to understand. He would have wanted filmmakers to continue to educate the audience. To push forward. Keep on fighting. Hudlin reminded Van Peebles of a button he once gave him that’s a circle with a line through it that means, “No Whining, Keep Working.” Van Peebles said he just made a new feature. At the end of the shoot, he was on his knees scrubbing the floor. “You got to do the whole thing,” he said. “I do any G-d damn thing necessary!”- Notes by The Film Panel Notetaker Originally posted on:The Film Panel Notetaker - Miss a panel discussion? Don't worry! We took notes for you. http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2007/12/7/22617.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 12/7/2007 6:17:36 PM
Body: Out of Balance is a documentary that discusses global warming and ExxonMobil's relationship to the issue and phenomenon. Before I sat down to this movie, I was not expecting that it would be something I would be giving a very high score.I generally feel turned off by the idea of documentaries that are obviously trying to convince you of a stance on some social issue. I also generally get sick of documentaries that point fingers and target specific entities.Movies that fit these descriptions that also tackle extremely huge issues tend to be too overwhelming to me as well. It's usually too hard to deduce whether what they are even saying is true, or how to respond. Movies like this usually don't even tell you how to respond. They just kind of make you feel weird or upset.Almost all of Michael Moore's fit all of these categories. And although I enjoyed Roger & Me when he was unknown and going after a more local threat, I have become quickly sick of his movies for the reasons mentioned above.When looking at the DVD cover for Out of Balance, it seemed like it might fit these things as well. Also the description on the back of the cover seemed to suggest that watching An Inconvenient Truth was a prerequisite to watching this movie. And I have not seen that movie. I thought to myself, I don't even know if I am convinced that global warming is true? How will I even be in a state of mind to hear arguments against ExxonMobil's negative role in something I'm not even convinced of.Well I don't even know if Out of Balance was made after An Inconvenient Truth came out, but the movie makes not only anticipated my state of mind but essentially directed their movie towards those concerns directly for most of the movie. And the movie doesn't mention An Inconvenient Truth anywhere.I was bracing myself when the movie first began with a montage and then the disembodied voice of the filmmaker who began speaking about himself in the first person about his experience with hearing about global warming. It seemed about as cliche as you could get. Who is this guy and why should I care? But I soon realized that wasn't necessary. He was about to get straight to the point without any fancy stuff. And that's what I appreciated. The film was simple, but not cheap. The whole thing was short and concise.Basically what the movie proposes to someone like me who wasn't sure what they believed in regards to the debate about global warming was that I like many other people who had failed to do any real research into the matter had been duped for years into believing there even was a debate. I hadn't even heard about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and that their studies commissioned by the United Nations ten years ago was the largest scientific peer review study ever. And that the unanimous results which were approved by over 150 world nations was that the earth was conclusively warming up due to human production of greenhouse gasses.This may be nothing new to you socially and environmentally conscientious people out there, especially since I just realized that the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. But what I found out is that the reason why this issue hasn't for the last ten years been viewed as a virtual fact and more of a debated theory is because ExxonMobil and other huge corporations that make huge profits off of oil and products that are contributing to global warming are funding huge campaigns to distribute doubt and "junk science" that tries to confuse the public as to what is true. Using their tight connections in the government and the press they have been essentially knowingly plunging the entire planet towards doom for short term profits.Maybe many people already realize this is going on, but I didn't. So I guess if we can keep getting movies out there, we can get more people focusing on the issue.But once the problem is identified, what are the solutions. Well the film even admits in a problem as gigantic and overwhelming as this it seems difficult to even think about what a single person can do. Of course conserving energy has always been helpful, but there are basically two main tasks the movie urges us to do. One is to not give any of your money in any way to ExxonMobil. Don't buy their gas. Don't work for them. None of it. While the movie doesn't talk about other gas companies too much, it does indicate some companies are a lot less unscrupulous and more willing to look forward to investing in non-renewable resources. It sighted BP as an example.The other and more important thing it urges you to do I suppose, is to write to all of your government representatives repeatedly and indicate that investing in legislature and programs that will increase research and usage of renewable energy resources is important to you. Basically it is telling you that our governments should be focused on this issue here and now because things are getting bad and irreversible. And the only way to fix it is if the world works together. And if planet becomes uninhabitable then all of the other legislature they are passing won't make much of a difference.That's about it. At only 65 minutes the movie keeps it simple and straightforward. The stakes are huge and so is the task, but it's time to stop wondering and waiting, and time to start changing the focus. Can we do it? People connected to corporations have been so trained into being focused 100% on the profit that they are removed from reality. But would we be any different? Are we any different right now? Wouldn't we just as much rather just stick to the way things are and ignore the consequences? I guess the good thing about a movie like this is it shocks you into thinking about it without being sensational. What would be great is if the media could stop giving time to the possibility that this is still a debate and start focusing on how we are going to avoid impending doom. Maybe I'll be less apt to avoid movies like this the next time one comes my way.Rating: 8/10
]]>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:17:36 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog12/7/2007 6:17:36 PMOut of Balance is a documentary that discusses global warming and ExxonMobil&#39;s relationship to the issue and phenomenon. Before I sat down to this movie, I was not expecting that it would be something I would be giving a very high score.I generally feel turned off by the idea of documentaries that are obviously trying to convince you of a stance on some social issue. I also generally get sick of documentaries that point fingers and target specific entities.Movies that fit these descriptions that also tackle extremely huge issues tend to be too overwhelming to me as well. It&#39;s usually too hard to deduce whether what they are even saying is true, or how to respond. Movies like this usually don&#39;t even tell you how to respond. They just kind of make you feel weird or upset.Almost all of Michael Moore&#39;s fit all of these categories. And although I enjoyed Roger &amp; Me when he was unknown and going after a more local threat, I have become quickly sick of his movies for the reasons mentioned above.When looking at the DVD cover for Out of Balance, it seemed like it might fit these things as well. Also the description on the back of the cover seemed to suggest that watching An Inconvenient Truth was a prerequisite to watching this movie. And I have not seen that movie. I thought to myself, I don&#39;t even know if I am convinced that global warming is true? How will I even be in a state of mind to hear arguments against ExxonMobil&#39;s negative role in something I&#39;m not even convinced of.Well I don&#39;t even know if Out of Balance was made after An Inconvenient Truth came out, but the movie makes not only anticipated my state of mind but essentially directed their movie towards those concerns directly for most of the movie. And the movie doesn&#39;t mention An Inconvenient Truth anywhere.I was bracing myself when the movie first began with a montage and then the disembodied voice of the filmmaker who began speaking about himself in the first person about his experience with hearing about global warming. It seemed about as cliche as you could get. Who is this guy and why should I care? But I soon realized that wasn&#39;t necessary. He was about to get straight to the point without any fancy stuff. And that&#39;s what I appreciated. The film was simple, but not cheap. The whole thing was short and concise.Basically what the movie proposes to someone like me who wasn&#39;t sure what they believed in regards to the debate about global warming was that I like many other people who had failed to do any real research into the matter had been duped for years into believing there even was a debate. I hadn&#39;t even heard about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and that their studies commissioned by the United Nations ten years ago was the largest scientific peer review study ever. And that the unanimous results which were approved by over 150 world nations was that the earth was conclusively warming up due to human production of greenhouse gasses.This may be nothing new to you socially and environmentally conscientious people out there, especially since I just realized that the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. But what I found out is that the reason why this issue hasn&#39;t for the last ten years been viewed as a virtual fact and more of a debated theory is because ExxonMobil and other huge corporations that make huge profits off of oil and products that are contributing to global warming are funding huge campaigns to distribute doubt and &quot;junk science&quot; that tries to confuse the public as to what is true. Using their tight connections in the government and the press they have been essentially knowingly plunging the entire planet towards doom for short term profits.Maybe many people already realize this is going on, but I didn&#39;t. So I guess if we can keep getting movies out there, we can get more people focusing on the issue.But once the problem is identified, what are the solutions. Well the film even admits in a problem as gigantic and overwhelming as this it seems difficult to even think about what a single person can do. Of course conserving energy has always been helpful, but there are basically two main tasks the movie urges us to do. One is to not give any of your money in any way to ExxonMobil. Don&#39;t buy their gas. Don&#39;t work for them. None of it. While the movie doesn&#39;t talk about other gas companies too much, it does indicate some companies are a lot less unscrupulous and more willing to look forward to investing in non-renewable resources. It sighted BP as an example.The other and more important thing it urges you to do I suppose, is to write to all of your government representatives repeatedly and indicate that investing in legislature and programs that will increase research and usage of renewable energy resources is important to you. Basically it is telling you that our governments should be focused on this issue here and now because things are getting bad and irreversible. And the only way to fix it is if the world works together. And if planet becomes uninhabitable then all of the other legislature they are passing won&#39;t make much of a difference.That&#39;s about it. At only 65 minutes the movie keeps it simple and straightforward. The stakes are huge and so is the task, but it&#39;s time to stop wondering and waiting, and time to start changing the focus. Can we do it? People connected to corporations have been so trained into being focused 100% on the profit that they are removed from reality. But would we be any different? Are we any different right now? Wouldn&#39;t we just as much rather just stick to the way things are and ignore the consequences? I guess the good thing about a movie like this is it shocks you into thinking about it without being sensational. What would be great is if the media could stop giving time to the possibility that this is still a debate and start focusing on how we are going to avoid impending doom. Maybe I&#39;ll be less apt to avoid movies like this the next time one comes my way.Rating: 8/10 http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Documentary/Re_Sicko/79/17388/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: The Documentary
Post Date: 8/5/2007 9:59:18 PM
Body: [quote user="strangeframe"] Seen it. I thought it had great moments and the point was indeed made (I felt like leaving the country!). I laughed. I cried. I knew most of what he was showing, but he still could get to my emotional buttons. I did wonder why he didn't go to the Scandinavian countries since they have the best national healthcare programs. I don't want to go into detail if you haven't seen it. Still think his best film was Roger & Me. One of the things that wigs me out about documentarians (myself included), is that our subjects are used (shot, edited, and packaged) to create an emotional response. With a fictional piece, it seems ethically in the clear, but in non-fiction it seems dicey. Even when your intentions are all in the right place, it still seems "off" to turn a camera on a person who is crying. I stopped shooting news over a decade ago because of that. Too many crying mothers with dead children - the nightly news seems to live for that. Ugh![/quote]Roger & Me is my favorite Moore film too. I think because when he made it he was totally unknown and making this movie totally out of his own frustration. He was a part of that Flint community and was speaking for real friends that he knew. And he didn't have any money probably and who knows if anyone would have seen the movie.Now the guy is just a big and powerful of a figure as the people he is going against in his movies though. And I don't know about Sicko, but his other documentaries have attacked specific people in ways that don't always seem helpful. He also obviously manipulates you and even if he says he doesn't lie or use fake facts in his movies, he presents everything to you in a way that you can make false assumptions. I found his TV shows like The Awful Truth to be much more effective. Maybe he works better in a shorter time format where he can stick to one simple idea and make it poignant and funny. It seems like things get a little out of control in his feature length films. I agree with you about the thing with the crying mother and the nightly news. Most news broadcasts and publications just make me sick. They are full of fear and exploitation. It's not going to stop though so I guess I just have to recognize it and not get continually pissed off by it.
]]>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:59:18 GMTRisseladaThe Documentary8/5/2007 9:59:18 PM[quote user="strangeframe"] Seen it. I thought it had great moments and the point was indeed made (I felt like leaving the country!). I laughed. I cried. I knew most of what he was showing, but he still could get to my emotional buttons. I did wonder why he didn&#39;t go to the Scandinavian countries since they have the best national healthcare programs. I don&#39;t want to go into detail if you haven&#39;t seen it. Still think his best film was Roger &amp; Me. One of the things that wigs me out about documentarians (myself included), is that our subjects are used (shot, edited, and packaged) to create an emotional response. With a fictional piece, it seems ethically in the clear, but in non-fiction it seems dicey. Even when your intentions are all in the right place, it still seems "off" to turn a camera on a person who is crying. I stopped shooting news over a decade ago because of that. Too many crying mothers with dead children - the nightly news seems to live for that. Ugh![/quote]Roger &amp; Me is my favorite Moore film too. I think because when he made it he was totally unknown and making this movie totally out of his own frustration. He was a part of that Flint community and was speaking for real friends that he knew. And he didn&#39;t have any money probably and who knows if anyone would have seen the movie.Now the guy is just a big and powerful of a figure as the people he is going against in his movies though. And I don&#39;t know about Sicko, but his other documentaries have attacked specific people in ways that don&#39;t always seem helpful. He also obviously manipulates you and even if he says he doesn&#39;t lie or use fake facts in his movies, he presents everything to you in a way that you can make false assumptions. I found his TV shows like The Awful Truth to be much more effective. Maybe he works better in a shorter time format where he can stick to one simple idea and make it poignant and funny. It seems like things get a little out of control in his feature length films. I agree with you about the thing with the crying mother and the nightly news. Most news broadcasts and publications just make me sick. They are full of fear and exploitation. It&#39;s not going to stop though so I guess I just have to recognize it and not get continually pissed off by it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/minerwerks/archive/2007/7/12/13715.aspx Post By: minerwerks
Post To: minerwerks Blog
Post Date: 7/12/2007 12:24:00 AM
Body: At the risk of being a polarizing figure right off the bat, I'm going to review Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' but there might be a bit of my own personal feelings in there as well. It's not that I planned this, it's just that I happened to see the film today, and it's the first thing I've watched since signing up at Spout.Since 'Fahrenheit 9/11' came out, Michael Moore probably doesn't need an introduction. Some love him and some hate him, but does that relate to the quality of his films? I have watched Moore ever since seeing 'Roger & Me' on video and being impressed with his particular ability to highlight the absurdity of real life and his firm grasp of film language which results in very compelling and emotionally charged films. His new film, 'Sicko,' is in many ways is obviously of the same pedigree, but other subtle things (good and bad) set this one apart.'Sicko' is possibly the most straight-forward presentation Moore has ever made on film. The stories here flow pretty smoothly from point-to-point, without as many of the digressions or stunts epitomized by, say, 'Bowling For Columbine.' The structure here is pretty much 1) show examples of insured Americans who have been wronged by HMOs, 2) provide evidence that the HMO's incentive is monetary rather than health-based and 3) show positive examples of "universal health care" programs and propose something similar as an alternative to HMOs. Michael Moore is surprisingly restrained throughout 'Sicko.' In fact, the most emphatic use of Moore's clout to spur change in the film actually comes from an average guy invoking Moore's name (without permission) to his insurance company. In a sense, this restraint robs the film of the mischievous tone found in Moore's other work, but it also serves to underline the seriousness of the issue. In fact, Moore may have gone a bit too far on the seriousness. The narration often comes across as cloying, which is not helped by the overly emotional music that underscores the scenes. There are a number of nice songs sprinkled throughout, but nothing that lives up to Moore's brilliant use of songs as counterpoint to his scenes in previous films (for instance, "Wouldn't It Be Nice" in 'Roger & Me'). Detractors of Michael Moore have a lot of complaints about his methods, and I agree with some of them. Moore always contends the facts in his film are 100% accurate. This, I choose not to argue, but Moore's strength has always been based on what he says in between those facts. He is a master at implying the ideas he wants you to take away from his films. On this point, I think 'Sicko' makes stronger arguments than Moore's other works, therefore the film feels stronger, despite the missteps. At the screening I attended, the theater was far from packed, but the film earned a round of applause from the audience.This is where my personal opinion comes in, however. Now that Moore is in such a position that his commentaries on the United States health care system can be considered influential, I think he needs to consider the impact of his methods on the state of political discourse. As pointed out in one of my favorite films of last year, 'Thank You For Smoking,' one never needs to succesfully argue their point of view as long as they can make the other side's argument look bad, which is a cheat - just because the other guy is wrong doesn't automatically make you right. Moore is sometimes guilty of this (witness his recent tirade on CNN, which does little for factual journalism, but does plenty for stirring up free publicity). The ethical question, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Moore, is about the fairness of the methods. I don't like a lot of television and radio personalities (who intentionally blur the line between 'journalist' and 'commentator') because their opinions are seething with distrust and superiority, and Moore is coming off like that sometimes instead of taking the high road. It makes it difficult to expand his influence beyond his core audience. And in this case, 'Sicko' probably has the most univerally appealing idea, thus the most to lose.
]]>Thu, 12 Jul 2007 04:24:00 GMTminerwerksminerwerks Blog7/12/2007 12:24:00 AMAt the risk of being a polarizing figure right off the bat, I'm going to review Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' but there might be a bit of my own personal feelings in there as well. It's not that I planned this, it's just that I happened to see the film today, and it's the first thing I've watched since signing up at Spout.Since 'Fahrenheit 9/11' came out, Michael Moore probably doesn't need an introduction. Some love him and some hate him, but does that relate to the quality of his films? I have watched Moore ever since seeing 'Roger &amp; Me' on video and being impressed with his particular ability to highlight the absurdity of real life and his firm grasp of film language which results in very compelling and emotionally charged films. His new film, 'Sicko,' is in many ways is obviously of the same pedigree, but other subtle things (good and bad) set this one apart.'Sicko' is possibly the most straight-forward presentation Moore has ever made on film. The stories here flow pretty smoothly from point-to-point, without as many of the digressions or stunts epitomized by, say, 'Bowling For Columbine.' The structure here is pretty much 1) show examples of insured Americans who have been wronged by HMOs, 2) provide evidence that the HMO's incentive is monetary rather than health-based and 3) show positive examples of "universal health care" programs and propose something similar as an alternative to HMOs. Michael Moore is surprisingly restrained throughout 'Sicko.' In fact, the most emphatic use of Moore's clout to spur change in the film actually comes from an average guy invoking Moore's name (without permission) to his insurance company. In a sense, this restraint robs the film of the mischievous tone found in Moore's other work, but it also serves to underline the seriousness of the issue. In fact, Moore may have gone a bit too far on the seriousness. The narration often comes across as cloying, which is not helped by the overly emotional music that underscores the scenes. There are a number of nice songs sprinkled throughout, but nothing that lives up to Moore's brilliant use of songs as counterpoint to his scenes in previous films (for instance, "Wouldn't It Be Nice" in 'Roger &amp; Me'). Detractors of Michael Moore have a lot of complaints about his methods, and I agree with some of them. Moore always contends the facts in his film are 100% accurate. This, I choose not to argue, but Moore's strength has always been based on what he says in between those facts. He is a master at implying the ideas he wants you to take away from his films. On this point, I think 'Sicko' makes stronger arguments than Moore's other works, therefore the film feels stronger, despite the missteps. At the screening I attended, the theater was far from packed, but the film earned a round of applause from the audience.This is where my personal opinion comes in, however. Now that Moore is in such a position that his commentaries on the United States health care system can be considered influential, I think he needs to consider the impact of his methods on the state of political discourse. As pointed out in one of my favorite films of last year, 'Thank You For Smoking,' one never needs to succesfully argue their point of view as long as they can make the other side's argument look bad, which is a cheat - just because the other guy is wrong doesn't automatically make you right. Moore is sometimes guilty of this (witness his recent tirade on CNN, which does little for factual journalism, but does plenty for stirring up free publicity). The ethical question, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Moore, is about the fairness of the methods. I don't like a lot of television and radio personalities (who intentionally blur the line between 'journalist' and 'commentator') because their opinions are seething with distrust and superiority, and Moore is coming off like that sometimes instead of taking the high road. It makes it difficult to expand his influence beyond his core audience. And in this case, 'Sicko' probably has the most univerally appealing idea, thus the most to lose. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/7/2/12880.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/2/2007 6:00:35 PM
Body: Late last Friday, I got an email from indieWIRE's Eugene Hernandez, pointing me to this, an "open letter" from film producer/professor John Pierson to his former friend and colleague, Sicko director MIchael Moore. I was traveling at the time and didn't get a chance to read the letter until today. An exemplary excerpt: You're on the side of the fucking angels with SiCKO and no lapses, omissions or oversimplifications can detract from its contribution to the greater good. But please baby please, let the movie, which you have so beautifully made, do the talking. My instant reaction was that Pierson's letter, which is in some ways meant as propaganda in favor of Manufacturing Dissent (the pseudo-expose of Moore in which Pierson appears, and which recently provoked an expletive-laced reaction from its subject), managed to put forth the arguments made in that film with a clarity and aggression sorely missing from the film itself. Still, as Agnes Varnum points out, why would Pierson suddenly feel the need to order Moore to "get out of the way"? And considering Sicko is already the least Moore-centric Michael Moore film in a good long while, what would that even mean? "I asked Eugene why this letter now? What bug is in Pierson’s britches? He let me know that there was an article in the LA Times that might have caused some bristling." Varnum then goes on to read that LA Times article and conclude that Moore "is as phony and as hypocritical as they come." Point: Pierson. If you haven't yet, you really should read Pierson's missive in full. Make sure to scroll down to the comments, where Pierson and a Moore supporter beat the "did Moore really interview Roger Smith?" dead horse for a couple of rounds, before other commenters (most apparently in opposition to Pierson) begin to debate the importance of fact vs. fiction within the context of documentary filmmaking. Though he's certainly not explicit about it, I think you could argue that the letter is Pierson's acknowledgment that, as Dissent seems to be in no danger of receiving a release to rival that of Sicko, the internet might be the only place for that debate. More on Spout: Sicko Manufacturing Dissent Roger & Me Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:00:35 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/2/2007 6:00:35 PM Late last Friday, I got an email from indieWIRE's Eugene Hernandez, pointing me to this, an "open letter" from film producer/professor John Pierson to his former friend and colleague, Sicko director MIchael Moore. I was traveling at the time and didn't get a chance to read the letter until today. An exemplary excerpt: You're on the side of the fucking angels with SiCKO and no lapses, omissions or oversimplifications can detract from its contribution to the greater good. But please baby please, let the movie, which you have so beautifully made, do the talking. My instant reaction was that Pierson's letter, which is in some ways meant as propaganda in favor of Manufacturing Dissent (the pseudo-expose of Moore in which Pierson appears, and which recently provoked an expletive-laced reaction from its subject), managed to put forth the arguments made in that film with a clarity and aggression sorely missing from the film itself. Still, as Agnes Varnum points out, why would Pierson suddenly feel the need to order Moore to "get out of the way"? And considering Sicko is already the least Moore-centric Michael Moore film in a good long while, what would that even mean? "I asked Eugene why this letter now? What bug is in Pierson’s britches? He let me know that there was an article in the LA Times that might have caused some bristling." Varnum then goes on to read that LA Times article and conclude that Moore "is as phony and as hypocritical as they come." Point: Pierson. If you haven't yet, you really should read Pierson's missive in full. Make sure to scroll down to the comments, where Pierson and a Moore supporter beat the "did Moore really interview Roger Smith?" dead horse for a couple of rounds, before other commenters (most apparently in opposition to Pierson) begin to debate the importance of fact vs. fiction within the context of documentary filmmaking. Though he's certainly not explicit about it, I think you could argue that the letter is Pierson's acknowledgment that, as Dissent seems to be in no danger of receiving a release to rival that of Sicko, the internet might be the only place for that debate. More on Spout: Sicko Manufacturing Dissent Roger & Me Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/stuntman_james/archive/2007/6/30/12713.aspx Post By: stuntman_James
Post To: stuntman_James Blog
Post Date: 6/30/2007 4:24:00 PM
Body: I am going to take a probably an unpopular stance here with my views on Michael Moore. It seems that in the time when being a right wing republican with conservative views is quite dangerous, I planned on discussing about Michael Moore with out injecting my political views, but I find that as I am crafting my blog, it seems quite hard. I am, or was a documentary filmmaker. With that said, I take great pride when documentaries take center stage for whatever reasons. It is a unique art form that shows reality in any form it wishes. However, I do also realize that documentary filmmakers give a very one-sided view on the subject matter the are filming. Take Jesus Camp. It was one of the few films that moved me when I viewed it last year. I sat in disgust and pure terror, and after several different viewings of the film, realized that even though it was disturbing, it was a one sided view. So, now comes my thoughts on Michael Moore. The conservative side of me becomes sick with thoughts of what this guy has become. The Irish, blue collar side of me sees the " everyday man" he portrays himself as and I feel good that someone is looking out for the little guy with no voice. But that voice is a whisper. I saw Roger and Me and was slightly amused that this rotund and portly guy was taking on the car giant. He was a gnat that the flyswatter of big brother could not smack and kill. It was a good film, but once again, a documentary that was extremely one-sided, although I did not realize it until I saw it again years later. Bowling for Columbine was his first real critical acclaim film that put the normal movie goer in the seats. It was his left wing take on gun control. Instead of giving people, especially those maybe not too intelligent to form their own opinions, a realistic view of gun violence in the world, he gave us misleading information. Walking in a affluent section of Toronto and opening the doors of residents in gated communities gave us no valuable information on how to control guns in the world. Fahrenheit 9/11 was the big one. He gave us a view of the terror attacks against innocent Americans and twisted it to look like we earned it. He skewed our views that our president and his cohorts were responsible for 3000 people dying. He shook his finger in shame to all those that supported an unpopular war and chastised those that morn the death of our heroes in Iraq. Now comes Sicko. It is his take on the American Medical System and health care. He berates the US for its poor health care system and even goes to Cuba to show that the prisoners of the war on terror. While I have not seen this movie yet, it is on my docket for viewing this week, I am going to assume that it is the same liberal BS he has been spilling for years. The problem with Michael Moore is that he offers no solution. He creates anarchy and misinformation. He gives us his personal beliefs and theories without offering on once of realistic solution. He berates those who do not fall into his fold of idiot political beliefs and creates personal vendettas. I may never agree with some when it comes to my personal political thoughts and beliefs, but I never chastise those that do not agree with me. I may debate and in the end come with a better understanding on why they believe what they do. Maybe someday he will also
]]>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:24:00 GMTstuntman_Jamesstuntman_James Blog6/30/2007 4:24:00 PM I am going to take a probably an unpopular stance here with my views on Michael Moore. It seems that in the time when being a right wing republican with conservative views is quite dangerous, I planned on discussing about Michael Moore with out injecting my political views, but I find that as I am crafting my blog, it seems quite hard. I am, or was a documentary filmmaker. With that said, I take great pride when documentaries take center stage for whatever reasons. It is a unique art form that shows reality in any form it wishes. However, I do also realize that documentary filmmakers give a very one-sided view on the subject matter the are filming. Take Jesus Camp. It was one of the few films that moved me when I viewed it last year. I sat in disgust and pure terror, and after several different viewings of the film, realized that even though it was disturbing, it was a one sided view. So, now comes my thoughts on Michael Moore. The conservative side of me becomes sick with thoughts of what this guy has become. The Irish, blue collar side of me sees the " everyday man" he portrays himself as and I feel good that someone is looking out for the little guy with no voice. But that voice is a whisper. I saw Roger and Me and was slightly amused that this rotund and portly guy was taking on the car giant. He was a gnat that the flyswatter of big brother could not smack and kill. It was a good film, but once again, a documentary that was extremely one-sided, although I did not realize it until I saw it again years later. Bowling for Columbine was his first real critical acclaim film that put the normal movie goer in the seats. It was his left wing take on gun control. Instead of giving people, especially those maybe not too intelligent to form their own opinions, a realistic view of gun violence in the world, he gave us misleading information. Walking in a affluent section of Toronto and opening the doors of residents in gated communities gave us no valuable information on how to control guns in the world. Fahrenheit 9/11 was the big one. He gave us a view of the terror attacks against innocent Americans and twisted it to look like we earned it. He skewed our views that our president and his cohorts were responsible for 3000 people dying. He shook his finger in shame to all those that supported an unpopular war and chastised those that morn the death of our heroes in Iraq. Now comes Sicko. It is his take on the American Medical System and health care. He berates the US for its poor health care system and even goes to Cuba to show that the prisoners of the war on terror. While I have not seen this movie yet, it is on my docket for viewing this week, I am going to assume that it is the same liberal BS he has been spilling for years. The problem with Michael Moore is that he offers no solution. He creates anarchy and misinformation. He gives us his personal beliefs and theories without offering on once of realistic solution. He berates those who do not fall into his fold of idiot political beliefs and creates personal vendettas. I may never agree with some when it comes to my personal political thoughts and beliefs, but I never chastise those that do not agree with me. I may debate and in the end come with a better understanding on why they believe what they do. Maybe someday he will also http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Stupid/MemberTagFilms.aspxStupid
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 70

Number of times used: 99

]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:12:14 GMT837099Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/genius/MemberTagFilms.aspxgenius
Number of films tagged: 227

Number of people who tagged: 56

Number of times used: 96

]]>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:26:43 GMT2275696Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/deception/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeception
Number of films tagged: 1090

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 123

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:18:11 GMT109055123Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/business/MemberTagFilms.aspxbusiness
Number of films tagged: 1747

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 70

]]>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:05:14 GMT17472770Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/perfectly-quirky/MemberTagFilms.aspxperfectly-quirky
Number of films tagged: 28

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 70

]]>Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:37:43 GMT282770Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/michigan/MemberTagFilms.aspxmichigan
Number of films tagged: 84

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 115

]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:41:26 GMT8424115Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/community/MemberTagFilms.aspxcommunity
Number of films tagged: 743

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 37

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT7432137Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/conflict/MemberTagFilms.aspxconflict
Number of films tagged: 1686

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 41

]]>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:01:49 GMT16862041Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/homeless/MemberTagFilms.aspxhomeless
Number of films tagged: 330

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 31

]]>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:39:36 GMT3301731Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/factory/MemberTagFilms.aspxfactory
Number of films tagged: 300

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 20

]]>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:24:45 GMT3001620Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/desperation/MemberTagFilms.aspxdesperation
Number of films tagged: 163

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 20

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:07:29 GMT1631320Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/interview/MemberTagFilms.aspxinterview
Number of films tagged: 1477

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 21

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:04:19 GMT14771121Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/unemployment/MemberTagFilms.aspxunemployment
Number of films tagged: 387

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 13

]]>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:01:43 GMT3871013Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Total-Propaganda/MemberTagFilms.aspxTotal-Propaganda
Number of films tagged: 9

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 14

]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:21:37 GMT9414Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/working-class/MemberTagFilms.aspxworking-class
Number of films tagged: 4

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:24:43 GMT444Tag