Moore on America
- Thread starter Fred Hansen
- Start date
Despite the several warts that sit on the face of this country, some of them being rather substantial, Mr. Moore and others like him are perfectly free to comment as they wish, and to write books and make films along with a lot of money.
How long does he think he would maintain his head on his shoulders, saying equivalent things about other countries, while residing in any number of such places? Just curious.
How long does he think he would maintain his head on his shoulders, saying equivalent things about other countries, while residing in any number of such places? Just curious.
He is also a bully. A kid that doesn't get what he wants, try to bully other people with his views.
---------------------------------------------------------
Pete Townshend
http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/diary/display.cfm?id=89&zone=diary
Fahrenheit Moore or Less
Back to Diary Dates
Michael Moore has been making some claims – mentioning me by name - which I believe distort the truth.
He says – among other things – that I refused to allow him to use my song WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN in his latest film, because I support the war, and that at the last minute I recanted, but he turned me down. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq I was a supporter. But now, like millions of others, I am less sure we did the right thing.
When first approached I knew nothing about the content of his film FAHRENHEIT 911. My publisher informed me they had already refused the use of my song in principle because MIRAMAX the producers offered well below what the song normally commands for use in a movie. They asked me if I wanted to ask for more money, I told them no.
Nevertheless, as a result of my refusal to consider the use, Harvey Weinstein – a good friend of mine, and my manager Bill Curbishley – interceded personally, explained in more detail to Bill what the movie was about, and offered to raise the bid very substantially indeed. This brought the issue directly to me for the first time. Bill emailed me and told me how keen Harvey and Michael Moore were to use my song.
At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what I said to Harvey Weinstein) that I had not really been convinced by BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least get a chance to see a copy of the new film. I knew that with Cannes on the horizon, time was running short for them, and this might not be possible. I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. Once I had an idea what the film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them.
I believe that in the same email to my publisher and manager that contained this request to see the film I pointed out that WGFA is not an unconditionally anti-war song, or a song for or against revolution. It actually questions the heart of democracy: we vote heartily for leaders who we subsequently always seem to find wanting. (WGFA is a song sung by a fictional character from my 1971 script called LIFEHOUSE. The character is someone who is frightened by the slick way in which truth can be twisted by clever politicians and revolutionaries alike). I suggested in the email that they might use something by Neil Young, who I knew had written several songs of a more precise political nature, and is as accessible as I am. Moore himself takes credit for this idea, and I have no idea whether my suggestion reached him, but it was the right thing to do.
I have nothing against Michael Moore personally, and I know Roger Daltrey is a friend and fan of his, but I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn’t get what he wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and wilful man at the centre of his new documentary. I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is popular, and which I still haven’t seen. But he’ll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar.
Pete
---------------------------------------------------------
Pete Townshend
http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/diary/display.cfm?id=89&zone=diary
Fahrenheit Moore or Less
Back to Diary Dates
Michael Moore has been making some claims – mentioning me by name - which I believe distort the truth.
He says – among other things – that I refused to allow him to use my song WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN in his latest film, because I support the war, and that at the last minute I recanted, but he turned me down. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq I was a supporter. But now, like millions of others, I am less sure we did the right thing.
When first approached I knew nothing about the content of his film FAHRENHEIT 911. My publisher informed me they had already refused the use of my song in principle because MIRAMAX the producers offered well below what the song normally commands for use in a movie. They asked me if I wanted to ask for more money, I told them no.
Nevertheless, as a result of my refusal to consider the use, Harvey Weinstein – a good friend of mine, and my manager Bill Curbishley – interceded personally, explained in more detail to Bill what the movie was about, and offered to raise the bid very substantially indeed. This brought the issue directly to me for the first time. Bill emailed me and told me how keen Harvey and Michael Moore were to use my song.
At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what I said to Harvey Weinstein) that I had not really been convinced by BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least get a chance to see a copy of the new film. I knew that with Cannes on the horizon, time was running short for them, and this might not be possible. I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. Once I had an idea what the film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them.
I believe that in the same email to my publisher and manager that contained this request to see the film I pointed out that WGFA is not an unconditionally anti-war song, or a song for or against revolution. It actually questions the heart of democracy: we vote heartily for leaders who we subsequently always seem to find wanting. (WGFA is a song sung by a fictional character from my 1971 script called LIFEHOUSE. The character is someone who is frightened by the slick way in which truth can be twisted by clever politicians and revolutionaries alike). I suggested in the email that they might use something by Neil Young, who I knew had written several songs of a more precise political nature, and is as accessible as I am. Moore himself takes credit for this idea, and I have no idea whether my suggestion reached him, but it was the right thing to do.
I have nothing against Michael Moore personally, and I know Roger Daltrey is a friend and fan of his, but I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn’t get what he wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and wilful man at the centre of his new documentary. I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is popular, and which I still haven’t seen. But he’ll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar.
Pete
M. Moore
M. Moore is this era's Leni Riefenstahl.
Her glorification and promotion of A.Hitlers third Reich in such films as "Triumph of the will" was made under the guise as a documentary.This film was very popular and she used techniques that were new to film makers of that era on the making and staging of films. She was as Mr. Moore is a propagandist rather than a documentary film maker. She was later denounced and ridiculed as a puppet of Hitlers regime. As will Mr. Moore to future generations as the Benedict Arnold or Tokyo rose of our generation.
His latest film, has been debunked from top to bottom. Mr. Moore has refused requests to appear on news shows to discuss and back up the claims made in this film.
Mr. Moore has used this same technique that Nazi propagandists used, In that the bigger the Lie's = the easier they are to believe. Mr. Moore's success is due to the where he lives and the values America is based on. Yet, according to him, Americans are stupid, lazy, and evil. But he continues to make money off a system he claims to abhor.
12-34hom.
M. Moore is this era's Leni Riefenstahl.
Her glorification and promotion of A.Hitlers third Reich in such films as "Triumph of the will" was made under the guise as a documentary.This film was very popular and she used techniques that were new to film makers of that era on the making and staging of films. She was as Mr. Moore is a propagandist rather than a documentary film maker. She was later denounced and ridiculed as a puppet of Hitlers regime. As will Mr. Moore to future generations as the Benedict Arnold or Tokyo rose of our generation.
His latest film, has been debunked from top to bottom. Mr. Moore has refused requests to appear on news shows to discuss and back up the claims made in this film.
Mr. Moore has used this same technique that Nazi propagandists used, In that the bigger the Lie's = the easier they are to believe. Mr. Moore's success is due to the where he lives and the values America is based on. Yet, according to him, Americans are stupid, lazy, and evil. But he continues to make money off a system he claims to abhor.
12-34hom.
Documentaries are NOT objective fact, as some in the media would have us believe. They represent the film maker's personal vision, bias, political or religious views. They are often propaganda as noted earlier. In addition to "Triumph of the Will", the paean Adolph Hitler, another very interesting film I once used in teaching history (WWII) was called "The Sorrow and the Pity" about the French capitulation to and collaboration with the Nazis during the war. It stood in stark contrast to the oft spread story of the gallant and brave French Underground tirelessly struggling against the fascist invader. Truth or fiction? Somewhere in between I suspect.
BTW, I won't give Michael Moore the time of day. While he can be faulted factually for his omissions and outright prevarications, he is a most convenient target for ad hominem attacks. The man is quite clearly a porcine propaganda pimp of the left hypocritically cashing in to the tune of millions of dollars while acting the poseur of the "working class". General Wesley Clark's presidential ambitions sank like a stone after he was taped hugging Moore on stage and, while arm-in-arm, said nothing as Moore slandered our President as a "deserter".
What's in order, IMHO, is a "mockumentary" about Moore himself. THAT I would pay money to see.
BTW, I won't give Michael Moore the time of day. While he can be faulted factually for his omissions and outright prevarications, he is a most convenient target for ad hominem attacks. The man is quite clearly a porcine propaganda pimp of the left hypocritically cashing in to the tune of millions of dollars while acting the poseur of the "working class". General Wesley Clark's presidential ambitions sank like a stone after he was taped hugging Moore on stage and, while arm-in-arm, said nothing as Moore slandered our President as a "deserter".
What's in order, IMHO, is a "mockumentary" about Moore himself. THAT I would pay money to see.
Yep; like the British film propaganda exercize showing "the Boers attacking a Red Cross field hospital". I think the British government put that one together at the Pinewood studios. Ever since the beginning of moving film, it has been used by government and privately alike as a tool of deception.
There is actual film, and there is constructed film. There is a difference between actually filming people going about their business - good or bad - and staged filming with actors - paid or otherwise. There is manipulated film, as in doctored film and edited film. There is falsely captioned film. And finally there is the variety of film that is withheld. Censored.
There is actual film, and there is constructed film. There is a difference between actually filming people going about their business - good or bad - and staged filming with actors - paid or otherwise. There is manipulated film, as in doctored film and edited film. There is falsely captioned film. And finally there is the variety of film that is withheld. Censored.
Running Gunfight
New member
Cut through it...
stop looking at left and right. Start looking at right and wrong.
I know people who are blindly faithful to "R" or "D" or "L" and "C" and see the world through the rose colored glasses that their "side" provides to them.
Think for yourself. Be careful about what Moore or Bill O'Reilly tells (sells) you. Be careful about what your govt tells (sells) you, whether there is a "D" or an "R" in the White House.
Make efforts to understand their angles.
stop looking at left and right. Start looking at right and wrong.
I know people who are blindly faithful to "R" or "D" or "L" and "C" and see the world through the rose colored glasses that their "side" provides to them.
Think for yourself. Be careful about what Moore or Bill O'Reilly tells (sells) you. Be careful about what your govt tells (sells) you, whether there is a "D" or an "R" in the White House.
Make efforts to understand their angles.
Fred Hansen
New member
I'm assuming that you mean to use Mr. O'reilly as an example of "R" or "C". If I'm wrong please excuse me, but if I'm correct, what would ever make anyone think that Mr. O'reilly is either/both of those things? Lots of conservative people that I know think of him as being on their side. Frankly, I've seen him as a phony from day one. Especially when it comes to the RKBA. O'reilly wouldn't know the 2nd Amendment if it bit him in the ass.
Sorry for the rant, but I just can't stand it when anyone associates Mr. O'reilly with what I consider to be my core beliefs. The guy is a total phony.
Fred Hansen
New member
Well for starters how would one go about touting the 2nd Amendment AND spouting anti-American filth at the same time???
And if one isn't going to spout anti-American filth, how then pray tell, is one going to be able to gain (positive) coverage from all of the alphabet TV channels, all FM radio, all college/high school student newspapers, all regular newspapers, news magazines, etc...?
The person who could figure out how to do that would be formidable indeed.
Fred Hansen
New member
I didn't say he did. AM radio & parts of the internet are about the only types of media in which he has been challenged that I'm aware of. Except maybe FoxNews.
By this I assume you mean someone pro-RKBA being shocking but correct. Say someone said "The Founding Fathers of our nation enumerated the right to keep and bear arms so that normal people can protect themselves from killers." A Jayson Blair type at the New York Times would run the quote "The Founding Fathers of our nation were killers." And every alphabet channel news company would run the quote on the 6 o'clock news. They would even have graphic behind the anchorman depicting George Washington shooting a native American in the head with an M-16 to go with it. The following day every college newspaper in the country would run it as their headline. That afternoon the little college darlings would be rioting screaming: "Hey, hey! Ho, ho! USA has got to GO! US out of North America!!!" ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Just look at what Mikey Moore did to Charleton Heston in BFC. Do you think for even a minute that if someone from NRA featured themselves ambushing an elderly Alzheimers patient in a movie that they would get away with it? That person would be jailed for a hate crime before sundown if that happened. Mikey Moore got an Oscar for it.
As far as I can tell the only way we can save the RKBA is to do it person to person. Too many people count on Dan Blather and the NYT for their news. Too many people think that guns work the way that Hollyperv portrays them i.e. an ordinary person finds/is given a gun, and they immediately become a serial killer.
Or worse, people pick up guns in real life, and they start waving the damn things around the way their favorite Hollyperv star does. The next thing you know someone is either scared away from guns for life, and/or they get shot.
I've been a certified NRA instructor for a few years now, and it has been my experience that people become very comfortable around guns once someone takes the time to remove the veil of ignorance/fear/myth from firearms. I don't think I have ever had a class where at least one student hasn't asked about something they saw in a movie, or on TV, where they thought to themselves "Hey! That can't be right!" And sure enough, when we explain to that person why their suspicions were correct... BEHOLD! A new skeptic of everything Hollyperv/TV is born. And that is a very good thing.
myopicmouse
New member
I don't like the man, his analysis and 'pans' are always flawed, all he is good for is bringing up points that the media don't. In saying that, except:
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.''
I agree with pretty much every other quote there.
I know this is an american forum but:
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.''
I agree with pretty much every other quote there.
I know this is an american forum but:
Really is so true, especially when we get tourists - with their 'great ideas' on things happening outside America, it's embarrassing for us to listen to it.
fallingblock
New member
living up to your title....
myopicmouse?
We get plenty of very clued-up Yanks here in Australia as tourists, and quite a few brain-dead Europeans who demonstrate their ignorance.
It it lamentable to stereotype an entire nation in the fashion on Mikey Moore.
I'd say that many of Moore's non-U.S. audience are envious of America's achievments and wishing that Mikey's rubbish were true. :barf:
myopicmouse?
We get plenty of very clued-up Yanks here in Australia as tourists, and quite a few brain-dead Europeans who demonstrate their ignorance.
It it lamentable to stereotype an entire nation in the fashion on Mikey Moore.
I'd say that many of Moore's non-U.S. audience are envious of America's achievments and wishing that Mikey's rubbish were true. :barf:
myopicmouse
New member
There something you have in mind? Australia-America is pretty similar, in lifestyle and people, so of course your going to think people as clued up, if you personally come under the same catagory.
Hey you've got my vote, theres a right few europeans as thick as two short planks especially on the Israeli issue, as ashamedly the EU court 'opinion' thing on the 'wall'. But on the whole Americans remain ignorant on european matters, very ignorant and should probally take the time to read non-American litriture - In europe it is true for Moore to say that Americans are a running joke, and have been for many decades.
-Well that prety much what it is, but he does bring up true points (like those quotes) if his actual argument of those points is just rubbish.
Fred Hansen
New member
Tell us what country you are in and perhaps we can arrange for far fewer Americans to ever visit it. If it is a European country it's not like we would be missing anything.
Long ago we should have dug up our war dead and left Europe to its own devices. There is a reason our ancestors left that place. We should have paid attention to them.
myopicmouse
New member
1/ Northen Ireland
2/America needs europe to survive economically. Japan & Germany attacked/declared war on America not the -calvery rode in to save europe concept, europe saved America in WW2.
Anyway the whole europe/America thing aside - believe it or not, this isn't a American bashing thread, what I am saying is that some of Moores comments actually ring very true for a lot of people. Maybe people should review some of the comments and not dismiss them out of hand just because it happens to be Moore saying them.
2/America needs europe to survive economically. Japan & Germany attacked/declared war on America not the -calvery rode in to save europe concept, europe saved America in WW2.
Anyway the whole europe/America thing aside - believe it or not, this isn't a American bashing thread, what I am saying is that some of Moores comments actually ring very true for a lot of people. Maybe people should review some of the comments and not dismiss them out of hand just because it happens to be Moore saying them.