all the news that print will fit.
|
|
| notes from underground - societal whispers all the news that print will fit. |
|
|
Sunday, June 27, 2004 np: bob dylan - blood on the tracks caveat: i am, and have long been, a fan of michael moore's work. he is, essentially, an unabashed activist in his work. never has he pretended to be anything aside from a subjective, opinion laden film maker. - the idea that, for whatever reason, documentaries are supposed to be inherently objective is false. there is no way to make a film truly objective. images/facts are chosen for a reason. footage is edited. all of this is done at the behest of the director. they have an agenda and they adhere to it. i go into watching michael moore's films knowing two things: first, i'm going to side with him 99.9% of the time; second, i'm familiar and do not always disagree with his critics. that being said, he is preaching to the converted with my viewings of his films. however, i still like to look at them in as objective a way as i can muster. will it be as affective on others who are not as fond of his work? that is my largest concern. there are many things that have bothered me about the 'conventional wisdom' conversations going on in the media about fahrenheit 9/11. first, that moore is an 'extremist.' second, that the people he would really like to reach (i.e. swing voters, moderate republicans, traditional republicans) may not be the ones seeing this film. let's start with the first point. is moore an extremist? my gut reaction is 'no.' here's why: our country, on the whole, is liberally minded. the way things shape up in a lot of elections is purely the money issue. republicans, by and large, drown elections in cash. that's how they win. when republicans are forced to run at financial parity, and thus forced to run on the issues, they tend to lose elections. in any traditional mapping of the political spectrum, moore is, at worst, a left leaning moderate. he's a democrat. he's for workers' rights/security/unions (see his masterful film roger and me), gun control (or at least trying to understand the social stigmas that make this a violent nation) and for government that is accountable to the citizens for whom they work. the conservative media's attempts to have moore's views cast aside as knee-jerk liberal reactionary dogma have worked enough to have his thoughtful (though vitriolic) ideas cast as crazy while people like ann coulter, rush limbaugh and others continue to be part of the 'mainstream' political conversation. the game hasn't changed; the republicans just re-drew the sidelines. second, is moore's target audience going to see this film? well, let's look at some various ground reports. first, from madison, wisconsin: The theatre was filled with the requisite middle-aged liberal white men with beards and prententious, socialist-leaning college guys. No surprise there. in a college town, not surprising, i suppose. i attended the movie on friday in my hometown of concord, north carolina; a state that bush carried by thirteen percent in 2000, a county in which he won by a 2:1 margin. my experience was a nearly sold out audience that was not only sex and race diverse, but age diverse with teenagers, young/middle age married couples, singles, and older married couples. elsewhere, in ohio and florida: But the overwhelming majority of moviegoers would sooner vote for Michael Moore than return Mr. Bush to office for a second term. They may not be Mr. Moore's most wished-for audience, but he would be heartened to know that at least a few Republicans emerged from theaters on Friday on wobbly pins. it's not a question of if the majority of the moviegoers turning out for this are already solidly anti-bush. that's a no-brainer. what is important is getting a feel for if there is a sizeable pocket of undecided or wobbly bush supporters showing up. it seems as if there is and with an election as close as 2000 was and 2004 could be, every...single...vote...counts. - as a side note, what was my reaction to the film? i, personally, think it's moore's best film to date. as i've mentioned earlier i have some very personal stakes in the current mess in iraq. and i went into this film decidedly biased. for that reason, it affected me in a way i might not have been affected otherwise. i cried quite a bit during the second half of the film. and the images of wounded and dead soldiers and iraqi citizens and soldiers and the testimony of military family members juxtaposed with the poor man's john wayne 'heroics' of president bush and his infmaous 'bring it on' press conference...i literally wanted to punch the man. hard. repeatedly. in the face. as a quaker (and as josh neas in general) i am not prone to reactions of violent thought. it is not inherent in me. this film enraged me beyond any point of anger i've been at up until now. and i've been angry. very angry. so kudos, mr. moore. one vote is worth all your work. i'm sure you'd agree. posted by J. Neas | 6/27/2004 03:22:00 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
