[HPFGU-OTChatter] Canadian editions, Moore, Jarmusch

[Shaun Hately]

On 4 Aug 2003 at 5:54, Dan Feeney wrote:

> Canadian editions come with the two flavours of cover. I only get the 
> regular edition, not the adult one...
> 
> Moore's film was great. It was no less "factually correct" 
> or "objective" than anything I've seen on FOX or CNN. What standard 
> are people comparing it to?

A standard of 'truth'. I can understand Mr Moore presenting his opinions 
in any way he feels comfortable with. But when he presents hard data 
that is easy to gather, easy to check, and easy to verify, then he 
should get the data correct. He doesn't. 

One clear example, Mike Moore claims that the number of gun homicides in 
the US in a year was 11,127.

There is *no* year in US history when the number of gun homicides was 
11,127.

Would it have harmed the 'documentary' for Mike Moore to have used 
accurate figures - for example 8,719 for 2001? 8,661 for 2000? 8,480 for 
1999?

These figures are *easily* obtainable, totally free of charge, in about 
a 10 minute search of the Internet.  

If Michael Moore has an interest in the truth, why not use the real 
figures? It's not like they are incredibly different from those he does 
use.

You think the film is great? As a film, maybe. From a documentary 
however, I expect basic factual accuracy.

He gets the gun homicide figures for the US wrong. He gets the gun 
homicide figures for Australia wrong. He gets the gun homicide figures 
for Germany wrong.

And none of those numbers are hard to find out.

In the case of the US and Australia, his numbers aren't that far off. If 
the case of Germany, they are.

I find it very hard to have respect for a documentary film maker who 
makes such elementary mistakes - even when I agree with his message.

> Moore can be accused of Anti-Americanism only if Americanism is 
> defined as narrowly as the standard sit-com defines it, or as You 
> Know Who defines it.

Do I think Moore is anti-American? Not particularly. But I wouldn't care 
if he was. That would be his right.

What concerns me is his level of respect for the truth. And I don't 
think it's that high. And when you consider his speech at the Oscars 
where he railed against the US government for its fictions - well, I 
think he should get the plank out of his own eye first.  

If he wants to criticise others for being less than truthful, it'd be 
smart to put his own house in order.

If these inaccuracies had been necessary to make his point, I could 
understand them - but they weren't. They are simply clumsy.

And, personally, I don't think clumsy films deserved to win major film 
awards.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia