home
In Soviet Russia, blog reads you.
recent posts
What I Dishonestly Think
The Living Room Candidat... Where's Waldo--er, Me?Here's me, lit by the pale, ... When the banana company arrived, however, the loca... WASHINGTON (AP) -- Faced with public ire over racy... Hickville Dispach©So I says to myself, "You've got... Books, Books, Books
I don't know who Julia Ruben i... Darwin's RevengeReagan's viewing attracted tens of... Greener GrassThe first in what will hopefully be a... R.I.P.
My own brief eulogy to Reagan:
I disagree... Is It Good for a Peace-Time Nation?Sullivan, on Bu...
CONTACT
ARCHIVES
March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006
Support Structure
|
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
The Best Political Analysts Are Film CriticsI saw Fahrenheit 9/11 in Washington, D.C. with my aunt and uncle, and was impressed at Moore's most effective, moving film. Oh, yeah, disturbed, too.Here's a good review of Fahrenheit 9/11 curtsey of City Weekly's Scott Renshaw: What do you do when you approve of the message, but doubt every word that comes out of the messenger's self-aggrandizing mouth? Michael Moores already-record-smashing documentary presents the filmmaker's partisan case that President Bush stole the 2000 election, bumbled his way through response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and has prosecuted two wars that stand to benefit friends in high places. Make no mistake, partisanship isn't the problem here——Moore asks valid, critical questions about the administration's policies and motivations. But his journalism of convenience allows him to employ "facts" that serve his cause while grossly misrepresenting reality——and worse yet, too rarely does he make his point in an entertaining or artistically interesting way. Either you believe that buttressing your political argument with specious reasoning is wrong, or you don't; it shouldn't matter that the guy trying to make the end justify the means is on our side.Renshaw has one bit bass-ackwards; Moore's best features is his ability to make his points in an artistically interesting way. His lament that no senator would sign a protests at the massive disenfranchisement of black Florida voters is made with the emotionsubtlety(and sutlelty) of Kubrick. But Moore's laundry list of the administration's sins comes across as proof of a great conspiracy. In fact, it is simply a far from complete list of the myrad mistakes of a spectacularly incompentent and self-delusional administration. But something that disturbs me even more is that there is so much attention from everyone at Moore's dishonesty, while Bush continues to get a free pass. Or, as Matthew Yglesias puts it: The really funny thing, though, is that while George W. Bush is president of the United States and wrecking (a) the country's foreign policy and (b) the country's fiscal policy, Michael Moore is a somewhat famous guy who makes movies. Get it? |