J’ai toujours aimé Michael Moore, surtout avant de voir ses films. Il faut parfois savoir apprécier le « buzz » (quel affreux terme, au passage !) qui court autour du film avant même de se rendre dans les salles obscure pour jauger la valeur dudit « buzz » et juger la qualité dudit film. Car Moore, ce n’est une surprise pour personne, se traîne derrière lui une réputation bien gratinée, aussi bruyante qu’une armada de casseroles en téflon usagées, qui lui ouvre une quantité de cœurs et lui ferme une aussi importante quantité de portes. C’est qu’il a tendance à titiller un peu trop les puissants, les technocrates, les nantis, les démagos, les arrivistes, les carriéristes, enfin tous ceux qui font le système (cette « bête sauvage » dont parlait Nixon) et ceux qui en profitent en jurant leurs grands dieux qu’ils ne font rien de mal ; c’est qu’il aime particulièrement, le Moore, aller caresser la barbichette des décideurs, des législateurs, des hauts responsables, des élites, bref des politiques, afin de les confronter à ces aberrations qu’ils ont concouru à créer – ne serait-ce que du fait de leur inaction chronique. Même ceux qui n’ont pas vu Fahrenheit 9/11, à savoir les aveugles, les lapons et les manchots du pôle sud, se « souviennent » d’un gros bonhomme chaussé de lunettes et de casquette allant ennuyer ces messieurs-dames les représentants du Congrès, à Washington, histoire de leur proposer d’envoyer leurs propres rejetons en Irak pour faire la guerre aux vilains. Enfin, nuance : allant ennuyer ces représentants qui votèrent en faveur de l’invasion. Si Moore possède bien une qualité, c’est de savoir comment désigner du doigt les coupables, et il ne se gêne nullement pour cela. Une fois désignés, la curée commence.

Ces « victimes » montrées du doigt par le pamphlétaire le plus célèbre et le plus admiré de l’industrie du cinéma sont aisées à reconnaître puisqu’elles font partie du titre. Car le capitalisme est l’affaire des capitalistes, et potentiellement un cas de conscience pour une majorité des êtres humains qui foulent le sol de cette terre. Nous sommes donc tous concernés. Même le chaland qui subit les foudres de l’inexorable profit ; oui, même cet agriculteur, trapu et bonhomme, aussi beauf que savent l’être les Américains de la campagne, qui prépare tristement son déménagement après avoir reçu sa notification d’expulsion. Sa ferme, l’achat d’une vie, vient d’être rachetée par d’autres Américains qui en ont les moyens, et qui n’auront sans doute pas à débourser toujours plus afin de rembourser un prêt à taux expansif. Déménager pour où ? La question se pose d’autant moins qu’elle ne souffre aucune réponse. Le voilà, l’ami « capitalisme » : c’est l’ange monétaire qui descend du dernier étage des Goldman Sachs, Bank of America et autres pour vous offrir le seul ciel étoilé comme toit de maison. Et de cela, l’agriculteur un peu bourru est tout autant responsable que les puissants : parce que, d’une certaine manière, il a laissé faire le système. Comme nous tous. C’est sur cette position que campe un Moore légèrement désabusé, indubitablement fatigué par ses années de pérégrinations idéologiques depuis Roger et moi. Avec l’impression que rien n’a changé.

A sa façon, Moore ressemble à notre hexagonal postier Olivier Besancenot, le talent pour le montage en plus. Lui aussi pourfend sans égards le système tel qu’il s’est installé et pérennisé ; lui aussi monte à l’assaut de ces puissants qui sont autant de châteaux forts à prendre par les armes ; lui aussi souligne avec raison – et un chouia d’idéalisme – les aberrations de notre économie mondialisée. Et lui non plus ne propose in fine aucune solution valable de rechange. En même temps, la différence c’est que Besancenot est un politicien dont le rôle est d’agir, tandis que Moore n’est qu’un pamphlétaire hyperdoué dont les prérogatives se résument à étaler et faire connaître les scories systémiques. Chacun à sa place. Il me semble néanmoins qu’un Moore, pour ces mêmes raisons, aura toujours plus d’impact que tous les Besancenot du monde : parce qu’il cherche moins à convaincre (votez pour moi) qu’à persuader (accompagnez-moi dans le projet d’un changement profond des mentalités). Le champ d’action du cinéaste s’arrête à la porte des institutions et des bastions de la finance ; en attendant, il aura tracé le chemin pour des politiques plus avisés et, surtout, plus réalistes que celles des anti-tout.

Car Moore, et ce n’est pas la moindre de ses qualités ici, nous donne à voir une chose étonnante, en fin de film, une chose bien plus juste que tous ces exemples de dérives capitalistes livrés les uns à la suite des autres comme on enfile des perles (qui a-t-il besoin de convaincre, d’ailleurs, de l’iniquité des traitements infligés à une population qui souffre quotidiennement dans le « pays de la liberté » ?) ; cette chose, c’est la capacité du politique à dépasser l’institutionnel – les clivages idéologiques, les disparités sociales, les pressions lobbyistes – pour puiser sa force dans une inspiration humaine. Il est incroyable de voir ces images de représentant(e)s du Congrès qui harangue leurs collègues et, par-delà les murs, leurs électeurs, afin de les pousser à la révolte ; il y a de l’émotion dans cette façon qu’a le procureur de Chicago d’intimer l’ordre à ses concitoyens de ne pas quitter leur maison lorsque le représentant de la banque vient les expulser. Le rôle du politique n’est-il pas de protéger ses ouailles, tel un messie civil ? Et qui pourrait contredire l’idée que l’on est mieux protégé entre quatre murs et sous un toit ? Logiquement, presque naturellement, Moore change alors d’époque et nous emmène au temps de Franklin Roosevelt, quand le plus grand des immenses présidents américains (exit Lincoln et Kennedy) envoyait l’armée non pour déloger les manifestants dans les usines, mais pour les protéger. Situation rocambolesque ? Certes, mais qui dans un monde idéal ne devrait être qu’une norme. Difficile de dire si le propos de Moore peut être ici compris comme une légitimation de Barack Obama (dont l’espoir diffus se propage dans les allées filmiques de ce Capitalism), que le cinéaste a eu largement le temps de reconsidérer politiquement depuis la réalisation de son film. Toutefois, il est clair que le nouveau président américain suscite l’enthousiasme de l’originalité chez les hommes et les femmes qui ont subi, un moment ou un autre, les foudres du système.

Gare, pourtant, à la tentation de placer Moore sur un piédestal ! Toutes les qualités de son dernier opus (qui n’a que médiocrement marché aux USA malgré un lancement savamment orchestré par Paramount), depuis l’audace physique du cinéaste, qui n’hésite pas à aller en personne taquiner les agents de surveillance des banques afin de réclamer l’argent versé par les contribuables via le plan Paulson, jusqu’à l’excellente pédagogie visuelle qui fait de toute œuvre de Moore un objet à la fois passionnant et ludique, ne peuvent pas éternellement dissimuler ses défauts. Ces défauts sont connus, ils sont récurrents depuis les débuts de sa carrière ; d’une part, le fait que Moore utilise à sa convenance les mêmes armes que ses ennemis (la propagande), d’autre part ce risque constant de la simplification abusive que personne, même doté de la meilleure foi possible, ne peut complètement éviter. En réalité, l’importance de ces défauts varie selon les yeux qui les regardent et les oreilles qui les entendent. Je veux croire que le public possède cette vivacité d’esprit suffisante pour prendre une certaine distance vis-à-vis des images. Mais pour des spectateurs dénués de tout sens critique, le danger est grand de prendre pour argent ( ! ) comptant les propos du cinéaste, parmi ceux qui frôlent au plus près le révisionnisme. Il arrive parfois que les arguments du cinéaste flirtent avec l’exagération stupide d’un Thierry Meyssan, tout occupé à créer de toutes pièces sa future théorie du complot. Différence essentielle tout de même : dans tous les cas Moore a parfaitement conscience de cette tentation à franchir la limite, ce que les conspirationnistes n’imaginent même pas.

Plus qu’un film sur la conspiration, plus qu’un film révolutionnaire (l’appel final résonne comme un cor de chasse destiné à tous les guévaristes convaincus), Capitalism est pour Moore un exutoire autobiographique. On aurait pu penser que le bonhomme de Roger et moi cesserait rapidement d’importuner le spectateur en se présentant devant la caméra et en allant enquiquiner les passants. Pourtant, le cinéaste a continué à se mettre en scène, et plus encore, à mettre en scène sa ville natale, Flint, dans le Michigan, réceptacle de toutes les dérives du système américain (on la retrouve dans une majorité de ses documentaires, y compris Bowling For Columbine). Il y retourne encore une fois pour quelques scènes parmi les plus émouvantes de sa carrière, particulièrement ce passage où, observant le terrain vague que fut autrefois l’usine automobile où il travailla toute sa vie, le propre père de Michael Moore ressasse la nostalgie d’une époque meilleure. Moore ne s’est jamais autant impliqué personnellement dans son projet de mise en scène, allant jusqu’à montrer des images de son enfance heureuse. Un brin d’égocentrisme ? Dans ce cas précis, le terme exact est plutôt : humanisme.

Eric Nuevo

> Film sorti en salles le 25 novembre 2009

> Lire aussi : notre dossier sur la politique catastrophique de G. W. Bush vue par Moore dans VERSUS n° 14, notre dossier sur la crise financière et le milieu (mafieux !) bancaire dans VERSUS n° 15, et notre dossier sur les world companies dans VERSUS n° 17, actuellement disponible

Buscando el último libro de Michael Moore ante las elecciones norteamericanas, me encontré con una perla que no leí en su momento: Downsize this! Pongámonos en perspectiva.

Corre el año 1996 y Michael ya ha dirigido Roger & Me, pero se encuentra todavía lejos de su primer éxito rotundo, la archiconocida Bowling for Columbine. Van a cumplirse cuatro años de Clinton en la casa blanca y estamos en año de elecciones. La cumbre de la OMC en Seattle aún no ha tenido lugar y las fuerzas antiglobalización están todavía en pañales. El grunge aún se escucha… pero esa es otra historia.

La hipótesis es que Michael se ve a medio camino entre ser un personaje conocido y ser un famoso. Decide utilizar esa posición para tratar de abrir los ojos del pueblo americano sobre una serie de cuestiones terriblemente importantes para su país, en un momento en el que se juegan el futuro entre el continuismo de Clinton y el fanatismo de Bob Dole.

El libro está estructurado en una serie de comentarios sobre diversos temas que estaban de actualidad en esa época. Algunos de ellos son de una enorme genialidad, como aquél en el que sugiere trasladar Washington a Tijuana aprovechando el NAFTA, el que propone echar del país a todos aquellos con un apellido diferente al de los pasajeros del Myflower o el de los cromos con los datos de los sinvergüenzas que dirigen corporaciones.

Pero lo más fuerte es comprobar como algunos de los problemas de hace quince años se reproducen en la situación actual. La primera página del libro muestra una foto del atentado de Oklahoma y otra de un edificio en ruinas en Flint, preguntándonos qué es el terrorismo. Desde luego, viendo los resultados, no podemos diferenciar uno de otro… Y el comentario que puede ser más de actualidad con la crisis es el llamado Big Welfare Mamas, en el que Moore nos habla de algunos presidentes de corporaciones que reciben ayudas del gobierno estadounidense. A más de uno le sonará de algo esta historia…

Recomendable para aquellos que quieran saber de dónde venimos con el objetivo de entender hacia dónde vamos. A evitar para los que vivan en Orange County.

Downsize this!
Michael Moore
Paperback: 336 pages
Publisher: Harper Paperbacks;
First Edition edition (August 12, 1997)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0060977337
ISBN-13: 978-006097733

¿Todavía no nos sigues en Facebook?

¿con Feedburner tampoco?

Comparte via Facebook, Twitter o lo que quieras…

A blow for Michael Moore. His documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” has been cut from Oscar competition.

It’s not one of the 15 on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ list of docs worthy of a nomination. “Capitalism: A Love Story” was one of 89 documentary features submitted for Oscar nominations.

Another high-profile film, the well-reviewed rock-documentary, “It Might Get Loud,” didn’t make the cut, either. Neither did the Mike Tyson documentary “Tyson,” or “The September Issue,” about Vogue magazine and its editor-in-chief.

Some of the 15 documentaries that made the list are: “The Cove,” “Food, Inc.” “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers” and “Valentino The Last Emperor.”

This list of 15 will be narrowed again and 5 will be nominated for Oscars. Moore previously won an Oscar for “Bowling for Columbine.”

(Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press.  All Rights Reserved.)

Toegegeven. De documentaires van Michael Moore zetten mij aan het denken. Of het nu over 9/11 gaat, over de wapenindustrie in de USA of over de gezondheidszorg in datzelfde Amerika; hij weet mij altijd te verbazen.

Hoe doet hij dat toch?

Als journalist een uitermate interessante vraag, maar niet alleen voor journalisten. Veel mensen zijn na het zien van de documentaire Fahrenheit 9/11 gaan geloven in de complottheorieën over de aanslagen op het World Trade Centre.  Ook ik twijfel aan de rol van George W Bush in het hele gebeuren rond 11 september 2001, maar is er nog wel plaats voor enige nuance?

We geven wel kritiek op de voormalige president van Amerika, maar willen we ook kritisch kijken naar de manier waarop Moore de documentaire heeft gemaakt?
Ik in ieder geval wel. Niet omdat ik Bush hier wil verdedigen, maar omdat de werkwijze van Michael Moore juist zo interessant is om te beschrijven. 

De kracht van zijn werk. Wat definieert zijn werkwijze?

De lach
Ter illustratie een fragment uit Bowling for Columbine:

Moore gebruikt deze cartoon om op humoristische wijze de geschiedenis van Amerika te kak te zetten. De uitleg weerspiegelt Moore’s visie op de komst van wapens in de Verenigde Staten. Omdat de cartoon langzaam naar een climax toewerkt en aanzet tot lachen, raakt de kijker geboeid en blijft kijken tot het eind. Aan het einde stelt Moore een vraag. Deze vraag blijft hangen. Juist vanwege de cartoon.

De lach. Een machtig instrument.

De confrontatie en het geweten
Naast de lach heeft Moore diverse andere manieren om zijn verhaal neer te zetten. Wat mij in Bowling for Columbine  vooral opviel, was het einde waarin Michael Moore acteur Charlton Heston, de toenmalige president van de National Rifle Association (NRA) sprak en confronteerde met de dood van een zesjarig meisje.
Hier het fragment:

Confronteren. Dat is waar Michael Moore goed in is. Ook in dit fragment. Toch is het niet alleen de confrontatie die hier een belangrijke rol speelt. Hij speelt in op het geweten. Op geweten van de kijker én op het geweten van de inmiddels overleden Charlton Heston. Als kijker krijg je het gevoel dat Heston er indirect voor heeft gezorgd dat het meisje is gedood. 

Een onterecht gevoel. Toch laat dat gevoel je niet los.

Nare gevoelens bekruipen ook Charlton Heston. Hij gaat de discussie uit de weg. Als president van de NRA spreekt hij namens de organisatie en kan niet ontkennen dat geladen wapens thuis geliefd zijn bij leden. Ook hijzelf heeft immers geladen geweren staan. Twee belangrijke aspecten van Moore’s werk worden hier duidelijk; de confrontatie en het inspelen op het menselijk geweten.

Een fragment uit Fahrenheit 9/11  die zich ook kenmerkt door de confrontatie en het geweten:

Muziek
Een heel ander middel dat Michael Moore inzet, is muziek. Met de songteksten ondersteunt hij zijn filmfragmenten, waardoor het geheel een erg cynische toon krijgt. Het sarcasme druipt ervan af. Soms moet de kijker zelfs even slikken vanwege de tegenstelling van beeld en geluid.  Naast tegenstellingen gebruikt hij ook versterkingen. Van beiden hier wat voorbeelden:

Hier een gedeelte met Amerikaanse soldaten in Irak:

Sarcasme
Door de schrijnende tegenstellingen die Michael Moore verwerkt in zijn documentaires en de toon van zijn ‘eerlijke’ stem zit het boordevol saracasme. Op sommige momenten zelfs tegen het cynische aan. Hiermee krijgt hij de kijkers op zijn hand, omdat de tegenstellingen af en toe té absurd zijn. Gevolg is dat de kijker blijft kijken.

Benieuwd? Hier een fragment uit Sicko:

Goed werk?
Nu is de vraag of deze instrumenten horen bij een goede documentaire. Persoonlijk vind ik van wel. Als we naar het werk van Michael Moore kijken, zien we dat hij bepaalde methoden vaak en op een humoristische wijze gebruikt. Niets mis mee. Is zelfs vermakelijk.

Toch wil ik u als laatst nog wijzen op het volgende:

Blijf dus kritisch en neem eens een kijkje door de bril van een documentairemaker. Dan lijkt de wereld ineens een stuk sensationeler.

Neem ook dit laatste filmpje met een korreltje zout. Journalisten benaderen ook op hun eigen manier de film van Michael Moore!

Maar hoeveel kritiek Moore ook krijgt, hij blijft maatschappelijke misstanden aan de kaak stellen.

“Keep on doing that, Moore!”

“Le podrás amar u odiar, pero nunca ignorar” (E.Schulltz)

Tiene unos pequeños ojos que se esconden tras unas gafas de cristales redondeados, que acostumbran ver más allá que el resto. Padece de evidente sobrepeso. Suele llevar una gorra de beisbol, barba mal cuidada y americana oscura. Es periodista, cineasta, documentalista, escritor, guionista, productor, showman y sobretodo polémico. Pues bien, esta descripción corresponde a aquel que consigue quitar el sueño a G.W.Bush, así como a algunas importantes multinacionales y grupos conservadores estadounidenses. Su insaciable apetito de saber le ha llevado a desentrañar secretos que valen miles de dólares, sin embargo nada ni nadie consigue silenciarlo. Como bien resume la frase con la que inauguro esta entrada, Michael Moore podrá gustarte o disgustarte, pero jamás te dejará indiferente.

Moore nació en Flint, Míchigan. Por aquel tiempo, en esta ciudad se ubicaba una de las muchas fábricas de General Motors, donde sus padres y abuelos trabajaban. Fue educado en la religión católica romana y asistió a la escuela primaria St. John’s Elementary School, y a los 14 años estuvo en un seminario diocesano. Continuó sus estudios en Davison High School, donde participaba de forma activa tanto en las obras de teatro y en los concursos de debates.
Con veintidós años fundó “The Flint Voice”, un diario alternativo en el que trabajó como editor durante diez años. A mediados de los años ochenta fue productor, director, autor y presentador de la serie televisiva TV Nation, que sólo vio la luz hasta su segunda temporada.

En 1989 dirigió “Roger and me” un documental que narra lo ocurrido en su pueblo natal, cuando la General Motors cerró sus fábricas para abrir nuevas en México y así abaratar costes. Le siguió “The Big One” (1997), otro documental que desentraña las consecuencias del ansioso apetito de las grandes corporaciones por conseguir más beneficios. Posteriormente hizo “Bowling for Columbine” (2003), en el que condena el mal uso de las armas en su país como consecuencia de la cultura de miedo. “Sicko” (2007) muestra la cruenta realidad del sistema sanitario estadounidense, de gestión privada y regido por empresas aseguradoras. Estos son algunos de los trabajos de Moore como documentalista, un género que gracias a él cobra importancia por momentos. Tanto es así que ha sido galardonado en los premios Oscar al mejor largometraje por Bowling for Columbine y en el Festival de Cannes por Fahrenheit 9/11, entre otros.

Como escritor, Moore es autor de varios libros que han sido éxitos de ventas como Downize This! Random Tretas from an Unarmed American y Adventures in a TV Nation, escrito en colaboración con su mujer Kathleen Glynn. También escribió “¿Qué han hecho con mi país, tío?” y “Estúpidos hombres blancos” ambos traducidos al español.

En los años 1999 y 2000, Michael Moore ha producido dos temporadas de la serie televisiva The Awful Truth, definida por Los Angeles Times como “la más cómica y divertida sátira política”.

Colt .45 courtesy of myspace.com

May 28, 2008, 10-year-old Kathina Thomas was killed after being struck by a stray bullet in Albany, New York

October 21, 2008, 22-year-old Richard Bailey died after being shot in the head on his way home from a friends house in Albany, New York

March 8, 2009, a Chinese food delivery man was robbed at gunpoint on Grant Avenue, Albany, New York. 

March 8, 2009, gunshots were fired from a car on Quail Street, Albany, New York.

March 8, 2009, three teenagers flashed a gun and attempted to rob a victim on North Swan Street, Albany, New York

March8, 2009, a cab was robbed at gunpoint on Magnolia Street, Albany, New York.

According to statistics crime is down. 

That doesn’t mean anything.  What do statistics do but show trends?  Whether there are four murders of 40, who cares?  People are dying by the gun.  The issue is complicated.  Michael Moore points to the culture of fear that he claims built this country as one reason guns are so prevalent in our society.

CHECK OUT THIS CLIP FROM MOORE’S “BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE”

If fire-arms are so engrained in the American way of life then we have to come up with creative ways to curb their use.  One way is to tap into another base of United States’ culture and that is the capitalist spirit.

 Recent gun-buy-back programs have done just that.  Offering rewards like gift cards to people who turn in their handguns to police with “no questions asked,” as happened in Troy, New York earlier this year.

People who turned in their gun received a $150 gift card to Crossgates Mall.  In a country where some schools pay kids for high marks, this program fits the American mold.  You can’t get something for nothing.  If communities want guns gone then expect to barter.

But couldn’t the person turning in the firearm turn around and take the number 12 bus to Crossgates and buy a rifle at Dick’s Sporting goods.

Gamo Varmint Air Rifle Combo courtesy of shoplocal.com

Michael Moore surprised me lately, on Hannity, on the View, on any interview he’s done to promote his latest movie, Capitalism: A Love Story. Because I’ve always strongly disliked the guy ever since he berated Charleton Heston in Bowling for Columbine. Seriously, I couldn’t stand him- so obnoxious, but this time around, he seems different:

I’m so glad I saw this movie because I appreciate this different perspective on things, that perhaps democracy isn’t tied to capitalism, that maybe the U.S. should focus more on the democracy part…that if capitalism is a broken system, why are we still using it?

And surprisingly, about half an hour was devoted to Moore’s insight into what Jesus would do.

I took notes on a napkin while watching the film, wanting to be able to talk about it but there was so much info I can’t sum it all up, but there are a few things I can tell you: Moore thinks Reagan was basically a crook, he wishes FDR’s 2nd Bill of rights (you can watch a video and read the text) had gone through, he interviewed Bill Black who said Geitner was corrupt. He disagreed with the bailout and thinks Washington’s corrupt (does that sound familiar to anyone?), but he has hope for Obama’s presidency.

And for all of you out there who are afraid that viewing this film might “indoctrinate” you, then don’t watch it.  But if you can handle seeing someone else’s point of view, no matter how contradictory to your own, you might see some truth in it, some commonalitites.

Because indoctrination, that word everyone is throwing around, happens when people start believeing one side of the story whole-heartedly without thinking for themselves or listening to see if there is anything true or right on the other side.

I’m not going to grade this because it’s a documentary but if you want to see the rest of the Hannity/Moore interview here’s part 2, part 3, and part 4. I loved watching it.

The best stories are written by life itself –a truth that became evident in September 2008 as the financial markets were on the verge of collapse. As this story promises great Hollywood potential, Michael Moore has already produced his own version of this economic disaster. So I watched “Capitalism, A Love Story“and it was quite astonishing. Admittedly, it is not one of his best pieces compared to predecessors such as Bowling for Columbine, and his at times overly dramatic and sarcastic tone is getting old. Michael Moore alone should also not be regarded the most credible source for profound information. But so shouldn’t Wikipedia either, and we still go there for quick, short answers. Yet, MM always seeks an entertaining and simplifying approach to the issue, and thereby attempts to inspire THINKING. Or at least to encourage people to try it for once.
The real highlight for me, however, was not MM, but Rep. Marcy Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur is a true democrat (not meant as a reference to her party affiliation, but her embracing and living the true sense of democracy) and a very courageous woman.
Have a look at a video I found on youtube, where she speaks in front of the House of Representatives, calling out the Wall Street mobbsters and how their con-act cost the American people a whole lot of money.

So what did we see already in classics such as the Godfather? Behind every great casino is one great family. And la famiglia has a new headquarter in the financial district of the world. But who is the consigliore?

Speaking of fear-mongering, I thought it would be appropriate to post the following clip from Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine.

Also, a few thoughts on Joseph Lieberman: As the first senator from the Democratic caucus who has openly claimed that he will filibuster healthcare reform with a public option, Holy Joe will receive a heavy amount of media coverage. Anyhow, Bowling for Columbine helped me develop some of my earlier impressions of Holy Joe:

Finally, here is a vintage Marilyn Manson interview with Bill O’Reilly, who is surprisingly less sanctimonious than Holy Joe.

ROSE McGowan  &  MARIYLN Manson

Manson and McGowan.

Yes, I am well aware of the fact that they broke up ages ago. But it doesn’t change the fact that they looked odd together, more like The Beauty and The Beast. Don’t get me wrong. I respect Manson to a certain extent. His image may not be my cup of tea but at least he is honest. Have you seen Michael Moore’s Bowling for Colombine? There, Manson says that he is doing whatever he does to attract attention. How many celebrities do that? But his honesty aside, there is a strong ick factor. No, it is not (just) the make-up! I actually heard that he had a surgical operation to have some bones removed so that he could give himself a blow-job! YUCKS!!! I really hope that’s some bogus news generated by his publicist. Otherwise it is just too much.

It is interesting that his girlfriends are beautiful actresses. I know rockers are known to pick up hot chicks but Manson isn’t your idea of a hot rocker, is he? We are moving on another Manson coupling:

EVAN RACHEL Wood  &  MARILYN  Manson

Evan Rachel and Marilyn

And the moral is pick up the guitar and girls will come regardless of your make-up and style? I know musicians tended to look pretty funny through out the history- just look at the fashion in every decade. And I have to admit, it is not like I never liked a band with make-up. I still like Kiss. I own Twisted Sister albums. Hell, I saw Bon Jovi guitarist Richie Sambora with lipstick back in the day! Still, does this look like a match made in heaven?

I must say, Michael Moore is a master of propaganda. Now, I am pretty damn liberal and agree with a lot of the stuff he says, but at the same time it is quite obviously designed to make us feel a certain way. Everyone knows what he does, so I won’t get into any of that. I will say, though, that he did good job at making us empathize with the people that have been most affected by the current economic situation, and he was able to shed some light on some of the issues that I wasn’t quite clear on. It wasn’t nearly as good as Bowling for Columbine or Sicko, and the economic crisis doesn’t really lend itself to creating a visceral reaction like the one in Fahrenheit 9/11, but it was definitely worth seeing.

Of course, since it’s Michael Moore, you will either see it and agree with it, see it and hate it vehemently, or ignore it completely–I doubt it will really spur anyone into action. But that’s the way it goes.

Rating: 6.5/10

Woke up this Monday morning with a mild case of the Monday Blues, only to be pushed into what I would describe as Monday Navies since it got really dark inside… The amplification of my case was caused by not one, nor two, not even three like the old Raid commercial but four posts about guns being sold legaly in Saudi… and the number of posts are increasing.

Not that people didn’t have guns in the first place. Firearms are not sold in Saudi, not even pellet guns where sold until a few years ago, but those with keen observation skills like SGIME noticed the sale of holsters and all that that goes with it.

Many of the people I’ve known in Saudi own a firearm, except for a few like me, but I’ve considered it many times. I am against guns and violence.

I recommend watching Bowling for Columbine.

It used to be, someone wants a gun, someone somewhere knows somebody that can get the gun for you for 10 times it’s price, you go and get a license for it from whatever government agency does it, they ask you where you got it and you say I inherited it, even if it were brand spanking new, and they register it under your name… Or so I’ve heard.

I have not seen guns being sold here in Australia at K-Mart as I’ve seen in the USA, but the latest reports say 365 guns go missing every year in Australia which end up in black markets.

The selling of firearms or the lack of, has been and will always be a matter of debate… Do we sell it so everyone has it or has access to it? Or should we ban it so only the outlaws will? I am sure they are doing this to cut down on illigal smuggling of firearms in the country… And maybe for a little bit of this.

But what intensified my Monday blues is, most of the posts and the comments had this feeling of “the end is near” and we are all going to go postal on each other… Guns were already there as I said, we didn’t do it then, we won’t do it now… I hope…

Ashraf said in twitter, and I translate it (without permission) “Cinema NO, Elections NO, Women driving NO, not closing during prayers NO, coed universities NO, then they go and allow selling guns”

But I see no changes.

Michael Moore, director of other fine pieces such as Sicko, Roger & Me, and Bowling for Columbine. In these movies, Moore determines that health care is better in Communist Cuba, decides that GM ruined Detroit (forget Unions!), and says that guns are bad and the reason we are so violent in America.

His newest movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, is a crock of &*(@#$!

Why? How can you make a movie bitching about Capitalism when you are making a movie to make money. If he REALLY wanted to shun Capitalism, then he would have made the movie for free, now wouldn’t he?

But he didn’t. He didn’t because he is a stupid hypocrite.

Capitalism did nothing for me.

But I do well, BECAUSE MY FILMS DO WELL.

What an absolute imbecile! I feel like stealing his movie off the shelf when it comes out and burning it.

Marilyn Manson ställer alltså in sina sverigespelningar i Stockholm och Malmö. Hade det varit år 2000 hade det känts tråkigt. Idag är det mest ett stort…ingenting.

Under högstadie- och gymnasietiden lyssnade jag en hel del på Marilyn Manson och redan då var jag mer imponerad än fascinerad. Myterna om bortopererade revben, utomjordingar och fan och hans moster kändes inte speciellt spännande. Tvärtom, och vad de flesta glömmer bort när man talar om honom, var det musiken i sig som var det väsentliga. Den fullkomligt stenhårda manglingen av trumhinnorna och de ständigt pseudoprovocerande texterna (som för den sunt tänkande människan inte är särskilt “farliga”) som diskuterades på rasterna såväl som i tv-debatter.

Vid tiden för den tragiska Columbine-massakern (1999) var Manson på topp, såväl musik- som relevansmässigt. Han visade att bakom de olikfärgade linserna dolde sig mer empati och förståelse av den samtida ungdomen än någon politiker eller myndighet kunde förmedla.

Sättet han förmedlade detta i sin musik var en slags omvänd psykologi. Genom att visualisera den amerikanska mardrömmen tvingades moralväktarna närskåda sig själva och det utopiska samhälle de trodde sig befinna sig i. Varje föräldagrupp, kyrkogrupp och egenutnämnda förespråkare av den rena oskyldiga ungdomen som protesterade visade nämligen med all önskvärd tydlighet hur långt bort de befann sig från den ångestfyllda tonåringen som ingen ville lyssna på. Med skygglappar stora som ladugårdsdörrar lyckades dessa grupper undgå att se dessa ungdomar och deras problem. Inte ens när Eric Harris och Dylan Klebold sköt tolv skolkamrater insåg de vilket grundläggande problem som låg bakom; en utbredd känsla av total uppgivenhet och ett allt starkare har riktat mot den oförstående omgivningen.

Istället var problemet likställt med en enda man, Superstjärnornas Antikrist. Om han bara plockades bort ur ungdomarnas vardag skulle problemet vara borta och allt vore frid och fröjd. Så stor roll spelade Marilyn Manson 1999.

Det var då.

Idag sitter han, blekfet och med tom blick bredvid Filip och Fredrik och kastar ur sig slentrianmässiga påståenden som varken chockar eller rockar. Hans målgrupp har hittat andra visionärer att luta sig mot. Kvar finns egentligen bara ett skal av en människa som inte längre har något att säga. Tragiskt, men ändå väntat.

* * * * *

Slutligen bjuder jag på en Spotify-playlist med fem personliga Manson-favoriter:

• Lunchbox
• Disposable teens
• The dope show
• The beautiful people
• The man that you fear

‘CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY’ – In Theaters October 2nd

“It’s a crime story. But it’s also a war story about class warfare. And a vampire movie, with the upper 1 percent feeding off the rest of us. And, of course, it’s also a love story. Only it’s about an abusive relationship.

“It’s not about an individual, like Roger Smith, or a corporation, or even an issue, like health care. This is the big enchilada. This is about the thing that dominates all our lives — the economy. I made this movie as if it was going to be the last movie I was allowed to make. “It’s a comedy.” — Michael Moore

www.SayNoToBailouts.com/

With Micheal Moore’s documentary hitting major markets this weekend, I thought I would briefly say a few words.

Duh.

While Huffpo is calling Mr. Moore the Zeitgeist of this country, he’s just a mirror, plain to all with two eyes who cared to see.  For many years.

If anyone didn’t see the writing on the wall coming even 20 years ago with the debut of “Roger and Me,” widely panned at the box office, despite Moore’s hype and dissed in the mainstream press for “Marxist propoganda” and it’s so called “distortions” and even up through “Bowling for Columbine” and “Farenheit 9/11” and even “Sicko,” Moore has been consistently denigrated by his critics, although he’s quite right, and always has been.

And even watching the promos is not only deju vu on the issues, but many of the same damned faces are STILL THERE.  That would be in Congress that is.  Oh, yeah, and did you watch the golf swinging Bush having any similiarity to the favorite new hobby of our new Prez.  Yup.  Disturbingly uncanny.

However, while Moore’ s not the only one who knew what was happening and called it right, or was even a filmmaker with the right inclinations, he’s the right gender and demographic to get funding, and attention, and he happened to make the right connections, (and that’s not a denigration, it’s just the reality of a corporate owned media, that’s sexist to boot), to have chronicled the fall of America under not just the Reagan’s, and the Bushes but the CLINTONS and OBAMA.  After all, it was the Democrats lack of pressure on Detroit to make it competitive that led to all those plant closings that make Flint such an aribiter of our future.  It was Clinton who signed NAFTA and welfare deform.  It was Clinton who laid the groundwork for the financial disaster we face now.

The past is present, and our future for a long time to come and Moore knows it.  And ducks it.  And that’s where I find fault with him.

He’s not the only one with two eyes.  Or one with a skill for making films.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t as lucky as Mr. Moore, and his agents are far too important to call me back.  I would have made a good addition to the story, but that’s what happens when you also get famous.  Your talent scouts get ‘tude, and so do you.  Behind the ‘aw shucks’ attitude there is a raging ego maniac in Mr. Moore.  But that is not the point.

Go see the movie. I’m sure Moore is rich enough to do something good with at least some of the profits.

But that’s not enough.  Moore has yet to condemn Obama, the Democrats, came out for Mr. Gore (who is part of the problem) and it’s not enough for you to pay your ten to twelve bucks at the movies for a cathartic release because you know it’s going to happen to you soon.

If it hasn’t happened already.

And even if it doesn’t, and you stand by and do nothing but go to a movie, it’s a cop out.

This is reality Movie Time people.  That’s why they’re called documentaries.  And if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

What Moore’s film, what my blogs are, what my life’s work has been about, including many of my own documentary films, what many other people in America are saying, is that we are living in a deeply flawed and corrupt society, that Mr. Obama has no intention of changing.  Despite all that pretty lip flap of “change we could believe in.”

If you have the money, sure go see the movie. AND THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

I don’t have the money, but I also don’t need to see the movie to know what Moore’s central premise is.

Like millions of Americans I live it every day.

I don’t need to go to the movies to be reminded of it.  And unlike millions of Americans, I am already fighting back.  And damned if my voice gets drowned out in the storm.

By even good meaning people like yourselves, who go and get worked up over movies, and then go home and pretend that life goes on as usual.

Until it doesn’t.

We’re back after our six-week summer holiday, and seeing as it’s practically 2010 already, we’ve decided to get ahead of the game by discussing the best (and baddest) bits of the Noughties.

***Click here to listen to Bullshit Bingo Episode 20!***

So brace yourselves for our favourite TV shows – for example, this slice of documentary genius from Adam Curtis:

…our musical magic moments – for example, this slice of bastardisatio…er, I mean genius from Missy Elliot and Joy Division:

…and our political highs and lows – for example, this slice of reactionary rhetoric from George Bush (at least we think it’s George Bush…).

Last but not least, we couldn’t talk about anything – least of all the Noughties – without giving it an ILF, so with that in mind, feast your ears and eyes on this little lot (if the BSB team really are gentlemen – which is debatable – then we would appear to prefer brunettes):

]]> http://pra2a.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/bowling-for-columbine/ Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:30:06 +0000 pra2a http://pra2a.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/bowling-for-columbine/

Saludos, estimados blogeros aqui les dejo el polémico documental de Michael Moore, donde estudia lo sucedido en la masacre del Colegio Columbine en Los Estados Unidos, ¿influencia de los videojuegos o producto de la sociedad?, espero que todos disfruten de estos 13 videos, sobre todo aquellos que prefieren evadir sus responsabilidades e inculpar a un par de videojuegos…Una vez más ratificando mi posición en CONTRA DE LA LEY DE PROHIBICION DE VIDEOJUEGOS Y JUGUETES BELICOS…P.s: Lo más extraño es que ellos defienden su “posición” basados en este documental, pobre pobres foquitas de la asamblea…OWNED PARA ELLOS!

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Have a Nice Day!

A woman mumbles nearly incoherently, wielding a new video camera to capture the downpour of rain assaulting her street. The water level rises, the wind picks up and the woman recognizes that the weather conditions are quickly getting dangerous. “You could surf on this shit if you wanted to,” she says, still streaming through her camera’s grainy lens. Despite the humor of her observation, her voice hints of trepidation: she understands the storm is a precursor to an event that will dramatically alter her life. “I’ll bring you more footage very shortly,” she notes to the eventual audience that will marvel at her documentation.

That audience includes the hundreds of community members who packed Emerson Suites at Ithaca College last Tuesday for a screening of the Oscar-nominated Trouble the Water, the documentary that includes much of the woman’s footage. The woman, Kimberly, was a resident of the 9th Ward in New Orleans, and the footage depicted the beginning stages of Hurricane Katrina, the 2005 natural disaster that left the lives of its former residents in shambles.

During the screening the Ithaca audience was incredibly engaged; their heads craned to read the subtitles during scenes where audio is indecipherable, they shook their heads in disgusted surprise when the displaced residents are refused entry into a U.S. Naval base and they laughed at the light-hearted commentary of the film’s two dynamic stars, Kimberly and Scott.

The fact that Trouble the Water is a narrative documentary, exploring the tragedy almost exclusively from the perspective of Kim and Scott, contributes immensely to its impact. The film allows us to look into the lives of people affected by Katrina, a departure from the majority of the media’s hurricane coverage, which focused solely on the physical power of the storm. Understanding this story of humanity is essential in exposing the severity of the crisis mismanagement of the Bush administration.

Tia Lessin & Carl Deal were on Ithaca's campus to discuss Trouble the Water and indie filmmaking.

After the Park Center for Independent Media-sponsored screening, and during a separate event entitled “Agonies/Ecstasies of Independent Filmmaking,” the filmmakers who helmed Water, Tia Lessin and Carl Deal, spoke about their work. Lessin and Deal are, in the best sense of the word, henchmen of Michael Moore, working with him on Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, so they are authorities on independent media and the art of saying “fuck you” to anything mainstream.

In addition to airing clips from their previous work, like the Moore TV series The Awful Truth and the System of a Down anti-Iraq music video “Boom!,” Lessin and Deal spoke about their motivation for Water. “We wanted to tell a story about what we were seeing on TV, and also what we weren’t seeing,” said Lessin, explaining, “We were seeing the New Orleans residents as helpless victims or as violent looters. But there’s optimism in New Orleans, even in the midst of disaster, and it would have been a misrepresentation not to include that.” By telling this story, Lessin and Deal brought new relevance to the Katrina disaster and truly triumphed in independent media as an art form.

Photo of Tia & Carl compliments of indiewire.com.

Two things sparked this post (I don’t know, sometimes I figure you people might be interested in how my mind works…)

One is Michael Moore, who I generally regard as a brilliant satirist and filmmaker. I’ve loved Moore’s movies since someone in high school told me I should rent this new film called “Roger and Me,” about one guy trying to take down General Motors.

 It was hilarious and smart, and since then I’ve seen all of Moore’s movies, including the underrated “Bowling for Columbine,” and “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which, despite its intended purpose, did not rid us of the scourge of W. in 2004.

Moore has been a powerful voice on the left, and while occasionally he goes too far and defeats his own purpose, he’s still one of the good guys in my mind.

Anyway, Moore’s got a new flick coming out about capitalism, and at a press conference in Toronto the other day he somehow got on the topic of newspapers.

He spouted most of the same lines many of us have used when talking about the slow decline of my industry; corporate greed, profits over people, etc. None of it remotely surprised or affected me.

But then he went a little further. He said “good riddance,” about the death of newspapers. And he predicted that in “one year, or two years,”  there will be no more daily papers.

Well you know what, Michael? “Good riddance?” Screw you.

 I say that because newspapers, at their best, expose scandal and malfeasance and bad people doing bad things to good people, and isn’t that what you’re about? Isn’t that why you first started making “Roger and Me,” because you wanted Roger Smith of GM to explain to you why his hard-working factory employees were being laid off by the thousands in Michigan?

And now you’re saying good riddance, and, basically, who cares if newspapers die in a year or two. Who do you think writes stories and uncovers scandal that motivates you to do documentaries? Who do you think is keeping an eye out for the public good, about things like automobile safety and rule-breakers in government and athletes cheating to get ahead? Dedicated newspaper reporters, sir.

I don’t know, I’m probably so charged up about this because the last 36 hours have horrible at work, which is the other reason I’m writing this.

 For the fourth time in two years, the Daytona Beach News-Journal laid off a significant portion of the staff. These cuts hit me harder than the other ones, and I think it’s because we continue to lose good, talented, honest people who bleed for this business and never wanted to leave. We’ve run out of people who didn’t care about the job and now they’re firing indispensable parts of our staff.

Friends of mine, people I care about, got an email from our corporate receivership leader at 4 p.m. Monday (it’s a long story, we’re in the process of being sold and the court has put an outside manager to run us in the interim. Of course, “the interim” has lasted a hell of a lot longer than anyone thought it would).

These people got an email at 4 p.m. (hey, might as well get a good day’s work out of them) saying they had to show up at 11 Tuesday morning and meet with human resources, and bam, that was it.

Long-time employees, newer employees, journalists of great skill and people who put in an honest day’s work for a story; it doesn’t matter.  One email, a handshake, and a few week’s severance pay. And what was once a vibrant, passionate voice shining a light in this community gets just a little dimmer.

It is heartbreaking watching a living, breathing organism like a newsroom slowly, excruciatingly die. People I respect and trust were walking around like zombies today, trying to keep working, but dealing with the feelings of surivor’s guilt and helpless anger at the same time.

 Many more talented writers than I have been writing about the breath being slowly expunged from this business we love; I can’t put it nearly as eloquently as they have.

But let me just say that watching it from the inside has been even more painful than I could have imagined.

I’ve been trying to come up with an analogy of what it feels like, and the best way I can describe it is this:  It’s like watching a beautiful mural on a wall that you helped paint, slowly being chipped away and chipped away, and as each piece falls to the floor a little piece of you falls with it. And you can’t stop it, or rail against it, you just have to stand there and watch.

Look, I know Michael Moore does have empathy, and I know he’s really railing against the corporate monsters like Gannett and Tribune Co. for putting profits over people when he says “good riddance.”

But there were people crying and hugging and not wanting to leave at my office today, trying to hold on to one last moment of being a part of something bigger than themselves. As I said goodbye, I was grateful I wasn’t joining them.

But watching them leave, I was sad all over again.

And I think if Michael Moore, or anyone else who has been gleefully dancing on the tombstone of newspapers  had been there, maybe they’d feel a little differently.

by Austin Hill at Townhall.com

The website also explains Moore ’s conclusion: capitalism is “evil,” America needs something different, and that “something” is “democracy.” Perhaps Moore is unacquainted with the concept of “democratic capitalism,” or is unaware that capitalism and democracy already co-exist.

…More

No, I don’t hate Michael Moore the person, I just loathe his snake oil approach to making films disguised as documentaries. And now, his latest is Capitalism: A Love Story.

Before you get too excited over Moore’s sticking it to the Man, keep a few things in mind:

Does it make any sense for Moore to spit in the face of a financial system that has made him filthy rich? He has had homes in both New York City and in Traverse City, Michigan (neither of which is cheap). Does Moore honestly believe he’d be able to make all these movies if he lived in Venezuela, Cuba or other places? Mikey, if you hate capitalism so much, what’s stopping you from buying a one-way plane ticket to Havana? Or, are you worried you’ll see what a real socialist “paradise” is like, decide you like the freedoms of America more and will try to sail back to Florida on a makeshift raft? C’mon…surely Raul Castro or even Hugo Chavez would be understanding if you tried to make a documentary critical about their regimes. Chavez’ closing down opposition stations is nothing to worry about!

I have a family member who’s a United Auto Worker, know someone who grew up with Moore, know someone who went to school with him and know a former teacher of his. All of them say his work should be taken with a grain of salt.

In Fahrenheit 911, Moore’s idea of a celebrity who supported the war on terror was a gum-chewing Britney Spears. Too bad he didn’t interview KISS rocker Gene Simmons, who was born Chaim Witz in Haifa, Israel and is not only the son of Hungarian Jews, but is the son of a Holocaust survivor. Simmons sees a lot of parallels between what his mother (whose entire family was wiped out in the death camps) endured and what radical Islam is trying to do. Simmons has a degree in education and besides having taught school, he also was the person who originally discovered Van Halen. I’ll never forget what Simmons said in 2004 on why he was voting for Bush: When you go through a bad neighborhood, you don’t want a poodle at yoru side. You want a Rottweiler.”

In short, I’ll never understand why Moore continues to spit in the face of a country that’s given him the freedoms needed to become insanely rich. It’s the quintessential example of biting the hand that feeds you.

Well, it seems I’m not the only one doing documentaries about capitalism and its ending. Michael Moore, the documentary maker that brought us ‘Bowliwng for columbine’, ‘Farenheit 9/11′ and ‘Sicko’, has presented the premiere of his new documentary: ‘Capitalism: a love story’.

The premiere has happened tonight at the Venice Film Festival, and it has been named to be ‘Moore’s most dangerous film’.

It’ll be on the screens worldwide the next 2nd of October.