Saturday, May 29, 2004
Another Disturbing Thing
I was driving on Poplar today -- east again -- on the way back from a meeting at the Co-op. On the way, I passed a car dealership*
, upon whose plastic marquee was written:WE TORTURE AND HUMILIATE HIGH PRICES
I feel dirty.*
For locals, it's the one on the left-hand side (facing east), just past Parkway... y'know, the scummy used car lot. Yeah, that one. If anyone can get a picture of the sign for me, I'd appreciate it.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
I Know This Exists, But It's Always Disturbing To Be Reminded
I was driving east on Park today, trying to dodge the repaving work on Poplar along with everyone else. I noticed that the SUV in front of me had a sticker on the bumper: "I Ride With Forrest".
"No," I thought, "it can't be what I think it is. It's gotta be Forrest Gump, Forest Whitacker, some cultural reference I'm not familiar with... anything but the Forrest I'm thinking of
I managed to squirm my way into the next lane, and pulled up alongside the SUV on the driver's side. I got a look at the driver -- a very typical, suburban, soccer-mom-looking blonde woman. She looked absolutely nothing like a cross-burning, hood-wearing Klansman; I'd never have suspected it in a hundred thousand years.
But it seems it was true
On Michael Moore
I've been putting off blogging on the saga surrounding Fahrenheit 9/11
for a good couple of weeks now. Michael Moore is a difficult subject for me; as a liberal documentarian, he's a doubly evocative figure in my mind, and my feelings about the man and his work are often very mixed. Half of my response is simple; the other half is complex and frought with qualifiers that make it difficult to form any concrete opinion. And yet, Moore seems to require exactly such a concrete opinion, and so, rather than babble endlessly, likely making little sense to those not as familiar with the issues, I tend to simply remain silent.
But this is, after all, meant to be a blog about a) liberal politics, and b) movies (especially documentaries), so I feel like I'm undermining my purported reason for existence if I don't address this subject, especially as it may prove to be rather significant in both arenas.
As a liberal, my response to Michael Moore is very simple: I love him, and I want to see him succeed beyond all our wildest dreams. For years, when Rush and his ilk dominated both mass media and political publishing, Michael Moore was one of only a tiny number of really balls-out, aggressively liberal voices available, and we all came to adore him for it. He was bombastic, yes; he was loud and frequently obnoxious, but he was also extremely funny at times, and was our only antidote to the equally-as-bombastic-and-obnoxious Rush Limbaugh. That response is only heightened these days; even while liberal media progresses and grows (Al Franken's show on Air America beat Rush Limbaugh in New York City last week
, an event that would have been seemed impossible only a few months ago), for much of the last few years, Moore has remained a very significant voice for liberals in America. He's flawed, but he's ours, and we love him.
As a documentarian, though... ugh. Suffice to say, my feelings on Michael Moore in this context are rather more complicated. It's not that I dislike his work -- I always enjoy his films as a viewer, and he's very good at what he does. But I remain very unconvinced that what he's doing should count as "documentary," and I fear that his effects on the genre will be much more negative than positive.
Contrary to popular perception, documentary film can be a rather contentious subject, and ideas about exactly what constitutes "documentary" vary widely. There is a general consensus that a documentary is any film that is about real things. That's not a simple statement, though... another well-known quote on the subject is that "dramatic film is telling the truth with lies; documentary film is tellings lies with the truth." Which isn't to say that all documentary films are inherently false or wrong, but that documentary films are much more heavily manipulated than most people think, and that the perception of "real truth" is not nearly as realistic as it seems to be.
Thus, in the wrong hands, documentary film can be a powerful tool for misinformation. A documentarian, who is not held to the same conventions and practices as a journalist, can tell enormous lies and make it appear to be god's own truth just by virtue of the "reality" of the source material. Documentarians tend to be mostly self-policing in this regard; an accusation that one's film is too heavily manipulated, one's perspective too warped, threatens the documentarian with the worst kind of failure. To make a too-manipulative documentary is to bleed off into the land of propaganda, a term which in itself makes no value judgement (some of the most innovative films ever made have been solid propaganda, and many would argue that propaganda is in itself an artform), but which implies the artistic failure of the documentarian.
So how does this relate to Michael Moore? Well -- again, pointing out that there's no value judgement inherent in this statement -- I would argue that most of the time, Moore's work often blurs significantly into propaganda. It's propaganda that I happen to agree with, yes, but that doesn't mean I can't see it for what it is. Moore manipulates his subjects heavily; some of his tactics are more akin to those used by tabloid journalists than by conscientious truthseekers. Whereas ideally the documentarian begins with a subject and a viewpoint, and allows those to lead her naturally to a conclusion, Moore starts with a conclusion and shapes his subject to fit. Sometimes the shaping is very natural, but sometimes it's quite aggressive.
I'm also acutely aware, however, that there is a long tradition in documentary of people declaring the work of others to be substandard or impure. Attitudes towards what does and does not qualify range from loose and all-encompassing to stringent and rigid; most of the films I love most would never qualify as "documentary" by someone's definition. As I have never cared for that game, feeling that the only person who can ultimately decide whether a given film qualifies is the person who made it, I am extremely hesitant to declare Moore's work insufficiently "true." I don't want this to become a question of being more-doc-than-thou. And yet, my opinions are what they are, thus much of my hesitance to discuss the matter.
Aside from questions of artistic merit, there are practical considerations as well. Regardless of his doc pedigree, like it or not, Moore has a tendency to dominate the market for documentary film (which is already suffocatingly small), thus inadvertantly undermining the success of the genre as a whole. Brilliant films -- films that were made with painstaking love and devotion over years in some cases -- have been overwhelmed by the Michael Moore juggernaut. Inarguably better films have had their productive life strangled off by the lumbering presence of this one man's work; recognition, funding, and precious access to viewers has been denied to worthier films because Michael Moore happened to release a film the same year.
Some argue -- hopefully correctly -- that in the long run, Moore's success improves the chances for all, generating more interest in documentary film among the disinterested viewership, and proving that docs can be commercially viable. This is possible, and there's some evidence that it's happening already, with the success (in documentary terms, at least) of films like Supersize Me!
, The Fog of War
, and The Control Room
. I still worry, however, that if Moore becomes the template for documentary commercial success (much as The Day After Tomorrow
is very much of the template for Hollywood commercial success), we might see the formation of a two-tier arrangement like that of dramatic film, with the "blockbusters" like Moore inhabiting the top, while the indies languish below, struggling with insufficient funding and recognition.
All of this is probably getting ahead of myself; as relatively successful as Moore's films are, I still doubt that he receives much of a payday from them (getting most of his personal cash from book sales and television). And hopefully, most of my anxieties will prove to be unfounded; documentarians, as a rule, hate to see anyone else doing well commercially anyway. (With a very limited pie, any one person getting a big share tends to translate directly into someone else going without.) Perhaps Fahrenheit 9/11 will prove to be a solid film in every respect and will reignite interest in the genre, making it easier for all of us to get noticed and, hopefully, paid.
Anyway, yes... Moore always presents something of a dilemma for me. As a liberal, I want to see his work recieve as much attention as humanly possible; as a documentarian, I wish he'd, y'know, go away for a while. I'd feel a lot better about the guy, though, if he'd do more to help the rest of the documentary community, parlay that enormous influence to the benefit of somebody else as well.
Obviously, I'll be writing more once I actually get to see the new film. Apparently U.S. distribution has been secured (no big surprise there), and the film will hit the cinemas during the first week in July, as planned. I am very much looking forward to seeing it.PS
: This is basically off-topic, but intriguing. Apparently Moore has an interview with Nick Berg
, the American who was recently executed in Iraq, that he shot for Fahrenheit 9/11
while Berg was still safe in the United States. The interview isn't in the final cut of the film, and he's not releasing it to the public (at least not at this point)... but I have to admit, I'd love to hear what the interview was about.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
A Few Words From Our PresidentThe legitimate one, that is
: I watched the replay of the speech on C-span tonight, and I highly recommend it to anyone with a good fast connection. (It's just over an hour long.) Once Gore really hit his stride, it was like he was channeling a southern preacher (in a good way). We got to see the statesman he could have been, and the president we might've had. The comparison is extremely unflattering to the Bush administration. It was, quite possibly, the speech of Al Gore's life.
I also agree with the prevailing sentiment that Gore is running offense for Kerry with this speech. While Kerry keeps a low profile on current events (thereby maximizing his options as the campaign progresses), he's not in a good position to make angry denunciations. Gore, however, has no such pressing need, and thus can speak plainly... what do you think it would take to create a political system in which all of our politicians could focus on speaking truth, as opposed to pandering to the electorate?
C-span makes it tricky to link directly to the clip, so go to the website, where the video is still current on the front page. If they move it, you want clip #17708; it's well worth the time. Otherwise, read the transcript at the link above.
Some Would Call It Pathological
I'm not going to say much about Bush's whoopsie the other day... but this tiny little point is interesting, in an eye-rolling, how-fucking-typical kind of way.
Obviously, no grown man could be such a schmuck that he just falls off his bicycle without some kind of cause, right? I mean, that would be ridiculous. You don't want the President of the United States to come off like some poorly-coordinated doofus, do you?
The president was nearing the end of a 17-mile ride on his mountain bike, accompanied by a Secret Service agent, a military aide and his personal physician, Richard Tubb, who treated him at the scene, said White House spokesman Trent Duffy.
"It's been raining a lot and the topsoil is loose," Duffy said. "You know this president. He likes to go all-out. Suffice it to say he wasn't whistling show tunes."
First of all, how handy that his personal physician just happened to be at hand when he fell of his bike. But more interestingly...
... there hasn't been a drop of rain in Crawford, Texas in over a week
Now, I'm not saying that the Bush administration has been reduced to lying about even the tiniest, most pointless little details to cover for their boy's gross incompetence on every conceivable level... I'm just sayin'.
Sunday, May 23, 2004
God Fucking Dammit
Why won't they put any of the really great episodes of Mystery Science Theater 3000
on DVD? Huh? What gives? After several years of getting by with only the handfull of mostly-mediocre episodes available on DVD (and my precious collection of VHS tapes from the 1996 Turkey Day Marathon) hoping that one day the powers that be would see fit to put the classics -- "Untamed Youth" (my first), "The Day the Earth Froze" (my favorite), "Time of the Apes," "Teenage Caveman," hell, even "Gamara" (any of 'em!) -- on a medium that I can watch over and over without fear that I'll bugger my copy.
I was hoping that the four-disc collections would provide some improvement in this lamentable situation, but most of what I see is later Mike-oriented stuff and the lesser Joel shows. And that's just not good enough.
Let's make this perfectly clear... I'm an old-school MiSTie: I want Joel shows from the Comedy Central years ONLY. (Okay, maybe a couple of Mike shows, but only the best ones... as far as I'm concerned, that'll always
be Joel's Satellite of Love.) I don't want anything from the SciFi Channel years, and I definitely don't want that crappy feature film they made. And don't even fucking mention the episodes after the original Dr. Forrester vanished... I never could get used to hearing Crow with a different voice. One of the finest television series the United States ever produced, and you can't get any of the classic episodes on a commercial label. It's an outrage!
Now get with the fucking program, Rhino Video. The market is here, all you gotta do is show some taste.PS
: I...uhh... still want the collections, though. My birthday is 5 December, in case anyone, y'know, feels like it.