Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
Do other "Documentaries" need this kind of publicity?
|
You have an extremely high view of Documentaries. They are not any different from any other filmed product and as such publicity is publicity.
Should a controvercial non-ficiton author not try to generate publicity just because he is the author of non-fiction?
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
So can you admit that Mikey is just a self promoting narcisistic publicity hound who doesn't care about telling the truth so long as the "right" people are hurt, or will you defend him to the end?
|
I don't believe I have yet defended him in this thread. You must have me confused with someone else... I started this thread because I found it interesting that Disney was shelving a film that was clearly going to make money...
Personally I don't see Michael Moore in the negative light that many on this board have of him. I don't have a problem with self-promotion per se. Nacisism is a bit harsh. Publicity hound? I don't have a problem with that... filmmakers live on publicity. If people don't know about your film, not many people see your films.
Moore is clearly on a crusade to stick it to the "man". Do I agree with him everytime. No. Do I find him funny, yes. I find Denis Miller funny too.
Quote:
|
Moore presents some facts, some spin and then proposes "questions" that are never answered but are intended to lead the viewer to a political/philosophical position that is at odds with the conclusions of most people who are in fact familiar with what Moore is slandering.
|
Facts, spin and questions. I have no problem with this. A good storyteller does this all the time. Again, the Socratic method, while annoying is quite effective. The fact that people are questioning things is useful.
I say there should be more of this type of filmmaking shaking things up.
(and yes I said storyteller... all good Documentarians are good storytellers)