[weegee]

Straw man argument from Roger Ebert. The BIGGER question is how can a film be called a "documentary" when it plays fast and loose with the facts? What else is it when scenes are staged or edited to misrepresent a timeline?

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain.

(A) How can a "pro-Bush" documentary answer the charges in Mr. Moore's film when no filmmaker has seen it with enough time to make a rebuttal film?

(B) What conservative theater chains are there that would book a "pro-Bush" documentary? Count out Angelika, Landmark, and all of the university run theaters.

(C) Campaign Finance Reform has seen to it that a financially well-off Republican can't even BUY the airtime to air his rebuttal if he filmed it. (with Michael Moore's film being released so close to the election).

Yeah, Rog, this is some level playing field.

This film needs to be mentioned in the same breath as "Triumph Of The Will" and "The Eternal Jew". It serves the same end and is purely propaganda.

Ray Bradbury does not like the fact that Michael Moore has hijacked the name of his book and movies "Fahrenheit 451". He called Mr. Moore a "screwed a**hole" and a "horrible person". Michael Moore does not oppose totalitarian regimes, he unwittingly(?) gives them aid and comfort.

[swilhelm73]

Well, I will give Ebert one bit of praise. Everyone in the media should be as open about what their biases are.

If Dan Rather started every broadcast by saying, "I'm a left winger and you should expect to see my biases reflected in the upcoming news broadcast", most of my compliants about the Democrats' media would go away.

That being said, a pressure campaign such as the one Ebert is so critical of is hardly that unusual in America. Remember the NAACP boycott? Remember the Left's continuing efforts to silence talk radio? The Clintons going after the VRWC?

Finally, how would Ebert know if there are mistakes in Moore's film? Does he regularly read non-leftwing news sources? I would strongly guess no...

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Ebert is correct, but in a way he might not realise. A Hollyweird Documentary is nothing but crap.

[The Raven]

Et tu, Roger

Hitler made some propaganda films, as well.....

When ideologues like Moore produce make-believe and put it up as a documentary, it's a head shaker.

[endthematrix]

""Triumph of the Will" (1934) was a film about the Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, an event largely staged for the benefit of her camera, which showed a confident Hitler nodding approvingly as massed ranks of Nazi troops march in review. Three years later, she directed "Olympia," a documentary on the Berlin Olympiad.

These are by general consent two of the best documentaries ever made. But because they reflect the ideology of a monstrous movement, they pose a classic question of the contest between art and morality: Is there such a thing as pure art, or does all art make a political statement?" -Roger Ebert THE WONDERFUL HORRIBLE LIFE OF LENI RIEFENSTAHL

[Rennes Templar]

Forget the film. Time to boycott Ebert!!! I had no idea he was such a leftie. I guess I should have known, you get that close to Hollyweird and it rubs off. I always had the mistaken idea that he was some sort of moderate independent. No more reading his reviews!!!!

[this_ol_patriot]

I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America.

You say that but I'm STILL looking for the damn disaster. 9/11 was a disaster for sure but Bush didn't do that and the French being pissed at us is just plain luck, so Mr. Egbert when you make a statement like the above back it up or you end up being even less than MM. MM at least threw some lies together to try to convince people of his view, you didn't even do that.

[NYCVirago]

That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain.

Ebert's really "powerless to explain" that? Give me a break.

[Savage Beast]

"Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account"

Yes, it's like watching Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph des Willens or D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

Some consider them to be documentaries.

[Savage Beast]

Another documentary or sorts--I haven't read it--is The Elders of Zion. As far as I know it hasn't been made into a movie yet. Maybe Michael Moore would like to take it on as a future project.

[Watery Tart]

Hollywood types won't get any endorsements from me (especially since the GWB FIRST term started), until they fix this scam by making a category called "Political Opinion," "Polital Agenda," "Op-Ed," or somesuch. Leave the documentaries to REAL STORIES. THAT ARE INTERESTING IN SOME WAY. THAT I'D PAY TO SEE. THAT WOULD DOCUMENT THE TRUTH."

doc·u·men·ta·ry
1.) Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2.Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

[steve-b]

Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me

Puh-leeze. If Moore had asserted that George W. Bush is an android sent by evil aliens to lay the groundwork for their invasion, that would not have raised a flag in Ebert's mind.

[freekitty]

These guys never talk about the one missing ingredient and that is the truth.

[kevkrom]

Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view.

I actually have no problem with Moore's bias -- especially since he is so open about it. What I have a problem with -- and why his films should not be considered "documentaries" -- is that he manufactures "facts" via selective editing to make it look like something happened that actually never did. A documentary should not invent, it should only focus.

[ohioman]

May Ebert choke on a chicken bone.

[over3Owithabrain]

Seeing beneath Ebert's lefty protectionism of Moore, he admits some telling things, without coming right out and saying it:

Moore flat out lies in "Columbine";

Ebert is terrified the same type of lies will be exposed in "Farenheit";

Ebert knows conservatives will not let Moore or the media get away with it this time.

[nunya bidness]

[Hildy]

What I find (mildly) amusing is how the movie "THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT" is being released the same week as Farenheit 9/11! Do you realize a movie about how forces of the opposition unfairly went ater a sitting President is being released the same week as a movie unfairly going after a sitting President by forces of the opposition.

[ICX]

Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Bias is one thing - outright lies and misrepresentation of facts are another.

[null and void]

Does anyone have a list of the factual errors in Bowling for Columbine?

[SoCal Pubbie]

Rogert Ebert is already on record espousing the view that films need not be factually accurate. At the time the film JFK came out and recieved lots of criticism for re staging shots to look like actual historical footage, and other manipulations of facts, he said that historical accuracy was not important, but what mattered was the artist's vision. Of course a documentary would be expected to follow reality more closely but it is clear that Ebert will not allow a few falsehoods to get in the way of a political agenda.