Thank you
You're quite welcome. Since we're apparently going to fly into uncharted
Off-Topic Land (I hope we brought enough parachutes for everyone else),
I'm glad this little corner of the thread can be something of a civilized
outpost...
What makes you think only that class is suspect? It just happens to be
the one under discussion because the earlier poster brought it up in
reply to my request for evidence.
No, I wasn't trying to say that *only* that type of media was suspect.
But yes, it is the media that somehow became the focus of this thread, so
that's what I specifically mentioned.
While film can, and is, used to record events it is seldom, if ever,
seen uncut, unedited, and without comment; and certainly not in what is
colloquially called a 'movie'. The closest thing would be the so called
"documentary," although Michael Moore may have, single handed, destroyed
the meaning of that term.
This is a claim I've read from others as well, but still don't see
happening. If you mean that Moore is bending the truth to fit his agenda,
yes that's certainly happening. This may lead to a one-sided "talk radio"
mentality taking over the documentary genre, but the genre itself is still
going strong and doesn't need to follow MM's example to succeed.
There are recent documentaries about everything from the Ramones to
Broadway's golden age to gay marriage to a televised public bus hijacking
in Rio, and now there's even a sub-genre of documentaries popping up to
respond to anything Moore says or does. Putting aside the politics of
individual filmmakers, the MPAA certainly has no shortage of films from
which to choose nominees for the documentary category.
As a friend once commented about Jurassic Park "the special effects are
so good you can't tell the real dinosaurs from the fake ones."
LOL. No, I'm not THAT far gone, but I do know that seeing a Congressman
asked on camera about sending his offspring to Iraq, and seeing his silent
response ("uhhhh...aren't I supposed to have security around me at all
times?" he must've been thinking), is one small truth in a larger picture
that might not be as truthful or straightforward. And while I hadn't woke
up that morning saying, "geez, I wonder if public executions actually DO
happen?" it turns out that seeing one on a movie screen was more than
enough proof to convince me of the answer.
Anything from the newspaper to a movie to radio to the web is going to
have little bits of fact mixed in with whatever else was handy. I don't
think dismissing the entire genre of film as a possible source would be
any smarter than going to the movies to catch up on world events.
Although I'm sure my grandpa if he were here would tell me about how it
used to be....
If you mean "not quite right" as in demented, then no. I didn't say
movies were demented but, rather, simply not necessarily a reliable, or
complete, image of reality. So "living in a movie" simply means one is
seeing things colored by that imperfect lens.
See, aren't you glad that we have so much in common on this? ;-) The "not
quite right," BTW, was referring to an instance where someone goes into
the theater with a critical eye and sees a new perspective, but is told
that what he saw couldn't possibly be true because it was a "movie."
That's not quite right.
I didn't say that something on "film," or even in a movie, couldn't be
real. I said "movies" weren't a "reliable source" with the point being
that just because you saw it in a movie doesn't necessarily make it so.
And, if you want, I'll bring over a couple of sticks and let you record
as we exchange memory and money as long as you give them back after the
filming is over
damn. Thanks for the offer, but I guess it's back to newegg for me....
ta ta, see ya in the movies?
