This is pathetic


Why is an idiot like Michael Moore getting boatloads of discussion on his "documentary" when this brilliant film has not one post on it.

"I really do have love to give. I just dont know where to put it."

reply

Because the Moore film is just out and a lot more people have seen it?

I saw "Le Chagrin..." last night actually - it's in the middle of a run at the National Film Theatre in London - and the contemporary relevance of much of it is striking.

Particularly noteworthy was the comment from the Resistance fighters that at the time they were routinely descibed at "terrorists".

reply

Absolutely awesome film-making, one of my favourite documentaries.

"Build my gallows high, baby."

reply

Amazing film.

reply

I do agree. It is a stunning documentary. If you liked it, you should also consider watching "Nuit et Brouillard" (Night and Fog), and "De Nuremberg à Nuremberg". The first one is on the holocaust, the second one on WWII as a all. It is sad to see that "De Nuremberg à Nuremberg", considered in France as THE documentary on WWII, is not translated in English (like many or most of the best French movies). It has a well-deserved rating of 9.5 on IMDB!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I do not consider Michael Moore an idiot. Just someone with a point a view and a forum in which to make his views clear.


But I agree that this is a pretty brilliant film.

reply

if annie hall didn't want to see it why would other people want it?

reply

[deleted]

Yep, me too. Thank you Woody! (And Annie Hall did like it-at the end of the movie she was taking her new boyfriend to see it.)

reply

Michael Moore could learn something about film making by watching this film!!!!

reply

I heartily agree...Moore's innane baiting of Charlton Heston, his ignorance of basic laissez-faire economics and his lame pseudo-marxist class commentary belong to another age. And yet many viewers (read: lefties) consider him "groundbreaking". Please...
The harder questions to ask are how are we all connected and involved with these long standing institutions in our society? Corporations do the things they do because members of the public (shareholders big and small such as your Dad and the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund) consider it to be in their best interests..so why not really tell it as it is with an appropriately complex argument? Why not speak to people, not down to em? Simple. He's schooled in "critical theory": the idea that every institution of the west should be automatically up for suspicious, global, negative questioning with no balance of argument. To him and his fans, simply getting in people's faces and challenging 'em is deep social commentary, never mind the grade-school formulations. Whining becomes a deep kind of protest. Increasingly, we have a culture of uneducated commentators (many celebs for example) displaying the idea that any kind of speech or protest is noble and adds to the great debate. IMHO, red-herring debates, character assassination and gross over-simplification are often worse than no protest at all, as they make the players and the issues into stick figures. It takes far more courage to admit that we're all involved in this difficult, challenging world. That most do the best with what they have. The same folks that over-simply Iraq ("It's all about the oil") bring the same rigour of analysis to politics as these unfortunate Vichy French apologists: it's a small step from "hidden agendas" and "the CIA set up 911" to "Jews run the world" and other justications for anti-semitism. Don't believe me? Just check out George Jonas' recent column here: http://www.georgejonas.ca/recent_writing.cfm?id=454 He talks about how anti-semitism has regained respectibility in some quarters...

reply

The point i was making about Moore was that Moore has to use gimmicks , tricks, edits etc to make his points, in this film the material speaks for itself.

reply

I just saw this a week ago. This is a good see.

reply

He doesn't *have to* do that, it's just a style. People who think there's only one right way to make a film are stupid.

reply

"an appropriately complex argument"

This from someone who inanely writes of "basic laissez-faire economics" and "Corporations do the things they do because members of the public ... consider it to be in their best interests". Everyone is a member of the public so that of course includes the primary beneficiaries of corporate actions, but it's moronic to justify those actions on that basis. "Whining becomes a deep kind of protest" -- you've certainly mastered it. "The same folks that over-simply Iraq" -- as you yourself "over-simply" your characterizations of those who don't share your ideology ("read: lefties"). "It's all about the oil" It certainly wasn't about WMDs or bringing the benefits of democracy to Iraqis. Of course it was about U.S. strategic interests in the region, as laid out in the PNAC document, but indirectly that was about oil; to a significant degree it was about keeping China from gaining control of Iraq's supply. "hidden agendas" and "the CIA set up 911" to "Jews run the world" -- which are all right-wing motifs, even when foolishly taken up by naive lefties; see e.g., http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/conspiracism-911.html -- "leftie" Chip Berlet's analysis is deep and sophisticated; don't let your head explode. It's funny how you went from criticism of Michael Moore to anti-semitism gaining respectibility -- did you even notice? Such a traverse is the stock and trade of an ideological crank.

reply

Amen to that, well put.

reply

What is pathetic is the way that you have to tear someone down rather than just say something positive about this film. FWIW, "idiot" Michael Moore is far more intelligent than you are.

reply

Indeed... Nonetheless, it needs a Criterion release.

reply

I loved Sorrow and the Pity, but as soon as I started to watch the Ophuls interview included on the DVD I conceived a strong dislike for the man, and switched off. I think one of the great things about the film is the relative lack of intrusion from Ophuls: it's just a really compelling, well-assembled set of interviews, which to me is the ideal of what a documentary should be. The four or five hours flew by.

Conversely, I only made it 90 minutes into Shoah, mainly because I found Claude Lanzmann to be one of the most loathsome and incompetent interviewers I've ever seen, constantly intruding upon (and thus ruining) every potentially interesting interview with his combative, self-righteous manner, and his tendency to simply repeat what the interviewee just said as a question, rather than actually finding anything interesting to ask. He just mooches around, smoking at his subjects, trying to look intellectual. And the 'artistic' pretensions of the film were equally offensive - interminable, empty shots of train lines and fields and rivers. Perhaps it's impossible to say anything about the Holocaust that isn't essentially banal, and Shoah certainly reinforces that impression.

My point being that, though Ophuls may be a world-class *beep* he did at least have the decency to leave himself (more or less) out of the picture. I remember some interviews in Sorrow with ex-collaborators, or actual Nazis, in which the subjects were mostly given space in which to tell their stories. Perhaps Shoah improves as you get into it (in which case it needs some serious editing), but the impression I got from what I saw was that Lanzmann was far more interested in showing how non-anti-semitic he was than in committing revealing, valuable testimonies to celluloid.

reply

I thought you were being Super-Meta with your post!

Like, your post was pathetic because instead of just asking a question like an adult, you were being pathetic by using said question to let everyone know about what you think of Michael Moore (which is wrong, of course - MM is many things, but an idiot is not among those things), and that the title of your post was alerting all who read it that YOU are pathetic for such a sad, weak effort!

reply