MovieChat Forums > This Divided State (2005) Discussion > Fair and balanced

Fair and balanced

posted 18 years ago by Verdoux-1
9 replies | jump to latest

I might have my leftie glasses on, but this documentary was really well balanced. No matter what the person’s opinions were, they got to say it and there were no clever editing tricks to distract or distort their message.

The ignorance and hypocrisy that some people showed in this film was just astounding. Usually when somebody started their sentence with "I heard" (I heard he was anti-American), you knew the next thing coming out of their mouth was going to be pure bull$hit.

--
"An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind"

[–] invent 18 years ago

Thanks for at least admitting that you have your "leftie glasses on". When you state a belief that this video documentary is somehow fair and balanced though, you are displaying a strong propensity for self-delusion.

This mockumentary is a showcase piece for unbalanced filmmaking. Greenstreet focuses on a couple of extremists in order to paint an entire community and religion as being extreme. This is such a farce, and it's very disturbing that others are so willing to buy into this. Greenstreet is simply a disaffected Mormon who is trying to exploit Moore's visit for personal gain. Sad, isn't it?

[–] steve-oh-2 18 years ago

Couldn't agree with you more. Greenstreet would love to have you believe he's unbiased. However, every day during production he was wearing shirts that say "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam" or "Somewhere in Texas a village is missing it's idiot". Sound like he's in the right mindset to make an uncharged documentary? Methinks not. Don't even get me started on his piece of sh** pickup truck, which had more Kerry/Edwards, anti-Bush bumper stickers to make the Kerry campaign proud. Or emberassed, Theresa Heinz's haircuts probably cost more than that beater!

[–] tim-lawry 17 years ago

I live in New Zealand. I watched the film and liked it. The fact that the film has travelled to the far reaches of the globe and is being watched and talked about is a huge achievment in itself and something the film-makers should be proud of.

True balance is impossible to achieve in documentary film-making as stated by the crazed professor early on. The fact that so many hours of footage must be cut and crafted to make a story means that there will always be certain aspects of an event left out. However, I feel that even if you played unedited cut of the lecture headed by the conservative guest speaker the viewer could see that the speaker and majority of the audience were a narrow minded modern day lynch mob. With no interest in seeing a balanced argument take place.

[–] UBSTUDIOS 17 years ago

Amen,

No matter how you look at it, its like the one guy said, nothing can be objective.
This documentary does do a good deal of showing the sides, but in the end, it is intended for an audience that will watch the entire movie.

I don't tend to belive everything I see, but seeing this film and being a resident of Utah only confirms that conservatives have big heads and they think they are gods greatest gift to the world, especially dopes like Hannity. I never really liked him before, but after viewing This Divided State, I must say, the guy is an a$$hole. Did you see what he did to that poor guy who was in the minority "liberal" aspect of the audience. I feel sorry for that guy. And he says he is tolerant of others, thats pure bs.

Its great that this film has made it all the way to New Zealand. I'd love to live there, anywhere but Utah.

[–] ban_nis_ter 17 years ago

I'm also in New Zealand and thought this film was reasonably well ballanced. In fact, I thought Michael Moore came off as a rather lame-arse in this film and at times I thought it was subtly pushing the conservative view point. Ultimately I thought the extremists from both sides came across as complete tossers.

[–] MakerooM 17 years ago

For me, I loved the movie. Although both sides were immature I felt that free speech is a right and not a privlige. I am not American so I cannot say I can feel the exact same emotions as the people in the film, but when the speaker from Togo read about his own country I felt like some of the anti-Moore's were really taking their rights for granted.
But mostly I was shocked by the "Cleanflix". I wonder how they cut this film?

artful speech is rarely accompanied by virtue

[–] dr_spider_man 17 years ago

Im from Australia (we're New Zealands cousins). Yes, as several people have said nothing is objective. I think all the right winged people came off alot better in the extra uncut footage. I understand for time and entertainment reasons not everything can be shown in the film. It was good the films makers included it in the extra footage. What really struck me was all the hate. Why do people spend time and money on things they hates? If Kay Anderson i just spend the same amost of time and passion converting people to LDS he wouldnt have this problem ')n Utah would be 100% LDS.

Cleanflix is just disturbing!

[–] freyw 17 years ago

"I thought Michael Moore came off as a rather lame-arse in this film"

I agree. I'm a fan of his movies, but he struck me as a classic demogogue in this one. For the first time, I could really understand why some people have such a negative reaction.

Although I still thought he came off better than Sean Hannity. Sweet Jesus, what a prick!

[–] stormlord-2 16 years ago

I think that the film was fairly well balanced. Both sides were given equal screen time and while the film may hava had a slight slant to the left it wasn't overly obvious. I agree that Moors speech was a bit of an anti climax after the build up, but it was far bettet than watching that snake oil salesman Hannity's little show. That guy makes my skin crawl.