| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/02/2004 : 13:05:25
Ray Bradbury: "Michael Moore is an asshole"
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2004/06/02.html#a5394
Michael Moore stole the title to his fictuous documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" from author Ray Bradbury (picture), who in 1953 wrote his dystopic scifi classic "Fahrenheit 451." So what does Ray Bradbury, now 84 years old, think about Moore using his book title for his Bush-bashing movie project?
The answer is, as journalists in the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter found out when they called the author, that he is mighty pissed off. Here's my translation of the juicier bits of the interview.:
"Michael Moore is a screwed asshole, that is what I think about that case. He stole my title and changed the numbers without ever asking me for permission.
Have you spoken to him?
- He is a horrible human being. Horrible human!
That Ray Bradbury thought Moore could take his Palme d'Or from Cannes and stuff it was extremely clear, even if he never expressed himself with those words, when DN reached the author in his home in Los Angeles. [...]
Do you disagree with his opinions...
-That has nothing to do with it. He copied my title, that is what happened. That has nothing to do with my political opinions.
Bradbury said that he had tried to discuss the issue with Moore, but that the director avoided him.
- I called his publisher. They promised he would call me the same afternoon, but he didn't.
When was that?
- A few months ago, when his plans about the movie was first made known.
The conversation touched politics when Bradbury mentioned that Moore had ruined general Wesley Clark's chances to become the democrat's presidential candidate. Like several American commentators Bradbury means that Moore's support to Clark was a kiss of death when Clark did not distance himself from Moore's claim that Bush deserted from his military service.
- He slandered the president to general Clark, and Clark allowed him to do it. Clark should have said: "Don't say that. It is not true." That day Clark lost his chance to become president.
I understand. And you supported general Clark?
- No. I support honesty.
According to Bradbury others have asked him about Moore's use of his title, but "I don't want to make a big story out of it."
- I detest all paparazzi journalism that is so common these days. If I just could make him change his title silently, that would be the best thing.
Do you think that is possible, I mean the movie is very famous under that title now?
- Who cares? Nobody will see his movie, it is almost dead already. Nevermind, nobody cares.
But it won the Palme d'Or in Cannes?
- So what? I have won prizes in different places and they are mostly meaningless. The people there hate us, which is why they gave him the d'Or. It's a meaningless prize.
Ray Bradbury was very clear that he considered Moore a dishonest thief, but refused to answer if he would press charges in any way.
|
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| noexx |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 17:17:11
i don't claim to be perfect. my parents are republican though....and i like them a lot. and they are mad with their money....just a little something i learned living with them.
|
| TheCroutonFuton |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 17:14:05
i saw the movie last night...i see why republicans are so mad now. oh wait, they are always mad...mad with money.
i see...republican by chance?
....And sorry, but if you didn't notice the whole Islamic religion thing was a metaphor...
"Freedom is a state of mind and the condition and position of your ass. Free your mind and your ass will follow." - Funkadelic |
| noexx |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 17:12:26
yes i condemned them all..... |
| TheCroutonFuton |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 17:04:58
Right. But it is a flat-out parody of Bradbury's novel. I think he does need a courtesey phone-call since Michael Moore said he would.
Oh, and keep on stereo-typing, it's really good for you. Have you ever noticed that it's only the FAR left or FAR right people who are so crazy? Most people are in the middle. Your stereotyping of republicans is like condemning all of the Islamic religions just because of extremists like Bin Laden, etc. etc. Politics are dumb. I don't consider myself either republican or democratic.
Also, I read that article, Erebus. Very enlightening.
"Freedom is a state of mind and the condition and position of your ass. Free your mind and your ass will follow." - Funkadelic |
| noexx |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 16:56:56
do you really think michael moore is more loathsome than george w. bush and/or a lot of the u.s. government?
as far as i know there is no evidence to show that michael moore has ever had any nation bombed, any person living harmed physically or have a working relationship with the middle east.
if all of that is integrity then i will stand by the great g.w. bush and vote for him. but, to me none of that seems ethical or intellectual.
michael moore made a 2 hour movie that did not physically harm anyone involved. over 80% of the film is actually footage from other sources than his own. none of it was digitally altered and no voices were dubbed in. so when you see george bush shaking hands with the bin laden family or you see and hear george bush being the great public speaker he is and you see him declare war on the innocent people in iraq that is 100% true. so who are we to loathe? the person bringing this stuff to light or the person doing the un-ethical things in the film?
i dunno...i don't usually get political...
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 16:48:21
No. Libertarian, but I refuse to vote. Just someone who thinks people ought to at least take a stab at faking virtue. |
| noexx |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 16:43:59
i see...republican by chance? |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 16:40:01
That ANYBODY could feel anything positive about the work and existence of such a loathsome worm of a being who is so utterly devoid of ethical and intellectual integrity calls into question the sanity of the entire species. No, I'm not upset. |
| noexx |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 16:34:49
erebus sounds upset....well, with other people's words though.
as i have said before....there is no copyright on the word 'farenheit'. use it at will.
shouldn't the relatives of the person who came up with the word 'farenheit' for measuring temperatures get angry with bradbury for using it in his books title? no...
bradbury did not invent the word and therefore does not need an apology or even a courtesey phone call.
i saw the movie last night...i see why republicans are so mad now. oh wait, they are always mad...mad with money. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 16:02:16
If you really care to read about what a beast Moore is, you will read this Christopher Hitchens slate.com commentary in its entirety. Here are excerpts:
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens; June 21, 2004
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
[snip] With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
[snip] We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic.
[snip] But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.
[snip] Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:
“The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …”
And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.
If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 09:13:02
Saturday, June 19, 2004
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2004/06/should-ray-bradbury-be-mad-at-michael.html
[excerpt]
The Straits Times reports:
"Bradbury, who hadn't seen the movie, said he called Moore's company six months ago to protest and was promised Moore would call back.
"He finally got that call last Saturday, Bradbury said, adding Moore told him he was "embarrassed."
"Joanne Doroshow, a spokesman for Fahrenheit 9/11, said the film's makers have the "utmost respect for Ray Bradbury.""
Six months to return a phone call to a person you have the utmost respect for? All I can say is it's too bad an indie film crew wasn't following Bradbury around all that time while he was trying to get in touch with Moore. It might have made a funny documentary that could have been called "Michael and Me."
But to answer my own question, Ray Bradbury should be mad, and not just about the long wait time for the phone call. Moore's title will pop into people's heads when they see Bradbury's title. And Moore's documentary is very strong stuff, designed to elate Bush-haters and be completely unwatchable for people who aren't already quite opposed to Bush. From what I've heard from my son, who saw the film the other day in New York, the film is a disjointed montage of clips that doesn't even make an attempt at providing coherent information. It is just: images to hate Bush by. Why should Bradbury want his great classic book linked to that? If "utmost respect" were really felt for Bradbury, his title would not have been used without his permission.
I'd like to hear Moore or Moore's spokesperson attempt to say something credible about why the claim of "utmost respect" isn't a blatant lie. And I'd like an obnoxious interviewer to hold a microphone in his face and ask the question, then follow him around re-asking the question, and film the whole set of encounters, and edit the film into a montage that makes Moore look as bad as possible, then spend as much time as possible trying to get Moore to watch that film and film those efforts to reach Moore. If you don't end up with enough material for the film "Michael and Me," just edit in various news clips that will make it seem like he's responsible for ... Oh, I can't even write it. It's all too mean and unfair to make a movie Michael Moore-style. [end excerpt]
|
| VoVat |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 19:33:47
What about from Frank for making The Cult of Ray without permission? Never mind that it's positive!
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| BLT |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 19:12:15
quote:
Originally posted by floop
Bradbury is just embarassing himself. next thing you know he's going to be asking for an apology for every book or movie that has the word "martian" in it.
Ray should demand an apology from Elvis Costello and Drew Carey for wearing coke-bottle glasses without his permission. |
| floop |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 17:58:35
Bradbury is just embarassing himself. next thing you know he's going to be asking for an apology for every book or movie that has the word "martian" in it. |
| BLT |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 17:44:13
The saga continues...
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040619/D83AAMI80.html |
| IceCream |
Posted - 06/11/2004 : 22:38:40
And also: Bradbuy's 84? He doesn't look a day past 81... |
| IceCream |
Posted - 06/11/2004 : 22:33:59
Blackpurse, interesting point. I know that about 95% of people are going to think Bradbury when they hear that title, and therefore it seems as though Moore's cashing in on Bradbury's hard work-induced title. It wouldn't kill Moore to show some respect.
But George Bush being parodied on SNL...I don't know; is that a different story? |
| blackpurse |
Posted - 06/07/2004 : 05:20:42
quote:
Originally posted by IceCream
I totally agree with Bradbury here and think that Michael Moore is a horrible human for parody-ing a title without asking for permission.
Uh, when did you ever have to ASK the target or source of parody or satire for permission? It will be a sad day if/when that becomes law. (Could you see George Bush actually consenting to be parodied on SNL?) Actually, it will be very Orwellian (or even Bradbury-esque) a day at that. Now THAT's irony, Alanis.
Reference, satire and parody are exempt from US (and most foreign) copyright/trademark laws, for jsut this reason. If this ever came to court, Moore could (probably successfully) argue that his title was meant to evoke "Farenheit 451" and give his film the underlying chilling effect. I like both artists; I think Bradbury's being a pill here.
"Sacred cows make the best burgers!" |
| jimmy |
Posted - 06/06/2004 : 20:52:03
I'm just a poor druggie who works in a factory-I get sick when I hear Michael Moore say he's a represenative for "working people". His big problem isn't just that he distorts the truth, it's that his ideas are all wrong. He makes a big deal out out of downsizing and companies moving jobs overseas. If my company wanted to fire me and give my job to a 12 year old in Mexico that's their right and I'd support them all the way. He's just another person who claims that people have a "right" to a job. Aside from being completely wrong about everything he is complete white trash and proud of it. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 06/05/2004 : 23:25:32
I think Adnan summed it up pretty well, personally.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| IceCream |
Posted - 06/05/2004 : 19:19:38
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
For what it's worth, I don't think Moore parodying Bradbury's title is a big deal, but if it's true that he said he'd consult with Bradbury about it and then didn't, that's pretty jerky.
Thanks for mentioning that, VoVat. I'm glad someone agrees that it IS jerky.
"Raving Lunatic"? More like "Awesome human being who meritoriously and appropriately refuses to tolerate the disrespect", if you ask me. |
| Adnan_le_Terrible |
Posted - 06/05/2004 : 17:53:52
Michael Moore: what he is trying to say (too many firearms, information manipulation etc) is OK, but the way he tries to "prove" it sucks.
Ray Bradbury : what he is trying to say (Michael Moore is an asshole) is OK, but when he tries to prove it ("he stole my title"), it sucks.
And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 06/05/2004 : 16:34:39
Camus can do, but Sartre is smartre!
For what it's worth, I don't think Moore parodying Bradbury's title is a big deal, but if it's true that he said he'd consult with Bradbury about it and then didn't, that's pretty jerky.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| Bartholomew |
Posted - 06/05/2004 : 11:18:30
I admire Michael Moore's spirit and his balls (you oughta see em, they're big and really really hairy). As a working stiff sort of dude I appreciate his Roger and Me movie and the next one after that. But I think since then his head has swelled a bit and anymore his agenda seems to be stirring the shit for no particular reason other than he enjoys to stir. Maybe he should get a job as a baker. Or a concrete mixer. |
| Newo |
Posted - 06/05/2004 : 08:01:40
To get back offtopic, my favourite French writer is Rabelais, I think we still have a lot to learn from him.
-Owen |
| The King Of Karaoke |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 23:46:08
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Rep. Kennedy pans Michael Moore film editing
Kevin Diaz
Bureau Correspondent
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Published June 4, 2004
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Mark Kennedy has unhappy memories of his filmed encounter with leftist moviemaker Michael Moore, an encounter featured Thursday in a trailer for the upcoming U.S. release of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"I was walking back to my office after casting a vote, and all of a sudden some oversized guy puts a mike in my face and a camera in my face," said the Minnesota Republican. "He starts asking if I can help him recruit more people from families of members of Congress to participate in the war on terror."
Kennedy said he told Moore that he has two nephews in the military, one who has just been deployed in the Army National Guard.
But to Kennedy's annoyance, his response to Moore was cut from the trailer (and from the film, according to a spokeswoman for the movie).
"The interesting thing is that they used my image, but not my words," Kennedy said. "It's representative of the fact that Michael Moore doesn't always give the whole story, and he's a master of the misleading."
A spokeswoman for the film, which has found a U.S. distributor after the Walt Disney Co. refused to release it, said she had no comment.
A transcript released by the film's producers shows Moore telling Kennedy that "there is only one member [of Congress] who has a kid over there in Iraq." He asks Kennedy to help him pass out literature encouraging others "to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."
Kennedy replies, "I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war. [As Kennedy did.] I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan."
To which Moore replies: "I appreciate it."
Exactly what I dislike about the guy. I mean, if you have some enlightening news to lay on us feel free, but if you have to use cheeseball tactics to make people look bad, please spare us. Most of the people that see his films, or read his books are intelligent enough to see through his methods and get turned off.
I'll still see the movie though.
------------------------------------
Confucious say - The philosophy of one century is the common sense of the next.
He also say my lucky numbers are: 16 27 36 23 11
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
|
| TheCroutonFuton |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 22:34:05
I forget what IQ you have to have to be considered a "techinical genius"....Must...Find....Hmm..I can't find it anywhere. I know for a fact that a person with an IQ of over 130 is considered "Gifted". (I guess the gifted program taught me something, after all..hmm...no, guess not.) Stupid Mensa...
"Freedom is a state of mind and the condition and position of your ass. Free your mind and your ass will follow." - Funkadelic |
| Adnan_le_Terrible |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 22:17:52
You cannot deny a guy like Bobby Fischer was a genius : one of the best (perhaps THE best) chess players ever, an IQ over 180. Yet he continously makes antisemitic declarations (although he is Jewish). Nash, who developped the game theory (after Morgenstern and von Neuman); was a true genius yet suffered from severe schizophrenia. Heidegger supported the Nazis. I thonk you can excel in something and be a total idiot in something else.
I keep feeling like people are just looking at screens and web sites all the time, but do they ever do anything? Or go out and say anything to anyone? I'm not so sure anymore. |
| TheCroutonFuton |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 21:18:59
Hmm...about Celine being a "genius"...I think that anyone that's racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. isn't too smart. If they were the geniuses we consider them they'd be smart enough to figure out that their views of the world only hurt other people and do it no good. I don't know, that's just my view on it. They can be bright and clever, but not a genius. You can maybe say that he had a streak of brilliance, genius even, for the writing of Journey to the End of the Earth...but to call him a genius just because of that..hmm..I dunno, I don't know enough about him to really come to a conclusion. Nevermind.
"Freedom is a state of mind and the condition and position of your ass. Free your mind and your ass will follow." - Funkadelic |
| IceCream |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 20:58:41
I totally agree with Bradbury here and think that Michael Moore is a horrible human for parody-ing a title without asking for permission. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 16:43:45
Rep. Kennedy pans Michael Moore film editing
Kevin Diaz
Bureau Correspondent
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Published June 4, 2004
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Mark Kennedy has unhappy memories of his filmed encounter with leftist moviemaker Michael Moore, an encounter featured Thursday in a trailer for the upcoming U.S. release of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"I was walking back to my office after casting a vote, and all of a sudden some oversized guy puts a mike in my face and a camera in my face," said the Minnesota Republican. "He starts asking if I can help him recruit more people from families of members of Congress to participate in the war on terror."
Kennedy said he told Moore that he has two nephews in the military, one who has just been deployed in the Army National Guard.
But to Kennedy's annoyance, his response to Moore was cut from the trailer (and from the film, according to a spokeswoman for the movie).
"The interesting thing is that they used my image, but not my words," Kennedy said. "It's representative of the fact that Michael Moore doesn't always give the whole story, and he's a master of the misleading."
A spokeswoman for the film, which has found a U.S. distributor after the Walt Disney Co. refused to release it, said she had no comment.
A transcript released by the film's producers shows Moore telling Kennedy that "there is only one member [of Congress] who has a kid over there in Iraq." He asks Kennedy to help him pass out literature encouraging others "to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."
Kennedy replies, "I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war. [As Kennedy did.] I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan."
To which Moore replies: "I appreciate it."
|
| floop |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 13:50:51
we can still be friends |
| Adnan_le_Terrible |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 13:39:31
everything else IN THE FRENCH LITTERATURE.
Pardon my English.
I keep feeling like people are just looking at screens and web sites all the time, but do they ever do anything? Or go out and say anything to anyone? I'm not so sure anymore. |
| floop |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 13:37:53
quote:
Originally posted by Adnan_le_Terrible
Floop, I've never said that Céline's JOURNEY is THE best book of the 20th century, you cannot say something like that as it is impossible to compare Céline to Kafka etc, they have their own worlds...but he certainly isn't a minor writer, I really consider him as a genius, his work paved the way for many other authors.
when you said this, it made it sound like you were saying that:
"In French litterature, there are clearly two novels that can be pointed out as higly above evrything else in the 20th century :
- Journey to the end of the night (Céline)
- Remembrance of things past (Marcel Proust - I think this is the English translation of "A la recherche du temps perdu")."
|
| Adnan_le_Terrible |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 12:34:21
Impossible to answer that. Céline is one of my favorites, but I also like Proust (if you have enough time to read about 2 000 pages). Currently, Houellebecq is popular but I don't like him very much.
Lautréamont is also very good. And I do like Maupassant.
I keep feeling like people are just looking at screens and web sites all the time, but do they ever do anything? Or go out and say anything to anyone? I'm not so sure anymore. |
|
|
