Reply #105: He's a film maker!

[AlbertCat]

Not a historian or even a journalist. He has to make a film. He must do what he thinks best to make the film sellable. I don't believe this entails deceit or lies. It does involve some manipulation. All films do. Cutting from one image to another can be a very malleable thing....depending on which images are chosen (That's called editing) and it is part and parcel of making a film. Every time one edits or even frames a shot to include or exclude some detail, you have manipulation. It's not a bad thing and is essential to film making.

This is what most people complain about with a Moore documentary.

They can get over it.

It's Michael's film and he will make it is own. What? Did you expect G. Gordon Liddy's POV?

I go to a Michael Moore film expecting a Michael Moore film. I know he will set some things up to get an unsurprising and expected result. But there are always some great illuminating stuff and some good film making. Like in "Fahrenheit 9-11" not showing the attack on the WWT, but just letting you hear it. Very good! Your mind took you there without the help of visuals. And the eggs thrown at Bush's motorcade was a new and striking image. Moore's good at his job.