Skip to main content

View Diary: Michael Moore Speaks Out on Zero Dark Thirty (85 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not arguing either side, actually. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, Chi

    I have encountered Moore's defense but have not seen the film, so going into Moore's specific arguments would be premature (though some sounded more of a stretch than should be merited in even the most generous of circumstances).

    My point is that you have embraced the Moore review as the authoritative one and are asking us to do so, based on his other progressive credentials.  That is a fallacy.  His other views have absolutely no bearing on this particular point.  Judge on his arguments here, sure, but don't expect him to get a free pass for being progressive on other occasions.  He can be wrong.  He's not infallible.  Neither am I.  Take this as you will.

    •  I don't "embrace" his view (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama, mumtaznepal

      I saw the film two days after the initial press screenings, and was stunned by the brilliance of this film both as cinematic art but also as a strong destruction of the idea that torture is either effective or moral. I am not saying go with his opinion because he is an authority. I am asking people to read his opinions and take them for what they're worth.

      Too many people here have decided not to see this great film because of the incredibly misguided attempts to misrepresent what it is. From the start, all I've suggested is that people see it for themselves and make up their own minds. Unfortunately, too many people have bought into what has become, in its extremes, a smear campaign that would be more appropriate for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh when it comes to reacting to a movie.

      •  So your opinion is (6+ / 0-)

        sincere, whereas people who have a different reaction are misrepresenting it?

        Might it be possible that people like me -- who believe it's soft on torture and generally pro-war -- sincerely feel that way?

        •  Where did I say that? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Sorry, but I am as anti-torture as you are (and I respect your efforts on the subject).

          I don't question your sincerity. I question your take on the film, which I find profoundly inaccurate and misguided.

          Those who oppose torture should be grateful, as I am, for taking a subject which unfortunately has been swept under the rug, despite heroic efforts by many to hold people responsible, and reopening it to public view. And in doing so, showing how brutal it is and ultimately how ineffective it is - which is exactly what Zero Dark 30 does.

          •  You just said it-- (4+ / 0-)
            people here have decided not to see this great film because of the incredibly misguided attempts to misrepresent what it is.
            You're saying people are trying to give a false impression about the film; we're just interpreting differently.
            •  We're getting into semantics (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              david mizner, mumtaznepal, viral

              But can we agree on this - no one should take either you or me as the final word on the film, but rather should be encouraged to see it for themselves to make up their minds?

              I am very interested in hearing your response to this.

              Hardly anyone who has attacked the film has encouraged people to see it - the tone, and often the specific suggestion, has been to not see it (don't know if this includes you).

              So - do you agree with me that people should see it and make up their own minds?

              •  Sure--I encourage everyone (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joanneleon, Meteor Blades, Chi

                to see it and make up his-her own mind; that's always preferable to relying on the opinions of others. (Incidentally, I had a video of it - my wife is in the WGA -- so I didn't have to give them money!)

                I will say, as well, that I don't agree with all the criticism of the movie; I don't agree, for example, that it casts President Obama -- he's shown on TV condemning torture, the single dissenting voice in the film -- in a negative light. I think some things in the film are at least more ambiguous than some of the detractors argue. That said, I think -- well, you know what I think.

                •  Thank you for your reply (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  david mizner, mumtaznepal

                  and your joining me in encouraging people to see this and make up their own minds.

                  That separates you from unfortunately many who have encouraged a boycott or not voting for awards or other anti-intellectual responses.

                •  Obama is not the only dissenting voice on torture (0+ / 0-)

                  in the film.  The CIA agent who did the first 30 film minutes of torture is, too.

                  "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

                  by mumtaznepal on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 02:34:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site