Hi All! Some of the things we have been discussing in class (and in your papers) over the past few weeks are the themes in Orwell’s 1984 and Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. These ideas range from loneliness and isolation, to social class disparities, racism, and the abuse of power by the government. From your comments and reactions to the movie in class, it seems like most of you have enjoyed watching Michael Moore’s Bowling For Columbine, but I need you to actually think about how this is also an influential piece of propaganda? In what ways do you think Moore manipulates his audiences, for what purposes, and how does he try to impose his beliefs on us? While Moore has many reasons to be critical of our government (read the following article for parallels on the Bush Administration and 1984: http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-07-28/opinion/17553233_1_bush-s-war-permanent-war-bush-administration ), be sure to think about how important it is for you to continue to READ and THINK independently about the sources of your information, the reasons for your opinions, and why you think and feel the way you do. For example, Moore is extremely critical of mass media, but yet he fails to provide us with an accurate or unbiased account of the 6 year old that was shot in Flint, Michigan? Go to the following website and read the article titled “Murder in the First Grade” for CBS’ 60 Minutes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/03/07/60II/main168970.shtml
What do you learn about the six year old boy, his family, and how he has been raised? Why do you think Moore leaves this important information out of his documentary?
It’s also important for you to consider the main themes of Fahrenheit 451 and the importance of independent thought, intellectual freedom, and what can happen in a dystopian society when people don’t think for themselves. In terms of being manipulated physiologically by the media…Do you find it at all ironic that Moore titles his other controversial documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 (The Temperature at Which Freedom Burns)? Not only does Moore allude directly to Bradbury’s novel, BUT he presents a dystopian view of the future of the United States. What does this future look like according to Moore?
See the Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer on youtube.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zf2nCiBJLo&feature=PlayList&p=295084007B73A680&index=0
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
appples, pears, cu-cum-berssss
ReplyDeleteI find it very ironic that that Moore does this. He first informs us about the media and how they control us, but then is the complete opposite in Fahrenheit 9/11. I can't watch the Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer because the school blocked it.
ReplyDeleteMoore leaves key details out of his video to make his point of view seem unbiased. If he were to put that he was from the same town, it may have become apparent that he was focused on that town just because it's his home. Also, if he had paid more attention to the fact that the little boy's parents were drug deaelers, it would have taken away from the anger towards K-mart, and other ammo shops, that he was trying to transfer to the viewer. If he had added that extra detail, it would take the attention off the personal choice to kill, but instead, would blame the parents drug habits for the kids, mental state. He wanted the criminals to come off as independently fueled, not as if a community commited a crime.
ReplyDeleteI feel that in order to get his point across he needs to leave out the other side of the issue. This is to make his point stronger and not allow you to thing anything else. He focused on the K Mart issue to help make a national point not just a one town thing.
ReplyDeletegreat movie.... untill the end...
ReplyDeleteMichael Moore's documentary is seen as a piece of propaganda because he only shows the government in a bad light. For example, he portrays the shooting of a 6 year old as the government's fault. Moore doesn't expose the fact that his parents were running a crack house, this could have contributed to the 6 year old's urge to shoot his classmate.
ReplyDeleteI believe in order for Moore to get his point across he had to learn certain details out. Otherwise his position on the subject may have become unclear and his message to the viewers would have been lost. His message was that the gun control in the US was not as good as it should be and people in the US are inherently problematic. Including details such as the boys history and the state of mind of the Columbine shooters would have taken away the meaning of the documentary.
ReplyDeleteOverall, i think that legalized weapons should not be taken advanage of. Weapons are extremley dangerous. Moore was only paying attention to his home town that was convicted of many killings. I realized that the parents of the young boy were cocaine addicts. That may result in owning many weapons.
ReplyDeleteI think Micheal Moore tries to leave out the fact that the 6-year old boy's parents were crack dealers, because he wants the public to think that the government is at fault.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the documentary, I believe the U.S. government should either abolish the second amendment or drastically alter it. I think that people have taken advantage of it and that times have changed since it was created. I think people have tkaen advantage of it because of their fear and because the media only gives out the violent stories that happened that day. The media definitley plays mind games with people because they see the news and think that all that has happened that day is violence. They could change the second amendment by increasing the age you can own a gun, but I don't know if that will actually help. I know it is alot to ask, but change is needed. Guns shouldn't be owned by random citizens or people who have them for "protection."
ReplyDeleteI think he leaves this info out because he is media so he uses propoganda too. abd iif thast doesnt answer the question, I say that it is very hypocritical and ironic that he talks so badly about what the media does, yet he does the same thing
ReplyDeleteI think that Micheal Moore left out key details about the 6 year old boy, specifically the fact that it was his same hometown because people would believe it was a biased film. If we continued to live in a society where 6 year olds can take their anger out with firearms, people would not be able to leave their homes safley.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Moore tried imposing anger at wepaons and ammo nearby to civilians. I agree with Christine's take on it. Not mentioning the boy's upbringing helps to "aim" the audience against ammo stores, gun laws etc. However, leaving in the facts and putting them differntly so they could fit. This can be done by putting it in the wgole fear segment. Similar to "Africanized" Killer Bees and the media's selective covering, they're African American. They could fall into other sterotypes. I wonder if the boy can be changed? Watching the trailer will have to come afterwards.
ReplyDeleteI think that Moore left of details about the boy, for they did not help to support the idea that he was trying to get across in his documentry. He was trying to figure out why the United States has so many more more murders than other countries and why we have such a violent history as a country. I think that giving the full details about the situation would not help this point. For it is an answer that does not follow the point he was making. He made it seem like the mother was doing everything that she couold for her child, and it was the governments fault that she got evicted from her house. When really, she brought her child to live in a crack house and did drugs herself. This is not good background information that Moore wuold have wanted to show in his video.
ReplyDeletei think that michael moore intentionally covered up the boy's past and his home life because it would create more sympathy for the girl that got shot. By creating an image for this young boy that the gun was just laying around his house and he picked it up and shot a girl made his movie that much more convincing. However, the background article gives insight into the boys life and the fact that he probably just thought it was a toy because he was brought up in an environment in which toys and guns were relatively comprable items. This movie was absolutely a piece of propaganda trying to convince people that our nation is simply bad and the government does not do its job well. he fails to realize that there are many factors playing into a shooting and the basic facts do not always show the entire story.
ReplyDeleteI think it is hypocritical of Moore to be so critical of the mass media and how they control us, yet he doesn't give us the whole story. He shows his bias by not giving us any information on the 6 year old in Michigan except for the fact that he shot and killed another child. This is not only hypocritical, but manipulative as well.
ReplyDeleteI think its ironic how the father of the 6 year old boy who shot and killed his 6 year old classmate, was in jail. He had possesion of drugs and was born into a family of violence. Hhe went to live with his uncle who had a gun so role models definitely had an impact on the young killer. Also a point of racism can come up because the boy was black. Moore brings up in the film how ethnicity is a concern for many Americans that leads to violence
ReplyDeleteMoore influences his audience by only showing one side of the argument, in order to make them agree with his views. For example, when talking about the mother of the 6 year-old boy who shot his classmate, he depicts her as a poor woman who was thrown out of her house for not being able to pay rent. But in reality, there may also have been drug dealings going on in her house, which Moore doesn't say in the film.
ReplyDelete