Michael Moore's next movie will be a free download
Michael Moore will make his next movie available as a free download at the same time as it is in cinemas. I downloaded Sicko free and then paid to see it at the Cinerama Dome in LA again. Smart. (Let's just hope that Moore's smart enough to dodge DRM and other evil crap in the download).
I've been trying to get a review copy of his next book out of his publishers, but no luck. Guess I'll just have to buy it when it hits shelves here in London.
The film, "Slacker Uprising," follows Moore's 62-city tour during the 2004 election to rally young voters. It will be available for three weeks as a free download to North American residents, beginning Sept. 23. An official announcement of the film is planned for Friday.Michael Moore to release new film online for free (via The Long Tail)Moore said he considered releasing "Slacker Uprising" theatrically as "Michael Moore's big election year movie" as he did with 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11," which was highly critical of President Bush.
Instead, Moore opted for a symbol of gratitude to his fans as he approaches the 20th anniversary of his first film, 1989's "Roger & Me."
"I thought it'd be a nice way to celebrate my 20th year of doing this," Moore said. "And also help get out the vote for November. I've been thinking about what I want to do to help with the election this year."
the latest
latest episodes
once again only for NA residents .. nice ...
If Mike's next book is his guide to the election, then it's already out. I saw it in Books etc. on Victoria Street (SW1) yesterday.
Oh, Michael Moore...don't even get me started. What a joke.
A problem Micheal Moore got is the fact that he traveled too much so he started to talk about a reality/normality that seems fake/impossible/illogical for the average citizen...
The book's been out in the UK for a couple of weeks now. It was even the half-price offer of the week in branches of Waterstones last week.
It's an entertainingly brisk read, and seems to have been written right up to his very late publishing deadline.
Why give that liar any money at all?
>I downloaded Sicko free and then paid to see it at the Cinerama Dome in LA again.
I wonder if Michael Moore intended for the leak to happen. Either way, now he understands the Radiohead model of leaking your own work on your own terms rather than letting someone else leak it. Hopefully he does it right with a .torrent instead of Hulu.
does the internet really need more shit shoved down its tubes?
...and worth every penny.
Given that we have to fight American wars, I'd quite like a sixth of a vote, or something like that.
"It will be available for three weeks as a free download to North American residents"
Pretending you can remove content from the internet after 3 weeks IS digital rights management. So close and yet Moore misses the point entirely. Perhaps this caveat is a stipulation by his publisher, while Moore wanted to keep it completely free, but it's his own name on this product so he must bear the responsibility for the restrictions imposed on his work.
"It will be available for three weeks as a free download to North American residents"
Lovely. How "free". Just the same as the CW blocking non-Americans from watching teasers on their homepage. (Everybody needs a guilty pleasure. And youtube, probably.)
And with all the coverage I get in Germany about the North American elections I feel like I should be able to vote, too. Zapping through the news I now know more about Palins private life than about Merkels. Both of which I don't care. Please vote already.
Michael Moore is a joke and roughly the last person in the world I want to be speaking for any movement I am apart of. Even when I agree completely with his position, I can't help but be driven to nausea by his work. The guy is an out and out propagandist of the most extreme kind. His talents would be more useful of Stalin's USSR than for America's left.
His movies are a pile of contradiction that make no point. He deals almost entirely in innuendo. I recall walking out of Fahrenheit 9/11 feeling physically ill at having watched such blatant propaganda techniques being used. Nothing short of old World War II propaganda films even come close to the crap he puts out. The worst part was that when I asked my friends whom I went with what exactly his argument was, they blanked and babbled something about "the Saudi connection." To which I implied, "yeah? What is the Saudi connection?" to which they had no answer, but were pretty sure "something" was there.
If dealing almost entirely in innuendo wasn't enough, I just find his old school propaganda techniques to be nauseating. He loves image manipulation that has absolutely nothing to do with his actual subject. Slow motion of bad guys, increased graininess, people picking their nose... he will use pretty much any underhanded technique he can to vilify his subject. I don't mind vilifying people who are villains, but do it for something they have actually done, not using Soviet style propaganda techniques.
Michael Moore is crap and he hurts the liberal cause in America. We need truth, not Soviet style propagandist
Moore is fighting with what weapons are to hand and work. He is fighting against the right people. Every bit helps. I would sooner put energy into condemning the real criminals than beating on Moore.
#13- YOUR COUNTRY decides to send it's citizens to fight America's wars, not us. So maybe your vote would be better wasted on your own leaders, not ours...
Bah. You are not going to even bother arguing that his work isn't dishonest propagandist crap and just declare that the ends justify the means?
When movements become amoral about the "weapons" they use and believe that the ends justify the means, you produce nothing but corruption and dishonesty. I would think that the corrupt communist revolutions of the 20th century would have taught us a few lessons about the "ends justify the means" mode of thinking.
The ends are never fully achieved, and even when they are there is a constant battle to maintain them. Justifying the "anything to meet our objectives" mode of thinking leads to perpetual use of whatever vile means you can think of. It is like the "war on terror" declaring it is only going to strip away civil liberties until the war is done (which is never will be).
Michael Moore should be rejected from any cause that wants to maintain an ounce of credibility. Anyone with even an ounce of intellectual honesty should recoil in horror at the crap Moore puts out. If the only “weapons on hand” that Moore has is video manipulation and propaganda techniques devoid of even a scrap of intellectual honesty, maybe it is time for the movement to throw in the towel. Truth should be the weapon of choice, not the crap Moore is peddling.
"We need truth, not Soviet style propagandist"
You know what the problem was with Soviet-style propaganda? It was the only information available. You heard and saw the message of the propagandist and nobody else, so you believed every exaggerated or fabricated fact they arrested unquestioningly.
The bias wasn't the problem, it was a political system which killed anyone who expressed a different bias.
All media is biased, even the stuff that presents "both sides". Propaganda techniques are used universally. Fortunately, everyone is free to create their own propaganda with a different take on things. Moore is representing his own perspective and interpretation of politics, and by doing so is providing an important counter-balance to the perspectives of those in power
while I find Moore irritating oversimplifying at times, I see no real dishonesty in his message. Any who dismiss him as a liar are just working for the other side. Wittingly or not.
rgh, wht lbrl trsh BB s bcmng! Mr s ft gly jk hr n th S whs nly pnt s t crt trth chllngd "dcmntrs" tmd vry 4 yrs f S lctns.
Whl thr s sm lvl f trth r hlthy sspcn, t crtnly s nt fr nd blncd. Th ngl-lk Dmcrtc nd thr lbrl prts r frqntly t flt, crrpt r dshnst.
T b hnst, McCn\Pln r wht ths cntry nds. Bsh dd gd jb wth wht h hd (bn Ldn, 9/11, l crss, stpd ppl byng t bg f hs wth t smll f pychck\svngs) bt wldnt r-lct hm f Cnstttnlly pssbl. My pln wld b t swp thm ll t nd strt vr. N fnncl ts t crp r lbbysts -- jst dng wht th cnsttnts wnt nd fr wht s bst fr th cntry, ppl, r lls nd rth.
The great shame with Michael Moore is that his techniques are so cringeworthy, and his tone so preachy, that a discerning viewer soon disregards his message because of the way it's delivered. I watched Bowling For Columbine again the other night for the first time in ages, and I found myself getting quite irritated with it despite a few essentially sound messages to be found within.
@21 I agree, Takuan. Saying you agree with MM's goals but are vehement in opposition to all his methods is a sure sign of concern trolling. I would argue that Rindan is a conservative in troll's clothing unless proved otherwise.
Rindan, it's better to be honest like Politeamerican than to pretend liberal affiliation.
see? isn't "stuff" like #22 excuse enough for Moore's stylistic failings?
Go Mike!
(anyone else want to bring up the fat thing?)
@ #17 Tkn - y prphrs Krl Mrx wth th nds jstfy th mns. Hw s ths frwrd thnkng r ntllctl?
f ths s yr ln f thnkng, thn th S nd Brts shld hv jst dcmtd rq, Pkstn nd fghnstn wth scrchd rth plcy t rd th wrld f scm lk bn Ldn nd Sddm nd tk ll th l. Yh tht sms rght. gnr th wrld crtcs clmng gncd, nfrnss f spr pwr ntns vrtkng nthr cntry nd kllng ll f ts ppl. Rgrdlss f fr r gnst th S ctns n th Mddl st, th "nds D NT jstfy th mns". Mchl BS Mr shld ls b stppd hwvr w ls vl frdm f spch vn whn ttl prpgnd frm sclst dts.
we'll get around to you shortly
John Stewart and Moore are perfect to compare.
John Stewart is a great example of a "good" flag waver. The guy can sit down with someone he disagrees with, let him speaks his message, hold and intelligent conversation, and disagree in an open honest and intelligent manner. Further, he can turn it around and challenge people who share his beliefs when they are being dishonest. While he certainly isn’t even handed in who he picks on and therefore is "biased", he doesn't go out of his way to dishonestly manipulate in a desperate attempt to show them as being the bad guys. He doesn’t approach his beliefs with an “ends justify the means” approach. John Stewart brings people in and spreads a message.
I can e-mail a Stewart clip to a conservative friend to make a point. They might or might not agree, but they will at least hear it out. Mr's nly vl s jrkng ff fllw blvrs wh wll nd nd sml t nythng, n mttr hw bsrd, s lng s t prchs th rght blf. Shwng cnsrvtv frnd nythng by Mr s jst gng t cnfrm n thr hd tht m brnwshd dt sckrd n by th mst trnsprnt prpgndst tchnqs thy hv vr sn nd ttrly dvd f ny ntllctl vl.
No one is even disagreeing with me that the guy blatantly uses the most intellectual dishonest forms of propaganda, the only argument is over if the ends justify the means or not. There are far better people in the world to advocate than Moore.
fck mr.
goodbye, whoever
you are saying nothing new Rindan, rather, you seem to be degenerating into repetitive vitriol. Is this not true?
Prhps Rndn s btng hs\hr hd n th wll bcs y flks jst dn't gt t..... bt frtntly th mjrty f s d.
two does not make a majority - and neither does one.
Also, majorities aren't exactly bastions of solid judgment. Saying "Most people think like I do!" opens you up to the response that "most people" used to think (and sometimes still think) all kinds of stupid crap.
@#28
I disagree that Moore's movies are only valuable as propaganda or are entirely undermined by manipulative techniques.
For example, "Sicko" presented a great argument for a national healthcare system by showing how favorably folks in other developed countries view their own national health systems. Moore went along on house calls with a French doctor and spoke with Americans living in France about their enthusiasm for the French system. Moore illustrated what is clear from the statistics: national health systems serve people better and for less money than the US system.
I have studied international health care systems and taught them in social problems and other sociology courses. I was so impressed with the way Moore was able to really bring the facts to life that I showed my students parts of the film and they were floored. I did warn the students to ignore the sarcastic tone that Moore uses sometimes. However, the impact on the students of "Sicko" was far greater than my lectures or the information in the text.
Now, Rindan, you have not addressed the asserion that you a concern troll posing as a progressive to forward your own interests as a conservative. Perhaps your thoughts on "Sicko" would help clarify your intentions.
In general, I think Moore movies work well at getting people to discuss issues. They all have SOME facts in them that are good to present to the public, and they're all good for getting people to talk after the movie is over. I go into his movies not expecting a true "documentary", but to be entertained and given something to think about.
I suppose I fall into the "the ends justify the means" camp, but if somebody is out there making films that cause the average person to give a second thought to the government, big business, gun control, or health care, then I'm all for it.
drop the "ends justify the means" crap! That's some deliberate over-simplifying propaganda absolute shit that the dishonest have tried to inject into the discussion. Real life is complex and layered and comes in shades of grey as well as rainbow.
"Roger and Me" is one of my favorite films. Unfortunately, Moore's films became increasingly dishonest after that. He's an entertainer and a great marketer. He is to film what Jimmy Buffett is to music. He has a built-in audience that is loyal and ready to pay for his next release regardless of how good or bad it is.
is Jimmy Buffett evil?
I missed the transition in the conventional wisdom where Michael Moore became someone to spit on. Was it when the Democratic Party decided to turn on him to curry favor with the "center"?
It's clear reading this thread that everybody knows he's a lying liar; which is handy, so we don't have to go through the tedious process of identifying where he was dishonest.
Except I missed the meetings where all that tedious stuff was hashed out. Could someone give me the cliff notes?
I remember Michael Moore when he was publishing "The Flint Voice." He was always in a hassle with the town fathers and local boosters who harassed and attacked him because of his warnings that General Motors didn't really have the interests of Flint's citizens at heart. Imagine that: "GM is not really your friend." How radical a message is that? He warned that it was getting ready to bail out and head elsewhere, and all he got for his vigilance was invective and slander. Nobody is hated more by the patriots and pimps than the man or woman who in condemning and exposing the false gods they serve proves to be right. Michael's great crime is that he's always been right about whatever he takes on. And that is not forgiven by the running dogs of corporate capitalism.
Moore began as a satirist. He's a naturally funny guy who gradually got drawn in by what he was poking fun at. There came a time when chasing down the CEO of GMC to have a beer with him wasn't enough to satisfy his awakening journalist instincts, and he became willy-nilly an investigative reporter with a camera and a couple of million bucks from Warner Brothers' purchase of "Roger and Me" to fund a career. Since then he's won an Oscar, should have had another, and produced "Sicko," a damning (and highly entertaining) indictment of America's shameful health care system. Pretty good work for a guy who started out to get a few laughs.
The received wisdom of right-wing shills never fails to amaze me. The witless repetition of lies boggles the mind. "Al Gore says he invented the internet," is one. He never did. "Obama is some sort of Muslim," is another. He isn't. There are dozens; hell, there are hundreds! But the one I like best is one I hear most: "Michael Moore is a liar."
When? Where? What are the lies? Are they big lies, like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"? Come on, you big-mouthed bloviaters: What are they? Let's hear them now.
Or shut the fuck up.
Lionel @42
I must say I don't find your un-objective, un-documented opinion piece nearly as compelling or inspiring as Michael Moore's various efforts.
I guess that makes me one of the failed core audience types who is not interested in looking below the surface or considering alternative points of view.
LIONEL,
No lies to report?
Since your comment is civil, unlike the odious RINDAN's, we can converse in a civil manner.
The "Slacker" thing seems obvious. It's what writers used to call "cleaning out the desk." He's using footage from the 2004 presidential campaign that, except for a couple of counties in northern Ohio, would have been an interesting account of his successful organizing efforts to elect John Kerry. Too bad for him, and too bad for the country, that it failed. I don't plan to see it; the taste of that defeat is still too bitter. He's trying to recoup a couple bucks off of a piece that went bust.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with opinion pieces, but they are not factual reports.
So? Were you promised "Frontline"? Opinion is what Moore does; sometimes it's pointed or ironical or revealing or caustic or outrageous — and sometimes it's downright funny. And of course sometimes it flops. Nobody bats a thousand.
Neither Moore nor his core audience seem interested in looking below the surface...
You assume too much. I suppose I am a member of that audience, and I assure you that I do my homework. Who do you think he speaks to, an audience robots? Maybe there is such an audience of unthinking knee-jerk automatons on the left, similar to the one on the right I watched this week at the RNC in Minnesota, but I doubt it.
Michael Moore is a brash, impetuous, self-made phenomenon and impossible to classify. Besides, he's from Flint and that makes him my home boy.
I like Mike. You can call him many names but never a flip-flopper. Sarah Palin refused the building of the bridge only after she saw it was advantageous to her politically but she kept the MONEY! all $223 mil...[talk about more of the same...uuuggghhh!]
If you really desperately want me to defend myself as not being a non-heretic, I can clarify my political position. I am a radical leftist on social issues (sex laws, gay marriage, abortion, etc.), a civil libertarian (warrantless wiretaps are bad, surveillance on civil society is bad), a moderate leftist on foreign policy (Iraq was fucking dumb, but I can swallow kicking over the Taliban), pro-Lessig on copyright issues (have you ever seen this guy give a presentation? He is a god of presenting), and an agnostic on economic issues (eh, communism and absolute capitalism sound equally unpleasant. I know enough to know I don't know where to draw the line between them). Where that toss me in your narrow left/right spectrum of evil, well, you can decide on your own.
As far as Sicko goes, I skipped it. Bowling for Columbine had a moderately incoherent message. I would say that the message was "guns are evil" except that he goes on to refute it by pointing to Canada. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 with some hope of seeing something decent and was nauseated with what I saw. I am a pretty radical civil libertarian. Telling me that the "war on terror" and the PATRIOT act are the devils work is just preaching to the choir. I worry about cancer, heart attacks, and being hit by cars while I bike into work. Terrorism rates roughly last on my list of things to worry about, well behind drowning in a pool and getting hit by lightening. Despite that, I found that Fahrenheit 9/11 made no coherent argument and was in general nauseating in the way that old American World War II propaganda against the Japanese makes you want to throw up (see previous posts for details).
As far as Sicko goes, after watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I was pretty much done with Moore. Hearing that he sent a film crew to Cuba to videotape the totalitarian government handing out free drugs to Americans pretty much sealed the deal. Yeah... I am sure the average Cuban who makes $20 a month gets his daily Lipitor prescription when an American film crew isn't there.
I'll watch it if it comes around to me, but I won't drop any money or seek out such propaganda. Like I said, I don't even disagree with the guy on most issues, I just find his methods vile and counter productive. John Stewart does a good job arguing with a little humor. Moore is just a blatant propagandist that can preach to the choir and convince everyone else that liberals are brain washed idiots. Like I said, there are better people and better methods than the crap that Moore offers up.
An ideal flag waver would be Lawrence Lessig. He is a god among men when it comes to a highbrow argument (seriously, have you seen this guy live?). If you accept that not everyone can be won over with reason and kick ass flash presentations, than Stewart is there to make things accessible to the masses.
You don't need to dupe people using blatant and propaganda techniques to convince them that Bush is the devil and that the war on terror is dumb. Truth works well enough. Moore discredits whatever he touches. Even if you are an "ends justify the means" person, the few people he manages to dupe doesn't make up for the people who see his crap as the blatant skilless propaganda that it is and violently reject whatever message his is trying to convey.
I say that when it comes to arguments, shoot for Lessig, accept Stewart, and reject Moore.
"You don't need to dupe people using blatant and propaganda techniques to convince them that Bush is the devil and that the war on terror is dumb. Truth works well enough."
One would hope so, but keep in mind that Bush STILL has a 28% approval rating. So more than 1 out of every 4 people taking that poll still thinks he's doing a great job. The people who fall into that category (of which I know a few) won't be reached by high minded discussions, or even the satire of Stewart/Colbert. However, I have seen Moore's films (and, to a much lesser extent, his books) used as tools, by the "choir" he's preaching to, to reach out to those who would otherwise never critically think about their stance on important issues.
When it comes to the hope that the truth is all you need, I've found it's always a safe bet to go with the better salesman, whether or not they're selling the truth.