 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: A Testament to the Power of Film posted by clarkjohnsen on August 21, 2002 at 14:30:26:
had to pick on him, poor guy, my heart bleeds. He is SO misunderstood.And I don't know what your talking about, we were discussing a documentary, not a movie. And documentaries are an excellent way to
learn about people, and can be JUST as effective as an article/print.It all depends quality of the information and people involved, wether the medium is film of print.
mp
Follow Ups:
Thank you for that! My point precisely! The movies have led you to trust a category of propagandist-provocateur high-falutingly called "film documentarian". And seeing is believing!Dare I say, neither you nor any other of my opponents in this discussion have read a word on the topic from original sources?
Documentaries, you add, are "an excellent way to learn about people." OK, but who's discussing people? I was concentrating on the *issues*, otherwise known as "science". Plus I was upbraiding folks for believing what they see *through an advocate's lens and editing table*.
It shouldn't surprise you to learn -- although it will -- that the director played the movie around extensively before release, fine-tuning it to various objections that were raised. I'll leave it to your imagination what those might have been. Because of the extensive re-editing, the submitting to pressure, I refused to watch the thing.
clark
It doesn't surprise me, I would imagine that would be the job of a director, don't magazine and print writers have editors.I would claim that it was neccessary, because so many of the victims close relatives are still alive, so it would be imperative to PRESESENT, these ideas in a very humane and respectful manner. Which probably shouldn't surprise you, but it will.
Your original source argument is laughable, you are discussing a film you havn't seen, and just assuming it contains misinformation based on the print you read.
mp
"You are... just assuming it contains misinformation based on the print you read." No! I am saying that anyone who relies on a movie, for the whole of his knowledge on a topic, and then argues the issues with someone who has studied the entire background, and who then chastises him for lack of knowledge, is a walking talking writing case of *hubris*.As for "[presenting] ideas in a very humane and respectful manner" because relatives are still alive -- a concept you think will surprise me -- tell that to a certain backwards-cap-wearing, smirking "film documentarian", not me.
clark
...for someone who relies on a movie the haven't even seen, yet they decide they are experts on the subject matter contained within. Did you read some sort of Cliff Notes?"someone who has studied the entire background."
Now that's hubris.I will remind you the question at hand was "what is this documentary called."
Somehow (maybe you read it backwards, or at a 45 degree angle) you've managed to warp it into a discussion on some undefined Universal Truth (you seem to like absolutes, so I will play along).
It did give you chance to post random ambiguous statements about your great wealth of knowledge "studied the entire background", I have to write that again becuase that is funny. Not one iota of actual knowledge, mind you.(Hubris again; let's play with today's Word-de-Jour).
KP
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
