In Reply to: Fahrenheit 9/11: the growing critical consensus... posted by Audiophilander on June 17, 2004 at 16:34:22:
and by its definition points out his strong and weak points.He is emotional, illogical, devoid of history but has put his finger on a pulse of resistance to current policy that has considerable resonance.
We have had numerous polemiscists in the US, starting with Thomas Paine. There have been other polemiscists in film (Costa-Gavras comes to mind). Though they are not exclusively revolutionary or zealots they are most often that. And in the late 20th/early 21st century they are predominantly left of center and liberal humanists. Moore, to his credit, is working class populist as well. I frankly think he was at his most convincing and accurate in "Roger and Me", but then I had met and dealt (slightly) with Roger. I thought Moore was too kind.
Nevertheless, all polemicism has a weakness, and that is seeking to destroy a flawed but functioning organism with an idealistic one that has never functioned. It also shades the truth, ignores oposing points of view and is masterful at presenting literal truth is such a way that it is an essential lie. Moore lies within that tradition and deserves notice.
As a believer that knowledge should inform understanding rather than misunderstanding I dislike polemiscists. And that includes Paine, Lenin, Goebels and Moore. But I have respect for the change they can effect. And, Lord knows, I pay attention to what they are saying.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Moore is a skilled polemicist. - Auricle 09:19:44 06/18/04 (6)
- Re: Moore is a skilled polemicist. - Chris 12:58:58 07/03/04 (0)
- Re: Moore is a skilled polemicist. - patrickU 09:44:00 06/18/04 (4)
- Re: Costa-Gavras - Auricle 10:33:16 06/18/04 (3)
- Re: Costa-Gavras - patrickU 11:32:15 06/18/04 (2)
- Re: Costa-Gavras-to "Missing" - eppis1@sbcglobal.net 01:08:34 06/22/04 (1)
- Re: Costa-Gavras-to "Missing" - patrickU 01:55:13 06/22/04 (0)