Fragments From Floyd

Hi, Fred. Went to see it this afternoon. I invite you to read my comments about it on the affixed url. I'd bet it's showing in Roanoke.

My husband and I plan to see it for its purported entertainment value, but we know Moore and agree with current New Yorker that he doesn't let facts get in the way of a good story, has a big ego, is big on conspiracy-theory, and is not persuasive - only preaching to choir.
Yes, I agree. I'm sick at heart of the election, and I think that the Iraq War robs us of a lot of psychic energy even when we don't think about it most of the time. It's always under there working, or haunting.
Your pictures are very fetching. I've had a blond lab and a golden retriever, and they photograph so beautifully.

One danger I see is for people to be irrationally anti-Moore. What I mean is, what if he's right about some of this stuff? As a Bush supporter, I'd like to think his administration is at least on par with if not better than average, in the area of ethics and international responsibility.

However, I need to be willing to accept that maybe there's more to Bush than meets the eye, and I shouldn't throw out EVERYTHING Moore says as anti-Bush drivel.

Or should I?

Phred:

The Grandin Theater in Roanoke is showing the film (every show sold out on Friday). They got a lot of hate mail from conservatives but business is brisk.

While documentaries that start with an agenda are less honest than those whose filmmakers approach a subject with an open mind, Moore uses more retraint than usual this time around (or at least relative restraint). He still goes off the deep end at some points but some of the footage he shows is devasting, especially the scene were Bush sits like a deer caught in the headlights after he learns of the first plane striking the tower in New York.

I think this is his best film to date.

Doug

An important point a guest on the radio show "The Connection" made today: Would we have spent as much time dissecting President Bush's State of the Union Speech as we have dissecting Michael Moore's film, we would be better off today. He made the claim that there were more misleading discrepancies in Bush's speech than in Moore's film. It was also debated what indeed was the central point of the film. It was suggested that Moore's main point in the film was to be a voice for the working class average Joe, moreso even than exposing Bush. As bold as Moore can be, I have to admit he has often said stuff I have been thinking. I think of his film as a collage....a collection of pieces that makes a statement...like art does. Does he use artisic license? I don't believe any bit of information that Moore uses isn't backed up. I think it's what he implies by the way he puts them together that bothers some. I haven't seen it yet, but plan to. I have seen lots of clips and know what to expect from seeing Bowling for Columbine.