Gavin's Blog

I forgot to give some kind of review of The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. There’s little I can add to the reviews around the net, besides that I thoroughly enjoyed it, it was full of dark humour, quirky events, and some quite memorable scenes – I think some of the reviews don’t do it justice. Bill Murray was flawless in the role of Steve Zissou, and his dry wit had me laughing out loud at times. Definately worth a look, as long as you remember it is a certain type of humour, similar to its predecessor, the Royal Tenenbaums.

Lots of new films coming out. I wonder which ones I will go see.

A rather bitter but funny contributor to Slashdot notes that:

“The BBC is reporting that the movie industry, in yet another illustration of just how much damage the Internet is doing to the long-suffering members of the MPAA, has just endured a record breaking $1Billion dollar takings for the single month of June. Clearly there is a desperate need to tighten up copyright laws in the face of this huge mountain of cash that is literally being metaphorically syphoned into the studios’ pockets. How will they survive? “

Hehe. How indeed.

Dan Drezner joins an interesting discussion on the philosophy of Spider Man 2. The film isn’t even out here yet. Do not read it unless you want to spoil the story, but I do like the way the arguments are presented. I think that Henry Farrell over at Crooked Timber probably has the best conclusion.

Matthew Yglesias also has some new takes on Moore, and comparisons with Bush, strangely enough. Of course I have read Chrisopther Hitchens’ now famous criticism of Moore. So too, I have read “Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11“, by Dave Kopel.

But I like Yglesias’s take:

The funny thing, though, is that if I wrote “The 56 Deceits of George W. Bush” (as, indeed, many people have done) then some very intelligent Volokh Conspirator (as, indeed, many of the conspirators are) would doubtless have written a post in response (as, indeed, I’ve read at the Conspiracy) arguing that most of the alleged “lies” weren’t lies per se (and, indeed, they’re mostly misleading juxtapositions of technically true information) and that these sorts of ad hominem attacks don’t really prove that the presidents’ policies are actually wrong.

The really funny thing, though, is that while George W. Bush is president of the United States and wrecking (a) the country’s foreign policy and (b) the country’s fiscal policy, Michael Moore is a somewhat famous guy who makes movies. Get it?

Hehe.

Kevin Drum asks if Fahrenheit 9/11 serves as a pointedly political Rorschach test: you see in it primarily a reflection of yourself. Having seen the film on Sunday I am inclined to agree with the quote Kevin gives from the Volkh blog:

I was struck by the sheer cunningness of Moore’s film….notice the film’s meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) “true” or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression….a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive) — a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false.

Drum continues by taking a dig at Andy Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, but in a very funny way.

Excuse me? This is Andrew Sullivan complaining about a movie being “poisonous to debate, to reason and to civility”? This from the same guy who referred to the left as a “fifth column” five days after 9/11 and followed that up with endlessly poisonous vituperation against anyone who questioned George Bush’s steadfastness and virtue in the war against terror?

What’s next? Noam Chomsky complaining that Moore is too one sided? Tom Friedman suggesting that he relies too heavily on anecdotes? Glenn Reynolds noting his reliance on snark and contempt instead of reasoned argument?

I do agree with Kevin’s review of the film: “a bit mediocre even as polemic”.

That it was.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman with his verdict on Fahrenheit 9/11. He pretty much supports Moore:

And for all its flaws, “Fahrenheit 9/11″ performs an essential service. It would be a better movie if it didn’t promote a few unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren’t the reason why millions of people who aren’t die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have heard elsewhere, but didn’t. Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven’t been doing their job.

He concludes:

“Fahrenheit 9/11″ is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain, and the ordinary Americans who paid the price.

I am looking forward to seeing it next week.

Michael Moore’s new film has surpassed even the most optimistic predictions. It has quite literally turned into phenomenon. I am looking forward to seeing it, but I have taken on board the numerous criticisms of the film, most pointedly seen in the blogopshere.

I just watched Life is Beautiful, after putting off seeing if for 6 whole years. To say I was impressed would be understating, to say it was a one of the best films I have ever seen, would be putting it mildly.

I have seen no better depiction of the Holocaust – and no better depiction of the strength of human nature to overcome intensely adverse circumstance.

Yes you can see a preview now of Star Trek: Nemesis, not as much of a fan as I used to be, but was once a real Trekker :)