A question about political movies

[Neutrino]

Alright, I hardly ever start threads here, but I have a question for people that I thought was worth a poll.

We were having a debate in another thread (link below) about whether or not someone should watch a political movie before either condemning it, praising it, or arguing about it in general. I've also noticed this same debate come up before in respect to the same film. Some of us in that thread, including myself, think it is necessary to actually see the movie to form a valid opinion on it, while others claim that is not so and that reading reviews of it is sufficient.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39653

This debate was of course about Michael Moore's 9/11 film, but this poll is just about political films in general, whether it be an objective documentary, a liberal film, or a conservative film.

Let's try to keep any discussion here just about this one point, rather than debating the movie itself, as that's already being done in the other thread.

So the question is, do you think a person should actually see a political film before forming an opinion on it and judging it one way or the other, or is reading reviews of it enough?

And of course add why if you want to.

Call me stubborn, but I'd like to know what people think about this.

 

[AntiAnto]

The person (I will call him Mister X)... I think Mister X should see the movie before forming an opinion on it. Reviews can't really tell you what the movie is.

 

[hasan]

well, the movie represents a point of view about politics. the reviews represent points of view about the movie.

so um, no, you should watch it yourself, if you care about the movie anyway.

 

[Foxtrot]

It depends what you are aruguing about, the quality of the movie, or the arguments in the movie.

 

[Gunner]

It depends what you are aruguing about, the quality of the movie, or the arguments in the movie.

In either case it's always best to watch the movie yourself

 

[Foxtrot]

In either case it's always best to watch the movie yourself

But not required, you could just read about the points brought up in the movie and the person argument and be just as informed if not more than a person who saw the movie. I never saw 9/11 because it never came to my theater until a week ago, it is amazing how many foreigners are going to see the movie...atleast %90 of the people had a foreign accent.

 

[Neutrino]

But not required, you could just read about the points brought up in the movie and the person argument and be just as informed if not more than a person who saw the movie. I never saw 9/11 because it never came to my theater until a week ago, it is amazing how many foreigners are going to see the movie...atleast %90 of the people had a foreign accent.

Reviews tend not to be very objective. Some will slant one way and other will slant the other way. By only reading a review of specific points in a movie, as you suggest, you are not obtaining the complete context of the points, which is of great importance in my opinion.

To really understand the context and detail of every point and how it all fits together I think watching the movie for yourself is necessary. In addition you are then able to obtain a first hand experience which you can then use as a solid basis when reading reviews from either side.

 

[Bad^Hat]

A review is usually an opinion. You should form your own.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

To tell the truth, option 1 is the "well, duh" answer.

It's impossible for second-hand experience to beat first-hand experience.

 

[blahblahblah]

It depends if it is a movie or a documentary. Furthermore, it depends on if it was perceived to be a documentary as well. Perception is stronger than reality, and should be treated as such.

If it is a documentary, there should be little to no opinions involved. You should be able to see the facts written on a piece of paper and draw the same conclusions.

I watched a documentary today about campaign finance during the 1996 election. In my opinion, you would have formed the same exact opinions if I had seen the facts on a piece of paper or watched the documentary.

With Farenheit 9/11, I don't believe you could come to the same conclusions. I personally haven't seen it, but from my understanding, he uses numerous persuasion techniques to further cement his conclusions. I don't think a documentary shouldn't need those persuasion techniques.

How does this relate to Farenheit 9/11? People are perceiving Farenheit 9/11 as a documentary and treat it as such.

 

[Neutrino]

Blahblahblah, well since we're talking about political movies we can probably say that most will lean one way or the other and will not be a "pure" documentary.

So my question is for a a political movie in this context, whether it lean politically to the left, the right, or in the middle do you think you can make a valid and fair judgement about the whole movie without seeing it?

I do see your point about documentary movies. However, I think even the best documentary still requires interpretation by the viewer.

 

[blahblahblah]

Blahblahblah, well since we're talking about political movies we can probably say that most will lean one way or the other and will not be a "pure" documentary.

So my question is for a a political movie in this context, do you think you can make a valid and fair judgement about the movie without seeing it?

I'm tempted to argue that you can make a better judgement without watching a political movie since you can draw your conclusions from facts without listening to the movie's propaganda.

In reality, I think it depends on its extremity of conclusions. If a republican version of Moore came along with an equivalent version of F 9/11, I wouldn't realistically expect a democrat to watch it. That movie fundamentally attacks that persons beliefs and I doubt they would be able to watch it for 90 minutes. The same goes for Republicans and 9/11. Expecting Republicans to draw a rational conclusion is impossible if people are accurately describing Farenheit 9/11.

On the other hand, if a political movie wasn't so extreme, I think everybody should view it. Even if it had a moderate amount of bias, I think both parties need to watch it.

 

[Neutrino]

Expecting Republicans to draw a rational conclusion is impossible if people are accurately describing Farenheit 9/11.

Ah but there's the catch. How do you really know unless you see it?

 

[blahblahblah]

Ah but there's the catch. How do you really know unless you see it?

When my close friends tell me that I would walk out on the movie, I know its not meant to be. I'm not spending $6.50 to walk out on a movie.

Anyways, I don't like Moore.

 

[hasan]

well, if there was a movie, say, trying to justify the war. I would instantly form an opinion on it "brainwashing". there is no question about that. The only way you can get people to support this war is by brainwashing.

so in a way, yes, I would from an opinion on it without even bothering to see it or read a review.

 

[Neutrino]

When my close friends tell me that I would walk out on the movie, I know its not meant to be. I'm not spending $6.50 to walk out on a movie.

See, but my argument isn't that you have to see it or anything. That's not the case at all. If you or anyone else doesn't wish to see it then that's up to them. My only point here is that I have a problem with people who form opinions about the movie and want to argue those opinions when they've never actually seen it.

Anyways, I don't like Moore.

Niether do I really. In fact, I admit I originally did not want to see the movie at all because of my dislike for him.

If a republican version of Moore came along with an equivalent version of F 9/11, I wouldn't realistically expect a democrat to watch it. That movie fundamentally attacks that persons beliefs and I doubt they would be able to watch it for 90 minutes.

If a conservative/republican version of 9/11 came out I would in all honesty try to see it. I'll freely admit I might not like the idea, but since I've seen Moore's film I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for me to see the other side if such a film comes out. However, that's niether here nor there. I'm not saying anyone else should if they don't want to.

But again, my point is that if I did not see the movie I would niether condemn nor praise it as whole. To pass judgement on a movie I have never seen is just not logical to me, which is of course my argument in this thread. No matter how much I may read about it, I still won't have a first hand experience from which to form a basis from which I can judge reviews from. Nor will I be able to comprehend the context of everything I read.

Now of course, it's probably impossible to not form some sort of opinion without seeing it. Afterall, we judge everything we think about really. It would probably be impossible not to. But I'm saying to actually argue in favor of or against the movie or pass judgement on the entire thing would be pointless without having seen it.

Just something I've noticed is that I don't think I've seen you arguing with us about the content of the 9/11 movie before. Does that have any relation to the fact that you haven't seen it? Just curious.

 

[blahblahblah]

Just something I've noticed is that I don't think I've seen you arguing with us about the content of the 9/11 movie before. Does that have any relation to the fact that you haven't seen it? Just curious.

I try not to comment on something unless I feel I can back my point of view up. I don't feel I can defend my position unless I watch Farenheit 9/11 due to the nature of the film.

But again, my point is that if I did not see the movie I would niether condemn nor praise it as whole. To pass judgement on a movie I have never seen is just not logical to me, which is of course my argument in this thread. No matter how much I may read about it, I still won't have a first hand experience from which to form a basis from which I can judge reviews from. Nor will I be able to comprehend the context of everything I read.

I think the very nature of Farneheit 9/11 was to draw criticism or praise. The very first advertisements for Farenheit 9/11 only reinforced those initial reactions. Those reactions, when pressed, lead to judgements.

 

[Sprafa]

No. I'm done.

Or if you do, watch both sides of the argument.

 

[CptStern]

But not required, you could just read about the points brought up in the movie and the person argument and be just as informed if not more than a person who saw the movie.

you've got to be joking!!! so in other words because I've read the Cliffe notes on Macbeth, I'm all of the sudden a Shakesphere expert? ...hmmm maybe I should skim through an airplane mechanics manual ..I'll be fixing airplanes in no time!

I never saw 9/11 because it never came to my theater until a week ago, it is amazing how many foreigners are going to see the movie...atleast %90 of the people had a foreign accent.

holy shit foxtrot! new all time low ..they all had foreign accents? where from? italy? mozambique? the island of Marseilles? Are you implying they watched the movie because only a foreigner would dare question America?

 

[Neutrino]

I try not to comment on something unless I feel I can back my point of view up. I don't feel I can defend my position unless I watch Farenheit 9/11 due to the nature of the film.

Well, it might be for different reasons but I agree that you couldn't defend your position on a film you haven't seen without actually seeing it.

I think the very nature of Farneheit 9/11 was to draw criticism or praise. The very first advertisements for Farenheit 9/11 only reinforced those initial reactions. Those reactions, when pressed, lead to judgements.

Yes, it was bound to draw critism or praise as it was a controversial movie. But I think that critism or praise should be drawn from watching it. As for people having a natural reaction to it and judging it, yes I do realize this happens. This is why I added this paragraph to my last post:

Now of course, it's probably impossible to not form some sort of opinion without seeing it. Afterall, we judge everything we think about really. It would probably be impossible not to. But I'm saying to actually argue in favor of or against the movie or pass judgement on the entire thing would be pointless without having seen it.

reinforced those initial reactions. Those reactions, when pressed, lead to judgements.

Yes, initial reactions which lead to judgement. I do not think that judgements for a film based on initial reactions are very valid.

Now I might understand the position that reviews are good enough if every review for a film was negative and called it complete lies or something similar. If everyone agreed that it wasn't worth seeing then I might understand judging it without seeing it. But in reality that never happens. There are always some negative reviews and some positive reviews, some negative opinions and some positive opinions. I do not see how a person is in a position to fully judge those reviews and/or opinions without having the basis of a first hand experience with the film.

So I still maintain that's it's just common sense to see a film first.

 

[Korgoth]

you've got to be joking!!! so in other words because I've read the Cliffe notes on Macbeth, I'm all of the sudden a Shakesphere expert? ...hmmm maybe I should skim through an airplane mechanics manual ..I'll be fixing airplanes in no time!




holy shit foxtrot! new all time low ..they all had foreign accents? where from? italy? mozambique? the island of Marseilles? Are you implying they watched the movie because only a foreigner would dare question America?

Do you thinik he realizes that alot of Americans have foreign accents, and are immigrants to this country. They are just as American, as him or me. So what if I speak English and was born here, if these people went through immigration and really wanted to be American citizens then thats exactly what they are. And maybe because they are more objective to our foreign policy having lived abroad they can see the movie with an open mind and put two and two together.

 

[Gunner]

It is amazing how many foreigners are going to see the movie...atleast %90 of the people had a foreign accent.

What's your point about foreigners going to see Farenheit 9/11?