So now what is it we are supposed to believe?... that Moore intentionally used Ray Bradbury's ''Fahrenheit 451'' for the inspiration of his own movie title, because it had to do with censorship?
It almost makes sense....But then, why didn't he say that to Ray when he was confronted with the use of the title??
By the way, doeas anyone know for sure that Bradbury didn't let Moore use the "Fahrenheit" name? I can't seem to find a source on that anywhere. Any help would be appreciated.
PS - Nard, I do hope that religion and belief in god will not stop people from finding common ground in the matter of the sanctity and equality of human life, no matter who's it is...
New Time Magazine review of Michael Moore's "movie":
Secondary source, but it's a start (and, it sure sounds like Bradbury!):
Author Ray Bradbury thinks Michael Moore's title will confuse people with his classic sci-fi novel Fahrenheit 451 and he wants Moore to change it. "He can't have my title," said Bradbury. "We've got an important film coming out [Fahrenheit 451], the book's having its 50th anniversary in October. If he wants his movie to be an homage to me, why not title it, 'Bradbury, where the hell are you now that we need you?'" (Variety)
Looks reasonably solid, and indeed Bradburish. Now the key question - where does Bradbury indicate that he's against what Moore says? It seems his comment is acually endorsing the movie, even though it has reservations about the use of the title.
Well, the key question was, whether Bradbury did or did not give permission for Moore to use the name. He did not.
This is apparently a new key question. I haven't seen him address this, but as much as I wish I could say he'd love our war against terror and 12th century anti-freedom/women/person fiefdoms; he may prefer that we focus more on things that accomplish forward movement for mankind as a whole -- such as the space program and better urban design.
On the other hand, murderous regimes make the forward progression of freedom and thus, the human species, very difficult.
I'll leave this one in the hands of persons who have spoken to Bradbury about these kinds of issues. I have not.
You're right, I did switch the discussion this time around. I was still under the impression of your comment "This is especially offensive because Bradbury tends toward conservative politics (in some areas anyway -- my own view is that it is difficult to nail down Bradbury's political views in all areas), and I can't imagine Moore is not aware of this.", which I might have taken out of context as implying that Bradbury is against the movie. But upon re-reading the post, I don't think that's the proper interpretation of your words. Sorry.
Agreed about the murderous regiemes. Absolutely nothing more to add (well, except maybe to say that I hope Bradbury wouldn't actually endorse the current method of the, as you call it, war on terror, but would rather prefer to see things settled in some different, more effective and logical way).
[This message has been edited by Translator (edited 05-18-2004).]
Could you tell us how Ray is reacting to all of the Fahrenheit 9-11 media blitz?
Now, this isn't pleasant....or is it?
[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 05-22-2004).]
From Nard's post. It also pointed out that the win was probably more for it's politics than it's art -- saying the "Bowling for Columbine" was a much better documentary.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" was the first documentary to win Cannes' prestigious Palme d'Or since Jacques Cousteau's and Louis Malle's "The Silent World" in 1956." (From the web site Nard referenced in his post, above.)
[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 05-22-2004).]
They don't have different categories? They only give out one prize a year and they chose this?
There are other categories, but this is the "big" one. It's like Best Picture at the Oscars.
I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment. But I loved Bowling for Columbine, and if it was anything like it, it should have won hands down.
Hi, I've probably read about as much as Mr. Dark and Translator and have been educated (still going for more). However, the title "intellectual" carries with it several negative connotations. Intellectuals tend to be detached from reality and thus rather easily swayed by logic. As anyone who balances intellectual thought with life experience knows, logic fails far too often. In an earlier post, Translator said that being an intellectual causes him to not be swayed by bumper-sticker arguments and such. It is actually experience and pragmatic thought, tempered by sufficient cognition, that saves us from catchy pleas to the emotions. And that's why Translator thinks Moore's cheap attacks have merit.
I suggest you read C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man. It's a remarkable, non-partisan insight into the inevitable failure of intellectualism as it currently progresses.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15|