Mormon woman on "30 days" -- guess what she's doin

[_Dr. Shades]

She sits in with a support group for children with gay parents and bellicosely questions a young girl who's parents are lesbians.

??? That made my ears perk up. Three questions:

• How old was the young girl?
  
• What questions did Pioneer Patty ask her?
  
• What were the girl's answers?

[_EAllusion]

I strongly dislike Morgan Spurlock and his style of documentary. It's worth noting that the odds that this woman was selected specifically because she'd come across as a close-minded bigot when presented with ideal embodiments of gay-rights arguments is bordering on 100%.


P.S. The Family Research Institute is Paul Cameron's organization. It's probably the worst of these type of organizations. Paul Cameron enjoys the reputation of one of the more unethical purveyors of anti-gay pseudo-research. No doubt it was picked because it is exceptionally easy to let them come across as vile and uninformed. They're known for linking homosexuality with child rape.

[_GoodK]

She sits in with a support group for children with gay parents and bellicosely questions a young girl who's parents are lesbians.

??? That made my ears perk up. Three questions:

• How old was the young girl?
  
• What questions did Pioneer Patty ask her?
  
• What were the girl's answers?

She looked to be about 16 or so. I don't remember the specifics, but they were along the lines of "don't you feel like you needed a mom and a dad" and "have you ever questioned whether or not homosexuality is wrong". I don't remember her specific answers, but the girl was upset. I'll check for a site that has the episode available and post it here. Hulu.com probably has it.

I have to disagree with EA and say that Spurlock is one of the best film makers around right now. Anyone that knows how hard it is to sell an idea for a film should tip their hats to this man.

[_EAllusion]

t.

I have to disagree with EA and say that Spurlock is one of the best film makers around right now.

Even if you like him, I think a statement like that should be reserved for documentarians like Errol Morris. Spurlock makes a form of propaganda that is transparent enough to insult my intelligence. If you know what his branch of liberalism's arguments are on an issue, you know exactly what is going to occur in his mock experiment beforehand. That's because they lack anything resembling nuance or realism.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I think the original documentary [Super Size Me] was interesting, but the show nowadays is mostly staged to provide the illusion of reality. Find the right closed minded person to a given issue, but them in the situation they already are negative against, and watch the preconcieved person follow through with their preconcieved ideas. Not really documenting much is it except that you can find anyone willing to play host to the close minded people.

[_GoodK]

Are you sure you aren't thinking of Michael Moore (another master of the craft)?

I think there will always be someone to complain about a documentary that compares two different view points. It is inevitable. I promise you you won't find a documentary that someone wouldn't take issue with. Look at that Mormon documentary on PBS and how many people complained. It's hard to understand where you are coming from. I know a lot about his work, and I saw his Where is Osama documentary at this last Sundace. I don't know how you can call what he does propaganda. What have you seen? Are you talking about a specific episode of 30 days? What about when one of the minutemen went to go live with a family of illegal aliens, and totally changed his POV? Was that transparent? Are you talking about one of his films? You mean to tell me Supersize me didn't make you stop eating fast food for a couple weeks?

Because a dumb lady, who happened to be a Mormon, agrees to go on a TV show and spew bigotry in the face of a homosexual couple and their children, Spurlock insults your intelligence? Even though directors have almost no involvement in casting? I'm really curious to hear what reasons you have to call his work propaganda.

[_EAllusion]

Are you sure you aren't thinking of Michael Moore (another master of the craft)?

I was thinking of making a comparison to Moore. They both use stunt journalism and make leftist documentaries. They both engage in propaganda. They both mix serious tone with playful comedy. However, what they are doing is different enough that I didn't want to confuse the point. What makes Moore objectionable is his propensity to edit his footage in such a way that it leads to misleading impressions of what happened. What Spurlock does is contrive the situation so it plays out exactly how his predetermined arguments say it will. For Spurlock, it's like watching the documentary equivalent of a talking points list. He's not capable of arriving at conclusions. He telegraphs them in advance. Simply from the notes here you can see his style all over this episode. The Family Research Institute is indeed one of the more vile, unhinged anti-gay outfits of the religious right. It's not a coincidence they were picked to represent "the other side." That's what I'm referring to as transparent.

I listed a documentarian I have undying respect for who also uses his documentaries as a medium for persuading others to his point of view. The difference is in Morris's nuance and fairness. He's obviously more artistically and technically gifted as well, but there's also a difference between how he constructs his arguments in comparison to a Moore or Spurlock.

You mean to tell me Supersize me didn't make you stop eating fast food for a couple weeks?

I don't eat fast food very often, but it didn't change my attitudes towards fast food.

Because a dumb lady, who happened to be a Mormon, agrees to go on a TV show and spew bigotry in the face of a homosexual couple and their children, Spurlock insults your intelligence?

You know who would have never been cast? An articulate, kind, open person who was not likely to convert during the course of the documentary. It doesn't match up with the reality Spurlock wants to portray.

[_GoodK]

She sits in with a support group for children with gay parents and bellicosely questions a young girl who's parents are lesbians.

??? That made my ears perk up. Three questions:

• How old was the young girl?
  
• What questions did Pioneer Patty ask her?
  
• What were the girl's answers?

Here is part of it: http://www.hulu.com/watch/21014/30-days ... become-gay

They both use stunt journalism and make leftist documentaries. They both engage in propaganda. They both mix serious tone with playful comedy.

I don't agree with the first two statements and I don't see anything wrong with the third. I think that is why they are so successful.

What Spurlock does is contrive the situation so it plays out exactly how his predetermined arguments say it will.

I disagree.

For Spurlock, it's like watching the documentary equivalent of a talking points list.

I guess you're unfamiliar with how a documentary is made. It is basically written in a talking point list. But I wish I knew specifically what film you were talking about, or what episode, because I can't see why you'd say what you are saying about him. I've seen most if not all his stuff and I don't see anything but good filmmaking.

He's not capable of arriving at conclusions. He telegraphs them in advance.

Again, I don't know why you would say that.

The Family Research Institute is indeed one of the more vile, unhinged anti-gay outfits of the religious right. It's not a coincidence they were picked to represent "the other side." That's what I'm referring to as transparent.

What organization would have been a better representative of the anti-gay adoption movement. I'm beginning to think you have some other reason for not liking Spurlock. Perhaps because a Mormon was shown to be a bigot on national television?

Simply from the notes here you can see his style all over this episode.

Oh I see. It is because she was a Mormon and was shown to be a bigot on national television. Got it.

The difference is in Morris's nuance and fairness. He's obviously more artistically and technically gifted as well, but there's also a difference between how he constructs his arguments in comparison to a Moore or Spurlock.

I definitely disagree. Morris is virtually unheard of in the mainstream. I only know of him from a freshman film class. Moore is a masterful director, and Spurlock is artistically gifted as well as an amazing director. But I don't think you've seen enough of Spurlock or Moore to make a judgement on their professional abilities. I think you are relying on secondary sources, such as Dr. Shades and my notes. Needless to say, that doesn't really give you the ability to critique their work.

[_Jersey Girl]

I have to ask the obvious here which may not be at all obvious to some of those who commented. How can you (GoodK, etc.) criticize the woman for "bashing" gays when your own posts bash her?

"Portly pioneer" and "Pioneer Patty" "dumb Mormon"...how less is your own bias than hers?

[_GoodK]

I have to ask the obvious here which may not be at all obvious to some of those who commented. How can you (GoodK, etc.) criticize the woman for "bashing" gays when your own posts bash her?

"Portly pioneer" and "Pioneer Patty" "dumb Mormon"...how less is your own bias than hers?

Hello Jersey Girl. What's with that pic? Where is the monkeY?

I don't have any bias against Mormon women. Anyone that really knows me knows I like the Mormon culture and people. I don't have anything against a "portly pioneer gal" (I didn't call her a "dumb Mormon", I called her a dumb lady who happened to be Mormon, which is true). I have a bit of a bias against anyone that goes on television attacking homosexuals.