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

[_EAllusion]

Sure. Rob Epstein. Ron Mann. Kenny Hotz. Kenny Hotz probably isn't the best example, but he is a documentary maker and he is well known (Kenny vs Spenny, Pitch, Papal Chase).

Hehehe. No. Rob Epstein over Errol Morris? Ron Man? Are you serious?

Ken Burns came to mind after I wrote my post. That's debatable, but I'm pretty shocked that you are arguing Ron Mann has more fame/recognition. I think Morris just might be a black hole in your knowledge of the medium. It's a shame, because I think he is the most gifted documentary filmmaker of any generation, and I'm far from alone in that opinion. (Take a look at Roger Ebert's top films). He's one of the more commericially and critically successful documentary filmmakers in the history of the medium. If you recall, I was initially making a comparison between his style of persuasion compared to Spurlock's. I said he was more nuanced and fair. I noted tangentially that more gifted artistically and technically while pointing out I wasn't comparing them along those lines. You replied, "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." I siezed on the notion that he wasn't "mainstream." After all, he has made several of the most financially successful documentaries ever, had a TV show, won an oscar, etc. etc. He's probably on the short list of the most mainstream documentarians. It's almost as though you want to compare them artistically as well, which is kind of a knee slapper to me. Which films of his have you seen?

[_EAllusion]

Isn't 93% a great rating? Doesn't that mean critics thought it was a good movie?

Yes. It does. They thought his second film was bad. That's how it goes. I'm talking about the points made about his work within those reviews that allign with what I have stated. I'm only mentioning it because you seem so shocked that I would think he makes propaganda, affects ignorance, contrives his material to coincide with his predetermined conclusions, etc. It's like you are baffled as to why anyone would dream of it. Even if you like his work, that's part of the package that you like.

He seems to be choose topics that are relevant today. What a bastard.

He chooses topics of today that are ripe for his social commentary. Some are more niche than others, but that's what he's doing.

(I sometimes wonder how much creative influence his partner, who appears more to the left of him, has on the format. I wouldn't be surprised if - I don't know - she was a member of PETA and into "holistic" medicine. That came to mind when I saw "new age" and "animal rights." I've only seen a few episodes of the TV show.)

Liberal, homo, commie... yawn.

No, just liberal. Why do you think he is frequently compared to Micheal Moore?

You've got the premise all wrong. Scroll down a bit and read what the show is about.

It's about gay parenting, right? Isn't gay adoption a major subset of this issue? Didn't this occur?

# In the next segment, she was taken to a meeting with two former foster kids--one man and one woman, now full-grown adults--who never were adopted. These people, too, were the very epitome of calmness and rationality. The man did most of the talking. One of the first things he discussed was, "If gay and lesbian couples are prohibited from adopting or becoming foster parents, then there will be a lot more kids in my situation." She went on with, "That might be true, but I think kids should be placed in homes with a man and a woman." Did she miss what the guy was trying to say??

Later they drove to some of the spots where the man grew up. The first was a run-down neighborhood with boarded-up homes, trash littering the streets. She was like, "Oh my gosh!" Mouth agape. You'd almost think she'd never seen any movies before. He pointed out his former foster home (at least, the one in that particular neighborhood), and he said, "The house was firebombed. My foster mother was shot the same week."

Didn't this occur?

Later that night they had a campout with the gay couple and several of one of their kids' blood relatives, including his birth mother. The relatives were all straight. The birth mother and her sister talked about the initial reservations they had with the kid getting placed with a gay couple, but then talked about how they came around after seeing what a good home and environment he was finally getting to live in. Later, around the campfire, they talked about the dearth of adoptive parents. Mrs. LDS declared--wait for it--"I feel that children should be placed in a home with a man and a woman." You'd almost think it was rcrocket talking about internet anonymity.

To this, one of the straight relatives replied, "So you'd rather they stay in foster care?

You don't think that maybe, just maybe he was putting together a extremely stark way of illustrating the argument re: gay adoption and foster care I mentioned above?

30 days: An unscripted, documentary-style program where an individual is inserted into a lifestyle that is completely different from his or her upbringing, beliefs, religion or profession for 30 days.

Hey, it's a social experiment as investigation. Man that EA guy is talkin' crazy.

Maybe because the gay couple happened to be on the side of reason in this debate.

There are lots of hotheaded, inarticulate gays with mediocre to poor parenting skills. That's people for 'ya. What are the odds they would've been picked for this documentary? 0%? .001%? The conservative equivalent of Spurlock would've made sure they were people who liked to walk around in leather cod pieces. They had to be fairly ideal, because there was a message being sent here. I agree with the message mind you. That's not the point.

[_GoodK]

Isn't 93% a great rating? Doesn't that mean critics thought it was a good movie?

Yes. It does. They thought his second film was bad. That's how it goes.

Ok. So help me understand why you would say he consistently follows liberal talking points. He made a movie that was critically acclaimed (and had no hint of them libs agenda) so by my count, he doesn't always follow liberal talking points, if he does at all.

That's like me saying Shyamalan is a hack because The Happening was easily the worst movie I've seen this year (and I saw 27 dresses).

Why do you think he is frequently compared to Micheal Moore?

LOL. Have you met Coggins? He is frequently compared to Michael Moore because anyone that doesn't appear to be on the right, is deemed to be a liberal homo commie.

Perhaps his latest film was a bit too critical of "The War on Terror"

It's about gay parenting, right? Isn't gay adoption a major subset of this issue? Didn't this occur?

Why is gay parenting a liberal talking point? Does gay parenting only affect liberals? Are gay people liberal by default? I don't think I follow.

# In the next segment, she was taken to a meeting with two former foster kids--one man and one woman, now full-grown adults--who never were adopted. These people, too, were the very epitome of calmness and rationality. The man did most of the talking. One of the first things he discussed was, "If gay and lesbian couples are prohibited from adopting or becoming foster parents, then there will be a lot more kids in my situation." She went on with, "That might be true, but I think kids should be placed in homes with a man and a woman." Did she miss what the guy was trying to say??

Later they drove to some of the spots where the man grew up. The first was a run-down neighborhood with boarded-up homes, trash littering the streets. She was like, "Oh my gosh!" Mouth agape. You'd almost think she'd never seen any movies before. He pointed out his former foster home (at least, the one in that particular neighborhood), and he said, "The house was firebombed. My foster mother was shot the same week."

Didn't this occur?

Why is this a liberal talking point? Do you think this scene was staged? You don't think this sort of thing occurs in the real world?

Later that night they had a campout with the gay couple and several of one of their kids' blood relatives, including his birth mother. The relatives were all straight. The birth mother and her sister talked about the initial reservations they had with the kid getting placed with a gay couple, but then talked about how they came around after seeing what a good home and environment he was finally getting to live in. Later, around the campfire, they talked about the dearth of adoptive parents. Mrs. LDS declared--wait for it--"I feel that children should be placed in a home with a man and a woman." You'd almost think it was rcrocket talking about internet anonymity.

To this, one of the straight relatives replied, "So you'd rather they stay in foster care

You don't think that maybe, just maybe he was putting together a extremely stark way of illustrating the argument re: gay adoption and foster care I mentioned above?

No. I think that IS the argument, and peopel were making it. The gay couple were foster parents. And the women DID say that she would rather have the children stay in foster care.

30 days: An unscripted, documentary-style program where an individual is inserted into a lifestyle that is completely different from his or her upbringing, beliefs, religion or profession for 30 days.

Hey, it's a social experiment as investigation. Man that EA guy is talkin' crazy.

Ha. There is no investigation, you crazy guy. You put two opposites in a house and film them. Welcome to the new wave of television. Have you ever seen Wife Swap? Is that a "social experiment as investigation" as well? Again, this isn't Dateline.

There are lots of hotheaded, inarticulate gays with mediocre to poor parenting skills. That's people for 'ya. What are the odds they would've been picked for this documentary? 0%? .001%?

I'll just refer you to something I've already said:

Great example of the logic behind people who cry that documentaries are biased and aren't fair. Because a gay man presents himself like a civilized, rational human being, and another woman presents herself as a moron, Spurlock is biased and sticking to his liberal agenda.

The conservative equivalent of Spurlock would've made sure they were people who liked to walk around in leather cod pieces. They had to be fairly ideal, because there was a message being sent here. I agree with the message mind you. That's not the point.

Wow. Really? You really think this way? You really think there are gay foster parents out there dying to get on TV with their "leather cod pieces". Come on, man. You're better off trying to convince me who is a more famous - Errol Morris or Rob Epstein.

[_GoodK]

Sure. Rob Epstein. Ron Mann. Kenny Hotz. Kenny Hotz probably isn't the best example, but he is a documentary maker and he is well known (Kenny vs Spenny, Pitch, Papal Chase).

Hehehe. No. Rob Epstein over Errol Morris? Ron Man? Are you serious?

Ken Burns came to mind after I wrote my post. That's debatable, but I'm pretty shocked that you are arguing Ron Mann has more fame/recognition.Than Errol Morris.

Well, this is why. I knew all three of those directors off the top of my head. They came to mind. I didn't need to go to Eberts site, or the DGA site. I know what films they've done. I watch a ton of documentaries. It's easily my favorite genre. I know people who have watched their films. I don't know anyone I could ask, except a member of the faculty at Cal Arts, who would know Errol Morris. That's why.

But arguing over who is more famous is silly. If I started this silliness, my bad.

The Lakers are better. No, the Celtics are better. No the Lakers are better. No, the Celtics are better.

[_EAllusion]

Remember when the History Channel managed to win the rights to air The Fog of War? Remember when they advertized the bejesus out of it, then made its showing into a special event? Good times.

Hey, I recently learned that Ron Mann has won a few Canadian film awards. I just hope he saves some pussy for the rest of us.

[_EAllusion]

Ok. So help me understand why you would say he consistently follows liberal talking points. He made a movie that was critically acclaimed (and had no hint of them libs agenda) so by my count, he doesn't always follow liberal talking points, if he does at all.

Uh, coming down hard on fast food, possibly recapitulating how cigarettes were treated, is a major movement within the liberal wing of paternalism. Are you not at all familiar with attempts to regulate the fast food industry in various ways due to what is perceived as its threat to public health? Who do you think it is who pushes for billboards advertizing fast food not be placed in the vicinity of schools? Who was it that was pushing for lawsuits against fast food for the harm they caused people with their addictive product, especially around the time Supersize Me was made?

Why do you think he is frequently compared to Micheal Moore?

LOL. Have you met Coggins? He is frequently compared to Michael Moore because anyone that doesn't appear to be on the right, is deemed to be a liberal homo commie.

I'll answer my own question then. They both make leftist documentaries with stunt journalism and juvenile friendly humor.

Why is gay parenting a liberal talking point? Does gay parenting only affect liberals? Are gay people liberal by default? I don't think I follow.

Common liberal talking point: Gays should be allowed to adopt because they are willing to take in children who otherwise languish in poor foster care. It's a fair argument to make. I'm not begrudging anyone for making it.

How does Spurlock get this across? Why he has a women meet some adults who languished in one of the worst foster care scenarios you can imagine. It's punctuated with images of a hardcore ghetto and talk of firebombings. Then, he has her meet someone he had reservations about gay foster parents, but has changed her mind due to their excellent care. I don't know how you cannot see what argument he is making here and how he is making it.

No. I think that IS the argument, and peopel were making it.

They are Spurlock's proxies. They are there for a reason. I'm not sure you understand how a documentary is made.

Ha. There is no investigation, you crazy guy.

Yes there is. It's "lets see what happens when..." Just like "let's see what happens when I eat fast food all the time" "or lets see what happens when I meet average Muslims in the Middle East." The goal is to learn about these issues via the experiment. It's just that "what happens" has been telegraphed in advance by the director in order to lead the viewer into his predetermined conclusions.

Wow. Really? You really think this way? You really think there are gay foster parents out there dying to get on TV with their "leather cod pieces". Come on, man. You're better off trying to convince me who is a more famous - Errol Morris or Rob Epstein.

I don't think you understand hyperbole very well. If you want me to be more literal, a conservative Spurlock would make sure poor examples of gay parents - at least in how they will come off in front of the cameras - would be casted. He/she probably would shoot for promiscuity and play it up.

[_Dr. Shades]

What is rcrocket syndrome?

It's when you just can't stop saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over again even though everyone is already well-familiar with what you're saying and no longer need to be reminded of it.

(I'm rather shocked that you actually had to have it explained to you.)

[_GoodK]

Remember when the History Channel managed to win the rights to air The Fog of War?

No.

Remember when they advertized the bejesus out of it, then made its showing into a special event? Good times.

No.

Hey, I recently learned that Ron Mann has won a few Canadian film awards.

Ron Mann is a great film maker. (I'm beginning to wonder how old this crazy guy is- with the Errol Morris and History Channel ad references).

I just hope he saves some pussy for the rest of us.

Oh come on, I'm sure you're swimming in it. I still couldn't find anything on the IMDB for EAllusion. Hmm?

[_EAllusion]

Ron Mann is a great film maker. (I'm beginning to wonder how old this crazy guy is- with the Errol Morris and History Channel ad references).

He isn't in the same league as Morris in terms of fame. And for someone who brought up the "name recognition" test, I'm betting only a tiny % of people have the slightest idea who he is. I can't think you seriously think they are on the same level in terms of mainstream, much less that he is superior.

Why not use rottentomatoes for this point? Morris is consistently has more and better reviews. Some of the highest praise you will see is offered for his films. He is consistently acknowledged as one of the masters of the documentary form. Mann manages a handful of mixed, lukewarm reviews. His last film has two internet reviews. Morris's last film is reviewed by nearly or all major film critics/publications. Gee? Which one appears to be more mainstream?

I still couldn't find anything on the IMDB for EAllusion. Hmm?

I'm also not an NFL quarterback. Clearly my opinion that Peyton Manning is a more famous and superior quarterback to Cade McNown cannot possibly be coming from a place of knowledge.

[_EAllusion]

Now that I've mentioned it, how many documentary makers can guarantee their films will be widely seen and reviewed by the major critics and publications? It's got to be a tiny handful. Micheal Moore and Errol Morris are the two most obvious examples.