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

[_GoodK]

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?

(shouldn't your beef be with Eric Schlosser, then?)

Let's recap, old timer.

1. Morgan Spurlock makes a film and eats only Mcdonalds for 30 days. He chronicles what happens to his body, among other things. The film is a hit.

2. People see how truly horrid Mcdonalds food was, and decided to do something about it.

In your mind these two things equate to "coming down hard on the fast food industry" and is an indicator of the hidden liberal agenda of Morgan Spurlock.

Or maybe, just maybe, Supersize Me had nothing to do with political agenda. Maybe it had something to do with the alarming obesity statistics in America. Or our massive consumption of Mcdonalds products.
No. Couldn't be that, it has to have a hidden lib agenda behind it. Spurlock is the worst.

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

**yawn** I heard you already. Blah, blah, blah, Liberal, homo, commie... where is Loran?

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.

Goodk asks: Why is gay parenting a liberal talking point.

EAllusion answers: Common liberal talking point.

I see.

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.

Holy god. Please read carefully: It may shock you to learn that there are places in this country that could be classified as "a hardcore ghetto" and sometimes strutcures in these places are vandalized. In some parts of the country, kids end up in foster care and aren't adopted. It may shock you to learn that this sort of thing really happens, but I assure you it is not the work of Morgan Spurlock or any other liberals. Jesus.

I don't know how you cannot see what argument he is making here and how he is making it.

Both sides got to make their argument. Spurlock just put it on his TV show.

I don't see why you are so paranoid about film makers with "a liberal agenda" and why you and Coggins have to use that word like Dan Peterson uses anti-mormon.

They are Spurlock's proxies. They are there for a reason.

Spurlock is responsible for making the bigoted lady looking more appealing?

Tell you what, if I ever met him I'll tell him, "Hey, there is this old guy on this addictive message board called www.mormondiscussions.com, ran by a great guy named Dr. Shades. He posts under the name EAllusion. He'd like to be the casting director for your next film.

I'm not sure you understand how a documentary is made.

OK. I know you are but what am I?

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.

LOL. What TV show or movie isn't about "lets see what happens when..."

You're damned with me, aren't you?

I don't think you understand hyperbole very well.

I don't think I understand YOU very well.

If you want me to be more literal

Thank god.

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.

Oh my... "A conservative Spurlock" LOL.

Why would he choose to find poor examples of gay parents? How is that any less bias then what you accuse him of now? I mean, you are saying he stacked the deck. Isn't that stacking the deck? How do you know the casting agent could find a poor example of gay foster parents. How do you seek out a poor example of a gay foster parent. That's an odd casting call.

[_Chap]

Uh, coming down hard on fast food, possibly recapitulating how cigarettes were treated, is a major movement within the liberal wing of paternalism.

Just a second here ... what is your problem with "how cigarettes were treated" ?

Do you think that those who took the trouble to see that the public were told that cigarette smoking was a major cause of death (a fact which the cigarette industry tried hard to conceal for years) were in some way at fault? Or what?

What is it exactly that you want to complain about in relation to "how cigarettes were treated"?

[_GoodK]

Why not use rottentomatoes for this point?

Ok.

Non-essential Morris. Pick any other documentary to find more interesting and colorful subjects.

It's unpleasant, as it should be, but not very illuminating.

[This] fancy, arty, sometimes abstract inquiry (the movie stops to ponder the meaning of photography) into infamous events at the Iraqi prison feels a little flimsy next to the thorough, hard-nosed reporting of Alex Gibney's Taxi to the Dark Side.

Each successive Morris picture seems to grow glossier and more vague, pushing further into abstraction and incessant macro-lens close-ups of ham-fisted recurring symbols. There's also really annoying music.

As powerful as selected moments in the film are, it's not one of Morris' better works.

See. Even Morris gets bad reviews. Should I summarize his work based on all this?

Morris is consistently has more and better reviews

.

Standard Operating Procedure got a 78% on the tomatometer. Ron Mann's Grass got a 71%.

Morris has been around decades longer than Mann.

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.

You were commenting on how much "p***y" Ron Mann gets because he entered and won at some Canadian film festivals. I was making fun of you.

[_EAllusion]

No. Couldn't be that, it has to have a hidden lib agenda behind it

It's not hidden.

Goodk asks: Why is gay parenting a liberal talking point.

EAllusion answers: Common liberal talking point.

The heck? Supporting homosexual adoption is a common liberal position. The argument that gays are willing to take in children otherwise languishing in the system and therefore should be allowed to is a common liberal talking point in favor of that position. Why is supporting the legality of homosexual adoption a liberal thing? Are you disputing that this tends to be supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives? Are you asking me for a sociopolitical history of the position? I mean, what do you want? Why would it even matter why it is a liberal position when we are concerned with the fact that it is?

Holy god. Please read carefully: It may shock you to learn that there are places in this country that could be classified as "a hardcore ghetto" and sometimes strutcures in these places are vandalized. In some parts of the country, kids end up in foster care and aren't adopted. It may shock you to learn that this sort of thing really happens, but I assure you it is not the work of Morgan Spurlock or any other liberals. Jesus.

I'm not saying this doesn't occur. Of course it does, even if it is relatively rare. I'm saying it is an incredibly stark, emotionally jarring way to get the point across. He picked an ideal example of children languishing in a bad foster home as a means to persuade people with this argument. Those adults weren't picked from a random pool of former foster children. They were picked because they were examples of some of the worst things that happen in foster care. That's Spurlock and/or his surrogates presenting an argument to this woman and his audience. You'd have to be dumb as a sack of hammers not to see it.

Also, you don't seem to understand that I agree with Spurlock on this issue with your incessant comparisons to Coggins. I'm not taking issue with the fact that he is taking the liberals side.

Both sides got to make their argument. Spurlock just put it on his TV show.

Heh. Yeah.

Why would he choose to find poor examples of gay parents? How is that any less bias then what you accuse him of now?

It isn't. That's the point. I'm saying a director who used Spurlock's techniques to advance a conservative agenda would make sure the gay parents were apt to come off poorly, probably in some way that coincides with conservative arguments against gay adoption. That's why I said they might seek out a promiscuous couple. Another good target would be a couple whose relationship is on the rocks. (You see, that would reinforce the argument that gays should not adopt, because they are not apt to maintain stable, monogamous relationships. Sneaky, hey?)

I mean, you are saying he stacked the deck. Isn't that stacking the deck?

Duh? Buh?

How do you know the casting agent could find a poor example of gay foster parents. How do you seek out a poor example of a gay foster parent. That's an odd casting call.

A casting agent should be able to find gay parents who will come off poorly on TV. If they have any skill with their job, anyway. Hey, they were able to find a fairly ideal couple.

[_EAllusion]

See. Even Morris gets bad reviews. Should I summarize his work based on all this?

Huh? That movie is generally positively reviewed. Many of the positive reviews are extremely positive. I referenced RT primarily to point to the volume of reviews he receives. I was showing how much fame he has relative to Mann.

Let me try to retrace what is going on in your mind. You think that I am summarizing Spurlock's work based on a handful bad reviews? I'm not. I'm saying that if you look at the reviews, negative and positive mind you, you'll see his work described in ways similar to what I pointed out and you were incredulous over. Here's the Onion's review of his most recent film:

Enjoying the latest advocacy doc from Super Size Me writer-director Morgan Spurlock involves a number of mental gymnastics. Viewers are supposed to accept that Spurlock is in emotional agonies about missing out on his wife's first pregnancy, even though he skipped out during those months to travel to hotspots in the Middle East and make an essentially comedic film about trying to locate Osama bin Laden. They're supposed to accept that bin Laden is a serious threat, while still chuckling as Spurlock reduces him into a videogame character, fighting Spurlock in a trailer park, and a cartoon character, dancing mockingly to "U Can't Touch This." Most importantly, they're supposed to be amused by Spurlock's silly antics—like slipping "Do you know where Osama is?" into casual conversations, or randomly calling bin Ladens from the Saudi Arabian phone book—while simultaneously taking him seriously as a journalistic investigator unearthing shocking truths about people in the likes of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Egypt.

The main "shocking" truth—and the film's message—is that people in the Middle East are much like people in America, politically trapped by loudmouthed extremists on both sides of any issue, but essentially willing to believe the best about humanity the world over. The affirming message gives Where In The World Is Osama Bin Laden? a warm, fuzzy, pleasantly inclusive center. But that center is heavily coated with a numbing barrage of Michael Moore stunt journalism, dumbed-down history lectures, and a bright candy shell of animation and self-satisfied jokes. Even more so than in Super Size Me—which applied the same tactics, but to more appropriately trivial issues—Where In The World is a conversation-starter for ADD-stricken adolescents who can't bear to think about one thing for too long, or too deeply.

There's a lot to like amid Where In The World's bouncy amiability. Spurlock remains engaging and playfully funny, at least when he isn't repeatedly trying to mine pathos out of the fact that he voluntarily left home while his first child develops. And while the film's gags don't always jibe with its sincere interviews of Middle Eastern citizens, or its worrisome encounters with the soldiers serving in dangerous territory—the constantly shifting tone provides as many hit bits as misses. The primary problems are the same ones that plague Moore: the disingenuous yet snotty tone, and the way Spurlock demands that viewers giggle at his flippant adolescent humor one minute, and trust his sincerity a moment later. At least Spurlock's messages are generally simple enough that it's easy to trust his motives and conclusions. But sometimes being on his side is a little embarrassing.

http://www.avclub.com/content/cinema/White House ... _osama_bin

What? They're saying Supersize Me was an advocacy doc? !!!! Go get 'em!

Morris is consistently has more and better reviews

.

Standard Operating Procedure got a 78% on the tomatometer. Ron Mann's Grass got a 71%.

You picked Morris's worst reviewed and Mann's best reviewed in order to get Mann close. That's pathetic. Fortunately, I'm not an idiot and can pick this up. You know, Morris had a film out in 1999 when Grass was also out. 100% (!) its 53 reviews are positive. 71% of Grass's 34 reviews are positive.

Morris has been around decades longer than Mann.

About a decade to be exact.

Even if that explained why Morris is far better recognized, it doesn't change the fact that he is far better recognized. That's what we were arguing about, if you recall.

[_GoodK]

Supporting homosexual adoption is a common liberal position.

I don't care to discuss political "positions" - You are trying to say that Morgan Spurlock supports homosexual adoption (I don't know if he does or not) and thus has a liberal agenda because a nice, reasonable gay couple (not wearing their leather chaps) was chosen to particapte in an episode of his show. Furthermore, you are accusing him of producing "propoganda" being "transparent" and is just not as cool as your favorite director.

That's what you're saying, isn't it?

it is an incredibly stark, emotionally jarring way to get the point across.

So what. Errol Morris doesn't use emotionally jarring images? What about his last movie?

He picked an ideal example of children languishing in a bad foster home as a means to persuade people with this argument.

An ideal example. You're funny. The foster care system is a beacon of hope and joy.

Also, you don't seem to understand that I agree with Spurlock on this issue with your incessant comparisons to Coggins.

I heard you. I know you agree with the gay couple. And me. My comparison to Coggins is due to your gift of discernment when it comes to determining who is a liberal and who isn't. And your paranoia concerning left-wing documentarians not giving the issues a fair shake.

Hey, they were able to find a fairly ideal couple.

Yeah. They probably really had to dig deep.

[Guest]

Morris has been around decades longer than Mann.

About a decade to be exact.

Technically, Ron Mann's first film as a director came out in 1978. But that's a quick short. His first real doc came out in 1981. Morris's first film as a director came out in 1978. They've been around equally as long. I spotted Mann a decade because Comic Book Confidential is the first of his films I had heard of. But that really was a mistake. The truth is GoodK's statement is just flat false.

[_GoodK]

You picked Morris's worst reviewed and Mann's best reviewed in order to get Mann close. That's pathetic. Fortunately, I'm not an idiot and can pick this up. You know, Morris had a film out in 1999 when Grass was also out. 100% (!) its 53 reviews are positive. 71% of Grass's 34 reviews are positive.

I picked my favorite Mann movie, and the only Morris movie I know of. I didn't even look at the other reviews. I don't rely on that website as much as you do.

[_GoodK]

Morris has been around decades longer than Mann.

About a decade to be exact.

Technically, Ron Mann's first film as a director came out in 1978. But that's a quick short. His first real doc came out in 1981. Morris's first film as a director came out in 1978. They've been around equally as long. I spotted Mann a decade because Comic Book Confidential is the first of his films I had heard of. But that really was a mistake. The truth is GoodK's statement is just flat false.[/quote]

Wow. I'm surprised. I stand corrected. Good research.

[_EAllusion]

That's what you're saying, isn't it?

Following the flow of a conversation doesn't appear to be your strongsuit.

it is an incredibly stark, emotionally jarring way to get the point across.

So what. Errol Morris doesn't use emotionally jarring images? What about his last movie?

That's not what I'm faulting him for. If you recall I'm pointing out he picked them - or more accurately made sure a surrogate would pick people like them - to make an argument. He was trying to contrast the awfulness of the foster care system situation they were in with approval of gay parents in the other segment. It's fairly obvious simply from the notes.

An ideal example. You're funny. The foster care system is a beacon of hope and joy.

I am a former foster child. Yes, Spurlock picked one of the more hard-luck stories you are going to find in order to make his point. Yes, he was making a point.