GoodK wrote: It wouldn't have even been implausible for you to have seen one of his films or segments of it as part of a class at that point.
I never said I didn't. I said it was the only film I knew of. As in, the only one I could think of to search for on your oracle of movie wisdom to see the reviews. You asked me to, remember?
Unless you had this film class less than two months ago, then that would not be the only film you knew of if you saw one.
Ok. I could have worded it better .You are the person who thinks Mann is less obscure than Moore. Better?
No. Not better. How about you say, "You are the person who answered my question :
Besides Moore and Spurlock, can you name three other documentary makers with more fame (as documentary makers)?
With Rob Epstein, Kenny Hotz, and Ron Mann." I admitted Kenny is more famous for his latest TV show, and was only half serious and talking about fame. Period.
There's a typo there. That should read, "You are the person who thinks Mann is less obscure than Morris." Obscurity is the opposite of fame.
Do you know how ridiculous you sound? What are you even talking about? My credibility in Errol Morris trivia?
Your credibility on knowledge of the documentary form. If you recall, you were implying you knew a fair amount in order to underwrite the credibility of your comments. It turns out you don't. It's like claiming that you are a huge fan of science fiction film, having taking numerous film classes, are involved in the industry, but really aren't all that aware of who Stanley Kubrick is. But hey, the Wachowski's are wicked awesome geniuses and not some out of mainstream nobody like Kubrick. At that point, laughing to oneself is appropriate.
Not to indulge you and your Morris distraction any further, but I think you equate the word prominence with skill, while I do not.
No I don't. I also think Morris is one of the most gifted of documentary filmmakers. But he also is one of the most prominent. This is kind of important when you dismissed him as outside of the mainstream. If Morris is cut off, that cuts off virtually all documentary makers, which the exception of Micheal Moore and
maybe a couple of others.
Clever how you changed the subject with Mann (red herring) when your original argument was with Spurlock.
My original argument was with the notion that Morris isn't mainstream. That's how you replied to me comparing him to Spurlock. I suppose the idea was that Morris is so obscure that it makes comparing his techniques to Spurlock's unproductive. I pointed out that if he isn't mainstream, then virtually all documentary makers aren't mainstream. If virtually no documentary makers are mainstream, that makes your point really fricken' dumb when I am comparing documentarians. So I asked you to name some people who have more fame than Morris besides Moore and Spurlock. You gave me a list of 3 people who quite clearly do not. The problem is that you substituted your limited knowledge for the rest of us. Ron Mann isn't in the same league as Morris in terms of recognition. Hell, if you list the most prominent documentary makers working today, I don't see how Morris doesn't make a top 5 list. I typed in "most famous documentary makers" into Google. The very first link lists Morris first.
If you try that and similar searches site after site lists him. The upshot of doing this for me is I found
this book that seems pretty interesting.
You think maybe the problem is with your ignorance?
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
.
Yes, being aware of the History Channel is for old people. Highlarious. Trust me, just because people don't find your jokes funny, that doesn't mean they don't get them.
