I watched Braveheart the other night and after viewing the stirring conclusion with Wallace screaming out "freedom," I was touched. I began to ponder whether we still produce men and women comparable to Wallace. Men used to fight for what they believed in. World War II exhibited teenagers lying about their age so they could fight. Martin Luther King Jr. fought to the death for blacks rights. Where are these men today?
Sure, you have your firefighters and police officers who are newfound heroes after 9/11 and soldiers who risked their lives in the sequel to the Gulf War, but what about those who buck the system to battle the individuals in charge for what they feel is right and virtuous.
Does the hero mentality still exist? Did it end with the Vietnam War? This was a turning point in American history. Not only was it the first war that men stopped volunteering for, but it was vastly rejected by the population. Men didn't want to go fight for something they didn't understand and this mindset has been passed down to their sons. These sons, guys like me, have openly said if the draft was reinstated we would make a run for Canada or Mexico. What a bunch of cowards we are.
Therefore, this leads me to ask again, "Where have all the heroes gone?" Is Michael Moore a hero of the times? Please don't get me wrong, I hate Michael Moore just like you do. Yet, I hate him for different reasons than most. I am upset about his political speech during the 2003 Academy Awards. The Oscars are not a political podium for one to give sermons about our country and its leaders. It is a prestigious awards show. Stick to film speeches. Thank those who got you where you are and get off stage before the music begins to play.
Now back to Moore possibly being a hero. He is a liar and fights dirty, however he is fighting for what he believes in. The target just happens to be our country's leader. You can't praise the man for hard hitting documentaries like Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine and then ostracize him for Fahrenheit 9/11. I think his tactics are low and his purpose is not heroic, but he believes Bush has acted poorly in office and he has done something about it.
Moore is merely trying to sway the presidential vote in November with his propaganda, but I applaud him for it. No one else had thought to make feature films about presidential candidates until now.
So, is Michael Moore a hero? I doubt it. Yet, if Moore is not a hero, then who is? Who will have movies made about them years from now like William Wallace, King Arthur and Wyatt Earp, making the public aware of their contributions to history and society?
I hope the youth of America will get their act together and stop wasting their time with ridiculous "reality" shows like The Ashlee Simpson Show and The Bachelor and understand they only have one shot to be great and make a difference. Otherwise, life will pass them by and they will realize they missed the most important lesson in life. School isn't about memorizing facts and dates. It is about teaching you to use your brain and think for yourself instead of letting people like Michael Moore spoon feed you what you think you need to know. You have so much information at your fingertips and you are wasting it by looking at porn and MTV all day. Fight for what you believe in and become a hero.
4 comments:
I think I have the exact opposite problem of most people my age. Instead of being lazy with nothing to do, I find myself overwhelmed with information and political issues.
I have hopes of becoming a professional engineer and then, when old enough, an elected official someday, and there is no way in Hell I'm letting anything compromise my aspirations.
If nothing else, I'll at least be able to express myself more often to a larger audience, politician or not. I have that kind of fire you're talking about. It's just a matter of my lack of life experience getting in the way. Just a few more years...
"You can't praise the man for hard hitting documentaries like Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine and then ostracize him for Fahrenheit 9/11. I think his tactics are low and his purpose is not heroic."
And why not? If I like one thing an individual does, must I then subscribe to every thing else they do? Isn't that the definition of blind following, something that is detrimental to self thought? If you think that his tactics in making his film are low and not always forthright, then why should you like the film? Simply because you liked the two that preceeded it? That makes no sense.
He didn't do anything different with Fahrenheit 9/11 than he did with the other movies. So what is there to not like, the subject. That is what you should be mad at, not him.
"He didn't do anything different with Fahrenheit 9/11 than he did with the other movies. So what is there to not like, the subject. That is what you should be mad at, not him."
"I think his tactics are low and his purpose is not heroic" - those are your words. You back this man? If a director uses these methods to promote their film, then I have every right to not like both the subject and the artist. I suppose that you find Marilyn Manson's music offensive but enjoy him as an artist sevant. As difficult as it may be to find in America these days, there is such a thing as ethical conscious. Michael Moore deliberately altered facts (I assume that you are familiar with the recent attacks that he has come under due to his intentionally changing information in ...9/11) and is using his film as nothing more than propaganda. He's an opportunist who I cannot respect as a filmmaker for the way he goes about his business. And what I cannot respect, whether it be the film or the man, I cannot like.
Post a Comment