Jean-Luc Godard chides Moore

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/#2

a little ironic, considering this is the same guy who made "alphaville".. oh, well...

Godard Chides Moore
Legendary French director Jean-Luc Godard became one of the few persons in attendance at the Cannes Film Festival who had negative things to say about Michael Moore's controversial Fahrenheit 9/11 film (although he admitted that he had not seen it). Godard, who described Moore as "halfway intelligent," told reporters that films like Fahrenheit "help Bush more than harm him ... in a very vicious way that are not conscious of." Bush, he said, "is less stupid than thinks." Godard is visiting Cannes to support his latest film, Our Music, which is being screened outside of the competition. Like Moore's film, Our Music explores the conscience of nations in conflict. At one point in his news conference, he invited Olivier Derousseau, a leader of the part-time actors and technicians who have been staging a demonstration at the festival to protest cuts in unemployment benefits, to say a few words to the reporters.

:shrug:

of all the atention Moore is getting.

I hardly think so.

Sounds more like a real tactical beef.

Particularly if, as I suspect Godard considers Moore 'not a real filmmaker', yet Moore's film is getting several thousand times the attention Godard's is. Understandable.

it's gotta be hard to see someone younger get the spotlight-- even for a legend... when you know your days in the sun are behind you...

but the crazy part for me is godard's "alphaville" where people get killed for speaking their mind ?! great twisted movie, and so relevant today -- i just don't get this "chiding" business

Nobody knows who the fuck he is. Wasn't he on Star Trek - The Next Generation?

I find it extremely unlikely that Godard is jealous of Michael Moore. It's also a strange notion that nobody but film buffs know Godard. Kinda like saying, outside of opera, nobody knows Pavarotti.

I think that even a lot of Godard fans would concede he's not as well known as other filmakers. Read: relatively obscure. It's always been my impression that he reached his zenith in the late 60s and early 70s.

--and he hasn't actually seen Moore's film yet.

A bit of jealousy, perhaps?

But there is something to what Goddard is saying. There is a certain degree to which the way that Moore goes about things helps bush and the right rather than does him any political damage.

I like Moore, and I like his movies but there is no doubt that his style and the way he goes about things turns off just as many potential sympathetic voters and people as it does converts them.

That's what I took away from what Goddard was saying. That he agrees with Moore's sentiment but not his style. I don't see where that's such a horrible thing to say.

It's much easier to notch this up as personal jealousy, especially since Moore's tactics are worshipped by many here, then it is to face them squarely as rhetorical acts with particular effects.

Translate, please!

... and that sometimes they are logical fallacies (e.g. appealing to emotion, or setting up a straw man).

People from across the political spectrum use similar methods. Personally, if they can take responsibility for doing this, I don't have a big problem. (Whether Moore generally does or doesn't is up to individual viewers to decide.) I think it's good that people, even ones sympathetic to Moore, are astute enough to call bull if they see something they think is a flaw, accidental or deliberate -- so I for one am not about to flame any critical analysis of the movie. If our whole society operated like that, Bush and Co. wouldn't have made it into office.

I do suspect Moore acts outrageous on purpose, to attract attention -- he's been around long enough to know a sloppy argument, and if he wants to take a calculated risk and make one himself (to attract attention, or to appeal to particular groups who are suspicious of academic analysis), that's his decision. Having said that -- he's quite capable of backing up points if he really wants to (e.g. the first chapter of "Dude, Where's My Country", which was referenced to the hilt). Moore knows he won't be able to appeal to every single person who sees the movie. If he's decided to focus on a particular viewpoint even if he knows it'll put some people off, again that's his choice.

My guess is that, based on what I've read about them, both Godard and Moore are mature and professional enough to disagree about style without making it personal.

is not a "logical fallacy" at all. It is a legitimate technique in the rhetorical tradition (called pathos or pathetic appeal by Aristotle, and completely different from the logical appeal - that is, it is not a false logical appeal, but a different category of appeal altogether).

That's not the problem. The problem is not rhetoric. All communication is rhetorical. The problem is always whether somebody's rhetoric is effective. Godard's critique seems to be that Moore's rhetoric is ineffective, or that its effect is divisiveness, not that it is rhetoric.

But yes. They are disagreeing about "style" (that is, tactics), and I don't think it is personal at all.

I was thinking of syllogisms, which are set up with premises and conclusions which must be derivable from them. That's what I meant by "logical fallacy" (though the words themselves have different connotations when they're in general as opposed to scientific/philosophical usage).

If the argument's meant to be based on logic, and emotion or faith is used alongside factual points, it's rather like bringing an Uzi to a sword fight (since emotions tend to overwhelm rational explanations). If you're appealing to emotions along with providing adequate support for the conclusion, that's one thing, but if you're substituting emotions for reasoning, it's changing the rules midway through the argument.


So for sure, I agree that it's a legitimate rhetorical technique, but it's not exactly based on formal or informal logic, at least not the way I learned it in school.

This is how one French logician puts it:

"An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:


Favorable emotions are associated with X.
Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim."


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

p.s. as you say, "a different kind of appeal". Labossiere doesn't seem to approve of emotional appeals (but if he were coming from a formal logic background he might tend to favour the logical approach). I don't have anything against them myself, but if one is promising a logical argument then going for the emotions, it might be construed as inappropriate or taking advantage ... editors of scientific journals, say, tend to discourage that, but it seems to be okay for formal debates these days.


Just to add to your interpretation (which I thought was right on) of Godard's critique -- he's not the first to be concerned that Moore might weaken his own side's credibility by making allegations but not substantiating them adequately (which for some people involves solid factual information rather than things they perceive as rhetorical tricks). Possibly Moore was attempting to win them over with the detailed footnoting in his latest book (something he hasn't done a lot of in the past).

rhetoric, I was taking it in its classical definition, as a counterpart to dialectic, and operating by enthymemes and not syllogisms, as Aristotle says. In fact, arguments based purely on logic are severely restricted and perhaps even impossible - outside the realm of mathematics or the rarified language of formal logic. That's why Aristotle felt that he had to supplement his Prior and Posterior Analytics with his Art of Rhetoric. (It is also why mathematics and formal logic must abstract out of so-called natural language, which cannot be purged of its associative features; if you're speaking in actual words, you are making emotional appeals whether you like it or not).

There is no doubt that "substituting means of producing emotions" rather than providing evidence for claims can be considered "manipulative" (if claims+evidence with warrants is taken as the norm of argumentation), but it may only be a "logical fallacy" in the restricted understanding of syllogistic logic. In rhetoric, pathetic appeal is not a fallacy at all, but one means of persuasion among others. And, in fact, I would take issue with your French logician, and say that a claim with no evidence is a claim with no evidence. Whatever is substituted for evidence does not rise to the level of a fallacy, whether it is a "means to emotional manipulation" or simply an empty, unsupported claim. An unsupported claim is not a fallacy. That is, if he was being rigorously formal, rather than letting his own emotional investments in formal logic override his arguments!

I was only considering the syllogistic logic viewpoint (too much exposure to Logical Positivists?). And as you say, the problems with just relying on logic to get from premises to conclusions have become pretty evident. Both deduction and induction have problems, that's for sure.

I don't know enough (and am simply not smart enough) to frame many of these issues. Look at all the different meanings for "logic" we've seen in this subthread alone! It's a wonder humans can communicate at all.

I like the "empty claim" point you made, but maybe one reason why he considered all those appeals to emotion/fear/etc. in the first place might be the frequency with which they turn up! (Which in itself would be kind of an "ad populum" argument, if that's why he wanted to class them as actual fallacies.) But that's just my speculation. In any case I think he's referring to "informal logic", because I could actually read his work -- I tried the rigorously formal stuff some time back, and couldn't follow it at all!

maybe godard is looking for a more allegorical interpretation of current events -- but that is his style... moore's style is his own, so be it

i would have to see godard's latest to really fully comment on this -- but the news clip surprised me considering the godard stuff i'm familiar with -- since a lot of it jabs at the establishment -- on a symbolic level

There's no real disagreement about that, n'c'est pas?

Godard.

Man he was a real bad ass on that show. Godard and Will Wheaton. Does it really get any better?

Great guy, knew his stuff, always took his callers, but there was so much anger the only people he ended talking to were the diehard fans in the first place.

It is possible to skewer someone without going into a rage.

But not so much Michael Moore, I doubt Godard has seen the film. Maybe he just missed shooting in the back of car racing through French countryside.

I also like his films, but I agree with what you are saying. I don't think I would go as far as saying that Moore's films help Bush more than they hurt him, but then again you don't seem to be saying that either.

Moore is not above basic techniques of manipulation. I'm sure it's conscious, to try to sway as many people as possible, but I would guess that Goddard finds it unsubtle.

In an age of morons, only idiots are comprehensible and the intelligent are disdained as fools.

Finally a legit elitist showing up on this thread. "I'm a genius because I love Godard and everyone else is a fool. Look at me! Look at me!"

"he goes about things turns off just as many potential sympathetic voters and people as it does converts them."

Interesting. I guess this means the five non-politicos I know who saw Bowling and walked out wondering if they did the right thing in 2000 were a figment of my imagination.

how do films like Fahrenheit help Bush?

I recall the effect that "Roger and Me" had on my thinking. I don't think there was any new information, but it was completely eye-opening.

And it sounds like Fahrenheit is infinitely more pointed than "Roger and Me."

And I also think the anti-Saudi message will resonate with a good chunk of the RW base.

I was just positing a theory on what he meant by:

"help Bush more than harm him ... in a very vicious way that are not conscious of." Bush, he said, "is less stupid than thinks."

When attacked so visciously, many are likely to forego rationality and go straight into bunker mode. Perhaps he's suggesting that the movie lacked a certain tact.

:shrug:

more like preaching to the choir. Which is so nice since we hardly get to sing much in this present day with our corporate news.

Jean-Luc Godard

I wish I could watch as suddenly this FRENCHMAN is all knowing and wise.

a frenchman named "jean-luc godard" - suddenly the francs will become "good people" -- lol -- those right wingers have no shame

"John Luke Godderd" and all will be well.

dizzy from the spin already

worse than the gravitron

One thing about Moore's film: apparently it makes plain that Commander Smirky sat on his butt reading My Pet Goat to some schoolkids for at least 7 minutes after learning that the nation was under attack on 9/11.

Anyone taking in that plain fact, has to wonder about keeping Massive Incompetent Failure Bushy at the helm of the USA Ship of State for another 4 year term.

How could Bush fail America so pathetically in our hour of extrme crisis? With Moore's new movie, everyone will be asking that question -- no matter what wing of whatever political party.

Give him more publicity, it could be calculated.

His movie supposedly isn't in the running for any awards or screentime, so if you consider what little he personally has to gain by saying this...

but on second thought, godard's aim is probably to get us to THINK --

but the freeper buzzards will sniff that carcass, snatch it up & fly away with it

:eyes:

Nuff said

Goddard has dropped some clankers out there.

"One plus One" had some great scenes of the Stones practicing in the studio, but about an hour's worth of the kind of shit you think might be a parody of pretentious foreign art films of the 60's....then you realize Godard's sincere.

And Weekend....if he had trimmed the first hour and fifteen minutes of Weekend and just left the sequence with the "rock cannibals" at the end, it would have been one of the greatest short films ever made. As it stands, it's fugging unwatchable, especially the "impressive" one-camera traffic jam sequence.

Since Godard consistently tries to subvert filmmaking practice (in a way analogous to Brecht in theater) I'm guessing from the brief quote they provide here that Godard is critiquing Moore in regards to his technique.
He would probably have a similar critique of most any documentary on television, in that the television watching lulls people. (Mander's book "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" discusses that stuff http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-2270919-1464740 )

I seriously doubt Godard is chiding Moore because of jealousy.

on edit -- soleft's post at the same time as mine crystallizes in fewer words what I'm saying.

He didn't even see the film???

Lamer.

it doesn't mean he's stupid.

Godard is right to a degree. A lot of the protesting in the 60s and 70s did more to help the fascists than hurt them (especially in 68 and 72 in the US).

However, Mores' movies actually are incredibly smart.

Bowling for Columbine is quite brilliant.

I wonder if Godard has seen it.

editorializing in this film. He lets the seven minutes in
the classroom run without comment. One reviewer
wrote that the segment was far more powerful because Moore
chose that method of getting the point across. I have a sense that he has refined his style a bit, but I haven't seen the film either !

editorializing. It's just that he does it through images and other people's words.

Moore actually doesn't editorialize very much in any of his moves in the sense that he never tells you explicitly what he's arguing. Whether he appears in a scene or not, his editorializing is almost always through representation.

what opinion they have about the 7 minutes. It was my
understanding that the segment was shown complete without
comment and without editing. That is a departure from his
usual style. Again, haven't seen the film. I thought that
the scenes with Wolfowitz licking his comb and the other
players were also run in a similar manner. Michael Moore
definitely has an opinion, my point is that from what I
have read he seems to feel that in some instances the footage speaks for itself. Just my personal POV who knows I may change my mind
after I see the film.

...they have after seeing the scene. And as you say, scenes without narration can "speak" for themselves.

In a documentary there is so little difference between speaking explicitly the point you want to make and, say, just showing something, or letting your subject do all the talking. And the reason to not make your points explicitly by looking at the camera and simply stating your points is that that is often NOT the most compelling way to make an argument. Making an argument through representation is often much more powerful and compelling.

If the movie didn't have an argument and perspective, it wouldn't be made.

Bottom line, whether Moore is on screen or off, it doesn't neccessarily make a difference to the forcefullness or the clarity of the argument.

the events of spring 68 in France and was known to hobnob with people like Foucault, Derrida, Genet, et al in the early 70s too. I wonder whether he thinks his activism helped French fascism?

Sometimes, it seems to me, it is easier for some--and I'm not saying Godard here except as a possibility--to critique activism's "vulgarity" and to praise aestheticism as such than it is to provide alternatives.

...just shout at people and get in their face and expect that to change minds. He's probably right if that's is what he thinks, and you just have to look at the way Gore crowded Bush on stage at that one debate to understand what Godard is talking about. And you have to look at how Nixon got elected in 68 and 72 despite (or perhaps because of) some of the most aggressive protesting short of civil war seen in the modern era.

But I also think Godard probably is basing this on a false impression of the movie.

Thin Blue Line is a documentary that uses very sublte techniques to make an argument about reality that was so powerful that it got a guy off of death row. There are other ways that same issue could have been treated which might not have worked. It could have been a diatribe about prosecutorial misconduct that might have put everyone with the power to remedy the problem on the defensive to such a degree that people would have moved to the poles and nothing would have changed.

I think Moore is so outspoken and there's so much spin about what he's trying to do that, unless you see his films, you really don't undertand that they're much more like funny Thin Blue Lines than they are diatribes.

And as a movie goer I would say he probably envies Moore's capacity for making his work ACCESSIBLE... and this touches on one of my pet peeves.... Artists whose work is obviously premeditated even in its spontaneity.

Moore never puts on airs and he knows how to be entertaining.

Not bad attributes when you're dealing with the BFEE and the stressed out state of America's Mass Mind.

and they too have not seen it... I don't care if this jerk-off was Orson Welles..if you haven't seen it then keep your fucking pie hole shut.

...desperately needing to discredit Moore, put a different spin on it.

I'd distrust teh media before I'd criticize Goddard,

be allowed within ten feet of a movie camera. Yeah, I know I should like French films, but almost all of them make me want to stare at at hotel art. I can watch most of the Big Art guys--Alejandro Jodorowsky, Jim Jarmusch, Koichi Takano, Peter Greenaway et. al.--but Godard is just a yawn.

:evilgrin: