Michael Moore vs Oliver Stone: how do they compare/contrast?

tomdkat · 09-03-2004, 11:01 PM

Both are film makers who make films that generate discussion. JFK had this affect as well as Farenheit 9/11.

How does these directors compare? Are they radically different in all aspects or just in how they direct the story being told? Both tend to convey their view in their movie but Michael Moore seems to be much more overt about it than Oliver Stone.

Your thoughts?

Peace...

Prof. Falken · 10-10-2004, 02:24 AM

Well for one thing, Stone uses some of his movies to re-examine history from his point of view. Moore brings his slant to current events, and uses his films as a political tool.

Hardcore Legend · 10-10-2004, 03:25 AM

Well, personally...I feel they are apples and oranges. Moore is a great observationalist. He can only work with the subjects that are presented to him before his camera. Atleast, if you don't buy into the 'edit' theories. He can't create a world to continue the narrative thread he has latched on to. This is tougher than what Stone does, which doesn't imply better. Think of it as a craft project. Moore shows up the day of the project, is told he has to make something and then is lead to a table full of supplies. Stone is told there will be a craft project the night before, he goes and gets what he needs to make what he wants, shows up the next day and creates what he had in mind.

However, Stone is a much better story teller. He has an uncanny knack for creating suspense with the camera. Everytime I watch JFK, the two scenes that always get me are when Costner is watching the TV when Bobby is shot and when he is up in the Book Depository window and 'unravels' the plot.

One could say that Stone works on the idea of 'revisionist' history, that there could be an alternative interpretation to the facts presented. Moore takes part in 'revisionist news', in which he attempts to tell you the 'truth' about what is happening, that his vision it the way it really is.

Also, Stone draws from personal experiences for his films, where Moore draws on the personal experiences of others.

tomdkat · 10-11-2004, 06:11 PM

Wow, very well stated Hardcore. You make some excellent points and describe the two in a way I had never thought of them in the past.

Given their approach to the "craft project", do you (or anyone else) think Moore is any more or less controversial than Stone? The movie JFK had an impact on the gov'ts policy on the documents surrounding the assassination and Moore has had impact on our society and gov't in other ways.

Peace...

Notoriousaurus · 10-11-2004, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomdkat

The movie JFK had an impact on the gov'ts policy on the documents surrounding the assassination

What impact did they have Tom?

Hardcore Legend · 10-11-2004, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notoriousaurus

What impact did they have Tom?

I believe it lead to widespread pressure to move the release of sealed documents on the killing up from the original start date of 2014. Then again, I am not sure.

Frank Gunn · 10-11-2004, 07:19 PM

It's a damned sin that Oliver Stone has been rather marginalized while Michael Moore is regarded as some kind of obese folk hero.

(I'm a huge Michael Moore fan, by the way. If his politics weren't completely opposite of mine, I'd like him even more.)

Hardcore Legend · 10-11-2004, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Given their approach to the "craft project", do you (or anyone else) think Moore is any more or less controversial than Stone?

Moore is much more controversial because he doesn't flinch in believing his vision is the stone cold truth about the matter. He shows things, says things and focuses on things that he knows will anger people. Stone tells the story he wants to, with the ideas he wants to, and if people get pissed along the way...it's no skin off his nose.

Plus, Stone is a f'ing legend. We've got Moore who was elected to the school board at 18, while Stone's papa was taking him to see hookers at the age of 16. That's what I call visionary.

Frank Gunn · 10-11-2004, 07:45 PM

Let's not forget all the Charlie that Ollie laid to rest. And he wrote 'Scarface'!

Hardcore Legend · 10-11-2004, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Gunn

Let's not forget all the Charlie that Ollie laid to rest. And he wrote 'Scarface'!

Let's not forget all the Charleston (Chew) that Mikey laid to rest.

tomdkat · 10-11-2004, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardcore Legend

Moore is much more controversial because he doesn't flinch in believing his vision is the stone cold truth about the matter. He shows things, says things and focuses on things that he knows will anger people. Stone tells the story he wants to, with the ideas he wants to, and if people get pissed along the way...it's no skin off his nose.

Plus, Stone is a f'ing legend. We've got Moore who was elected to the school board at 18, while Stone's papa was taking him to see hookers at the age of 16. That's what I call visionary.

Thanks for the insight! I applaud your ability to separate Moore's politics in relation to yours from his film making approach and ability.

As for JFK, I believe Hardcore is right if not on the right track about that "impact".

Peace...

Sid · 10-15-2004, 05:26 PM

Well, one is a talent and one is not. One has a right to make the films he does as he serves and fought in Vietnam, and one is a fat vindictive fuck who people call a filmmaker. Mockumantaries are not films. And Bowling For Columbine was for the weak minded

Notoriousaurus · 10-15-2004, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sid

Mockumantaries are not films.

Meet the Rutles is a film...
This Is Spinal Tap is a film...
Forgotten Silver is a film...
Best In Show is a film...
Waiting for Guffman is a film...

Marq · 10-15-2004, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notoriousaurus

Meet the Rutles is a film...
This Is Spinal Tap is a film...
Forgotten Silver is a film...
Best In Show is a film...
Waiting for Guffman is a film...

Yeah, but if it's a documentary that is at odds with your own personal politics, it's not worthy of being projected. Don't you know this? And if the director is overweight, it's all the more unworthy of exhibition.

Notoriousaurus · 10-15-2004, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marq

And if the director is overweight, it's all the more unworthy of exhibition.

Yes, I never thought that Kubrick made "films" so much as he did, "ridiculous art obviously the product of his low self-esteem due to his being a fat ass."

Morticia · 10-15-2004, 10:51 PM

Thanks, guys, for the "interjections".
But can we stay on topic? I don't think this topic has much to do with "fat directors" or Kubrick, after all.

venetian blinds · 10-23-2004, 05:01 PM

Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat! Fat Fat Fatty Fat Fat!

**aintnosin** · 10-23-2004, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morticia

Thanks, guys, for the "interjections".
But can we stay on topic? I don't think this topic has much to do with "fat directors" or Kubrick, after all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by venetian blinds

Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat! Fat Fat Fatty Fat Fat!

Now, I don't think that's what 'Tish had in mind.

Sid · 12-05-2004, 06:27 PM

Oliver Stone doesn't hire a team of lawyer to protect him from lible suits. He doesn't flat out lie and change what people said, to get the results he wanted. And he didn't take advantage of an elderly mad suffering from Alzeimers (and yes, if I heard the rumors about it, Moore did too, so he took his pot shot)

Also, Oliver Stone never lost anybody an election

Notoriousaurus · 12-05-2004, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sid

Also, Oliver Stone never lost anybody an election

Neither has Moore been proven to do so.

Sid · 12-08-2004, 07:03 PM

Come on, if you honestly think if he's sitting next to our former presidents at the democratic convention in 2008, they will lose again. You dont campaign with a guy who calls the Taliban freedom fighters, and called 51 percent of america stupid. Hate never won a thing, the impeachment trials proved that. You win an election by proving your stance, they didnt do that, it was just this HATE BUSH WITH US, ONE OF US ONE OF US. He is just negativity, and it doesnt work. So yes, he did lose the election for Kerry

Marq · 12-08-2004, 07:12 PM

I wish my country had a filmmaker that could sway the way thousands (millions?) of people voted. That sounds totally outrageous! Imagine the scandal! "Cronenberg Costs Liberal Party Election After Calling Out Opponent on Mistakes: Even Without Formal Acknowledgment From Candidate He Was Endorsing!".

Notoriousaurus · 12-08-2004, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sid

So yes, he did lose the election for Kerry

Until you provide documentation from at least 50% of the Republican voters stating that they voted for Bush based on the fact that Moore supported Kerry, then I am going to have to say there is no proof that he swayed the election one way or another.

Sid · 12-09-2004, 01:09 PM

All republicans voted for Bush just about, it was democrats that didn't vote for Kerry because of Moore and his america hating

Also, Oliver Stone doesn't say that his films are set in stone bible truth, he says that they are showing many different objective opinions, Moore flat-out denies lying or bending the truth in his "docs", watch the Barbara Walters special, liar

Marq · 12-09-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sid

Moore flat-out denies lying or bending the truth in his "docs", watch the Barbara Walters special, liar

Who are you saying is a liar? Moore? Walters? Notoriousaurus?
I saw Moore on that show last night he said F 9/11 is grounded in facts but is of course presented through his own leanings. Sounds honest enough to me.

Notoriousaurus · 12-09-2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sid

All republicans voted for Bush just about, it was democrats that didn't vote for Kerry because of Moore and his america hating

You are a funny one.

Sid · 12-12-2004, 07:40 PM

I'm a riot, and Bush is president. Its a F'd world

Notoriousaurus · 12-13-2004, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sid

I'm a riot, and Bush is president. Its a F'd world

Indeed.

09-03-2004, 11:01 PM	#1 (permalink)
tomdkat Official Forum Warmonger "Dial Tone" Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Hayward, CA, USA	Michael Moore vs Oliver Stone: how do they compare/contrast? Both are film makers who make films that generate discussion. JFK had this affect as well as Farenheit 9/11. How does these directors compare? Are they radically different in all aspects or just in how they direct the story being told? Both tend to convey their view in their movie but Michael Moore seems to be much more overt about it than Oliver Stone. Your thoughts? Peace... __________________ My DVD Aficionado List "At last we shall reveal ourselves to the Jedi, at last we shall have revenge!"

10-10-2004, 03:25 AM	#3 (permalink)
Hardcore Legend I have a "Cool Label" under my name! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Use of the spoiler tag is highly recommended	Well, personally...I feel they are apples and oranges. Moore is a great observationalist. He can only work with the subjects that are presented to him before his camera. Atleast, if you don't buy into the 'edit' theories. He can't create a world to continue the narrative thread he has latched on to. This is tougher than what Stone does, which doesn't imply better. Think of it as a craft project. Moore shows up the day of the project, is told he has to make something and then is lead to a table full of supplies. Stone is told there will be a craft project the night before, he goes and gets what he needs to make what he wants, shows up the next day and creates what he had in mind. However, Stone is a much better story teller. He has an uncanny knack for creating suspense with the camera. Everytime I watch JFK, the two scenes that always get me are when Costner is watching the TV when Bobby is shot and when he is up in the Book Depository window and 'unravels' the plot. One could say that Stone works on the idea of 'revisionist' history, that there could be an alternative interpretation to the facts presented. Moore takes part in 'revisionist news', in which he attempts to tell you the 'truth' about what is happening, that his vision it the way it really is. Also, Stone draws from personal experiences for his films, where Moore draws on the personal experiences of others. __________________ Ah, but how could I enjoy the sweet of life without the bitter? Marisa Tomei: The last beacon of virtue in Hollywood. 'That doesn't mean Notoriousaurus won't be wearing his ass for a hat.'-Frank Gunn

10-11-2004, 06:11 PM	#4 (permalink)
tomdkat Official Forum Warmonger "Dial Tone" Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Hayward, CA, USA	Wow, very well stated Hardcore. You make some excellent points and describe the two in a way I had never thought of them in the past. Given their approach to the "craft project", do you (or anyone else) think Moore is any more or less controversial than Stone? The movie JFK had an impact on the gov'ts policy on the documents surrounding the assassination and Moore has had impact on our society and gov't in other ways. Peace... __________________ My DVD Aficionado List "At last we shall reveal ourselves to the Jedi, at last we shall have revenge!"

10-15-2004, 10:51 PM	#16 (permalink)
Morticia Administrator Emeritus Film Class Goddess Part-Time PRN Princess Panty Thief Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Devil's Point. Burn baby burn!	Thanks, guys, for the "interjections". But can we stay on topic? I don't think this topic has much to do with "fat directors" or Kubrick, after all. __________________ Nope, you really haven't lived until you've fed a naked Fire Dancer a S'more...cooked from her own flaming baton. I reject your reality and substitute my own! "Freeze dried moles. Price as marked." -- Nixon, Suicide Girl

12-08-2004, 07:12 PM	#22 (permalink)
Marq Actor Join Date: May 2001 Location: Ottawa	I wish my country had a filmmaker that could sway the way thousands (millions?) of people voted. That sounds totally outrageous! Imagine the scandal! "Cronenberg Costs Liberal Party Election After Calling Out Opponent on Mistakes: Even Without Formal Acknowledgment From Candidate He Was Endorsing!". Last edited by Marq : 12-08-2004 at 07:18 PM.

10-10-2004, 02:24 AM	#2 (permalink)
Prof. Falken Actor Join Date: Oct 2004	Well for one thing, Stone uses some of his movies to re-examine history from his point of view. Moore brings his slant to current events, and uses his films as a political tool.

10-11-2004, 07:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
Frank Gunn Actor Join Date: Oct 2002	It's a damned sin that Oliver Stone has been rather marginalized while Michael Moore is regarded as some kind of obese folk hero. (I'm a huge Michael Moore fan, by the way. If his politics weren't completely opposite of mine, I'd like him even more.)

10-11-2004, 07:45 PM	#9 (permalink)
Frank Gunn Actor Join Date: Oct 2002	Let's not forget all the Charlie that Ollie laid to rest. And he wrote 'Scarface'!

10-15-2004, 05:26 PM	#12 (permalink)
Sid Actor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Antioch, California, U.S.A.	Well, one is a talent and one is not. One has a right to make the films he does as he serves and fought in Vietnam, and one is a fat vindictive fuck who people call a filmmaker. Mockumantaries are not films. And Bowling For Columbine was for the weak minded

10-23-2004, 05:01 PM	#17 (permalink)
venetian blinds Actor Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canada, eh	Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat! Fat Fat Fatty Fat Fat!

12-05-2004, 06:27 PM	#19 (permalink)
Sid Actor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Antioch, California, U.S.A.	Oliver Stone doesn't hire a team of lawyer to protect him from lible suits. He doesn't flat out lie and change what people said, to get the results he wanted. And he didn't take advantage of an elderly mad suffering from Alzeimers (and yes, if I heard the rumors about it, Moore did too, so he took his pot shot) Also, Oliver Stone never lost anybody an election

12-08-2004, 07:03 PM	#21 (permalink)
Sid Actor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Antioch, California, U.S.A.	Come on, if you honestly think if he's sitting next to our former presidents at the democratic convention in 2008, they will lose again. You dont campaign with a guy who calls the Taliban freedom fighters, and called 51 percent of america stupid. Hate never won a thing, the impeachment trials proved that. You win an election by proving your stance, they didnt do that, it was just this HATE BUSH WITH US, ONE OF US ONE OF US. He is just negativity, and it doesnt work. So yes, he did lose the election for Kerry

12-09-2004, 01:09 PM	#24 (permalink)
Sid Actor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Antioch, California, U.S.A.	All republicans voted for Bush just about, it was democrats that didn't vote for Kerry because of Moore and his america hating Also, Oliver Stone doesn't say that his films are set in stone bible truth, he says that they are showing many different objective opinions, Moore flat-out denies lying or bending the truth in his "docs", watch the Barbara Walters special, liar

12-12-2004, 07:40 PM	#27 (permalink)
Sid Actor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Antioch, California, U.S.A.	I'm a riot, and Bush is president. Its a F'd world