You're shadow boxing. I'm over here.
>
> let's see, against bullshit attacks on moore i pointed out that he may
just
> be wearing the clothes he's comfortable in. comfortable here is always a
> cultural construct...
Against bullshit attacks? Seems to me lbo-chat was carping on secondary shit about Moore. I only caught a bit of Fitch's post but he seemed to be complaining that Moore misrepresented the working class - they're really fit and trim - reminded me of some Monty Python routine about the firm buttocks of British sailors. Joanna Bujes complained that Moore's politics were isolationist and reformist. As Perrin points out, Moore was more interested in bringing attention to the devastating effects of deindustrialization and capital flight on workers and communities. The hardships brought on by changing economic realities has long been a blind spot of the mojo audience. Henwood coyly points to Moore's real estate investments.
I agree with your comments about Moore's wardrobe choices. Though I also think its a conscious choice to avoid the pretense of people in suits...or sweaters...or oxford shirts and khakis.
> as for the lack of structural analysis in the film, i find moore's
> representation of people in the film to be slightly patronizing primarily
> because, if you show it to a bunch of wealthy young white students, as
well
> as people of color, it confirms for them all their stereotypes.
I see your point - I've shown the film all over the place, from a baby ivy classroom to a community college that industry had long left. The risk that an audience's ideological preconceptions will focus on one thing at the expense of another is worth taking with Moore's Roger & Me. I haven't seen the other one. I've had better luck with the film in conveying the patterns of an economic system whose logic pretty much runs counter to the needs of people and their communities. Moore plays with the 'stalking the wily Roger Smith' theme but I think he's relatively successful making Smith a creature of the system. And its the system that compels local officials no less than GM to pursue policies that result in more waste and hardship.
I think you're way off base charging Moore of patronizing and victim-blaming. Moore's focus is on the folly of officials in responding to the loss of jobs - it is a system outta whack looking to tourism and other bogus urban redevelopment schemes. The bad choices depicted in the film seem to come from those in power, not in the immorality of laid-off workers and people being evicted. As someone else pointed out, Moore's work is a lot like street-theater 'cept on TV and it generally takes aim at the folly of those with power. And I think Moore does a credible job establishing a context so that power and the powerful aren't just variations of human nature or free-floating.
> the film could use a more explicit C. Wright Mills approach. another
> approach might be to engage in a classic class analysis where the
> pathologies of the working poor are juxtaposed to the pathologies of other
> strata--relativize it.
Wow, I thought this precisely what he did. If he got any more Millsian, there'd be lots of motorcycles in it.
Dennis