This is the only response I've ever made to Videomaker. I was a bit disappointed with some of the negative feedback on Michael Moore. It would appear that a lot of people do not understand such terms as documentary (irrespective of definition proffered), propaganda, or history. I admire Mr. Moore's work, though I often disagree with some points. As for propaganda, those suggesting Mr. Moore is providing such apparently believe our governmental leaders are honest and care for "of the people, by the people, and for the people." I wish such folks could contact me, as I have a number of original deeds to a bridge in Brooklyn I would be willing to part with for a tidy sum to these folks!

A reference was made to the film, Sicko, claiming it was filled with errors, etc. Some, most probably - but not a lot. But the biggest lie foisted off on this country (the only top tier country without health care for its people), is that health care would be a disaster and too expensive. Apparently, it is not too expensive to destroy our country's finances along with a foreign country invaded in violation of international law, which could have saved lives and the money spent would easily have provided for health care here (which those opposed have provided to themselves, our leaders, courtesy of the same taxpayers who are deemed unworthy).

So, would those opposing Mr. Moore desire that no one raise such issues, instead, ignoring the many people in this country without health care, and those literally dying and suffering, which many wish to pretend do not exist, deserve such a fate, or just ignore? By the way, too, it is easy for many writers to use the pejorative term liberal or such, labeling anything they disagree with as a true propaganda term. I suggest reading [the book] What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman.

By the way, most people who actually know my voting record and me would hardly label me the too easily applied term liberal, as if this is published, some "clever" responders no doubt would pull out the "original" use of such term. The strength of any democracy, and what is left of one here, is dissenting views. Many issues that Mr. Moore raises are not heard, and need to be. Whether one agrees or not, what the so-called liberal media (which is actually the opposite) and our leaders provide obfuscates and ignores many issues and concerns that we need to know. If one actually wishes to know about propaganda, there are works that those not too lazy could pursue.

What such tell me is that people are easily led and manipulated by media, and perhaps lack the ability to think and consider views that do not match what we are told. Writing, film, video - including history - are never totally objective. There is point of view. Just setting up a camera itself does not guarantee objectivity. Without commentary, that alone can manipulate. In fact, the old adage, "the camera doesn't lie," itself is a lie. Great photos exist because of the fact that they do "lie" and can be used to create an effect not actually visible. Film/video is the same. Mood, lighting and all exist for reasons. There are many films in the library. I suggest one watch some of these, including "objective" documentaries. By the way: There is no such thing as an "objective doc"!
J. Phillips
Portland, OR

Yes, Lawrence Deleski, there is a reason to keep your subscription to Videomaker. Lawrence, the Videomaker editors are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. Yes, there is a home here at Videomaker that exists as certainly as its subscribers have the intellectual capability to understand that the difference between what is right and wrong, fact and fiction, is not elusive. Please accept my appreciation for your criticism of the editorial staff's attempt to give credibility to America's own Minister of Propaganda and National Enlightenment, Michael Moore.

No Videomaker! Thank God, we subscribe among the ranks of Leonard Thygesen, David Zappardino, and Lawrence Deleski!
Joseph S. Sardo
Ghent, New York

Recently, it seems that expensive movies in the theaters are suffering from some kind of contagion!

Here's a list of reasons why I won't patronize them anymore after having seen The Transformers:

• The camera is too close in on many occasions, thus effectively blocking out the background making it difficult to see the scene in proper perspective.
• Hollywood seems to believe that it adds a sense of immediacy if the camera jiggles and shakes a little, causing the scene being photographed to jump around annoyingly on the screen.
• Way too many "sun flares" or "white outs" are positioned at strategic points in the photography, so that the on-screen action is effectively wiped out.
• In some scenes, the camera is pulled way back to encompass a setting, only to have actors, vehicles, walls, whatever, move back and forth in front of the camera, interrupting what was being shown.
• Many scenes are too short, so that they cannot be placed properly in the action. Here a flash, there a flash, everything's gone in a FLASH!
• Some scenes are too blurry, because the camera is moving too fast too close up to be able to figure out what it is. It's like driving by a garden and a pond and all you see is soup!
• Too much extraneous movement in front of the camera adds to the interruptive nature of the scene. Leave interruptions for real life, but not on the screen where I'm paying big bucks!
• Too many irrelevant passers-by intrude upon the scene or get in the way of the action. I'm yelling quietly to myself, "GET OUT OF THE WAY!"

From a cinematic point of view, the film gets a D- from me. The graphics are excellent - when you can see them! I don't appreciate being robbed of the visual enhancements in a modern film just because some director wants to be cutesy-cutesy. Just what is going on, anyway, heh, Follywood?
Doug Parrish
Howell MI

Excellent article (Lighting with Gels, Lighting column, July 2008). This is probably one of the most helpful articles I have seen in Videomaker Magazine! I have been a reader for about 10 years.
Steve St. Phillip
via Email