i was standing by the cubicle of my collegue CRD, recounting how i had accidentally quelched a conversation the other night by expressing my aversion to Michael Moore (and being gratified with CRD's parallel revulsion while watching an interview of MM) when a minor epiphany revealed itself to me in the form of a phrase: "brain-child of the bubble chart." Just below the surface my mind had been plasmating...following a series of links that went sloppy logic => gleefully, spritely concept hopping => brain-storming exercises => bubble charts => hippie era education reform movements.
i've yet to fully research this impression i have of him -and i've also yet to see Sicko, so it's possible if improbable that his MO has changed since i last checked - but from what i know, his narrative style in film and writing remains is an exercise in fully exploring the fecundity of a-logical reasoning, in how far you can stretch the boundaries of association. it's not so much that the individual expositions lack foundation or basis, nor is it that there is no connection between the things he juxtaposes; it's simply that he goes about merrily stringing together a confluence of data with no real effort to properly relate the nature, scope, or strength of the connections he makes. my skepticism towards him is similar to that i developed for deconstructive literary readings. one can place some merit in the credibility of the information presented, but the leaps and conclusions are immediately suspect. well, but i'll still have to see Sicko. the point was, i feel like perhaps i understand the man and what he was going for better now, having related him to the bubble chart exercises. it almost inspires me to cut him a bit more slack.
interestingly, from this perspective he reminds me of both the subject and the author of that other book i read recently, Finding Atlantis. There, too, the thrill of pursuing potential connections and detailing interesting tangents ultimately removed from the narrative its original intent.
Recent Comments