Actually I probably would attend if they paid me, if at least to have the excuse to continue these sorts of interviews on campus.
I won't put down all of their educators, but I question the integrity and veracity of this school's administration, therefore I wouldn't attend unless they paid me.
3. Many productions shoot on campus and pay those fees and are forced to abide by those rules (like them or not)
4. Why didn't you just get a Columbia Film student to shoot it for you? (duh!)
There is no large political agenda at this school despite what so many tend to think. It actually has one of the most open environments I've encountered.
not a fair assessment of the environment at Columbia at all I must say. A couple other notes:
1. There are many different professors at Columbia who have said many controversial things over time (at EVERY campus and university). To single out one and imply that it represents the majority is absolutely ridiculous.
2. Columbia is a private institution and retains the right to govern who shoots what on campus (in the same way I can't walk up to your house and make a video that slanders you).
I really don't care what his purported "audience" would think about those situations. The policies of both GM and Columbia are tyrannical unless they can prove that there has been a case of slander. I think Michael Moore should be allowed to go to film such places for his documentaries, however critical they may be. In the case of Columbia, however, it can be even more insidious because it is deemed to be a place where free thought is supposed to be the aim of the college.
I can't think of any private corporation that would allow an amateur filmmaker to film a documentary attacking it for free. Columbia University (as a private uni.) is for all intents and purposes a private corporation.
This filmmaker knows that he will eventually be confronted by security and tries to gain sympathy for his cause through that. Yet, I doubt if his intended audience would have the same sympathy for Michael Moore when he is confronted for filming at GM or another corporation...
Whatever you want to say about the filmmaker and the film, the college is definitely being tyrannical demanding that the film has to portray the university in a positive light, along with other kinds of red tape. Governments shouldn't have this kind of power, and unless there is a case of slander or libel being used, neither should private entities such as Columbia University.
Truly a stupid policy. I don't think the government should have this power, and it certainly shouldn't be in the hands of institutions that supposedly are advocates of free thought.
is that columbia or havana?
dfcoinc 11 months ago
You misspelled my name.
Actually I probably would attend if they paid me, if at least to have the excuse to continue these sorts of interviews on campus.
I won't put down all of their educators, but I question the integrity and veracity of this school's administration, therefore I wouldn't attend unless they paid me.
waluum 2 years ago
You are nuts Walcum because it's one of the best schools in the US
Superplatanoman 2 years ago
3. Many productions shoot on campus and pay those fees and are forced to abide by those rules (like them or not)
4. Why didn't you just get a Columbia Film student to shoot it for you? (duh!)
There is no large political agenda at this school despite what so many tend to think. It actually has one of the most open environments I've encountered.
isaiah40films 3 years ago
not a fair assessment of the environment at Columbia at all I must say. A couple other notes:
1. There are many different professors at Columbia who have said many controversial things over time (at EVERY campus and university). To single out one and imply that it represents the majority is absolutely ridiculous.
2. Columbia is a private institution and retains the right to govern who shoots what on campus (in the same way I can't walk up to your house and make a video that slanders you).
isaiah40films 3 years ago
Wow! I wouldn't go to Columbia if they paid me!
waluum 3 years ago
I really don't care what his purported "audience" would think about those situations. The policies of both GM and Columbia are tyrannical unless they can prove that there has been a case of slander. I think Michael Moore should be allowed to go to film such places for his documentaries, however critical they may be. In the case of Columbia, however, it can be even more insidious because it is deemed to be a place where free thought is supposed to be the aim of the college.
danielinraleigh 3 years ago
I can't think of any private corporation that would allow an amateur filmmaker to film a documentary attacking it for free. Columbia University (as a private uni.) is for all intents and purposes a private corporation.
This filmmaker knows that he will eventually be confronted by security and tries to gain sympathy for his cause through that. Yet, I doubt if his intended audience would have the same sympathy for Michael Moore when he is confronted for filming at GM or another corporation...
BrezhnevIsMyCoPilot 3 years ago
Whatever you want to say about the filmmaker and the film, the college is definitely being tyrannical demanding that the film has to portray the university in a positive light, along with other kinds of red tape. Governments shouldn't have this kind of power, and unless there is a case of slander or libel being used, neither should private entities such as Columbia University.
danielinraleigh 3 years ago
Truly a stupid policy. I don't think the government should have this power, and it certainly shouldn't be in the hands of institutions that supposedly are advocates of free thought.
danielinraleigh 3 years ago