With the release of the new Michael Moore documentary film “Sicko” (his new film looking at the American Health Care System and the failings thereof) quickly approaching, the pro and negative rhetoric regarding Michael Moore and his films are heating up already. Some sites hailing him as the single greatest documentary filmmaker of all time… and some literally comparing him to Adolf Hitler (I’ll come back to Hitler in a minute).
I’ve always appreciated Moore’s skills as a documentarian. His ability to not only talk about tough subjects, but also his knack for finding ways to make discussion about those topic entertaining and engaging to watch. He gets you invested in the story and in what’s going on. Now… having said that… his opinions and conclusions in those films are entirely up for debate.
What I have found is that most people who bash on Moore usually do one of three thing:
1) They call him a liar
The interesting thing about this approach is that I have yet to find one single instance of this being true. Usually what happens is people strongly disagree with something he says, and thus label his opinion a “lie”. Sometimes, facts that Moore states are indeed open to more than one interpretation, and thus, even though it’s not the most upfront thing to do on Moore’s part, people use the term “Lie”, which I don’t think is accurate here. Also, sometimes Moore uses creative license to drive a point he is making (the most notorious of these situations is when in “Bolwling for Columbine” he edited together various pieces of footage of Charlton Heston speeches which on the surface looked like they were made at the same time and in a certain place. Is that the most up front and “honest” thing to do? No, it’s not… but nor do i think use of the term “lies” is appropriate here either. To say Moore “lied” in a movie is to suggest that he flat out said a fact that was out right not true… free from interpretation. When put to that test, I’ve yet to find anyone to accurately point out a “lie” in any of Moore’s films. That doesn’t mean everything Moore does is “right” and that I don’t have issue with certain things he does…. but it’s inaccurate to refer to it as “lies”
2) They call him fat
This is when the school children in us all come out to play. A wise man once said “If someone can’t attack the message, they’ll attack the messenger”. We see this all the time. Small minded morons who just don’t like what Moore says or strongly disagree with him… so since they lack the basic intelligence to formulate actual debatable facts and ideas… they just resort to “Oh yeah… well Michael Moore is a fat scruffy slob”. This is sad. Michael Moore IS INEED a fat scruffy slob. That’s 100% true. However (as I once pointed out to a guy I was debating), Moore being a fat slob doesn’t change the fact there were no WMD’s in Iraq now does it? There are lots of sound arguments to make in an anti-moore rant… but referring to the man’s hygiene just makes people look ignorant.
3) They Say His Films Aren’t Objective
This is the main one I’d like to focus on, and the one that I personally believe to the most outrageously dumb. Some people suggest that documentary films are supposed to be objective. What they usually mean by that is they want equal representation of their point of view in a film that is about the opposite point of view from their own. I never hear Right Wingers cry about objectivity when it comes to Fox news… or Left wingers cry about objectivity when it comes to Al Franken. It’s only when it’s about something we DON’T like that we cry for what we call “objectivity”. These people would have you believe that in any documentary, both sides of a subject should be given equal fair representation.
But the question that is raised for me is…. are documentaries SUPPOSED to be totally objective? Are they SUPPOSED to equally show both sides of the issue? Are they SUPPOSED to totally keep the filmmaker’s point of view out the equation? This is what some people would have you believe. I strongly believe the answer to that question is NO NO NO.
Let’s use an extreme example here to make the point. Let’s say you were going to do a new documentary on Adolf Hitler during his time in power while focussing on the events of and surrounding the second world war. Should you, as the filmmaker, make sure to dedicate 50% of the film to showing the good side of Hitler? Make sure that 50% of the people you talk to and interview say positive things about Hitler, the benefits of the things he did and how his plans were all good ideas? After all… if you’re going to be “objective” you’ve got to show both sides right?
Our how about Osama Bin Laded? If you were to make a documentary on him… should you make sure to spend at least half the film showing people talk about how 9/11 was justified, how Osama is a hero and a great man. After all…. you should be objective and let the audience decide for themselves right?
Obviously the answer to the previous 2 examples are a resounding NO! Documentaries are movies… they’re not the 6 O’clock News. Total objectivity should be the news (aside from Fox I guess). Documentaries, like all films, are a look at the world through the eyes of the filmmaker. A look at what the world is, is becoming, or even what it can be. It presents facts, tells stories and engages the viewer to look at the world through their point of view. The brilliance in great documentaries is not reporting the news… but rather in giving us the opportunity to look at something in the world from a perspective we’ve perhaps never considered, or raise awareness about issues we’ve never contemplated. They let us look at the world through a different set of eyes and see things perhaps the way someone else sees them… regardless of the issue. These, in my opinions, are the best documentaries.
There are many valid and solid reasons to dislike Michael Moore’s films and many items in his filmmaking that can be debated (hell, there is a list of stuff that I don’t like about his films in general). I just can’t help but laugh at those who cry that his films are just propaganda and not objective. What they’re really saying is “We don’t like that something is out there that expresses a different point of view than our own! That lying, fat, un-objective bastard… how dare he!?”
Documentaries are nothing more than a narrative film….. documentaries are very much just propaganda films…that’s where they originated from….some filmmakers just do it better than others….
the power of the image….people either buy it or deny it.
I apologize for taking your statement out of context. I do understand what you intended.
You are as always a gentleman and a scholar.
Jason
“As far as objectivity on the news goes, the only thing I can argue about is that if someone made a documentary about how free socialized health-care is not as perfect as some make it out to be, it would probably be far less covered by the media and said filmaker would probably have to struggle more to get his message across.”
If a high profile figure did it certainly would. As John said yesterday on his show, if he had made the same film Moore did, it would struggle for attention. If Moore made “Prince of Peace..” it would be in Time magazine right now. The attention on Moore is the culmination of years of growing status based on the fact that people pay to see his films.
Hey Jason,
Read what I wrote in my last message:
“the insane execution of the Kurds was his deranged response to a Kurdish assassination attempt on his life. The response was 100% unjustified for certain”
It was still in response to something. His response was misplaced, wrong, and far too extreme for certain. But my point was he didn’t just wake up… rub his eyes…let out a big yawn and say to himself “Hmmm… what should I do today? I think I’ll randomly shoot people for just doing nothing”.
That was the point of my original statement to the previous commentor. Once again, please keep things in context.
Well, here’s my two cents on the matter:
John Campea is right, Michael Moore, just like every other filmaker and /or scriptwritter is entitled to make a point, that’s his right to do so and thank God he lives in a country where he can do that.
As far as objectivity on the news goes, the only thing I can argue about is that if someone made a documentary about how free socialized health-care is not as perfect as some make it out to be, it would probably be far less covered by the media and said filmaker would probably have to struggle more to get his message across.
I’m just saying the media should be a little less biased, but that’s an entirely different subject matter.
But he didn’t target specific political figures. He targeted everyone. So people who were just going to work and spending time with their families WERE just living their everyday lives. Saying anything else is similar to suggesting that anyone who belongs to a particular ethnic group is responsible for the actions of extremists from that group.
I realize you don’t really hold that opinion but you get my point.
Hey Jason,
You said:
“You need to research a people group known as the Kurds”
No Jason, I haven’t forgotten about the Kurds, and no one in here isn’t saying that Saddam was an evil man. HOWEVER… one must remember that the insane execution of the Kurds was his deranged response to a Kurdish assassination attempt on his life. The response was 100% unjustified for certain, but the point in my original statement was that Saddam wasn’t just walking around willy nilly shooting people for just “living out their day to day mundane lives” as was suggested in the comment I was responding to
Keep things in context.
John….
I take some issue with this comment….
“I never once heard a story of Hussein having someone shot for just living out their mundane lives”
You need to research a people group known as the Kurds (although I will admit that he did use poison gas more than bullets). I hate it when history forgets genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Note:I’m not even trying to be a jerk…look into the relationship between Saddam and the Kurdish people (men, women and children). Everyone should be educated.
Well no matter how objective Sicko is or is not, that fact remains that the US health care system is garbage and is not getting better. So people can nitpick how Moore likes to skew everything into his point of view and doesn’t show the other side, but if this “documentary” can get people talking about how f’ed up our health care system is, what’s the problem?
The way our culture is, it take extremes to get us motivated about anything and I think Mike Moore and other documentary makers find and puts those extremes in there movies. These extremes are what can motivate people to act and get people talking. While at the same time it is also entertaining and puts some emotion into the film.
If I wanted to see an objective piece on health care or what ever with just straight facts, I’ll watch the history channel or PBS. If I want to see someone go beyond the basic facts and uncover some hidden/unknown to the general public truths then I’ll watch a documentary feature film.
So people get upset at him for trying to point out our flaws in gun control and in our health care system… man…what an fat selfish asshole he is!
“cause so far I haven’t heard a single person in here talk about the message. Just a lot of attempts to discredit the messenger. Odd.”
Thats not exactly true or fair to a number of people on here, but I think in a way, it reminds me of how funny it can be that by attacking Moore’s methods some think they can erase the absurdity of getting a gun from a bank by signing up or the images of Iraqis mutilated from American bombs.
Or maybe thats not the intent? Maybe its to prevent people from seeing the next thing he digs up.
I’m not a big moore fan, but it strikes me that what is going on in this thread is exactly what it said in the arcitcle:
WHEN THEY CAN’T ATTACK THE MESSAGE – THEY’LL ATTACK THE MESSENGER
That phrase seems to have been prophetic, cause so far I haven’t heard a single person in here talk about the message. Just a lot of attempts to discredit the messenger. Odd.
well I have nothing more to say to you Drew. Think what you will, but I overall side with Moore on that scene less because of he said/she said and more because the bank kept changing their story, Moore stuck to his and has not been disproven
Moving on indeed
“Now Moore is bitching about…the “movie executives of leaking his new film Sicko on the internet because he insists the weekend controversy must have been an inside job.””
link/source so we can discuss this? I know at least one major leak thats out here was apparently a DVD Screener that many believe came from a Cannes judge….
Fair enough GOON. You side with Moore, I’ll side with the Bank. Unless they were straight up lying, the whole scene was more or less a sham. You wanna believe they were lying about the entire incident, that’s fair enough.
Since I know that at the VERY LEAST the scene is questionable, and there are countless others that are questionable, once again I am willing to give the bank the benefit of the doubt while not giving the benefit of the doubt to Moore. Because I guess what this comes down to is a he said/she said thing.
Believe what you want. I’m just presenting evidence from people who were there who say the whole thing was a sham. Take it as you will.
MOVING ON to other stupid shit…
Now Moore is bitching about…the “movie executives of leaking his new film Sicko on the internet because he insists the weekend controversy must have been an inside job.”
Ho hum + a bottle of rum.
I hate to keep barging in but I’m up late with a cold and this is the only thing holding my interest at the moment, and maybe this will steer a bit back to what the original posts intent to discuss the necessity of objectivity to classify as a documentary:
I just wanted to go back to the beginning of this thread where Butteronmypopcorn posted this definition:
“doc·u·men·ta·ry (dŏk’yə-měn’tə-rē) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film”
I had the feeling something was a bit off, and I felt stupid when I realized what it was
“adj” – it does make a difference. if you dont know why, you dont know what an adjective is. An adjective is a qualifier.
every dictionary defintion of ‘documentary’ I’ve looked up since as a NOUN does NOT bring up objectivity:
from American Heritage:
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
from WordNet
1. a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event
from Kernerman:
1. a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event
I am wondering if anyone can present to me any noun definition that claims objectivity is necessary, or even any definition other than the one listed above which includes objectivity as an adjective. Because some dictionaries’ sections contain seperate adj forms that specifically pertain to films and tvs, such as this from Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
2. Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate
So theres one standard that has an adj. requirement of objectivity, and another than requires it only to PURPORT to be factually accurate. I personally believe the latter is more in tune with the zeitgeist, and if you go with the former you disqualify the vast majority of documentary films
A good link for people to view defending some of the BFC complaints can be found here:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607%20
again I will mention that the main anti-BFC site that spread much of the hysteria, was by David Hardy, a gun lobbyist/laywer (who withheld this information in his essay), and who in the VERY FIRST LINE on his site mooreexposed.com, does number 2 on Johns list of anti-Moore cliches – it calls him fat.
I again have to caveat emptor that I DO believe Moore has deceived at various times, however many of the popular ones that have spread around do not hold up to scrutiny, and not enough people have held David Hardy’s claims to the same scrutiny they hold Moore. I have investigated ALL of Hardy’s claims myself and after such I can’t say I trust him at all. He criticizes Moore for getting rich off of his work, and yet Hardy has put out books reaping the rewards of Moore bashing himself.
Drew, I have to butt in on you. Your story seems awful… if you take it face value. Consider 1) this is from an embarrassed bank featured in a national film 2) the teller says on camera in a row – “once we do a background check” “we have a vault which at all times we keep at least five hundred firearms” 3) so Moore deceives the audience because he’s SMILING? this is considered EVIDENCE to you?
I’ve read some of these claims you mention elsewhere, and one of the things they specifially mention to defend themselves is that “Moore filled out the forms only for show” – yet I’ve seen the footage where the woman literally TAKES THE FORM HE WAS FILLING OUT ON SCREEN out of his hands and says she will fax it to their office, and repeatedly says that it will only take a few minutes, and he will get his gun THAT DAY.
What they’ve also said and you mention it here – that they have to pick up the guns at a separate location, is ONLY DONE IN THE CASES when they do not have the gun at the bank – someone from Weatherby’s would send the gun to a licensed dealer to pick up. Again, I’ve seen the footage. The Chicago Sun Times reported that this bank will literally hand you the gun.
I must say in that scene it wasnt Moore walking out with the gun I found as weird as that as he is talkign with the teller, there is a gun rack on the wall behind him with 3 guns on it. But I suppose Moore brought that with him, right?
I’m not saying Moore is telling the whole truth, but from the footage i’ve seen, the words out of the tellers’ own mouth, both in the film and in deleted scenes that i suppose they never thought they’d have to explain their way out of, that the bank was in PR defense mode. Anyone taking their side is doing so completely on face value in spite of Moore, and its unwarranted.
So is this scene ‘total crap’? Only if you take the word of an embarrassed company completely at their word, dont see the rebuttal evidence that pokes holes in what they’ve said, and are nitpicking Moore’s work so hard that SMILING WITH A GUN = deception. I dont know the complete truth, but it seems the second you saw a conflicting story from Moore’s about the scene, you just decided it was true without holding it under the same scrutiny.
The scene in “Columbine” where Moore walks into a bank, signs up for a checking account and walks out with a hunting rifle is total crap. Did it happen? Yes. So was he lying that he was able to do that? Technically no. But let’s examine:
What he doesn’t tell you is that he had his producers call that bank months in advance to make sure they had that specific gun ready for him. When they explained that that isn’t how it works, he had to go through a bunch of back channels and red tape to make it happen, get a license prepared WAY in advance (this is all documented in interviews with those bank workers – the same ones you CAN SEE in Bowling for Columbine). The bank workers explained that this was a VERY SPECIAL case and only got it done because it was so meticulously planned. They normally have a person fill out forms and have to do the waiting period thing then go pick up the gun several days later at a completely different location. They DO NOT (again, according to the interviews I watched of the people who work at the bank including the branch mgr) keep guns in the bank to just give to customers who sign up for a new account.
Yet Moore gives the impression you can just walk into this bank and walk out with a gun easy as 1, 2, 3. This is shown by his happy expression holding the gun over his head as he leaves the bank.
So is this a LIE? He never says anything untrue, but he leads you to believe something is true when it is NOT true. To me, this is deliberately giving me false information and is indeed a lie. Even though technically, he DIDN’T lie. It’s a slippery slope; but I for one don’t like to be manipulated like that and won’t give Moore the benfit of the doubt in anything anymore because of this.
This is only ONE example of MANY (John already mentioned the ridiculous Heston clips edited together to show us something that is not really very accurate).
G’night all, glad to participate
well if your views of what constitutes propaganda causes you to not find merit in Moore’s work, I cant stop that. But your views of what propaganda/documentary is and is not does not line up with me. And thats all i can say without repeating myself. Nice debate, I’m glad for the most part this thread’s been civil, and good night.
GREAT POST
John, we don’t exactly disagree. When I say to “educate”, I mean to portray, to the best of your ability, the reality of a situation, whether it be an untold story, or whatever. When I see someone make a documentary, I go out and watch it because I want to learn. AN INCONVIENIENT TRUTH sets out to help people understand global warming. THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE sets out to do the same thing, (though it could be easily called a rebuttal to the former docu piece). The point is that both said films had people behind them who were not content to skew and shuffle and lie to get people to agree with them. Though they argue different points, neither of them use dirty tactics to do it.
Michael Moore makes documentaries that are less about the truth, and more about the social and political activity they’ll create. I don’t sit on a high horse and tell him he can’t do that (of course he can do that), I just think it makes for weak, innefectual and misleading documentaries. People who do research after seeing his films don’t trust him, and for good reason. *Make note of the fact that I still haven’t seen Sicko*. But he knowingly twists his info. I consider that bad documentary making.
Hey Jeff,
You said:
“I believe, as I’ve already stated way back in this thread, that the primary aim of a documentary should be to educate.”
I couldn’t disagree with you more. The goal of a documentary is to tell a story that deserves to be told. When you set out to “educate” that’s when you truly are making propaganda. Anyone who claims to be “educating you” is laying claim to total objective truth, and that would be pompus at best (You’re not pompus, I’m just suggesting such a system would be).
The goal of a documentary must be to tell a story, and rather than “educate”, REVEAL things that may otherwise remain unknown.
Again, Biophil, my sentiments exactly.
Moore may not be what you see as propoganda, Goon, but there’s a reason people throw that word around when they’re talking about his documentaries. I believe, as I’ve already stated way back in this thread, that the primary aim of a documentary should be to educate. Micheal Moore intends to educate you. By making a documentary, he is saying, “Here is what is really going on. Do you wish to educate yourself about *_blank_* issue? Then watch my documentary. It will help you understand.” Well, viewing his documentaries, I do not think that he helps me understand. In fact, I think, and this is the result of research I’ve done after seeing his films, that he twists and skews and bends his info to, well, garble things. Influence elections. That sort of thing.
This is getting into a broader reason for my distaste for Moore, but I do believe that trying to pass off anything biased and skewed as an informational documentary is propoganda. Propoganda = “MY TRUTH” in a medium that should show THE truth. I believe, and many disagree with me on this, that if you want to portray YOUR TRUTH, you should let people know. This is why people write fiction, and make movies about real world issues. They want to give their view. Which is great. I simply do not consider documentaries to be in that category.
A sidenote on the Hitler-, Bin-Laden-“argument”: A good documetary on these men does not have to show how great they are/were, but why they APPEAL to so many people. By showing them as devils, no real understanding is gained.
“I think, in the context of the rest of the film, the point he’s making with that footage looks like propoganda.”
This reminds me… I have a beef with the word propaganda. not that propaganda isnt out there, its that it seems to be thrown around with the attempt to rob everything accused of it of all merit whatsoever.
each time in this debate we’ve thrown out a “so does this not equal documentary” you might as well change it to “so does this equal propaganda”? By propaganada’s defintion all making of documentaries are propaganda, rock documentaries such as the Last Waltz, Shut Up and Sing, No Direction Home and the Devil and Daniel Johnston are propaganada because they exist to serve those they depict and arent exactly bringing on the rock critics who hate them. Paradise Lost is thus propaganda as it takes the boys side and casts doubts upon other people, Jesus Camp – even in attempting to be impartial – serves to damn home schooling and mixing politics and religion…
so when you say that the scene plays like propaganda because Moore is attempting to lean you in one direction, I really do sort of scoff. Maybe you see revelation in the fact that no documentary holds up to the scrutiny the websters definition provides, but I don’t. It really is just… “SO?”
If you are a film watcher, you KNOW that unless you’re watching say, Microcosmos, you are watching a film with a slant and an agenda the second a specific cut is made. We are smart enough to consider what rings true and what does not, investigate the claims and make our own decisions. When I open the newspaper opinion page, I dont yell “PROPAGANDA”, I look at a bunch of different ideas I do and dont agree with. Again, the answer is “SO?”
the louder people are going to yell “propaganda” or “this is not a real documentary” the more it tells me either “wow, this person doesnt see many documentaries” or “wow, this person doesnt expose himself to different viewpoints”, or, and hopefully not, “wow, this person thinks others are so dumb that they will be take everything placed in front of them at face value, and has to alert the world before we are all fat Nader supporters”
To me, REAL propaganda is almost… porn. Something without merit that is only meant to stimulate. Moore’s films are not this. They ask real questions, they get us talking, they dig up stories from real people we would not otherwise see. And most importantly these films are entirely in earnest. I dont rely on the dictionary for propaganda and documentary and non-fiction definitions – those definitions are ignorant to the cultural zeitgest. By the scope of films I have seen, by the scope of true art vs. true porn, Moore is not what I see as propaganda.
(this feels like a post i should end on)
I agree, Biophil. That is the larger problem I have with Moore.
John, you are simply conflating objective with even-handed. To describe a piece of shit objectively, just does not mean to describe it half of the time positively and half of the time negatively, it just means to describe it as it is, a f***ing piece of shit.
So what about documentaries? Well, my personal taste is, that I prefer objective documentaries. But some biased docus, (and most of them are to some extent) can be fine too. However, what I quite despise is a propaganda piece that disguises itself as objective. That is, saying you’re describing a thing as it is, but as matter of fact use dirty tricks (where the continiuum goes from omitting certing parts, using rhetorics, to distorting the events beyond recognition). Unfortunately, Moore, although I most of time agree with his general opinion, is on the dirty end of the spectrum.
Goon, you said
“Your line there is a complete mischaracterization.”
Is it? Okay, it’s been a little while since I’ve seen the film. I’ll grant you that I’ve catagorized it too broadly, if you want to nitpick. What I’ve been actually been trying to say is that in the SPIRIT of the film, the scene pops out as propoganda. That’s all. I’ll not go into it any further, as my reasons have been very clearly stated already.
Goon, you said
“you are inferring that people in Iraq did not live day to day lives”
If you’d actually taken the time to read my posts carefully, you can see that this is not, in fact, what I am saying.
Goon, you said
“its very simple – Moore, and we are already saying yes he was not objective, he was making a point – showed REGULAR TRUE FOOTAGE of various Iraqis going about their day, to try and make the point that we have forgotten that they are human beings… all of 20 seconds… which connects later to more brutal imagery of civilians harmed and injured. Is it intended to create a more emotional connection to those depicted? yes. is it manipulative? Yes.. and SO?”
The “SO” is exactly what my comments have been explaining. You nearly say it yourself. Moore is making a point with the footage. I think, in the context of the rest of the film, the point he’s making with that footage looks like propoganda. The “message” that he’s sending with that scene (at least this is my and many other’s interpretations) is “Hey, what you see on the news about Iraq is very misleading. This was a nicer, friendlier country before the Americans arrived.” Is it true? Maybe. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Does it still come accross as extremely cheap? Yes. It’s moves like these that make people Micheal Moore detractors, and I was simply trying to explain it.
And Goon, I am in no way a heated Neo-con with no empathy. So please don’t try and pin statements on me like, “you are inferring that people in Iraq did not live day to day lives.” Some people truly believe that. I am not one of them, so it is just inappropriate to try say that I am.
“Yet, do you see why it comes across in such a lame, manipulative fashion in his hands? It’s not like he went out to make a docu showing the nicer sides of Iraq not normally seen in the news, he went out to make a docu about America terrorizing an innocent state.”
Man, in all honesty Fahrenheit 9/11 wanders and rambles so much your comment is completely moot. The scene we are discussing fits in context with a couple others, but the film as a whole is not a docu about America terrorizing an innocent state. While Moore filmly believes the PEOPLE of Iraq didnt deserve to be bombed, the film itself goes from weird Bush oil partners/election conspiracy, to the nastiness of war, to the families at home, to a rant about poor people being forced to fight, to the exploitation of fear. theres so many reasons people like or dont like that movie. Your line there is a complete mischaracterization.
The film is simply a meandering essay of how America was transformed by 9/11
Even assuming your line was correct, I still havent seen your case about why it comes across as “lame and manipulated”. I’ve seen some indication of “lame because it was manipulated” – where’d the ‘and’ come from.
All this from 20 seconds in a scene. wow.
I suppose, John. Yet, do you see why it comes across in such a lame, manipulative fashion in his hands? It’s not like he went out to make a docu showing the nicer sides of Iraq not normally seen in the news, he went out to make a docu about America terrorizing an innocent state. That’s my issue. I hope that’s clear.
“Anyone with a bit of common sense doesn’t need those images to realize that.”
Do you agree or disagree that the echo chamber before the war was effective, or that even smart people will often by duped into scams, be they scientology or time shares? Again I go back to my Iraqi coworker who was so moved by that scene, as he said people treated him frequently as if Iraq was so much less civilized or different. So sorry, you dont speak for everyone.
He was showing what no one else was showing feeling we were losing focus that real lives were at stake every day. if you feel that was unnecessary that is your opinion, but I still again have not seen what ‘other footage’ was necessary. The children have an emotional appeal to some I guess and people have always only pointed them out, forgetting they were mixed alongside a marriage and a haircut. Perhaps a recently married couple or uh… haircut enthusiast, would relate to the scene differently.
“Just because something goes against the media stereotype, doesn’t mean it’s any more valuable or “true”. ”
by going back to this, you are inferring that people in Iraq did not live day to day lives. So again, what footage should he have shown? Do you have knowledge that regular Iraqis slaughter sheep and do lines of coke off its back or something that Moore was omitting? What is your point in all of this?
its very simple – Moore, and we are already saying yes he was not objective, he was making a point – showed REGULAR TRUE FOOTAGE of various Iraqis going about their day, to try and make the point that we have forgotten that they are human beings… all of 20 seconds… which connects later to more brutal imagery of civilians harmed and injured. Is it intended to create a more emotional connection to those depicted? yes. is it manipulative? Yes.. and SO?
It just reminds me of why today we can make off color jokes about tragedies, but the second we watch Hotel Rwanda, Schindlers List, etc – we are moved.
In the context of Moore’s film, he has attempted to connect you to Iraqis, instead of a clinical faceless approach. if you wanted the clinical faceless approach, thats your view, but in my opinion it would be a less powerful or impactful film. In fact, if he had the footage of regular Iraqis but neglected to show us in order to appear more objective, in another persons view, THAT would have been dishonest.
So I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, that his lack of objectivity harms this scene I guess? If so, I can only respond that when you restrict the filmmakers passion, you harm the film.
Another question for the crowd that again, noone will answer – reenactments – Errol Morris uses them frequently. When you reenact something you are manipulating and skewing reality. Does that mean The Thin Blue Line is not a documentary? Again, in order to trash Moore so many throw the baby out with the bathwater. is it worth it to bring Moore down a notch?
Hey Jeff,
And yet… we wouldn’t even be having this conversation if in those 20-30 seconds of footage he showed oppression instead of normalcy. It has to work both ways. To show what is NOT commonly seen though no less real is more valuable and important. The clips he showed were the right ones to show, because it was a part of the reality that no one else was showing.
John, you said,
“The problem with your senario is that it ammounts to saying “Only show footage the reinforces what we are told about Iraq already” isn’t it?
In your Paris Hilton example… I would suggest that if all the media ever told you about Paris was that she’s a stupid air head who does nothing but blow guys in the afternoon…. then it becomes IMPORTANT for you to show your footage of her reading or studying or whatever.”
Just because something goes against the media stereotype, doesn’t mean it’s any more valuable or “true”. This is why objectivity is so important. When Micheal Moore wields those scenes of Iraqi children having fun, it’s blatantly obvious what he’s trying to do. It takes the power out of those scenes. It becomes less about what Iraq is actually like, and becomes more about, “How can I show Iraq in a way that will get people to agree with my point of view?”
Let me just establish something here. There is plenty of footage of violent Iraq turmoil. There is also, I’m sure, plenty mundane footage of Iraqi children flying kites and getting their hair cut. Does the latter actually say anything about the former? Perhaps it does. Not to me, but perhaps there are people out there who think that every Iraqi is living in horrible destitution, and that all Iraqi children are miserable. Anyone with a bit of common sense doesn’t need those images to realize that. All I’m saying is that Micheal Moore using those images like he did, was corny. And in my opinion, reeked of manipulation. Is it effective? Perhaps to some. Not to me.
Even more notes…
Im thinking back to 2004… in a time when all media, even the stations that right wingers call ‘liberal biased’, were gung ho behind the troops, wouldnt show coffins, wouldnt show decimated bodies, who would not cover many of the news items before the war that all of us in Canada saw that were calling Powell’s UN evidence incorrect, who definitely did not have anti war people on the news as the ‘balance’ against the hawk…. Michael Moores anti war movie was obliged to give equal time to the opposite side? Excuse me, but I think we all know the reason people PAID MONEY to go see Moore’s film is because that was the only way they were going to see most of that footage. Bush’s 7 minutes after 9/11 was all over the net for 3 years, and most people only saw it for the first time in that movie. It still amazes me that in Moore’s film people would expect to be regurgitated the same thing they had heard for years already.
Another question for people:
My relatives are religious, I am not. At all. They own a DVD I have watched long ago called The Execution of Jesus, a documentary created by the History Channel – not some fringe religious group. Were they obligated to have an atheist in it to say “Jesus was never executed” – was it obligated to have a Muslim in there to say “Jesus was executed, but….”? Is it not a documentary because it proceeds on the assumption Jesus lived? Tell me now, was that film obliged to tangent in 19 different directions to cover the other points of view in order to be in the documentary category of any store?
at least moores world view seems to be based around stopping people dying needlessly.
I would take that over any point of view that leads to attacking a country that DID NOT ATTACK US.
again I’m with John here. In the end you are saying that during a time when noone was allowed to see troops coffins, and there was an uproar over NEWS ORGANIZATIONS showing pows, when noone would show the results of civilians being bombed because it makes them uncomfortable… that when Moore shows that on that day, there were REGULAR PEOPLE in iraq doing REGULAR THINGS, something we definitely needed to be reminded of…
and HE’S the crazy person? Its CONTROVERSIAL to show Iraqis as human beings? That automatically meant he was propping up Saddam? These are the people wer’e supposed to be liberating, and we cant show that they regardless of living in a dictatorship had day to day routines? Whats wrong with the world when this is considered manipulative?
“personal motivation in using that footage vs. other footage”
Shortly later in the film he shows actual footage in Iraq, footage we would not otherwise have seen in the US, of dead bodies, grieving families, and mutilated children. Of course theres a personal motivation – that war is real and war is ugly and not just your people get hurt.
What other footage should he have used in that 20 seconds which was overall creating a simple context of “these are civilians, and these are other civilians after they were bombed”?
I cant believe I’m hearing that his human level concern for Iraqis is a bad thing.
Hey Jeff,
The problem with your senario is that it ammounts to saying “Only show footage the reinforces what we are told about Iraq already” isn’t it?
In your Paris Hilton example… I would suggest that if all the media ever told you about Paris was that she’s a stupid air head who does nothing but blow guys in the afternoon…. then it becomes IMPORTANT for you to show your footage of her reading or studying or whatever.
Your argument, as it stands, just says “Enforce the existing media perception and sterotype, and if you show ANYTHING contrary to that, regardless of how real it is, then we’ll take issue with you”
I find it a bit of a stretch
Moore often lies in the Nero Wolfe sense, by using a selective fact pattern to create a deliberately false impression. The classic example is when he made a big deal about police shutting down a personal appearance, without mentioning that they were called by the janitor of the building whose rental he had overstayed, who just wanted to be able to go home.
John: surely, you should have seen one of many stories about Uday? For an example, see:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030602-454453,00.html
Alfie, everyone has an ideal omelette that they’re willing to break eggs for. I consider Moore no better, no worse than anyone else who acts for an agenda. He has his idea of what a better world is, and he skews things accordingly. This kind of behavior is the same as all the politicians he so readily blasts.
i know what you mean jason…..but whenever anyone calls moore a liar i think even if he is at least his lies are not to justify killing people…you know what I mean….evenm if he is a liar he has onyl ever tried to make things better…not worse.
plus I admire his gigantic balls……he is a true provocateur …a real shit stirrer…
People take issue with the kite scene because it’s obvious, biased and more than a bit gratuitous. It’s like looking at a halmark card… except in Hussein run Iraq. Halmark cards are bad enough when their portraying America, but in Iraq it’s just ridiculous.
Now no one disputes that those scenes were real, we just dispute Moore’s usage of them. If I’m doing a documentary on say, Paris Hilton, and I only show footage of her reading novels, well then, it looks like I’m trying to say that she’s an intellectual. It’s not that she didn’t read the books – the footage would be real – but it’s clear that I had a personal motivation in using that footage rather than some other footage. It’s just plain obvious, and people react poorly to it.
Darren, again I take exception
Saddam is an evil guy, but Iraq was a pretty secular country under his regime, and in comparison to other Arab states was more socially progressive. If you cant believe kids would fly kites and get their hair cut in Iraq, then you show EXACTLY why Moore NEEDED to put footage in his film showing Iraqis as human beings. And its right in front of your eyes and you still dont believe it. Again, the cynicism of Moore causes people to distrust even when there is no reason not to.
I actually worked with someone from Iraq at the time F9/11 was released and he talked with me at length about how great that scene was for him. He had family in Iraq and although his politics were actually a bit wishy/washy (he was emotional thinking about the war and was more anti bush than someone should be without someone thinking them a terrorist sympathizer in this day and age) I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him.
Hey Darren,
Wow… did you live in Iraq? I never once heard a story of Hussein having someone shot for just living out their mundane lives.
“it was meant to show Iraqis can live regular lives and do the same mundane things as everyone else.”
True…with the possible exception of a dictator who would have his citizens shot for trying to do just that…
Darren, the kites scene (and Saddam), in Moore’s own words. I hope you will agree after this that the kites scene is not what it has been made out to be, the reaction a product of being a little too prepared to distrust anything Moore puts on screen.
” MOORE (continuing directly): They’re a fair representation of the civilians that were killed by our bombs. And I wanted to spend just 20 seconds so that the people in the United States could see what human beings look like in Iraq. Children flying kites, a kid getting his hair cut in a barber shop, a couple getting married—these were human beings.
And we bombed and we bombed in an indiscriminate manner and according to The New York Times two weeks ago, 50 air-strikes—we were zero for 50 in hitting our targets and what we did hit were a lot of civilians. And that is what I show in this movie. The ABC News and the other networks did a very good job and have done a good job in showing what a brutal dictator Saddam Hussein was. But we rarely got to see images of everyday life in Iraq and I wanted to show that, just as one human being that thought that we should see these human beings and not have them dehumanized as statistics in a war.”
By the way, since people were saying Moore doesnt show the other side, to some degree he does in Sicko, and I’m sure John can back me up on this. While he doesnt give a lot of screen time to it, he shows all the big complaints about socialized medicine – the fear of socialism, taxes, waiting lines, lower quality/pay of doctors, etc
of course Moore attempts to shoot each of these down, or at least show them to be exaggerated, by talking to real people in each country, however the point is that he does address the complaints of the other side. I’m sure someone will find a problem with it though. I mean, the cynicism with Moore is so strong he could air a completely unedited interview with anyone and someone will find a way to claim he did something ethically wrong.
Thats the way it seems to go. If youre hardcore left or right, for some people absolutely everything the opposite side says is not only wrong, but purposefully deceptive and corrupt. “everyone on my team is always right” – lets get rid of this mentality – When I’m convinced of evidence Moore has distorted (ie making a letter to the editor in F/911 look like an actual article) I will say so, and when someone takes one of his scenes of context as I believe Darren did above, I will defend him. I refuse to flat out accept or deny any person on face value as some on here do. You can distrust a person without calling everything they do a lie.
“I’m pretty sure Iraq wasn’t a peaceful state of tranquility (kids n kites!) under the late Saddam Hussein.”
Darren, see here that was another scene I believe people have taken out of context and distorted to attack Moore. That scene merely shows what was happening on the streets on that day in Iraq. Nowhere does it say “Iraq was wonderful before the bombs fell” – it was meant to show Iraqis can live regular lives and do the same mundane things as everyone else. That someone would look at that scene as anything else just shows how cynical people can be in regards to Moore and take a simple point like “Iraqi civilians are not monsters who salivate hate at every second.” and twist it into some pro-Saddam campaign shows just how SEVERELY OUT OF CONTROL the Moore hatred is.
Moore can make his docs, use his opinions, use what facts he can. He will also take some truths and distort them to fit his opinion. He will not allow anyone to challenge his opinion. Even liberals. It’s also as fashionable to bash Bush as it is Moore.
To me, John making a post like this is his opinion, nothing more- but I find just as every bit as laughable as he does regarding the people who critique Moore.. Distorting truth is in effect a lie. I met some of the people Moore talked to from ‘Roger & Me”, John- having even worked with one a number of years ago who felt lied to by Moore.
While I think too many people from the Mid-Michigan area put too much stock into Moore and his severe left politics, (I also think some of his critics are just as extreme as he is) I do think Moore does from time to time bring up good points and keeps some people n thier toes. Do I think he’s one step away from the Communist Party? I don’t know. I do know he backed Nader and the Green Party- which made his opening F9/11 statement on how he backed Al Gore and the Democrat Party. I’m pretty sure Iraq wasn’t a peaceful state of tranquility (kids n kites!) under the late Saddam Hussein.
Michael Moore is a Fucktard.
Hey Jason,
Well dude, you have your opinion, and you don’t have to “back that up”. That’s the best thing about opinions.
I totally agree with you in the sense that there are certainly things about Moore to not like in general.
Cheers.
LOL! Ok John I am man enough to admit you got me good on that one! I am going to end my part in this here. You see I admit I was not prepared to back up my arguments and I will not take this further with useless prattle.
There have been many arguments made here that are more thought out and intelligent than mine so I will let them speak for me.
Also Alfie, I agree 100% with what you said about the Bush comparison and if we were talking about Bush and the War you would have won!
I also love a good debate! Cheers!
I think it’s ridiculous to argue that a Documentary HAS to be objective. Of course it doesn’t. I just think that the good ones show as many angles as they can. A documentary (art argument asside) is meant to educate. If you’re not out to educate, if you’re out to just brazenly defend your side, then I think you’re probably going to make a really innefectual and weak documentary.
Here are two examples that I think illustrate this point.
The Fog of War, a docu about Robert Macnamara’s actions in the Vietnam war, does it’s best to look at the issues and events from all sides, giving the viewer a hopefully deeper understanding of the material.
Spike Lee’s, Four Little Girls, about the church bombing during the Civil Rights period, on the other hand, is a straightforward moral outrage piece. Basically, Spike just wants to make you hate radical whites more than you already do. It’s emotionally manipulative, and it’s boring.
So of course a documentary maker can approach his material from a biased angle, I just think he shouldn’t.
I personally don’t like Michael Moore. I do think that his half truths and out of context examples are lies. He infuriates me. But hey, he has a right to his opinion.
I think that documentaries can show both sides WITHOUT being objective. It’s a fine line to walk, but it can be done. You can show both sides of the argument, but show your support for one side and disagreements with the other.
Documentaries do not have to be objective. The problem is that documentaries -should- at the very least attempt to deal exclusively in fact, and avoid drama. Moore doesn’t deal exclusively in fact: Instead of presenting facts and leaving the audience to their own reaction, Moore attempts to illicit a specific reaction to augment his facts. Because of this, I would say he does not make documentaries… what he makes is more along the lines of “Dramatic Exposés”.
oh, and to PROVE Michael Moore has defended his work, the site i mentioned is still there. He gives defenses for F9/11 LINE BY LINE. whether or not you agree with his take on the facts – we all know there are many sides to many stories and many things that are incorrect or fall between the cracks, he has absolutely taken his information from sources which would get no child in trouble during an essay.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
While moore does take heat from the left, it seems a great deal of the more over the top rants against him are from those who themselves have an agenda, or have pre-judged his material, or who will take ANY dispute of Moore’s evidence at face value. Just because Moore says something doesnt make it so, but just because someone you normally agree with who opposes Moore says the opposite, doesnt make it so either.
Hey There Jason,
Ok, gotta call you on this one a little bit. You said:
“BTW Alfie, there is a reason no one has claimed that money and called him out.
Moore is too smart and insidious to use Outright lies in his material. Outright lies would be easy to dismiss and he wouldn’t be where he was if he did that.”
Michael Moore is a liar… but he doesn’t lie? I’d like to refer back to the point I made in the post:
“Sometimes, facts that Moore states are indeed open to more than one interpretation, and thus, even though it’s not the most upfront thing to do on Moore’s part, people use the term “Lie”, which I don’t think is accurate here.”
So in essence, Moore is only a liar if your interpretation of the facts differs from his. I think that’s dangerous ground personally.
Good debate. Chers.
I really dont understand the people who are holding to the dictionary definition of ‘documentary’
look at the definition of ‘non fiction’
non-fiction [nonˈfikʃən] noun
books, magazines etc giving facts, information
When I go to the library, “mein kampf” is under non fiction. So are political books by O’Reilly, Franken, Moore, Hannity, Coulter. Are you out protesting the libraries’ system? Surely Hitlers ideas about the Jews dont fall under “fact”…
But theres I reason why I see it justified under there. Aside from not wanting to create a zillion categories for everything, it is NOT FICTION that when you read “Mein kampf” you are getting Hitlers REAL views on issues. Ditto Moore, Hannity, etc
In a documentary, it is absolutely certain that we are documenting Moore’s opinion. People and facts in documentaries can be just as incorrect or misleading as quotes from others, and stats in non fiction books. The God Delusion is by all means a non-fiction book, but the claim that there is no god to many is absolutely, “fiction”
So I ask some of you people if you are willing to stand up and tell me that we need to overhaul our library systems to fit your strict definitions, or if you are willing to accept that different documentaries are telling of different things, just as different non fiction books span what we mean by “non fiction”
How far are you willing to go to call Moore’s films not documentaries? are you throwing out the baby with the bathwater? because i think you are.
via Wikipedia:
“The nature of documentary films has changed in the past 20 years from the cinema verité tradition. Landmark films such as The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris, which incorporated stylized re-enactments, and Michael Moore’s Roger and Me, which placed far more interpretive control in the hands of the director. Indeed, the commercial success of the documentaries mentioned above may owe something to this narrative shift in the documentary form, leading some critics to question whether such films can truly be called documentaries; critics sometimes refer to these works as “mondo films” or “docu-ganda.”[5] However, directorial manipulation of documentary subjects has been noted since the work of Flaherty, and may be endemic to the form.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film#Modern_documentaries
thats actually quite funny jason…take out the words “michael moores” from your last post and put in “bush administration” ands it fits really well too when describing the explaination for invading iraq!!
BTW Alfie, there is a reason no one has claimed that money and called him out.
Moore is too smart and insidious to use Outright lies in his material. Outright lies would be easy to dismiss and he wouldn’t be where he was if he did that.
Michael Moore is much more dangerous than that. He specializes in half-truths. He chops up other peoples quotes as he sees fit, takes statements out of context and like Jeffgrey said he edits scenes and information together to make them look connected.
Oh, and on the mention of “Paradise Lost” – another great example, especially how one person in the documentary (the father in law) is portrayed on screen … wow, every frame screams that he is guilty.
Paradise Lost – Fabulous documentary though..one of my favorites.
Goon. You bring up an excellent point with Jesus Camp (Which I have written about in some detail on my blog (http://kurtscomment.blogspot.com/2007/02/kbt-presents-jesus-camp.html).
I found it fascinating that it certainly looked to me like the filmmakers were going out of thier way to make the film play like an ominous horror flick (which they were somewhat), yet the particular branch of evangelicals in the film embraced the film as a good representation (i.e. they were happy with how they looked on screen!).
Weird, and it brings into question not only how the filmmaker, editor, ‘writers'(!)/researchers and others involved in the making of documentary bring to the table, but very much with what the viewer brings to the table.
Thus the point I was trying to make earlier: documentaries are art (whether good or bad) and art is ‘lies that tell the truth’ in their own way…
John, thanks for responding to me! I agree with much of what you said and to the rest of you I will agree that not ALL of what Michael Moore has said is lies. Much of Michael moore’s basic points are true, it is his “statistics”, specific quotes, ect” that are misleading and taken out of context.
Also, I cannot make up the things Michael Moore has said himself. Like Kenny T. said, Moore has made some extremely bizarre defenses to accusations against him.
My biggest problem with Moore is his refusal to defend or explain himself or his work. He has a short fuse and a temper and instead of refuting allegations or defending himself he makes up bizarre conspiracy theories and personally attacks the people questioning him in juvenile ways like he is a lttle kid.
For everyone’s information I am not a rote Moore basher. I was a huge Michael Moore fan and supporter for many years.
It was his childish, bizarre and unprofessioal responses to interviews that started me doing more research into him and led to my disgust at his antica and behavior.
This is an issue I’ve struggled with for quite a while, but I’ll make my argument short and simple. Okay, at the end of the day, strange as it may sound, I think it’s a bad documentary that doesn’t show the “good” side to Hitler. And by that I mean, whether the documentary maker agrees with it or not, if he’s making a documentary about Hitler, he better show the side of the Nazi supporters. One sided documentaries that do not show one group’s defense of their belief’s, and the opposing group’s defense of THEIR ideas as well, are shitty documentaries. However the documentary decides to ultimately side, the man behind the lens better show both sides. Else it’s just disgusting propoganda.
While I believe Michael Moore is a very talented man, I believe he strays very close to propoganda in everything he touches. He chops up interviews to skew people’s words. He edits incongrous bits of information together, drawing connections between events, people and actions that are completely unrelated. To me, he’s even more of a shock-jock than Howard Stern.
But I have not yet seen SICKO. Perhaps he is not quite so agregiously manipulative in this new film. I’ll have to wait and see
one more example after reading Kurt’s post earlier
Jesus Camp goes out of its way to be objective, the filmmakers go out of their way even on the commentary to be as down the line as they could be. The christians in the film were even thrilled with how they were presented.
but in the end, again, when you choose one shot over another, a specific edit, or sound choice, even if you dont intend to, you can end up distorting reality. you can tell in Jesus Camp how they really lean. As much as the filmmakers have gone of their way to not talk about their own beliefs, their opinion shows.
so is that not a documentary now too?
NPR did a story on Sicko this morning. The link is here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11208212
In the story, the reporter points out several of the “inaccuracies” of Moore’s prior work. When questioned about them, Moore responded that this was “typical” liberal NPR trying not to appear liberal by attacking a liberal. I thought that was the strangest response to an accusation I had ever heard.
Also John, the story does say that some of the facts regarding the Cuban health care system were exaggerated – making them false and misleading. This is particularly true with regard to his claim regarding Cuban’s life expectancies.
“Should be pointed out too that a lot of those so called “debunks” come from highly questionable sources.”
Its so fashionable to bash Moore and so unfashionable to EVER stand up for his positive merits (and there are many, specifically his ability to ask questions and dig up good stories from real people), that so many claims about him spread that are completey untrue, and very few go out of their way to find out the truth about them. They are so used to hearing that Moore is a liar that they assume anything said against him is true.
For example, when Bowling for Columbine came out, the popular debunking site was “bowling for truth”, a site run by… a gun lobbyist and gun lawyer. and people ate up his criticism hook line and sinker. when the dvd came out i looked at many of his claims vs whats on screen and Hardy (the man with the site) took amazing liberties in changing Moore’s context and even fabricating things that did not place on screen to the point he was a complete hypocrite for ever calling Moore deceptive.
Moore’s agenda is completely and totally out on the table when he makes his films. To me it would be way more insulting if he made a half assed effort to show the other side if its obvious he doesnt feel that way.
“Paradise Lost” clearly takes the side of the boys in the story, both on screen and off. is this not a documentary? Is “Deliver Us From Evil” not a documentary because it clearly takes aim against the catholic church’s actions? Is “an Inconvenient Truth” not a documentary because Al Gore doesnt give equal time during his lecture to someone who disagrees? No, no, and no. Even documentaries such as “March of the Penguins” and “Spellbound” are manipulative to your emotions to root for some people ahead of others, to root for this one cute species as it struggles against ugly birds and seals.
The other day another podcast complained about a scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 saying Moore shows no indication of time during the Bush My Pet Goat reading. I checked the dvd and sure enough theres a clock during the scene and Moores narration saying what happened. Yet another case of people just spreading what they hear, and people accepting it because they always hear Moore manipulates everything. This person after caught went on to basically say “yeah well its Moore so how do you know its true” as if that justifies his mistake.
Moore loudly presents his opinions, and by all means go ahead and try to debunk the stats he presents or his situations, but to assume he’s lying ALL the time instead of being mistaken or ignorant, is just false. I’m sure he often intentionally shows his supporting evidence in the best possible light and his enemies in the worst, and thats unfortunate…
…however it seems those that the majority of those who attack him back, including moorewatch.com who does it for a living, are guilty of the very same thing.
hey jason you must be incredibly rich now….i mean if you know for a fact that moores films are all lies then you must have claimed the ten grand per lie he was offering to anyone who could prove any lies in farenheit 911?
oh thats right…not one person claimed a cent because as much as everyone likes to say it is all lies no one could prove it one hundred percent otherwise why wouldn’t you claim the money…
his offer still stands today…what are you waiting for….why don’t you go and claim your nbooty
Hmmmm. Wondering out loud of the people posting here have just as many agendas behind their facts as Michael Moore does in his films. How neutral should criticism be?
Those folks showing the most objectivity here are those who conceed he has some great points, is a pretty decent filmmaker but coiuld probably strengthen his arguments by not being quite as brazen at manipulating his subjects toward his agenda.
Moore is absolutely a liar. Through multiple of his films he edits other people in a manner that intentionally conveys a message contrary to what they are saying…intentionally mis-representing the truth. That is a lie.
Phil Gee,
I know about that book. But do you realize that the title was in response to a book BY MOORE entitled something like “Stupid White Men (and how they’re ruining America)”?
My point would be: both of THOSE books are probably stupid. But you can decide to actually conduct intellectual investigations of the world you live in, and I think that is an obvious point. On the other hand, I find it troubling when many people just look for knee-jerk reactions to complex issues, and Moore is one of the king’s of jerking the masses’ knees to make them THINK they understand an issue.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a FAN of the American health care system. But since I do know more than a bit about it, I feel almost insulted that Michael Moore has taken it upon himself to “explain” to me why it’s bad. I don’t understand why more people in this thread aren’t, basically, insulted at how he talks down to our intellects.
Like that tactic he used where he super-imposed Hitler over George Bush. Do I like Bush (or Hitler)? NO. But I feel that any filmmaker using that tactic must think his audience is full of absolute morons to “need” to be shown that.
Okay, I really am done now. If for no other reason than the random name (“Haggarth”) I picked is really . . . stupid sounding.
Also, I am very much looking at the meta-Roger&Me doc on Michael Moore himself by a couple of local Toronto Ladies called “Manufacturing Dissent”.
One more comment – a documentary should let the viewer draw his own conclusions. The viewer should not be clubbed over the head with the filmmaker’s opinion.
As soon as you choose one shot over another, edit this way or that, etc. The ‘truth’ (whatever that means) is distorted. I much prefer a Documentary with a thesis (and/or bias) than an attempt to be ‘objective’ (again, whatever that means…it’s an ideal and unobtainable).
All that being said. Mr. Moore stretches these limits right to the breaking point, talks down to his audience, and is a tad too smug for his own good on-screen. All that being said, he makes very entertaining movies with a knowing finger on pulse on the Average American and how they perceive the information thrown their way. I enjoyed Sicko as much as Bowling for Columbine – which is to say a lot. I thought F9/11 was very clumsy though.
Here is food for thought. Most of my political/moral/etc. opinions that have been shaped from media of any kind have been from watching and thinking about fictional stories. Documentarys often get me riled up, but rarely change or modify (in a significant way I can detect) my opinion of the world
Someone said – Art is lies that tell the Truth.
Amen.
A documentary does not NEED to be objective but a GOOD documentary should present ALL sides of the issue.
A piece of film that only presents one side of an issue is not a documentary it is an opinion piece.
A documentary should strive to be objective and should not be blaring out its subjectivity. Then it becomes propoganda.
Michael Moore has incorporated one sided trash talk into his opinion pieces and manipulates or entraps people for his own purposes.
John, your extreme examples are silly.
He could make a documentary on the basic laws of nature and one would still have to question their validity because Moore has an AGENDA.
Documentaries should have balance. Moore’s propoganda films do not.
John is 100% right. I’m one of those people who enjoy Moore’s films, yet sometimes come to different conclusions. I for one support our President’s decision to go to Iraq (ducking from incoming liberal tomatoes), but that doesn’t stop me from appreciating the various things brought up in the 9/11 film. I appreciated seeing things from a different perspective. I just happen to come to a different conclusion than Moore did.
It is the epiphany of the weak minded to reject all thoughts and ideas that run contrary to their own. Intelligent people embrace this sort of thing to stay open minded, and to understand their own positions better. Just my platitude rambling for the day.
Maybe this is just the photojournalist in me talking. But I consider taking bits and pieces, such as in Heston’s case, and editing them together to seem to be a single event to be a lie. Not creative license.
If readers are looking at a picture I heavily photoshopped, and I make no attempt to state that the event as seen never actually happened, I am lying to my readers. I consider the same to be true in film.
I’m not debating that Moore isn’t a very talented film maker, he is. But I simply cannot take his documentaries serious because I never know if he is using, what in my eyes, are lies. Thats why I personally call him a talented film maker, not a documentarian.
Haggarth, sometimes i don’t think books are any better. There was this one i saw called “Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man”. It wasn’t even an ironic title.
One last thing.
I think it’s be interesting to see how many of the people in this thread have actually:
-Read other accounts and done research into the business practices of the auto industry (Roger & Me).
-Read other accounts and done research into the gun laws and gun-related crimerates in America (Bowling).
-Actually read even one page of the actual 9/11 Report (F9/11).
-Read other accounts and done research into the healthcare system of America.
My guess is on that almost every one of these points people in this thread are getting their information almost COMPLETELY from Moore’s films. Keep in mind that I DON’T REALLY DISAGREE WITH MOORE’S GENERAL OPINIONS AT ALL, but I think it’s really frightening how people can assume the knowledge of evaluating the truth-value of Moore (positive or negative!) without really knowing very much about the subject matter investigated by his films from sources other than–those very films themselves.
Thank you “HAGGARTH” for showing us all that we should just shut up and accept the staus quo. You really showed us.
I can’t add to what John said, because i’ve always disagreed that all documentaries should be objective. A far more interesting question, i believe, and it’s been touched on above, is for us to try and define exactly what a documentary is.
As mentioned by ButterOnMyPopcorn, one definition is to present a factual and objective piece of work, but the term ‘documentary’ is obviously, such a loose one that, yes, Leni Riefenstahl’s ‘Triumph of the Will’ (sounds like a Star Wars title) is classified as one.
On the other hand, if a documentary’s purpose is to ‘document’, then surely, that is such a loose term also that it can mean the documentation of, well anything; a certain viewpoint, the journey of a character of a filmmaker etc.
Most, if not all filmmakers, cannot remain objective. They are human beings, and unlike the viewer, are living the experience of what they shoot. I believe it’s a simple fact that most documentary filmmakers do a much better job at hiding their own viewpoint that Moore does. Take a look at Jesus Camp for example. Do you think the filmmakers were being objective when they put that crying girl on the poster and add creepy music to the mass prayer scene? No; it was for effect so the viewer would feel as freaked out by it as i’m sure the filmmakers were.
And don’t forget the clincher; if said documentary touches on a big enough subject regarding politics, religion, or world views; we are all coming into it with our own, often unshakable perspective already in place before we watch. Don’t forget what Bush’s PR chief said about Farenheit 9/11:
“We don’t need to see this film to know that it’s full of innaccuracies”
Jimf sir, it is fair for you to object to his films being called documentaries given you’re opinion on what tha means but never the less, what are we supposed to call Moore’s films instead?
Again with this boring debate.
Anyone who tells you they have figured out complex issues, and they there is a simple solution–is probably lying, err I mean “distorting the truth”. Moore is one of these people, one of many. I feel bad for people who just accept these opinions. After seeing one of his films people think they’re part of an exclusive club who knows the “truth” and have got the world all figured out, where so many before them have failed.
And I feel bad for people whose brains are so lazy that they have to turn to hyped up films of any sort in order to “learn” about this sort of subject matter. Go read a book. Study. Don’t worship a vain anti-intellectual who has gotten rich and ego-maniacal through a “fat everyman with a baseball cap” ACT. Is there some valuable information to get out of these films? Absolutely. And there’s even more cheap entertainment value. But in the annuals of human accomplishment, obviously slanted material like this is not very helpful or valuable.
Does a documentary have to be objective? Of course not. But nor should it do everything it can, skew every fact possible, just to hold fast to its preconceived notions. It’s a very, very shallow tactic to just use the ‘Documentaries don’t NEED to be objective!’-argument just to stroke Moore’s ego a little more. Rationalize the famous ‘Heston’ and ‘Roger & Me’–what should be call them, “problems”, “inaccuracies”, “lies”?–all you want. The fact is that they’re examples of how this filmmaker isn’t after full disclosure. He’s about bending the audience’s will to his own. And that’s a very scary thing.
Is there ART in his films? Sure. But do we really need another article like this stroke-stroke-stroking his ego? No, we don’t. Time would be better spent actually reading up on the subject matter and familiarizing ourselves with opposing view.
That’s all I have to say on this topic. And I think the whole idea that “films like this draw our attention to an important topic is b.s.”. This thread is a perfect example of how they inspire fairly pointless arguing.
All good documentaries should be objective. Otherwise it is just more propoganda being shoved down our throats. If we as an American society saw, and learned why Osama Bin Laden is loved by millions around the world, then maybe it would open our eyes to why they hate us. We need to see that side of the story. We need to see why Hitler was able to draw millions under his power and beliefs. Without that, we are living in a world of bliss where we are always right.
Hey Jason,
You said:
“ALL of Michael Moore’s books and documentaries have been publicly debunked and he has been caught in MANY lies On Camera!”
No, not really. I’m not Michael Moore apologist, but I’ve looked into a lot of those accusations you’ve mentioned and found them to be either a) untrue, b) refuted, c) recanted or fall into one of the categories I’ve listed above in the post.
There is a lot of talk about all this damning evidence, but surprising little in the actual production thereof.
I don’t care either way personally. I’ve got nothing to gain or lose by Moore’s success or failure. But let me pose it this way:
In Sicko, Moore states that Cuba has socialized health care. is that claim true or false?
He also claims that they have a lower infant mortality rate that the US. Is that claim true or false?
He also Claims Cubans have a 3 years longer life expectancy than those in the US. Is that claim true or false?
The point is, that although Moore may be a big giant asshole (I have no idea either way) whenever he purports relevant material facts to the issue, they are true. There interpretation of those is debatable for certain
Yo Jason, I think you should do a little more research. A lot of those “debunked” statements have themselves been debunked. Also, Moore does deny meeting the dude from Roger and Me During filming, and I’ve heard all about that supposed video showing them meeting but have yet to see it. Do you have a link? Should be pointed out too that a lot of those so called “debunks” come from highly questionable sources.
I’m sorry John, But you HAVE NO idea what you are talking about and if you will do the least bit of research into Michael moore you will take back EVERYTHING you have said.
ALL of Michael Moore’s books and documentaries have been publicly debunked and he has been caught in MANY lies On Camera!
Roger and Me has been completely disproved and he has been called a Liar by ALL of the people who hired him to do the film in the first place. The entire centerpiece of Roger and Me was that Michael Moore was unable to get an interview with the head of the corporation Roger no matter how hard he tried.
The truth is Michael Moore actually got to meet the man TWICE during the making of the film; once with Hundreds of witnesses, the second time is documented ON CAMERA!
Several years ago on a trip to England Michael Moore was asked to speak at an world African American conference in London. While addressing the conference he stated that the passengers of the 2 planes that crashed into the towers on 9/11 were cowards because they were not able to stop the terrorists like the passengers of united 93. He then said that it was because the flights were all most all white people and that if there were more black people on the flight THEY would have stopped the terrorists.
THIS was witnessed by hundreds of people and is publicly documented!
Do your research, the man is insane and has emotional problems.
Also, Michael moore has NEVER defended himself of any accusations, he just makes bizarre claims about the people against him.
When he was questioned by the press about accusations from the auto-workers union that hired him to make Roger and Me Moore said “they never helped me at all with the film, I did it all myself, they had nothing to do with the film, they are jealous of me!”
1 year later when he was fired from Ralph Nader’s campaign for not doing what they hired him for, moore stated ” they are all liars!, they are just jealous of me, Nader is jealous of me?”
When the writers NBC assigned to work on his TV show TV NATION sued him for non-payment, Moore stated “they never helped me, I did the show all by myself, they are jealous of me!”
See a pattern here?! Do your research! i used to be Moore’s biggest fan until I started reading up on him!
He is pathological liar, psychopath, and all around piece of crap!
Excellent post John, you sure know how to get people talking,
To those who say documentaries shouldn’t editorialize, let’s look at a list of the films nominated for best documentary from this past year.
An Inconvenient Truth
Deliver Us From Evil
Jesus Camp
Iraq In Frangments
My Country, My Country
Now, I’ll admit that I didn’t see Iraq in Frangments, but I can sure as hell tell you that all the rest of them editorialized, and that only made the films better.
i don’t necessarily think that all documentaries should be objective, but i do think the filmmaker should stay behind the scenes, and let the subject matter present the facts. moore seems to me like he wants to be a martyr more than a filmmaker. the scene in “bowling for columbine” when he drags those two columbine survivors to target headquarters, made me sick to my stomach. he used those kids, and i think that’s despicable, no matter what the circumstances are.
doc·u·men·ta·ry (dŏk’yə-měn’tə-rē) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film
Does michael moore editorialize?
Moore’s films are very much documentaries. I can’t believe anyone would say documentaries only show facts and not opinions. That’s just silly. Show me one documentary that has nothing but facts with no opinion, commentary or interpretation offered, and 90% of the time it’ll be one hell of a boring ass movie.
Like the article says, documentaries aren’t supposed to be news reports. For fucks sake, I don’t even like his stupid movies, but that’s just cause I don’t like them, not because “they aren’t documentaries”.
I put Triumph of Will……it should be Triumph of the Will.
Blah stupid mistake.
Triumph of Will and F9/11 are both considered to be great films but are also considered to be propaganda. Ok I am not saying that F9/11 is the same as Triumph of Will but I mean each film does do its part in making a certain party or a certain person look great or incompetent.
I’ve made a comment about Moore’s weight but I never said it in a child like way or at least I like to think i didn’t lol. I think I said something like “Its funny that an overweight man is making a film about Healthcare”. Alright it prolly wasn’t exactly like that but I mean goodness Moore really needs to take better care of himself the man is well over 300 pounds from what I hear.
Great Article by the way John keep up the good stuff.
I haven’t seen the documentary but I do have a few questions:
Do most medical discoveries come from the U.S., and If so is it because of the massive amount of money the med system pulls in?
Also, will quality of healthcare decrease because of the lack of insentive there is to enter the healthcare business once it becomes universal and the big money isn’t so big anymore?
Are these addressed in the documentary?
I don’t know that MM ‘lies’ so much as he makes statements that are a little too broad. ON emight call this knit picking, but on subjects so intense, one must be careful. As an exmaple, in SICKO, Moore claims that the US is ‘the only country in the west without universal Healthcare’ This is a difficult one. It is not a lie, per se, but what he means by that is very vague. In Switzerland we are all required to have healthcare, but it is not sponsored by the state. Does that count? He leaves some room for debate there.
It’s not that you have to make the movie objective, it’s just that it makes the movie much better. Watching a movie that had the guts to spend half its runtime explaining why Osama Bin Laden is a hero is way more interesting that something that doesn’t.
I don’t mind Michael Moore but I don’t really consider his movies documentaries. They remind me of Triumph of the Will and other propaganda movies made during WW2.
I object to his films being called documentaries… A documentary should present facts, not opinions. Call me idealistic, sure… Moore’s films are strong opinion pieces for his point of view and ignore facts that although very relevant to the subject, do not agree with the point of view he is trying to present.
Both left and right wing commentators in the media make it very clear that they are commentators…and do not pretend to be objective.
Brian Johnson of Macleans magazine has a column on Micheal Moore in the latest edition. It’s a pretty interesting read especially the part where Moore came to rescue of an anti-Moore website owner because his wife became sick and had to shut the site down.
http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dip&pid=55770&tid=55770&eid=44&so=1&ps=0&sb=1
Nothing to ad here except that this is the best article I’ve ever read on this topic. Well done sir.