Michael Moore a fraud? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

cyberdude611 -> Michael Moore a fraud? (3/18/2007 11:16:40 AM)

 
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- As documentary filmmakers, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine looked up to Michael Moore.
Then they tried to do a documentary of their own about him -- and ran into the same sort of resistance Moore himself famously faces in his own films.

The result is "Manufacturing Dissent," which turns the camera on the confrontational documentarian and examines some of his methods. Among their revelations in the movie, which had its world premiere Saturday night at the South by Southwest film festival: That Moore actually did speak with then-General Motors chairman Roger Smith, the evasive subject of his 1989 debut "Roger & Me," but chose to withhold that footage from the final cut.

The husband-and-wife directors spent over two years making the movie, which follows Moore on his college tour promoting 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11." The film shows Melnyk repeatedly approaching Moore for an interview and being rejected; members of Moore's team also kick the couple out of the audience at one of his speeches, saying they weren't allowed to be shooting there.

At their own premiere Saturday night, the Toronto-based filmmakers expected pro-Moore plants in the audience heckling or trying to otherwise sabotage the screening, but it turned out to be a tame affair.

"It went really well," Melnyk said. "People really liked the film and laughed at the right spots and got the movie and we're really happy about it."
Moore hasn't commented publicly on "Manufacturing Dissent" and Melnyk thinks he never will. He also hasn't responded to several calls and e-mails from The Associated Press.

"There's no point for Michael to respond to the film because then it gives it publicity," she said.
"(President) Bush didn't respond to 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' and there's a reason for that," Caine added.

The two were and still are fans of all his movies -- including the polarizing "Fahrenheit 9/11," which grossed over $119 million and won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival -- and initially wanted to do a biography on him. They traveled to his childhood home of Davison, Michigan, visited his high school and traced his early days in politics and journalism.

"The fact that he made documentaries entertaining was extremely influential and got all kinds of people out to see them," said Melnyk, whose previous films with Caine include 1998's "Junket Whore." "Let's face it, he made documentaries popular and that is great for all documentary filmmakers."

"All of these films -- 'Super Size Me,' 'An Inconvenient Truth' -- we've all been riding in his wake," said Caine. "There's a nonfiction film revolution going on and we're all beneficiaries of that. For that point alone, he's worth celebrating."

But after four months of unsuccessfully trying to sit down with Moore for an on-camera interview, they realized they needed to approach the subject from a different angle. They began looking at the process Moore employs in his films, and the deeper they dug, the more they began to question him.

The fact that Moore spoke with Smith, including a lengthy question-and-answer exchange during a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting, first was reported in a Premiere magazine article three years later. Transcripts of the discussion had been leaked to the magazine, and a clip of the meeting appeared in "Manufacturing Dissent." Moore also reportedly interviewed Smith on camera in January 1988 at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.

Since then, in the years since "Roger & Me" put Moore on the map, those details seem to have been suppressed and forgotten.
"It was shocking, because to me that was the whole premise of 'Roger & Me,"' Melnyk said.

She and Caine also had trouble finding people to talk on camera about Moore, partly because potential interview subjects assumed they were creating a right-wing attack piece; as self-proclaimed left-wingers, they weren't.

Despite what they've learned, the directors still appreciate Moore.

"We're a bit disappointed and disillusioned with Michael," Melnyk said, "but we are still very grateful to him for putting documentaries out there in a major way that people can go to a DVD store and they're right up there alongside dramatic features."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/13/film.manufacturing.dissent.ap/index.html



sub4hire -> RE: Michael Moore a fraud? (3/18/2007 11:24:24 AM)

So, because he is busy doing his own thing he is a fraud?  That only makes half of the people in the world frauds.

I don't know if he is for real.  Or not.  Frankly I don't care.  The one thing I do know is he knows how to catch attention for the activists out there.  A voice they have needed that has long been overdue.

People in the United States are ignorant.  Most generally don't care what the things are like in this country.  They need someone to draw them a photo, then so be it for them to take notice of what is going on around them.




NorthernGent -> RE: Michael Moore a fraud? (3/18/2007 11:39:50 AM)

Let's say Michael Moore is a fraud, so what? Is this your proof that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence? Whatever he is, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to anything. 




WyrdRich -> RE: Michael Moore a fraud? (3/18/2007 11:54:55 AM)

        Moore is a propagandist, and he's mighty good at it.  Rather than telling you what to think, he provides often factual information, framed in just the right entertaining way to make you believe you figured it out all by yourself.  Anything that might lead to a conclusion other than what he wants is deleted.

        I wasn't aware of that Roger had granted the interview/s, but I saw another serious flaw in Roger and Me.  Those factories were producing crap.  The workforce was drunk, high, or both.  Moore saw it with his own eyes, and left that bit out.  Rivethead by Ben Hamper ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Hamper ) is well worth the read.



cyberdude611 -> RE: Michael Moore a fraud? (3/18/2007 12:26:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Let's say Michael Moore is a fraud, so what? Is this your proof that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence? Whatever he is, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to anything. 




The problem I have with him has nothing to do with his politics or beliefs. But in the US, there is something called journalistic ethics. When you make a "documentary," it is supposed to be based on facts, not opinions. It is supposed to be non-fiction. Sometimes it is biased, sometimes it's not. But it is always supposed to be factual. There is evidence out there that Michael Moore has fabricated statistics and edited interviews in order for it all to fit his politics. That is propaganda, not a documentary.

Now if Moore wants to make a movie criticizing policies and exercising free speech...that's fine. In fact I encourage it. I hope others do it. No one has a problem with it. But when he goes around and parades his documentaries as truth when they have been proven to be false, then that is unethical journalism.

"Fahrenheit 911" is something Hitler would be proud of. Not one of the public opinion polls or statistics Moore stated on that film had been cited nor can be found. There was a segment of the film where Moore approached congressmen about sending their own children to Iraq. Several congressmen said they had told Moore that they did in fact have sons or daughters in the military, but Moore omitted their interview. Several of the people in the film claimed Moore edited their interview.

He's a smart guy. He has found a way to make millions of dollars off left-wing suckers by making fun out of the dumbest president in American history. But what he says has very little to do with truth.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Michael Moore a fraud? (3/18/2007 12:37:06 PM)

Fast Reply...
Moore isn't a fraud because of what he shows or how he shows it. Like people, his fraud is representing one persona to exploit for personal gains while living in direct contrition to it. He uses the fraudulent image for monetary gains from the pockets of gullible 'head-bobbers' combined with the fraudulent image of not having a political agenda. Ralph Nader has no political agenda. A seat next to an ex-President at a national convention indicates his agenda and that of the party who invited him.

A belief in the treatise that people are ignorant is required to support and seek to instill a nanny state. Knowing what is best for all regardless of the liberties and freedoms that position requires is a self fulfilling rationalization.

It is another "so what?" disclosure. Is there any doubt of that his agenda is no different than that of Al Gore, or the OP's reference to Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine. They are in it for the money, and the fame. All it takes is a theory or a cause and a core base of catholic and apostolic believers. Ideally you also add a healthy crop of nay-sayers. There is no such thing as bad press.

Will Moore change opinion? No. He'll confirm opinion and further polarize, but he makes no pretense of being neutral. He's harmless, like any other fraud, once exposed to any challenge.



UtopianRanger -> RE: Michael Moore a fraud? (3/18/2007 12:38:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Let's say Michael Moore is a fraud, so what? Is this your proof that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence? Whatever he is, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to anything. 




Exactly Gent. I don't care for the guy much myself. The mere fact that he's the ultimate of self-promoting  PT Barnum type, still changes nothing in my mind when it comes to our crony government.


- R



popeye1250 -> RE: Michael Moore a fraud? (3/18/2007 12:49:25 PM)

"P.T. Barnum" That's a good analogy, Ranger!

Ah,.....does anyone really think it's a good idea to go around advertising that you "look up to Michael Moore?"
That's kind of like asking for trouble and then complaining when it finds you.



NorthernGent -> RE: Michael Moore a fraud? (3/18/2007 12:52:23 PM)

I know zero about the man and have no interest in watching his film.

Regardless of political view, where a person has to rely on Michael Moore to understand the driving force behind US foreign policy, or rely on him being a fraud in order to attempt to give credence to the actions of a government, then that person is never going to be able to see the woods for the trees.

What is the relevance of his integrity? I saw your first point about the millions of left-wing suckers - is this the relevance i.e. you believe one man renders a political view unworthy of discussion?




Termyn8or -> RE: Michael Moore a fraud? (3/19/2007 11:55:49 AM)

Moore has used the same tools as the mass media. Look at the TV news and you see the same shit, but being used by "the other side".

Tell you what I see in alot of contra-type "documentaies" on the rich and powerful, is that they dwell on secret societies. The Bilberbergs, Illuminati, CFR, whatever. When politicians betray us, and the well heeled figure out how to fleece us for a bit mre, it doesn't matter if they make plans behind an office door or go out in a field, get naked and burn a goat.

I liked the Alex Jones 911 better. But he did the same thing, used the secret society sensationalism to get people's attention. He actually snuck in to one of their meetings, but what did that prove ? That they are a bunch of ritualistic kooks. It is no surprise to me. They just take it a bit farther than the Catholics.

Basically I am not completely opposed to this, because in a way it is like fighting fire with fire.

For example, you remember the TV news footage of the toppling of a statue of Saddam Hussein by the ever so happy Iraqis liberated by our benevolent bombs ? Well I have an aerial photo of that event, and lemme tellya, it was staged. Of course they found a bunch of people who didn't like Saddam, but they had them very carefully guarded.

There are many examples of the media lying and misleading the public, so much so that the media went to court and won the legal right to lie in the US. They now can't be sued for lying, or any consequenses, i.e. people taking the wrong action based on their lies.

The Man presented his opinion, do I agree ? With part of it yes, and part of it no. Is it a work that people should see ? Yes.

Personally I think "documentaries" of this type should be 100% factual, and leave out the suppositions, and let the viewer draw his own conclusions. But that's just me. Ideally one should stick strictly to the facts, supported by evidence. Unfortunately then it won't have quite the impact on the sheeple, but it wouldn't get torn apart later, damaging the author's credibility.

But I do understand why they do it, they are fighting the same tactic being used by the mass media. Sticking with pure documented facts is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. However there are some who are very good with a knife and might prevail in such a situation. If the facts are strong enough, they should stand on their own.

Even the beloved American Free Press, one of the best publications around IMO has been found guilty. (by me anyway) They weighed in on the border patrol agents going to prison for shooting a illegal immigrant caught with  a ½ ton of pot. I do not think these agents should go to prison, but all of the proponents for a Presidential pardon ar whatever on behalf of the agents' has failed to mention one thing. They shot the guy in the back and then tried to cover it up.

Now when a city cop does this they are suspended pending investigation. Sometimes with pay. When the public's attention is sufficiently drawn away by a new hair growth formula or a tax increase, the officers return to duty.

Cops can shoot you in the back if they have reasonable cause to believe that you are a danger to society and probably can't be stopped by less drastic means. Apparently this doctrine does not apply to those who are charged with protecting our borders.

I know a cop, a sergent (sp), who in the space of less than a decade was in about 15 gunfights, lost 11 partners. Call him quick draw or whatever, but eventually it got to him and he wound up with a free ticket out, psychological disability.

So, after all those gunfights, not once was he charged with anything. Do you believe the all those times he was not once at fault ? Now this is a friend of mine !, but that doesn't make him right.

Of course he was a city cop, border patrol is different. They sent the National Guard down there to help, but didn't give them any ammutition.

Where was the TV news when a bunch of them had to run away from armed illegal immigrants ? In a better world the media would pounce on the story and we would have calls to build a wall similar to the great wall of China at the Mexican border. 

But we live in this world.

T



littlesarbonn -> RE: Michael Moore a fraud? (3/19/2007 12:32:43 PM)

As everyone knows, it's only propaganda when the message supports the "other" side. Otherwise, it's journalism. Moore isn't a GREAT journalist, but he doesn't actually claim to be one in the first place. He's an exposure-generating documentary maker. He uses the tools he has available to him, and because of that, people who have done NO WORK THEMSELVES can claim he's lazy, a bad journalist, and all sorts of other insults. What he HAS done is actually start questioning things. The whole Columbine movie was interesting to me for the mere fact that he asked questions, and a whole lot of them, too. He didn't come to any conclusions, and some of his questions were uneventful and useless. But some of them were brilliant. Where the problem comes in is the deconstructionists take the WHOLE story and find specific examples to discredit him, and then claim ALL is flawed. You don't have to like him to examine his investigation to see what he uncovered, even if he was biased in the investigation itself. What you may not have noticed is that most of his investigations start with a general idea, and by the time he's finished, he has somewhat of a strong opinion. The viewer comes in AFTER he's made that conclusion, convinced that he started with that conclusion because they get introduced AFTER the fact.

I never watched the Bush documentary because I didn't think he could be logically nonpartisan in his approach. But that doesn't mean I haven't watched some of his other investigations with great interest. People are so into throwing the baby out with the bathwater in these types of discussions. People tend to listen to just one side of the political spectrum and then listen to the namecallers who complain about the other side. It's like the Ann Coulter thing. All sorts of people are up in the air complaining about her evil ways. But how many of those people have actually read every one of her books to constitute a real, valid opinion about the woman? I have. I understand how she thinks by the way she writes (not pertaining to know more than that), so I somewhat understand how she communicates her message when she speaks. People call her a nutcase, but know absolutely nothing about her other than speaking points that others have made for them. I call her an interesting, yet dangerous person, but only because I've studied her ad nauseum to realize that what makes her dangerous is not the bad things that she says but because she says other solid things so well. If you don't study her, you don't know that and then question why other people can take her so seriously when "she's obviously a nutcase."

It's the same thing with Michael Moore. People are so out to either demonize him or cast sainthood upon him. This means no one really actually tries to understand him and his message. Instead, it's talking point over and over again with no substance in between.



Vendaval -> RE: Michael Moore a fraud? (3/19/2007 3:45:27 PM)

The willingness to ask questions, hard questions, and search for
answers is what I admire about Moore.  "Bowling for Columbine"
was a provocative movie about a serious problem in our country.
I was absolutely amazed at the scene when he goes into a bank
that offers free guns when you open a new account!  And the
scene where he takes a paralyzed victim of the Columbine
shooting to the retail store's corporate headquarters that
sold the bullets used in the massacre is profoundly moving. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlesarbonn
As everyone knows, it's only propaganda when the message supports the "other" side. Otherwise, it's journalism. Moore isn't a GREAT journalist, but he doesn't actually claim to be one in the first place. He's an exposure-generating documentary maker. He uses the tools he has available to him, and because of that, people who have done NO WORK THEMSELVES can claim he's lazy, a bad journalist, and all sorts of other insults. What he HAS done is actually start questioning things. The whole Columbine movie was interesting to me for the mere fact that he asked questions, and a whole lot of them, too. He didn't come to any conclusions, and some of his questions were uneventful and useless. But some of them were brilliant. Where the problem comes in is the deconstructionists take the WHOLE story and find specific examples to discredit him, and then claim ALL is flawed. You don't have to like him to examine his investigation to see what he uncovered, even if he was biased in the investigation itself. What you may not have noticed is that most of his investigations start with a general idea, and by the time he's finished, he has somewhat of a strong opinion. The viewer comes in AFTER he's made that conclusion, convinced that he started with that conclusion because they get introduced AFTER the fact.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125