Michael Moore has the tables turned on him

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
So two fans for Michael Moore set out to make a biography of the man. After numerous attempts to get an interview with him and getting no where they start to question Moore?s tactics. The more they learn the more disillusioned they get. In the end they end up with a film that questions Moore?s tactics and methods.

Those of us on the right have known for a long time that Moore uses questionable tactics and film making techniques. For example, he spliced together several different Heston speeches in ?Bowling for Columbine? to make it appear that the NRA held some kind of over the top gun rally post Columbine. And as this film points out he actually did interview Roger Smith, but left the clips out of ?Roger and Me.?

It is nice to see at least a few eyes on the left opened to these facts, maybe more will follow.
Link
AUSTIN, Texas - 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, Mich., 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."
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
It's cute how, three years after Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore still gets right-wing morons' collective knickers in a twist.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,517
586
126
Originally posted by: DonVito
It's cute how, three years after Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore still gets right-wing morons' collective knickers in a twist.

Did you not read the article?
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: DonVito
It's cute how, three years after Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore still gets right-wing morons' collective knickers in a twist.

yeah him and ann coulter have that effect on people
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,906
2,832
136
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: DonVito
It's cute how, three years after Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore still gets right-wing morons' collective knickers in a twist.

yeah him and ann coulter have that effect on people


:laugh:
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: DonVito
It's cute how, three years after Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore still gets right-wing morons' collective knickers in a twist.

Did you not read the article?

I was referring to PJ. I did read the article.

FWIW I have never been a Moore fan - I thought Bowling for Columbine, in particular, was just ridiculous. I thought F9/11 was badly flawed but it was still needed at the time it emerged, and so on balance I have to give him some credit in spite of his arrogance and silliness. God knows he has done far less harm to this country than most of the morons who've run the federal government for the past six years.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,768
54,808
136
Is anyone watching Michael Moore's movies as if they were a scientific documentary? If you are, you're dumb. He sensationalizes things, which means editing timelines, excluding inconvenient footage, etc.

Why does he do it? Because that's what makes people go see his movies. Nobody watches a boring PBS documentary on how Bush lied us into a war. LOTS of people watched Moore's movie on how Bush lied us into a war... because it was interesting. Talk trash about his editing choices all you want, but the fundamental truths his movies are about are just that, fundamental truths.

The only problem I have with all this is that the right wing enthusastically embraces its bomb throwers (that do far worse things then Michael Moore has ever done), and the left tries to disown him when he's one of the primary motivators of the left's resurgence in the last 5 years.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: DonVito
It's cute how, three years after Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore still gets right-wing morons' collective knickers in a twist.

yeah him and ann coulter have that effect on people

There are definitely parallels. I think the principal difference is that Moore is a dope, but he believes what he says. Coulter is reasonably bright, and IMO much of what she says is deliberately inflammatory and outrageous - I'm sure she is in fact a conservative, but her public commentary appears to be calculated to offend and get media attention. Personally I don't think anyone who's thinking clearly is inclined to give much weight to anything either of them says.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,517
586
126
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: DonVito
It's cute how, three years after Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore still gets right-wing morons' collective knickers in a twist.

Did you not read the article?

I was referring to PJ. I did read the article.

FWIW I have never been a Moore fan - I thought Bowling for Columbine, in particular, was just ridiculous. I thought F9/11 was badly flawed but it was still needed at the time it emerged, and so on balance I have to give him some credit in spite of his arrogance and silliness. God knows he has done far less harm to this country than most of the morons who've run the federal government for the past six years.

Ah...ok...thanks for clarifying.

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: DonVito
It's cute how, three years after Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore still gets right-wing morons' collective knickers in a twist.

yeah him and ann coulter have that effect on people

There are definitely parallels. I think the principal difference is that Moore is a dope, but he believes what he says. Coulter is reasonably bright, and IMO much of what she says is deliberately inflammatory and outrageous - I'm sure she is in fact a conservative, but her public commentary appears to be calculated to offend and get media attention. Personally I don't think anyone who's thinking clearly is inclined to give much weight to anything either of them says.

I tend to agree, and in fact I think those two (and others like them) almost help the other side more than they score any points for their own. The typical argument, made by PJ in this very thread in fact, is that the vast majority of left-wingers agree with and like Michael Moore, and Michael Moore is a moron, therefore all left-wingers are morons. An argument of the same form works for Ann Coulter as well. It's like a strawman argument with real people.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: DonVito
It's cute how, three years after Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore still gets right-wing morons' collective knickers in a twist.

Did you not read the article?

I was referring to PJ. I did read the article.

FWIW I have never been a Moore fan - I thought Bowling for Columbine, in particular, was just ridiculous. I thought F9/11 was badly flawed but it was still needed at the time it emerged, and so on balance I have to give him some credit in spite of his arrogance and silliness. God knows he has done far less harm to this country than most of the morons who've run the federal government for the past sixty years.

fixed
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Neocons are bitter because Moore aired the dirty laundry. Maybe he edits his material like filmakers do, but unless he is running around telling us that there is WMD, I find him entertaining and not a nuisance.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: DonVito
It's cute how, three years after Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore still gets right-wing morons' collective knickers in a twist.

yeah him and ann coulter have that effect on people

Hey hey, that's not fair. NO ONE deserves to be compared to Ann Coulter, that's just a low blow. Love Michael Moore or hate him, comparing him to Ann Coulter is lower than when people compare Bush to Hitler.

And in the end, what Michael Moore has said in his films is more truthful than what the administration has told us in the last 6 years.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Those of us on the right have known for a long time that Moore uses questionable tactics and film making techniques. For example, he spliced together several different Heston speeches in ?Bowling for Columbine? to make it appear that the NRA held some kind of over the top gun rally post Columbine. And as this film points out he actually did interview Roger Smith, but left the clips out of ?Roger and Me.?

It is nice to see at least a few eyes on the left opened to these facts, maybe more will follow.

Nothing is more "questionable" than phoney WMD and the propaganda resident Republicans spew in here.

Please continue though because at least Americans have woken up to the deciet and your tactics are no longer working, thank god.
 

extra

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,947
7
81
Yep, Michael Moore twists things around to...wait for it...make himself more money.

He used to have some pretty good stuff back with the awful truth, but Bowling for Columbine was just trash, absolute garbage. And his 9/11 film ignored all of the real 9/11 issues for fluff that didn't matter all. (Please don't turn this into a 9/11 thread, please).

I liken him to rush limbaugh or ann coulter or similar.
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: DonVito
It's cute how, three years after Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore still gets right-wing morons' collective knickers in a twist.

yeah him and ann coulter have that effect on people

There are definitely parallels. I think the principal difference is that Moore is a dope, but he believes what he says. Coulter is reasonably bright, and IMO much of what she says is deliberately inflammatory and outrageous - I'm sure she is in fact a conservative, but her public commentary appears to be calculated to offend and get media attention. Personally I don't think anyone who's thinking clearly is inclined to give much weight to anything either of them says.

I watched both Bowling and F 9/11, and I mostly view them as rather entertaining, but not particularly enlightening.
Kinda the same way I watched that Loose Change conspiracy movie about 9/11 :)
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: DainBramaged
Conservative or Liberal, it's pretty easy to realize Michael Moore is a buffoon.

That sums it up quite well :thumbsup:
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
What's odd is that these 'directors' seem to get annoyed that they couldn't speak with him personally, so they changed the focus of their 'work' to look at his methods instead of talking to him and documenting that.

Say what you want to about Moore and his methods, but he's far closer to being accurate than Coulter/Limbaugh and the like.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: NeoV
What's odd is that these 'directors' seem to get annoyed that they couldn't speak with him personally, so they changed the focus of their 'work' to look at his methods instead of talking to him and documenting that.

Say what you want to about Moore and his methods, but he's far closer to being accurate than Coulter/Limbaugh and the like.
That's not saying much.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: NeoV
What's odd is that these 'directors' seem to get annoyed that they couldn't speak with him personally, so they changed the focus of their 'work' to look at his methods instead of talking to him and documenting that.

Say what you want to about Moore and his methods, but he's far closer to being accurate than Coulter/Limbaugh and the like.
They set out to make a biography about him and how he has changed the documentary, but could not get an interview with him.
Now I am sure as they did research they became exposed to the side of Moore that the right already knows about, his tendency to use half truths to make his points. They admit to be left wingers, and I am betting they believed much of what Moore said without ever questioning him. I am sure there are many on the left who watch his movies and buy every word of it.
If you are only exposed to one side of the story, Moore's side, and don't go out and do the work and research yourself then you are left with an unbalanced view on what the truth really is.

As far as your Moore vs. Rush comment? Moore is a propagandist, Rush is a political commentator, there is a slight difference. Much of what Rush says is his opinion; Moore on the other hand tries to present a story that makes you think his side/idea is the correct idea. I think Rush is a little more honest in that he admits up front that he wants you to agree with his point of view, while Moore is a little more sly in how he tries to convince you that he is right. (Now that everyone knows his political affiliation it is not as easy for him to hide his considerable biases.)