Stumble This | You should also watch “Fox News cover Manufacturing Dissent, and trip over own feet” |
A short and interresting clip from the documentary Manufacturing Dissent, about Michael Moore and his approach when making films.
As a person who always found Michael Moore more interrested in telling a good story instead of providing accurate facts, i found this very informative.
As a person who always found Michael Moore more interrested in telling a good story instead of providing accurate facts, i found this very informative.
I didn't know much about him, or his work, other than that there were people saying he was making stuff up. To be honest, I simply disregarded the critique as a smear campaign by fringe groups who felt targeted by Moore. After all, his films were marketed as documentaries and not fiction, fantasy and/or drama. However, after seeing stuff like this and actually trying to listen to what the people giving him critique are saying, there does in fact seem to be some truth to the claims about him.
I find him despicable, a horrible person who shouldn't get to poison people's minds with his fabrications ever again. Yes I'm hurt by the lies he told and I foolishly believed.
However, with Fahrenheit and Sicko (especially Sicko), it became apparent that he was being very selective with facts in order to further his own cause. When most of his criticism seems to boil down to how politicians, the media and coorporations are misleading the public for their own agendas, I can't see why I should trust him. Even though, deep down, I really want to.
The video summarizes my problem with Michael Moore, when it points ou that the ends don't justify the means.
I'll tell you why: Because the poignant fact of the movie is that no matter what they said in private, he wouldn't answer Michael Moore's questions in public; in front of the people that wanted to know and couldn't get a private interview.
The disturbing thing is that this clip clearly does exactly what it's accusing Moore of doing. They're trying to make it look like Roger Smith said something in response to Moore's questions at that press conference.
He didn't.
That transcript that they show is from a private interview at a different time.
Just a bunch of talk.
Wether or not Roger Smith actually answered Michael Moore at the shareholders metting is irrelevant. Michael Moore already had the footage he tried to obtain during Roger and Me, but chose not to use it because the final product wouldn't be as clear-cut and entertaining.
When you call something a documentary, you enter an unspoken agreement with the audience that the contents are true to the best of your knowledge. Ignoring this, Michael Moore chooses to produce entertainment, and label it as a documentary. That is what is unacceptable.
Can you do that in the US?
No?
Why shouldn't you be able to?
Why is it wrong that someone like Michael Moore wants that to be shown as a ridiculous state of affairs.
If the best they now have is picking on his FIRST film, now that he has several under his belt... well, it only goes to show they don't have much they can whinge about with his big successes.
That being said, I thought SiCKO gave a really one-sided perspective on socialized medicine, without mentioning any of the drawbacks. The long waiting periods on some surgical procedures, the lack of doctors (at least in my country
Ofcourse these are only minor problems compared to privatized medicine, but I still feel that they have to be mentioned in a documentary about this subject.
I don't find this a scrutiny of Roger and Me as a documentary, but of Michael Moore as a documentary maker. If he is willing to substitute fact for entertainment once, he has probably done so a number of times. And this reflects very poorly on the work he has done since then.
But Michael chose to use that clip of him in Roger and Me, wich means they must have been working somewhat closely together on the project.
The more films he makes, the more he is in the film.