Michael Moore. Is he an objective film maker?

AckwelFoley

Yay or nay?

I dont agree with much of what he says but i think his films are entertsining when taken with a pinch of salt. I had an objection to his treatment of charlton Heston in Bowling for colombine and some other issues i felt misleading.Then i watched Manufacturing Dissent a film made by canadians about him..

While Moore depicted an evasive Roger Smith, then-Chairman of General Motors, in his breakout documentary Roger and Me, Moore spoke with Smith twice.although in the film he claims he was avoided by roger Moore had a lengthy exchange with Smith at a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting yet never included it in his piece. The filmmakers found this shocking as it appeared to negate Moore's central premise of the film that corporate CEOs exploit lower class workers and refuse to answer questions or acknowledge any wrongdoing. Moore counters that the discussion, which occurred before he commenced filming, was not recorded by him.[3] Manufacturing Dissent shows the footage in its entirety.

Another one of their assertions is that in Moore's Academy Award winning film Bowling for Columbine, Moore misleads the audience in describing the safety Canadians feel in their homes. In the film, Moore goes door-to-door in Sarnia, Ontario testing to see if the front doors are locked or unlocked. Moore edits the film to show every home he tries with an unlocked door. Caine and Melnyk report states that Moore's producer for the segment told them that in reality about 40 percent of the homes had unlocked doors, possibly somewhat discrediting Moore's thesis that Canadians feel safer because guns are more regulated in their country than in the United States.[4]

The film also presents extended footage of the Al Smith annual memorial dinner from which Moore, in Fahrenheit 9/11, took a clip of President George W. Bush greeting the guests as the "haves and have-mores", insinuating that President Bush views the elite upper-class as his constituency, not the average American. The extended footage shows each speaker at the dinner poking fun at himself, including a clip of Al Gore joking that he invented the Internet. It is argued that the extended footage shows Moore to have taken the quote from President Bush out of context.[2]

If a documentary wants to be objective, how can you take things out of context like that?

The film Manufacturing Dissent was made over the course of two years by Canadians Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine after they viewed Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore's controversial film attacking the Bush administration and its policies.[1] Melnyk and Caine have stated that when they first sought to make a film about Moore, they held great admiration for what he had done for the documentary genre and set out to make a biography of him. During the course of their research, they became disenchanted with Moore's tactics

Jesus Wept

Film forum ftw?

Fahrenheit brought a lot of things to the publics eye that they (including me) had no clue about,
such as the deep rooted connections between the Bush and Saudi Royal family.

Canada is safer than the USA.

the dee

Is he an objective film maker? Short answer: NO, clearly not.

orestes

I usually find that he uses too much emotional manipulation to hammer his points home, which usually ruins the point he is trying to make, regardless of how valid the point might have been

AckwelFoley

The-Rigger wrote: »

Film forum ftw?

Perhaps.. but this thread could get political... and messy

The Queen

No.

Overheal

Of course he isn't. Doesn't mean the points he raises aren't valid to some extent.

Sam Vimes

no he's not objective. He's trying to make a point and uses "poetic licence" to get some points across. I wish he wouldn't though because it gives people ammunition against him and gives them reason to doubt everything he says, when he's usually highlighting important issues

PeakOutput

of course he is not objective but as long as you know that you can watch his documentaries and pick the facts away from his opinion.

Oafley Jones

He's as objective as Fox news.

GenericName

No he certainly is not. I don't think you have to dig as deep as the items you highlighted to realise that.

His work seem to be squarely aimed at the domestic audience. What he calls documentary wouldn't pass a a true documentary here. But, what he does is just the flipside of right wing television.

Mark Thomas had a show on Channel 4 about the same time as Michael Moore's first shows aired over here. Same idea, left wing political humour. But the Mark Thomas show was more professionally resarched and delivered. Funnier too.

johnp

Commander Vimes wrote: »

no he's not objective. He's trying to make a point and uses "poetic licence" to get some points across.

Totally agree. He does bring certain issues to the fore, but maybe makes them sounds more callous than they really are.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

I wish he wouldn't though because it gives people ammunition against him and gives them reason to doubt everything he says, when he's usually highlighting important issues

[cynic]I'm not sure if he does, he's a very rich man[/cynic]

Susannahmia

As a social policy student. I think he is great. he may be biased and a bit of a p*** but he creates awareness of some very important issues.

If he wasn't sensationalist no one would listen to him. Especially Americans as they are generally very politically sheltered.

I watched Sicko lately It was biased but it had some facts which cannot be denied.

I also saw Manufacturing Dissent, it seemed even more staged than his stuff tbh. I wouldn't be surprised if they were "commissioned" to make it.

ScumLord

He is most certainly not objective but given he's American audience I'm not surprised he goes overboard to get a point. I'm surprised he's not waring a Barney suit and explaining what every 2nd word means.

Karoma

Moved from AH. Feel free to bounce it back.

tallaght01

I thoguht sicko was the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. I remember him having a go at GPs and talking crap about what they earn. He showed a GP's huge gaff. Fair enough. But he neglected to mention that the GPs wife is a very successful dentist and is totally minted, and outearns her husband like 3 times.

He's patently not objective. He most definitely has an agenda.

I watched the bowling for columbine, and saw him interview a guy who was very obviously mentally retarded, but was a gun lover. He used this interview and his comments to back up his arguments. Watching him manipulate that mentally disabled guy really made my blood boil.

He used a vulnerable member of society to further his own business interest and to line his own pocket. This is what he supposedly campaigns against. I could never respect a man like that.

Also, after watching his first movie, I have only ever watched subsequent movies of his on pirated DVDs. That's my way of avoiding contributing anything financially to this man. He's so anti big business that he wouldn't mind, though.

Manic Moran

He is most certainly not objective but given he's American audience I'm not surprised he goes overboard to get a point.

Being extravagant is well and good, but by outright mistruth or manipulation, he looses his credibility. I know very little about the US Healthcare system except as a user so cannot comment on Sicko, though I know it's an issue which could do with exposure and work. I know very little about the back-room-dealings of government, so can't comment much on Fahrenheit. I do, however, know a hell of a lot about the firearms scene in the US, and comparing that to Bowling, it completely shoots his credibility in my eyes. Is 'Sicko' receiving head-nods from those who actually know something about the healthcare industry? I have no idea. But until I see some indication of an accurate (Doesn't need to be balanced, just accurate) production of his, I see no reason to treat any of his movies without the greatest skepticism.

How was Canadian Bacon?

NTM

RE*AC*TOR

He is not objective. To be kind I could say he is selective in what he shows.
Having said that - I largely agree with his political viewpoints, and I can forgive him some of his selectivity as he is one of the very few balancing voices to the increasingly right-wing political landscape in the US.

1. Bowling for Columbine - the US has a problem with guns (i agree)
2. Fahrenheit 9/11 - Bush entered the war in Iraq for dubious reasons (i agree)
3. Sicko - The US health system is unfair (i agree)

Broadly I think the overall points he makes are sound, but it can be easy to nit-pick some of the smaller points (as people do). I was also quite unhappy with his treatment of Charlton Heston. If anything he implied that Heston was a borderline racist - which couldn't be further from the truth.

Galvasean

Are any filmmakers truly objective?

Can, open
worms, everywhere!

Pride Fighter

Team America's portrayal of him was bang on.

Pigman II

Nay.

But his movies are very entertaining and humourous.

irishthump

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

He is not objective. To be kind I could say he is selective in what he shows.
Having said that - I largely agree with his political viewpoints, and I can forgive him some of his selectivity as he is one of the very few balancing voices to the increasingly right-wing political landscape in the US.

1. Bowling for Columbine - the US has a problem with guns (i agree)
2. Fahrenheit 9/11 - Bush entered the war in Iraq for dubious reasons (i agree)
3. Sicko - The US health system is unfair (i agree)

Broadly I think the overall points he makes are sound, but it can be easy to nit-pick some of the smaller points (as people do). I was also quite unhappy with his treatment of Charlton Heston. If anything he implied that Heston was a borderline racist - which couldn't be further from the truth.

So you're saying that the end justifies the means?

I'm sorry, but I find it VERY difficult to swallow any of Moore's crap. He seriously damages the integrity of his own arguments with his manipulation of the facts. Of course, you could probably take the view that, in the case of Farenheit 9/11, he is only being as biased and slanted as the Bush administration but I'm of the opinion that two wrongs don't make a right.

Jesus Wept

tallaght01 wrote: »

I thoguht sicko was the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. I remember him having a go at GPs and talking crap about what they earn. He showed a GP's huge gaff. Fair enough. But he neglected to mention that the GPs wife is a very successful dentist and is totally minted, and outearns her husband like 3 times.

He's patently not objective. He most definitely has an agenda.

I watched the bowling for columbine, and saw him interview a guy who was very obviously mentally retarded, but was a gun lover. He used this interview and his comments to back up his arguments. Watching him manipulate that mentally disabled guy really made my blood boil.

He used a vulnerable member of society to further his own business interest and to line his own pocket. This is what he supposedly campaigns against. I could never respect a man like that.

Maybe they shouldn't give guns to people who are mentally retarded (for want of the upto date P.C term)

Do you have a clip of the bit you mean? I've seen that movie a couple of times, I don't recall seeing anyone that would be considered mentally retarded.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Also, after watching his first movie, I have only ever watched subsequent movies of his on pirated DVDs. That's my way of avoiding contributing anything financially to this man. He's so anti big business that he wouldn't mind, though.

I don't know if he is anti big business per say, it is possible to run a big business and to take care of your employees well, and be profitable.
A a lot of big businesses choose not to as they can get away with it and make a few extra, extra quid.

stevenmu

I've no problem with him being biased and unobjective, he makes films to make a certain point and that's fine. The problem I have is with the deception and trickery he uses. If he has such valid points then why does he need to do this? The above examples of selective editing and taking things out of context are his hallmark.

FrostyJack

Do you have a clip of the bit you mean? I've seen that movie a couple of times, I don't recall seeing anyone that would be considered mentally retarded.

That guy was definitly a few cans short of a 6-pack. The worst part about it, I though was when he went into the bank and got a gun. He tried to make it look like "hey what fools giving me a gun in a bank", the fact he spent an hour filling out forms, showing id etc and putting down a deposit, would have put him on America dumbest criminals had he used it. Spinal Tap was a much more factual documentary and a hell of a lot funnier!

SexyIrish

He never claims to be objective. All he has ever said is that his movies are opinion pieces and so the whole "He's being objective" argument falls down. Yes, he only shows one side of the coin and of course there's gonna be arguments from both sides on the pros and cons or whatever, but as long as he keeps making movies that are his opinion and not being touted as fact I think I'll watch them.

FTR, I liked Sicko, I thought it was a lot more balanced then his other movies and while he did only show one side, the other side seems so messed up that it wouldn't have really mattered if it WAS from both sides!