Michael Moore

NedLowry

Has this man ever put his name to anything less than a masterpiece?

chin_grin

Debatable. :pac:

AlmightyCushion

Used to be a fan of his films until I started reading up about them. I've since realised he makes very biased and misleading "documentaries".

While they were entertaining, some were just very gimmicky, like Sicko. However, I found his best to be Capitalism: A Love Story.

kitakyushu

I know there's various definitions of the word but isn't a masterpiece generally agreed to be an artists best work (ie singular)? If he has a masterpiece then that would probably be Fahrenheit 9/11 which is his most ambitious and most financially successful effort to date.

Anyway I've watched every Moore feature documentary and enjoyed them all immensely. However I don't think any of them are technically or artistically accomplished works and I further I doubt future generations will consulting them either considering how biased they are.

Like I say, I'm a fan of his stuff but at the same time I realise what I'm looking at and am just calling them for what they are.

NedLowry

kitakyushu wrote: »

I know there's various definitions of the word but isn't a masterpiece generally agreed to be an artists best work (ie singular)? If he has a masterpiece then that would probably be Fahrenheit 9/11 which is his most ambitious and most financially successful effort to date.

Let's face it, any one of Moore's films would be the crowning glory of most other directors careers. However, if I had to pick one to rescue from the fire, it would be his directorial debut, Roger & Me.

NedLowry

NedLowry wrote: »

Let's face it, any one of Moore's films would be the crowning glory of most other directors careers. However, if I had to pick one to rescue from the fire, it would be his directorial debut, Roger & Me.

Ah yes Roger and Me the film that set the Moore template in place, repeatedly manipulate the time-line, make up and exaggerate facts, conveniently ignore factual evidence that would negate your beliefs and use creative editing to make your subject look like a bumbling moron or emit the interview completely and just say that they refused you an interview.. Moore is to documentary film making what Michael Bay is to high brow cinema.

krudler

Michael Moore behind the scenes footage:

Fishooks12

Take Moore's films with a pinch of salt would be my advise

He makes very entertaining liberal propaganda

puzzle factory

er gona fup me for this but i actually met him in Derry,
and ya he is huge,
wan of da boys kept calling him mattress back.

krudler

puzzle factory wrote: »

er gona fup me for this but i actually met him in Derry,
and ya he is huge,
wan of da boys kept calling him mattress back.

I genuinely lol'ed at this, stealing that one :pac:

AlmightyCushion

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Take Moore's films with a pinch of salt would be my advise

He makes very entertaining liberal propaganda

You'd need more than a pince of salt. I'd say enough to grit all of Canada for a decade should suffice.

krudler wrote: »

I genuinely lol'ed at this, stealing that one :pac:

Ditto.

Tipsy McSwagger

I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 again recently and after half an hour it gets really boring. Plus all the stupid music that is put in for comedy effect is really annoying.

Riddle101

I don't consider his documantaries to be masterpieces because of the bias he shows in them. I appreciate something that is fair and unbiased. When he only shows support for one side then that's compromises the integrity of the documentary because we're not getting the full story. A masterpiece should be regarded as something that a truly terrific, something that expresses the best and nothing more. Showing bias does not express the best.

I like his work but I wouldnt call any of them maseterpieces for what I said in the above.

Miguel_Sanchez

Moore once documented an oft-forgotten war, lest we forget:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayOlQ9If_cA

pixelburp

Michael Moore's a genius yeah - if you're 16. Or allergic to any kind of unbiased thinking.

His movies made for an entertaining, humorous watch, but as pieces of critical journalism, they're no better than stuff like Zeitgeist. He's the kind of American that gives Liberals a bad name, and is no less extremist than any of the hawks on the right-wing side of the fence.

sbsquarepants

I don't really get what the problem regarding bias is. He makes films to promote his view of the world and to highlight what he percieves as injustice or unfairness, how else can you do that without pointing out what's wrong with a company or a system or whatever. That's called having a point of view.
They would be extremely boring films if every point he made had to be counterpointed with an opposing good deed for the sake of unbiasedness, he's a film maker, not a judge, he doesn't need to be unbiased. Quite the opposite in fact - it's that very bias that drove him to make the film in the first place.
I think he makes very solid, good, sometimes excellent documentaries. I personally, particularly liked bowling for columbine.

Mickeroo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't really get what the problem regarding bias is. He makes films to promote his view of the world and to highlight what he percieves as injustice or unfairness, how else can you do that without pointing out what's wrong with a company or a system or whatever. That's called having a point of view.
They would be extremely boring films if every point he made had to be counterpointed with an opposing good deed for the sake of unbiasedness, he's a film maker, not a judge, he doesn't need to be unbiased. Quite the opposite in fact - it's that very bias that drove him to make the film in the first place.
I think he makes very solid, good, sometimes excellent documentaries. I personally, particularly liked bowling for columbine.

Its not that he doesn't give the other viewpoint, its that he lies and edits the movies in a fashion support his own viewpoint this is very different to just presenting his own viewpoint. They're not documentaries, they're propoganda films.

ricero

I found the way he treated movie legend charlton heaston in bowling for columbine down right disgusting considering heaston was battlig with illness at the time

METS 1B

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Moore once documented an oft-forgotten war, lest we forget:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayOlQ9If_cA

The day Alan Awwwwwwlda becomes president is the day I leave this planet!

The Black Oil

Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling are all I know, don't know his back catalogue, Sicko or Capitalism. I do have some time for him, but he's pretty good at self-publicity and parts of Fahrenheit ticked me off. I don't think he's the anti-Fox news alternative of the left or anything, he's just a bit too over the top to be a reasonable documentary maker. They're polemics. Saying that, I'll give him some credit in that he's at least asking questions, annoying people and I find his films seem to be most effective when he steps back and let's people or clips speak for themselves. Blacking out the planes hitting the towers is one example, the grief of people is another. I think he handles those situations well. The rest, namely the cartoons and stunts...not so much.

Oafley Jones

pixelburp wrote: »

Michael Moore's a genius yeah - if you're 16. Or allergic to any kind of unbiased thinking.

His movies made for an entertaining, humorous watch, but as pieces of critical journalism, they're no better than stuff like Zeitgeist. He's the kind of American that gives Liberals a bad name, and is no less extremist than any of the hawks on the right-wing side of the fence.

+1 As a documentary film maker the man is an absolute disgrace.

Sad Professor

I'm not Moore's biggest fan either, but I hate the "he's so biased" line of criticism. So what? Everyone is biased. Everyone! I worry about people who think otherwise. You should be more concerned about documentaries that pretend to be objective because they are more likely to fool you. At least Moore's biases are clear for all to see. He's not a journalist, nor does he pretend to be. He isn't trying to make the definitive documentary about any of his subjects. He's offers a particular perspective which he attempts to back up with facts. There's nothing wrong with this. The quality of the facts he uses and whether they prove his argument is all that matters.

Riddle101

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'm not Moore's biggest fan either, but I hate the "he's so biased" line of criticism. So what? Everyone is biased. Everyone! I worry about people who think otherwise. You should be more concerned about documentaries that pretend to be objective because they are more likely to fool you. At least Moore's biases are clear for all to see. He's not a journalist, nor does he pretend to be. He isn't trying to make the definitive documentary about any of his subjects. He's offers a particular perspective which he attempts to back up with facts. There's nothing wrong with this. The quality of the facts he uses and whether they prove his argument is all that matters.

I refer to the bolded part.
Everyone is biased but not everyone is a film maker or has the influence to push their views on people. Micheal Moore does however, as his documentaries reflect his views and opinion. That's bad in my opinion because as someone said it's propaganda. It has the ability to change people's opinion and I'm sure it has. When you take bias into account, it can have serious effect on people's judgment. Some people might hold on to their views, but there are others who will actually believe the stuff he says and believe in his views. In heinseight he has the ability to become Benito Mussolini or Joseph Goebbels. Although not as terrible as they were obviously but still. With his influence, making documentaries that have a bias in them is a bad thing in my opinion, because it turns him into a politician at the end of the day, and we all know what politicans are like.

Manco

Riddle101 wrote: »

I refer to the bolded part.
Everyone is biased but not everyone is a film maker or has the influence to push their views on people. Micheal Moore does however, as his documentaries reflect his views and opinion. That's bad in my opinion because as someone said it's propaganda. It has the ability to change people's opinion and I'm sure it has. When you take bias into account, it can have serious effect on people's judgment. Some people might hold on to their views, but there are others who will actually believe the stuff he says and believe in his views. In heinseight he has the ability to become Benito Mussolini or Joseph Goebbels. Although not as terrible as they were obviously but still. With his influence, making documentaries that have a bias in them is a bad thing in my opinion, because it turns him into a politician at the end of the day, and we all know what politicans are like.

Godwin's Law alert! So what? It's not as if he tries to hide his bias or proselytising intentions in making his films, and people are free to accept or reject their conclusions as they please.

johnny_ultimate

He's no Errol Morris, that's for sure.

The problem with 'subjective' documentaries is that many people don't accept the in-built bias. Once you recognise that it's an individual's version of reality, than there is still the possibility for insight and thoughtfulness. Dear Zachary - certainly a very engaging film, by the way - is a distorted, one-sided story. Michael Moore's films are the same. However, when the passion is there, it's hard to ignore it. Bowling for Columbine is a very fun and quite smart film particularly, despite its inbuilt distortions and silly stunts. Same with Roger and Me and Sicko. His more overtly 'political' films feel more like rants, TBH, and that turns me off them.

The other way to look at his films are as comedies - often they are pretty amusing (both intentionally and unintentionally). He's also an entertainer, and a relatively impassioned speaker. A pinch of salt required, but as 'films' rather than 'documentaries' he knows how to keep the audience involved. His films certainly aren't 'dry'.

Again, there are many more brilliant documentarians out there - Morris, Marsh, Herzog. Yet Michael Moore is still an interesting voice in the discourse. And, at a bare minimum, I'd rather listen to a loud left-wing idiot than a Republican one

I have no problem with Moore's bias, I expect a documentary film markers personal opinion to come through onscreen. What i do not expect is to discover that the documentary filmmaker is making up facts, changing the timeline to suit his agenda and using creative editing to warp what occurred. I enjoy Moore's work, it can be very witty and some of his interview subjects are great but I would t believe a single thing that comes out of his mouth.

Riddle101

Manco wrote: »

Godwin's Law alert! So what? It's not as if he tries to hide his bias or proselytising intentions in making his films, and people are free to accept or reject their conclusions as they please.

Again I refer back to the part in my post where I said that some people will actually believe the stuff he says. I already said that he has a lot of influence, when you use the media like he does it can have an effect on people's judgements. It's easy to say that you don't have to believe what he says and sure enough I don't. But people can be led astray quite easily. It's happened before and can happen with him.

Penn

I don't care that he's biased, I just hate his films because he features too much in them. Rather than focusing on the actual subject of the film, it's all about causing scenes which involves him.

I think it's in Capitalism where he walks up to some Wall St bank and keeps asking the security guards to bring the bankers down so he can arrest them via Citizens Arrest. There's no purpose behind it. Obviously, the security guards (who work for the bank) aren't going to do that, and obviously they aren't going to let him into the building with a film crew to do it himself. All it was was an excuse for Michael Moore to be a showoff and cause a scene fro his film. Biased or not, he's an arrogant prick

Oafley Jones

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'm not Moore's biggest fan either, but I hate the "he's so biased" line of criticism. So what? Everyone is biased. Everyone! I worry about people who think otherwise. You should be more concerned about documentaries that pretend to be objective because they are more likely to fool you. At least Moore's biases are clear for all to see. He's not a journalist, nor does he pretend to be. He isn't trying to make the definitive documentary about any of his subjects. He's offers a particular perspective which he attempts to back up with facts. There's nothing wrong with this. The quality of the facts he uses and whether they prove his argument is all that matters.

Of course everyone has an inherit bias, that goes without saying, we're not robots. The problem with the likes of Moore is not one of bias rather that he manufactures the "facts" to suit his agenda. How people can rationalize that as being okay is a complete mystery to me.

Galvasean

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Used to be a fan of his films until I started reading up about them. I've since realised he makes very biased and misleading "documentaries".

I'm the very same. Used to love his documentaries because they told me exactly what I wanted to hear (Buck Fush!!!). Unfortunately there is very little truth hidden amongst the hyperbole and outright distortions of the truth.

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'm not Moore's biggest fan either, but I hate the "he's so biased" line of criticism. So what? Everyone is biased. Everyone! I worry about people who think otherwise. You should be more concerned about documentaries that pretend to be objective because they are more likely to fool you. At least Moore's biases are clear for all to see. He's not a journalist, nor does he pretend to be. He isn't trying to make the definitive documentary about any of his subjects. He's offers a particular perspective which he attempts to back up with facts. There's nothing wrong with this. The quality of the facts he uses and whether they prove his argument is all that matters.

He backs up his opinions with outright lies though. That's no good. He doesn't even try to be honest or look at facts from a certain perspective. He just makes things up and deliberately misleads.
It's not right and I say that as a liberal who would agree with Moore's topics (at least on paper).

Sad Professor

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Moore. I was responding to the "he's biased" line of criticism. I study history and if i wrote "this source is biased" in an essay, my lecturer would underline it and want to know WTF I was talking about. Bias should be assumed of everything you read or watch. It doesn't matter if it's the BBC or Robert Fisk, they all have opinions, they are all biased. Some of them are just better at hiding it.

As I said, Moore's bias doesn't bother me. However, the sensationalist nature of his work does. He is more concerned with entertaining people than informing them. But on the other hand, his work is about trying to provoke. If one of his documentaries encouraged you to read more about the subject then he did something right. A lot of people read a book or watch a documentary on the history channel and think they have all the facts. They don't.

And technically his work probably does fit the definition of propaganda. However, most people use propaganda as a negative term to refer to something that they believe is wrong. In other words, it's only propaganda if you don't like it. In fact, propaganda is anything that has an agenda that use certain techniques to try and persuade you. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as you know it's propaganda. And in my view, Moore's biases are there for all to see.

Rabidlamb

Deleted User wrote: »

While they were entertaining, some were just very gimmicky, like Sicko. However, I found his best to be Capitalism: A Love Story.

It was alright but then I watched Inside Job & you realise how it should have been done.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inside_job_2010/

Penn

Rabidlamb wrote: »

It was alright but then I watched Inside Job & you realise how it should have been done.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inside_job_2010/

Inside Job is fantastic. Watched it again about two weeks ago. No silly stunts, no twisting facts, not even really trying to make it exciting or building up to anything... Just a straight-up "This is what happened. These are interviews we did about it. This story is interesting enough on it's own."

montreal2011

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Moore once documented an oft-forgotten war, lest we forget:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayOlQ9If_cA

YouTube links are ok, Google owns YouTube, and Google Video still has videos :eek: , so this link should be ok! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9044977915928383709

catbear

It's a pity there wasn't this type of discussion back in the mid 00s, any time I criticised his work as being polemic dressed as fact i was accused of supporting whatever Moore was attacking.

sbsquarepants

Mickeroo wrote: »

Its not that he doesn't give the other viewpoint, its that he lies and edits the movies in a fashion support his own viewpoint this is very different to just presenting his own viewpoint. They're not documentaries, they're propoganda films.

All "documentary" films are propaganda, some just more so than others. The very fact that someone bothered to make a film about any given subject is proof they have a point to make about it. I don't see why people get so upset about this, you make your mind up by looking at both sides of an argument - there's no law to say they have to be presented to you in one neat, easily digested bundle. When you've made your mind up - you're biased, plain and simple.

Sad Professor wrote: »

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Moore. I was responding to the "he's biased" line of criticism. I study history and if i wrote "this source is biased" in an essay, my lecturer would underline it and want to know WTF I was talking about. Bias should be assumed of everything you read or watch. It doesn't matter if it's the BBC or Robert Fisk, they all have opinions, they are all biased. Some of them are just better at hiding it.
.

Absolutely. I'm not defending him either bu fact is there is no such thing as an unbiased reporter. Most of the best journalism in the world, stems from bias - not the lack thereof. If the journalist/filmaker or whoever wasn't biased one way or the other they probably couldn't be arsed investigating or reporting!
Anyone who thinks that anything another human being has taken the time and effort to record for the world to see, then hasn't slanted that thing to suit their own viewpoint/beliefs, is deluding themselves.
A point of view has to be, by it's very definition, biased. Bias does not necessarily equate to dishonesty.

I will admit that moore does go in for the kill in all of his films, and has a tendency to hammer his point home, but i still find them both informative and entertaining, a rare enough feat to achieve. I've never assumed his films were gospel, so i was never all that shocked to find out they weren't. Believing a film maker is akin to believing a politician, they'll both "bend the facts" to suit themselves. Some will be subtle some will downwright lie through their teeth. It's up to each individual to sift through and make sense of what they see and hear.

Phony Scott

Biased is not the word I would use to describe what Michael Moore does, but he has an agenda in each of his films and in that agenda he works by the ideal that the ends always justify the means; for example, his handling of the editing in 'Bowling for Columbine' was brilliant, but questionable. I remember seeing a subsequent documentary which showed how he manipulated two different speeches at two different NRA rallies and completely changed the context of the speeches to meet his own ends. To me, that's just blatantly deceiving the audience.

duckworth

This isn't the BBC - he has no obligation to impartiality. What a boring format the documentary would be if they were all unbiased. He's making his point in as direct a way as possible - this is a good thing in my opinion.

And on facts - people who think his distortion of fact is a bad thing (and you're into a whole philosophical debate whether ANY film can be without distortion of facts), there are plenty of people who disagree.

Somebody mentioned Werner Herzog - Herzog is famous for ignoring facts. In one of his most famous documentaries, Little Dieter want to Fly, the main guy goes around continually opening his car doors - making him look a bit mental. It turns out Herzog got the guy to act it out, it didn't happen by chance.

Now the argument behind this is - a) it actually DID happen in the past, and they are just showing it here to suit the medium of the film - and b) This distortion of fact is committed to serve the real truth of the film, and make its key point clearer.

Moore does the same - he shapes the film to make his point clearer and more direct.

I have no problem with this. It's not the 9 o'clock news.

Denerick

People are confusing bias and manipulation. I like bias - I actively seek it out. Thats why I read the Guardian and the economist - one left of center newspaper and one right of center weekly magazine. The problem isn't bias. The problem is that Moore treats the viewer with contempt, actively distorts the facts in order to promote his own cause. He also deliberately skews cause and effect; presenting the effect before the cause is commonplace in his work. The line between promotion of one's ideas and propaganda can be very small indeed at times, but Moore is a particularly wily individual. I enjoyed many of his films when I was younger (As someone already said - he's great when you're 16 and haven't developed a capacity to think critically) but nowadays whenever I come across any of his work I get intensely annoyed.

If you're looking for a good documentary maker then watch Louis Theroux. He seeks out the crazies but nearly always finds the best side of them. He makes survivalist nutters in Idaho seem likable as individual human beings for example... Moore is a part of the political problem if you ask me, and symptomatic of an age where people don't care so much about the truth, but about their version of the truth.*

*We could get all postmodern and challenge the notion of objective truth, but the point is that we don't get any more enlightened by consuming propaganda as fact or polemic as argument.

Denerick

Sad Professor wrote: »

As I said, Moore's bias doesn't bother me. However, the sensationalist nature of his work does. He is more concerned with entertaining people than informing them. But on the other hand, his work is about trying to provoke. If one of his documentaries encouraged you to read more about the subject then he did something right. A lot of people read a book or watch a documentary on the history channel and think they have all the facts. They don't.

Ah, but which book will they read? I'd wager that the net effect of his propaganda is the deepening polarisation of the individuals in question. Politics shouldn't be a matter of belief or disbelief, it should be a constant battle of equally valid arguments, the most worthy argument should eventually convince the person of its rightness. Moore adds nothing to the sum total of human knowledge IMO.

Standman

I always find that people tend to like documentaries that go along with their pre-conceived notions about the subject, then hold up the documentary as some kind of evidence when really they are nothing more than entertainment.

sbsquarepants

Denerick wrote: »

If you're looking for a good documentary maker then watch Louis Theroux. He seeks out the crazies but nearly always finds the best side of them. He makes survivalist nutters in Idaho seem likable as individual human beings for example... Moore is a part of the political problem if you ask me, and symptomatic of an age where people don't care so much about the truth, but about their version of the truth.*

Could agree more about Louis Theroux, who is in to my mind the best documentary maker working today. Again though, it's just entertainment with a learning slant. You shouldn't really consider watching a film to somehow deliver an education!
As for this being an age when people care for their version of the truth...was there ever a different age, will their ever be a different age? People as a group have generally never been all that objective, i don't imagine they ever will be either.

Denerick wrote: »

Ah, but which book will they read? I'd wager that the net effect of his propaganda is the deepening polarisation of the individuals in question. Politics shouldn't be a matter of belief or disbelief, it should be a constant battle of equally valid arguments, the most worthy argument should eventually convince the person of its rightness. Moore adds nothing to the sum total of human knowledge IMO.

You have to remember Moore makes his films for American audiences. Politics anywhere is not like you describe but particularly not in America where it is driven by hysteria, dodgy ideology, religious nuts on all sides, commies and muslims under the bed etc.
Have you ever watched an American "news" channel? It's laughable looking at it from a European point of view, but that's all they see. Moore offers a counter view that the majority of average Americans just would not be exposed to. I'm not talking about MIT graduates, i'm talking about the Joe Soaps, 3 quarters of whom don't even have a passport, who are fed on a diet of god bless America, down with anything remotely socialist cos it's evil and so on. For all their wealth and power, they are not an educated or worldly nation, they are very insular and in a lot of cases down right backwards (intelligent design anybody?). Moore very much does add to the sum of their knowledge, maybe not to yours, but certainly theirs.