Moore exposed
For whatever reason, I've never trusted Michael Moore -- the documentarian who made his public debut with "Roger and Me," which discussed the deleterious effects of General Motors' decision to close manufacturing facilities in Flint, MI. Moore has been more recently lauded with his work on "Bowling for Columbine," which touches on America's propensity for guns and ties together that with the murderous behavior of two youngsters from Columbine, Colo., who went on a shooting spree at their high school.
My reasons for disliking Moore are largely visceral. While I could probably be convinced of the benefits of the brand of socialistic altruism he'd like to see governments and corporations support, he comes across to me as a bully. His "TV Nation" television show repeatedly would take middle managers or low-level executives from corporations with questionable ethical positions and put them on camera. I think it's a cheap shot, and I don't think simply because you're collecting a paycheck from a company that's doing crappy things that it's worth taking public abuse or ridicule over. It's also patently obvious that Moore and his production team stage some events.
On the other hand, I like to see a real journalist -- like the 60 Minutes crew, for example -- make senior executives and government officials squirm when they catch those guys doing something really loathsome. But those folks are asking for what they get -- they're agreeing to the interview, and all it entails. It implies a certain battlefield chivalry that I think is wholly lacking in Moore's guerilla approach.
Anyway, a recent Opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal penned by John Fund exposes some of inaccuracies, distortions and mistruths in Bowling for Columbine. David T. Hardy has also weighed in on Bowling for Columbine, and he raises some great points too, but his delivery is a bit more vitriolic.
So, if you think that Michael Moore is somehow a paragon of virtue, common sense, or the voice of the everyman, check this stuff out. It'll cast him in a new light.
Comments
I know a lot of people have it in for Michael Moore, and so be it. He definitely had his mind made up about what he'd find when he started filming Bowling For Columbine - something he does a lot. I couldn't get to that one editorial for some reason, but David T. Hardy has definitely already made up his mind as well about Michael Moore and, to be honest, I don't trust that he's impartial. I saw him state a lot of facts but I didn't see as much work into solid references and citations to back his facts up.
My mom always used to tell me that when someone makes you angry, it's usually because they're doing something which reminds you of an aspect of yourself you don't like. I wonder if this is one of those cases.
As for the movie: Stop losing sleep over which part is true and which isn't. Sure, it'd really stink to find out that Moore did so many misleading edits, and we can easily tell that Moore was nowhere *near* impartial when presenting the material... but that movie really made a lot of people think about some important issues in some new ways. So long as movies like Gangs of New York, Boat Trip and Bringin' Down The House are being made - or anything else which does nothing to warm up so much as a single brain cell - taking shots at Bowling For Columbine is mis-placed zealotry.
Pete, I'm a bit disappointed in you for jumping on this bandwagon. This comes off as more of an intellectual circle-jerk than an "expose".
Posted by: Corey | March 23, 2003 08:57 PM
Ah, bullshit. Bowling for Columbine pulled in $15 million in box office receipts, not a single penny of it from my wallet, I'm pleased to say. Most of those people, I have no doubt, were fully expecting to see a "documentary" -- albeit one they wanted to be entertained by -- and to that end, they got ripped off.
I told you at the outset that Hardy was took a negative emotional slant on this, so that's no surprise at all -- Fund is much more balanced, however, and he still draws many of the same conclusions: That Moore's portrayal of the situation is misleading at best, and outright fradulent at points.
Hardy's vitriol aside, the fact that both Fund and Hardy draw the same conclusions is enough. A documentary is, by its very nature, a presentation of the facts about an event or its subject, and to say that a documentary presents those facts in a distorted or just inaccurate way is the ultimate condemnation. I haven't heard anyone pick apart Ken Burns the same way -- although he tends to gravitate to less controversial subject matter.
Alas, it's too late to do anything about it. The AMPAS members gave Moore his Oscar anyway. I found his acceptance speech particularly fitting. He talked about "fictitous election results" and our "fictitious president" who got the US involved in a war for "fictitious reasons."
Michael Moore has apparently become an expert in fiction.
Posted by: Flargh | March 24, 2003 06:46 AM
Don't you think that you should at least see the movie before considering yourself to be a person who's evaluating Michael Moore fairly? After all, you took the time to look at Hardy and Fund had to say.
Posted by: Corey | March 24, 2003 08:35 AM
I've seen enough of Michael Moore's twisted perception of the truth enough in his previous body of work to write him off as a liar. I don't need to see Bowling for Columbine to recognize the pattern.
Posted by: Flargh | March 24, 2003 08:55 AM
I didn't watch it, but MTV reports that Moore's speech was actually booed, so biased and intemperate that even Hollywood libs could not stand it.
Posted by: John Anderson | March 24, 2003 04:59 PM
http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.html
Andy Ihnatko, your magazine-mate, has already uncovered numerous factual problems with "Bowling."...
Posted by: jsnell | March 24, 2003 07:41 PM
I think that what everyone is forgetting is that Bowling for Columbine is a satirical social comment on the culture of personal gun ownership and the propensity of the media to focus on violence. Whether the actual gun deaths in one year were 11 127 or 9867 the kind of argument that Hardy quibbles over is pretty irrelevant. The fact is there are more gun homicides per capita in the US than any other country in the world in 'peace time'. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence and discernment will take the film as it was intended and have a laugh.
Posted by: Janja Markovic | June 9, 2004 12:36 AM
Moore is a shitstain on humanity. He's no better than the murdering terrorists he supports.
Posted by: Moorehater | June 28, 2004 12:27 AM