Whatever you think of Michael Moore — whether you love him, hate him, or (like me) believe that he’s an ingeniously captivating big-picture muckraker who Read the full post.
Sep 26
2009
12:52 PM ET
Michael Moore's influence is undeniable. But is he helping his causes -- or his enemies?
- Comments 72
- Add comment
Latest News
- 'Celeb Apprentice': Arsenio Hall is 'hired'
- Adele dominates Billboard Music Awards
- Sean Astin's 'Rings' memorabilia: Watch
- 'Skyfall': James Bond's back in teaser
- 'SNL': Kristen Wiig's 'graduation' day
- 'Avengers' is No. 1 movie again: $55.1M
- Robin Gibb, Bee Gees singer, dies at 62
- Robin Gibb remembered: 11 songs
Find Movies and Showtimes
Powered by MovieTickets.com
Choose Your Movie
All movies
Most Commented
Top 5 Most Read
- 'The Celebrity Apprentice' season finale recap: Racing To The Finish
- ‘Celebrity Apprentice’: And the winner is…
- ‘Saturday Night Live’ recap: Jagger rocks out, and Kristen Wiig bids farewell
- 20 Best TV Series Finales Ever
- ‘Game of Thrones’: Blackwater battle has ‘dramatically exceeded our expectations’ — EXCLUSIVE
I’m 30 and I would bet you $42 that 80 percent of the people I went to school with can’t even define the word “capitalism”. I really think the biggest effect here is now that people hear about the movie “capitalism” they will be slightly more inclined to try to understand what the word means.
Okay, lets get the bias out of the way so you can flame me latter: Born and raised 20 minutes outside of Flint, MI so the stock footage in Roger & Me was and still is total Deja Vu. Raised a liberal by a UAW father and while I have a few of my own ideas now, still pretty much a liberal. Third generation autoworker, first white collar worker. So yeah, I have a soft spot for Mike. I guess my point is, I’m part of the choir. And sitting in the choir I can tell you from where I’m sitting there is only a few in the pews listening. But the backlash isn’t entirely unwelcome. On Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher when asked about all the heat he was drawing (if you haven’t noticed I’m paraphrasing a lot) his response was essentially he would prefer to be a lightning rod so others (he specified Obama) could get things done. Mike only knows how to do one thing, make films that stir the pot. He used to the heat and he’ll take it because he acknowledges that all he can do is take the heat. For Mike, I don’t think it’s a matter if he is the king of backlash, it’s a matter can everyone see his crown.
Amused- I don’t argue that Moore takes on issues that need to be addressed. I think what many of the posters are saying is that Moore isn’t doing anyone any favors with his methods. As a liberal (and you sound like a pretty articulate person) I’m sure you could argue your ideas pretty effectively with real facts. There is no need to use deception. I think you may have hit on Moore’s problem, and it’s the same one that people on the other side have as well, when you said it’s a matter of can everyone see his crown. Moore comes off as someone more concerned with stirring the pot than with actually helping his “cause”. I would guess that he isn’t going to help Obama get anything done at all. If his new movie is as full of distortions as the others I’ve seen, it’s likely to be more of a distraction than anything else. There is truth on both sides, and the only way to come to any sort agree and actually get things done is to stop playing politics and talk like adults.
sig – I purposeful dodged replying to the other post on Mike’s ethical lapses to address the original question of “is he the king of backlash?” Still, it’s a good point to bring up and as this thread has proven it is impossible not to address it. Samuel Adams summed it up best why people adopt such a strategy when he said “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” Mike isn’t the only one guilty as charged. I’m sure to conservatives James Carville is as guilt as sin as liberals see Carl Rove as at truth bending. These people had stellar careers of getting people elected basically doing what Michael Moore did. This does go back to your point that people need to stop playing politics, doesn’t it? So, how do you avoid the temptation of sensationalism when it’s so clear that people respond so much better to emotional appeal then textbook debate? There has been studies showing those with brain damage to known emotional nerve centers have difficulty making decisions. I am in no way condoning supporting cases with ethically grey arguments. This is just food for thought.
Amused-I agree with you completely. And the fact that it happens on both sides makes it even harder to get past. In a world where people would rather listen to the sensational, it’s almost impossible to have a real debate about what is best and what needs to be done. I am guilty of being angry at politicians (and commentators since Mike and Rove are not elected to any office) for saying what they think people want to hear to further their goals. The truth is, though, that we have created the monster. We get treated that way because that is what we respond to, and anyone who doesn’t speak in sound bytes is ignored. It’s a little unfair to be angry that we are fed BS when BS is the only thing we will accept. I don’t know what the answer is…maybe the people who realize that if we don’t hear the truth we are headed for disaster need to become “the irate, tireless, minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds”. Maybe we just need a snappy slogan or something!(:
You have to remember that in 2004, the same year that Michael Moore released “Farenheit 9/11″, another movie came out that was just as stormy, polarizing and controversial. It was Mel Gibson’s “The Passion Of The Christ”.
Here was a movie that depicted the death of Jesus Christ in gory, horrible detail and The Religious Right flocked to see this film. Compared to the $150 million that “Farenheit 9/11″ grossed, “Passion” grossed over $300 million, making it the biggest grossing independent film of all time. Many of the people who were fans of “Passion” also voted George W. Bush that year.
Fans of “Farenheit” voted for John Kerry, who lost.
In terms of looking at things long-term, I wasn’t much of a fan of “Passion”. I’m still not. Especially in light of Gibson’s recent adulterous dalliances, which could get him excommunicated from the Catholic Church. When we look at Michael Moore now, I’m sure most of us see a fat, sloppy liberal giving his two-cents on one talk show after another. But I can bet you one thing: Michael Moore would never call himself “The Octodad” like Gibson did.
Michael Moore is sensationalist, if he wants to spew out crap like Fox News, or “The Asylum” studioes more power to him. Why the hell would I would to go see a movie about someone’s over dramatic political views? I watched his Farenheight 911 and Bowling for Columbine only because I had to for a research paper. He’s a blow hard and a waste of time but certainly right up there if you’re into that kind of thing and are already unhappy about the topic he’s covering–but then again why? He’s already barfing out what you aready think…
Mike Moore is fine, some of his stuff is over the top, but he is honing in on greatness with SickO, and I wish there was more talk from people about the movies and not all this media crticism, bought and paid for in the media. Most Americans somehow want to fix the country, and it never gets done. Moore can explain why – too much money in the system.
In world of Fox cough news what a joke that is, Glenn racist beck Rush who wouldn’t know the truth if it were in one of his little pills etc, Moore while less then saint and I am no fan of his is hardly the biggest problem or most dangerous liar.
Where is the distortion? Where are the lies? The left on left crime of calling Michael Moore a distortion artist in the vein of the Glenn Beck’s, Bill O’Reilly’s, and Hannity’s without actually providing evidence in the argument is getting old. It’s becoming as hackneyed a tactic for Left to Center critics of Moore’s work to deploy as it is for the right to call him a Communist. The Man predicted GM was a house of Cards 20 years before it went bankrupt!
Exactly right. But it’s not just “getting old” (though it is) — it’s also despicable, and pollutes honest attempts at discourse. NOTHING in Sicko was proven to be untrue. You can certainly make the case that the VIP treatment they got at the Cuban hospital wasn’t representative of what a typical Cuban citizen would get — but on the other hand, Moore didn’t say it was. In terms of FACTS, FIGURES, etc. that he presented — not a single one was found to be untrue. The “debunking” CNN did, on the other hand, was proven to be false — and they had to apologize for it. People like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush, Glenn Beck — practically every time they’re on the air say something that is demonstrably — as in, the record completely contradicts it — grossly mischaracterized or taken out of context at best, or a downright falsehood. Equating Moore to the above-mentioned chronically mendacious boors are disgustingly dishonest; they’re completely untenable, and people should investigate before they pass these lies on as something “everybody knows.”
The word “are” in my last sentence should have been “is”, and “they’re” should have been “such assertions”. I apologize.
To anyone who has not seen SICKO — you really owe it to yourself to watch it. No matter how much you think you know about the health insurance issue, you’ll still learn something new. Besides that, it is truly a great film, one that is alternately deeply funny and profoundly moving. (And the lazy assertions that “Michael Moore distorts the truth and bends the facts blah blah…” are simply a canard; EVERYTHING in SICKO is backed up with evidence; Moore’s website has references / sources for everything in the movie.)
OMG he has a website???? Wow! Then it must be TRUE!
Wow, what a brilliant argument! Too bad that I didn’t say that “because he has a website it must be true.” Do you know what the words “references” and “sources” mean?
Oh, and just to add — it would be impossible to overstate SICKO’s relevance to the current healthcare reform debate.
Exactly correct, sir. 30 seconds of Iraqi children in a non war setting, allowed the right to gloss over Bush sitting there reading the book or the Bin Laden family’s departure. Just the same, why pander to a citizenship willing to put themselves and the rest of us through it? The fact that they are made aware of corrupt exploits to a historic degree, they still root for the team with the ‘R’ by their name like thet were the local NFL team. Proof that their values hold no center and when the actions of the powerful have no relation to the harsh reality of truth, we get, well, right where we are. Its up to us to be louder than Moore and Limbaugh.
Actually, Michael Moore’s influence is completely deniable.
Excerpt from an interesting blog regarding this issue:
«… Which brings me to Michael Moore. I finally got around to watching “Sicko,” where he says exactly the same thing, only better—oh, I knew what I would see, and I knew I would agree with it. For the record, I almost always agree with his movies, I’m in the choir.
So why does he bug me so?
Well, sharing ideas and values doesn’t mean we agree on how to promote them. Moore makes terrific movies if, like me, you agree with him or have no idea what he’s talking about. If, on the other hand, you know what he’s talking about and disagree with him, I doubt that he will change your mind, because he polarizes people.
And that really is a shame, for I don’t feel it would take much for him to convince some people on the other side—but does he even want to? Since Bush has been in power Moore has won a Palme d’Or and an Oscar, not to mention the loot those films have made him. Powerful Conservatives aren’t that bad as far as he’s concerned.
My problem with Moore is that he manipulates facts for entertainment value. Granted, making his documentaries so engaging is sheer genius. But knowingly distorting or manipulating facts: why oh why? Since I agree with him I believe he should be able to play it straight and still make his points.
“Manufacturing Dissent” is an interesting film, made by Canadians who admired his work and thought they’d like what they’d find if they investigated him a little. Turns out, if they aren’t full of sh*t, that Moore based his first successful nonfiction film, “Roger and Me,” on a big lie: he spends the movie chasing General Motors CEO Roger Smith and ridiculing the bastard for refusing to meet him. Only, the guy had indeed agreed to see him.
In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” he shows Bush gloating about “the haves and have-mores” being his “base.” I distinctly remember wanting to vomit, because to me that meant, “You billionaires put me in power for a reason and I’ll deliver, no matter how many poor bastards have to die or lose limbs in the process.” The cynicism was unbearable! Turns out the quote is out of context and Bush was actually laughing at himself and the perception people have of his presidency… Huge f**king nuance!
Being manipulated by evil bastards is one thing, at least I kinda see them coming some of the time. Being manipulated by a supposed ally in the fight against corporations gone Frighteningly Out Of Control—Kindling Extreme Distress, now that really hurts. One feels betrayed, you know?
[So acronyms aren’t my forte, sue me. Do you have ANY idea how long the above sentence took me?]
That said, I still think we’re better off with Moore around, making movies: at least his films are widely seen and make people think about important issues. I don’t know anyone else who’s managed that.
For instance, I believe that Eugene Jarecki’s “Why We Fight” is a better movie than “Fahrenheit”: more nuanced, less polarizing, more convincing because it does not vilify the Conservative base. Yet how many people paid to see it?
Maybe Moore is right to be a bastard after all.»
Full text: http://frenchscum.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-polarization.html