“Fearing not that I’d become my enemy / In the instant that I preach”
A couple of weeks ago I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and last night I balanced the scales by watching Michael Moore Hates America. I can’t say either is all that good, although one definitely has fewer blatant lies, but the later has a quote (post title) from a Bob Dylan song as one of it’s core themes so it gets brownie points from me. Actually it’s not really fair to compare the two films as they are not of the same caliber. One is a big budget current events analysis while the other is modest budgeted guide of how to not be like Michael Moore.
The best part of either movie is, if you can excuse the incessant cursing, the segments with Penn Jillete in Michael Moore Hates America (he’s the one that quotes Bob Dylan). As an entertainer he makes a case for how terribly dishonest it is to mix comedy and documentary film making like Michael Moore does. I have to agree that one of most annoying things about both the Moore films I’ve seen (also saw Bowling for Columbine) is when he makes complex issues into trivial, misleading jokes, all the while sounding very serious.
Yeah, using comedy to make a point is pure evil.
JaredB
20 Aug 05 at 11:35 am
I would agree that making dishonest jokes loosely based true events and then packaging it as a honest documentary is pure evil.
Nate
20 Aug 05 at 1:22 pm
That depends how you define an “honest documentary”; I think that filmmakers can use humor to make a point, and exaggeration is often a part of such jokes. To say that such methods are deliberately deceptive is a point of view (that you are certainly entitled to) but nothing more.
If you want to talk about honesty and integrity in the media, I’d gladly compare and contrast Moore to FOX News any day of the week. Not because I’m sticking up for Moore (because I disagree with him on some issues too), but because of the fact that he is VERY open about his bias and the direction that he’s coming from; pretty much everyone knows where he stands on some issues, and his films reflect that.
FOX on the other hand, claims to be a news organization (as opposed to making documentary films - there is a huge difference) and constantly ascribes to itself such inaccurate labels as “fair and balanced”, when numerous employees (and leaked memos) have clearly pointed to a top-down political “right” leaning slant being enforced within the organization, with some people who did not want to comply with such dishonest practices losing their jobs over it. Even Murdoch himself, when interviewed about starting the news organization, admitted that he did so in order to tip the scales and compensate for what he believed to be the “left wing” bias predominating the other news networks.
If you’re up for yet another documentary (on this subject particularly) I’d recommend “Outfoxed”.
All in all, I see a common thread regarding people who present controversial opinions on issues like this. As seen in the recent Valerie Plame affair, and with people like Cindy Sheehan, the political machine immediately moves to try to discredit the messengers by the use of personal attacks, rather than “honestly” discussing the real issues. I believe this is a smokescreen designed to avoid discussing the real problems.
Again, let me point out that I don’t necessarily agree with what Sheehan is doing right now, but it has had some positive effects in at least not letting the media ignore the large numbers of people who are opposing our current policies in Iraq. Anyway, all the reports lately that have focused on her personal problems (like a divorce, which was in the works before this started but is being spun to give the perception that it was because of this) only serve to distract from the real issue that should be getting covered.
I see the same thing as it relates to many of Moore’s films; with 9/11 and probably even more so with Bowling for Columbine. All I hear about is people picking out technical innacuracies while avoiding the real issues that are being raised. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve heard comment about Bowling for Columbine from people who either didn’t watch it at all or weren’t paying attention. They refer to it as an “anti-gun” movie, when anyone who watched (and understood) the movie could plainly see that it was not casting any blame whatsoever on guns or gun owners.
All in all, this is why I generally avoid talking about Moore’s films, because I’d rather discuss the real issues instead of the innacuracies presented by someone (Moore) when discussing their opinions on the subject. In my conversations, I’ll stick to the facts that I know, and my own personal opinions. Arguing about how a third party presents theirs is probably only taking away from the original point of the discussions, which I think sometimes is the deliberate aim of such conversations.
JaredB
20 Aug 05 at 2:37 pm
If the issues being raised are based on lies what’s the point. It’s like saying, “yeah, I understand what he said is untrue, but it needed to be said.”
Nate
20 Aug 05 at 2:53 pm
Issues like the war in Iraq are not “lies”; people on both sides of the issue may (and often do) present lies when they’re talking about them, but that doesn’t mean that the issues shouldn’t be talked about, only that you shouldn’t use anyone’s opinions on an issue as an authoritative source.
JaredB
21 Aug 05 at 1:24 pm
Obviously I meant specific issues created from myths and lies that Moore makes up in his movies not something so encompassing as “the war in Iraq.” Thanks for the pointer though.
Also, this post had nothing to do with “how a third party presents” their opinion. It was about distorting true events and then passing that off as what really happened.
Nate
21 Aug 05 at 2:37 pm
I was responding to the following comment:
Just saying that I disagree with this; I don’t think there’s any implication or standard that says documentaries must be impartial (like there is with a news organization). Case in point: the Moore films - I don’t think anyone is under the impression that they are attempts at objective journalism, looking at the issue from both sides, etc.
I don’t know of anything in either film mentioned that intentionally tries to pass off a false story as true. There are certainly lots of implications and a few scenes (like the KKK/NRA cartoon) that are trying to make a point through humor even though there are some obvious technical inaccuracies. I’m also certainly not saying that there aren’t any such scenes (and I’m sure the other documentary you mentioned points them out if they’re there), but that goes back to my other point of it being more productive to debate the issues themselves rather than documentaries about the issues.
JaredB
21 Aug 05 at 4:28 pm
Well, if this post was about any issue itself I would be happy to converse about it but it’s not. And there are standards to documentary films. A documentary should document something. Not forge documents, not make up facts to help a cool conspiracy theory work out, not anything other than document. Of course, there is always going to be editing and bias placed on the story that’s told, but it still must be based on facts.
One of the other important things that Penn points out is how the people that are really damaged by the kind of film making that Moore does are not the people that view his films with a critical eye, but those who are more aligned with his ideology and are willing to eat his message up because it’s loosely based on facts and ends up sounding pretty good.
By the way, I don’t think telling funny stories or doing funny things in a documentary film is bad, but the sarcastic and trivial way he deals with complex subject matter is what I was referring too.
Nate
21 Aug 05 at 6:08 pm
Ya, I don’t think that trivializing such complex issues is a good way of presenting things either. That being said, Moore by no means has a corner on that market. Lots of people on both sides do this all the time; one group that comes to mind immediately are radio talk show hosts. In fact, when you’re talking about issues like Iraq, most of the discussions you hear in the media are gross simplifications, because it’s a very complex subject.
Saying things like how we’re doing this to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq is (in my opinion) just as irresponsible as what Moore is doing, since it’s really not that simple, and some would even argue that it’s not only misleading but purely dishonest.
For that matter, almost everything any politician says is dishonest by the same standard (and this administration is certainly no exception); since even when they aren’t outright lying they’re framing things in an overly simplistic manner that’s intended to make the people like you describe above swallow it without thinking too much.
JaredB
21 Aug 05 at 7:19 pm