NEWS: Michael Moore: For The Love Of Money

I'm somewhat disappointed with Micheal Moore. One would think that after all these years of Documentary experience that he would take on more challenging subject matter, perhaps the economic crisis in Zimbabwe, or maybe the Drug cartels in Mexico?

+1

Can we get more sane and rational comments from you? This was nice to read.

It's odd you should mention that because before posting this I thought to myself "If I were president, what would I say in response to this Micheal Moore film". Perhaps I should use that paradigm in the future.

Seriously though, we all know Micheal Moore was a disinformation junkie working for Bush. Southpark is never wrong.

Maybe this movie will make me take him seriously again.



Maybe not.

SergeantPsych, i see your point but i suppose he just feels the need to try and make his own people wake up and realise the injustice in their own communities first. I've only been to America once but the general view the rest of the world has is that you are a bunch of fucking morons. Which obviously isn't completely true, but i suppose as you as a country have so much power, it makes more sense to start with you guys and work out. You'll never be able to help other countries so long as your government are corrupt.

Of course it makes more sense. The problem is, the U.S. has a history of not making sense and our culture here is to police the world and invade....er...um...."fix" problems based on what we deem is best.

One of the problem is that we can't fix shit internally - but we still delude ourselves into thinking it's more important to make changes outside our borders.

As for Michael Moore - I would recommend the documentary "Manufacturing Dissent." It exposes the spin Michael puts on his documentaries and how evasive he is when a documentary team from Canada confronts him publicly.

I enjoyed Moore's documentary on socialized medicine (Sicko) - but I question his honesty in creating documentaries.

Moore has a way with editing, in order to get his points across. He can really play w/yr emotions at times, even if it means distorting the truth.

But then again, all cinema, even documentaries, is lies. And any good filmmaker knows that you should never let truth get in the way of a good story.

That being said, I will be seeing it.

I saw him do an interview on the Daily Show once, and he flat out said that Fahrenheit 911 was unfair.

I really dislike Michael Moore's films. I've tried to watch them objectively...and I just can't get on board with him. Some of the claims he makes in his movies...that he presents as fact....are just flat out not true.

Not that I love corporate America or anything, but this is a film distributed by Paramount Vantage, a subsidiary of Paramount Pictures, a subsidiary of Viacom.

Huh.

(Wasn't Fahrenheit 9/11 made available free online? Or was he just encouraging file sharers?)

I have to agree. I saw Sicko, and found that the most effective moments, such as the video of a homeless woman being dumped curbside immediately after a surgery, were the least Michael Moore-esque moments. If he had cut back on the grandstanding such as going to Gitmo and packed in another 15 minutes or so of information, it would have been a much more effective documentary.

I have to agree with the pervailing sentiment on this thread. I'm certainly a left-leaning fella, but I've really been turned off by Moore. To me, it's like he's the left's version of Hannity or one of those jerks, pushing his own agenda and putting his own spin and the facts be damned.

That trailer sucked.

You know what I'd love to see Michael Moore do?

Anything constructive.

His movies are the ultimate form of finger pointing. He's not much better than Bill O'Riley's ambush interviewers; in fact, he does ambush interviews himself. He just has a bigger budget, more time, and maybe a better way with words.

I wish he'd use his enormous voice, clout, and following to... y'know... do something.

i think Moore does more to hurt the causes and viewpoints he espouses than he does to help. his 'documentaries' don't promote discussion, they promote division.

He's pursuing the "average American" as his audience. The average American loves reality television. Moore is just trying to sell his product. His documentaries are for the modern age - he can't present things in a 1970's PBS documentary fashion and get anyone to give a damn. He has to entertain, he has to dig for a lower common denominator. The average American doesn't like to think too hard. He likes a man he could drink a beer with as president. The average American enjoys watching American Idol and is more likely to vote for his favorite performer than to go to the polling booth and vote for the guy he'd most like to drink a beer with for president. I think you're missing the point. The average American doesn't post on SG and he thinks that admitting you like naked women with tattoos is a sure gateway to hell. The average American (as evidenced by most polls) believes in superstition over science. We're not average; we're not his target audience. If his stuff makes you think about the issues, if his work can entertain you, if his "documentaries" can promote discussion, even divisive disagreement, then that is enough to make what he does worthwhile. If what he presents (whether or not it is true) makes you go out and check the facts on the issue yourself, then he is creating something worthwhile.

The average American does not watch documentaries

If one side is demonstrably wrong division should be encouraged. People are more concerned with Moore's persona or his style rather then the conclusions he reaches. If the conclusion is right I couldn't care less how it is arrived at or who proclaims it.

except that Moore's demonstrations are flawed and dishonest, which means they're vanishingly less likely to be convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with him. there's a difference between standing up for what you believe is right regardless of who agrees with you, and being intentionally divisive by misrepresenting the facts.

Yes, he's biased and a liar. Unless your an insurance industry whistle blower, then apparently he's spot on.

link

Which is why he is raping the causes he supposedly fights for.

And as you have pointed out: he attacks dishonesty and flaws by using dishonesty and flaws.

I used to defend him in forums (not here). I didn't realize it at the time, but I was only defending what I wanted Michael Moore to be.

After seeing counterpoints to his previous movies (including corrected sequence of events), the only documentary of his that I still enjoy and believe is "mostly" truth is Sicko.