What's your opinion on Michael Moore?

[sirio11]

What's your take on him? Love him? Hate him? Don't care? Opinion about his work?

I have never understood the hate for the guy, I wish there were more Americans like him. I don't know if I'm in the minority here, but I just love people changing their environment for good (at least trying). But there is something about our society these days, loathing the good guys (or as they use to say to feel better themselves, the self-proclaimed "good" guys)

I can't help it, but I love the guy, I loved Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9-11 and I'm really waiting to see Sicko. I think all those films will stand the test of time.

So, what do you think? Has your opinion about him or his films changed with the years?

By the way, he'll be on the Oprah show this Tuesday June 5th talking about Sicko.

[El Diablo]

sirio,

I'm a fan. I think some people hate him because they feel like he's pretending to be an impartial journalist. But he's not. He's a documentary filmmaker with a very strong point of view. Obviously he spins his work in a manner that supports the points he is trying to make.

[Dids]

As a lefty, I wish he'd shut the hell up. He's not helping.

1- I think his point of view is often pretty simple minded. Too much of what he says/does is for shock value, and it kills any meaninful point he's trying to make. Trying to paint something like Columbine as gun control issue (hint: mental health) is just being exploitive and stupid.

2- I think his econimic point of view is horrible. Roger and Me drove me nuts. Private companies shouldn't have an obligation to keep people employeed. It's government's job to sustain them once a company, in holding to the obligation it has towards it's owners/shareholds has to lay them off to save/make more money. Moore's approash is just goofy and simplistic.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

He's a liar and a fraud. I don't see how anyone could take an honest look at him and his work and think he's anything but complete trash. Obviously, if you're on the right, it's easy to hate him. If you're on the left, you've got to be embarassed to have this guy play such a large part in representing your side. He'd be a whole lot more effective if he'd just tone it down a bit and just make films that are at least close to something you can legitimately pass off as having a bit of integrity.

[suzzer99]

Dids,

On #1 - I agree that his POV is very simplistic and sometimes just flat out wrong.

However I think you're missing the point a bit on #2. It's not so much about what corporations can and can't do, it's about shining a light on their activities. Let the public be the final judge. You don't have a problem with GM putting 10s of thousands out of work in the US to save a few bucks. Maybe others do. Maybe the threat of bad exposure actually enters into a corporation's thought process. In the grand scheme, there are often worse things that can happen than some shareholders don't get to squeeze every last drop of profit out of a situation.

Due to obvious natural "synergies", there's so precious little serious media scrutiny into corporate shenanigans. If it weren't for people like Moore and shows like Frontline there would basically be none at all.

[Dadswell]

He spins the info his way and shapes it to back up his arguments so it's still pretty biased. Saying that I like the controversy he stirs up and I've enjoyed the two films of his I've seen. I haven't read any of the books, so I can't comment on those. All in all I would say that I like him.

[Jorge10]

[ QUOTE ]
sirio,

I'm a fan. I think some people hate him because they feel like he's pretending to be an impartial journalist. But he's not. He's a documentary filmmaker with a very strong point of view. Obviously he spins his work in a manner that supports the points he is trying to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.

I like some of his documentaries, but I take them for what they are, extremely biased pieces of work. I think he at least gets people to talk about issues that are kind of important, such as gun control, health care, etc. I think a lot of people in this country wouldnt talk about those issues if it werent for his documentaries. Another problem is that there is no alternative. If you didnt like his movie about gun control(Bowling for Columbine) there is no other documentary that is unbiased and as interesting as his. I wish someone would make unbiased documentaries that are fun to watch, but until that happens Michael Moore is the only show in town as one would say.

[john voight]

His movies are not accurate documentaries. They are usually designed to show something (that he is against) through a highly sensationalized effort, depicting all sorts of clown acts.

This makes for good entertainment. I have only seen two movies, and was a huge fan of Bowling; it was very funny in its own way. Almost as if it was a drama version of Borat. Fahrenheit was uber lame. I was totally let down b/c he stepped back from the "funny stuff" and was actually making an attempt for the movie to be "credible".

Do I hate the guy? Yes. Why? B/c he is pretending. He is pretending that his work is important; that his views should be taken seriously. IRL, he is a clown b/c of this. If he would say "these are just movies that portray my exaggerated opinion on things" my respect for him would be 10x more.

There are lots of ppl who I hate, (figuratively), he is one of them.

This said, I am glad he makes movies. His work is very original (for mainstream type of stuff), so it def is a positive contribution for the sake of filmmaking.

[JaredL]

I'm in the area between diablo, dids, and great poker patrick.

I think he is overall good for the left but certainly gives the right a lot of legitimate points to make which is bad. I think he's somewhat like a Sean Hannity type for the left, which is a pretty horrible thing to say about someone.

My big problem with Moore is that he very frequently is correct on some larger point but he gets the details wrong or is very misleading on them. Take Fahrenheit 9/11. One of the early scenes he either says or very strongly implies that a bunch of Saudis including bin Laden family members were allowed to fly out of the country while all flights were grounded. In reality they were apparently able to fly around within the country so that when they once again allowed all flights they could leave right away. Either way, this treatment is directly a problem and symbolically bad in terms of often giving Saudi Arabia such positive treatment when their country is a large part of the problem. So basically in this spot the truth is actually pretty damning. Telling it and not saying or implying that it was just a little bit worse than that is terrible. His arguments would be better served if he got the details correct on these types of things.

For example, I think there is a big difference between Michael Moore and Al Franken. Franken's books are somewhat similar in topic and he regularly attacks the right as well. I have a lot more respect for him, as do others because he makes his arguments intelligently and gets the details correct. He obviously is going to use selective information that furthers his point but he isn't completely misleading unless he's doing so in order to make the point that some of the tactics of people like Hannity and Coulter are very misleading, in which case he fesses up to it.

[guids]

However I think you're missing the point a bit on #2. It's not so much about what corporations can and can't do, it's about shining a light on their activities. Let the public be the final judge.




I dont know about you, but I dont think the general public should be basing any of their opinions on something a propogandist douche bag spouts, people in general see that its in a movie, so it must be true, and they believe it. Thats detrimental.


Personally, I love the guy, he makes liberals look like a bunch of fat hypocrtical, mainly in the wrong, socialists. He is about 1000x more detrimental to the liberal cause than his closes counter example, Hannity, is to the conservative cause.