Entertainment >
Directors & Film Makers
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedCan you trust the information in a Michael Moore documentary?
Results so far:
| Yes | 53% | 31 votes | Total: 58 votes | |
| No | 47% | 27 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesCan You Trust the Information in a Michael Moore Documentary?
Michael Moore's information is mostly trustworthy, though like any media - print or broadcast - the information is always skewed by the very choices the writer makes. Emphasizing one piece of information while touching lightly on another distorts reality. No human communication can be totally objective.
Given this, Moore is as trustworthy as those who brand their shows as news. He adds valuable information that viewers can consider alongside other news sources.
I mostly enjoyed Fahrenheit 9-11 though there were parts that weakened his point, especially tearful interviews with families. Appealing to emotion - whether on the evening news or afternoon talk shows - cheapens a work.
Juxtaposing a serious question with a shot of President Bush playing golf was entertaining, but I didn't interpret it as reliable information. The title may have struck some as harsh, though anyone familiar with the book it alluded to understood the connection.
I went to see Fahrenheit to support an opposing point of view and because some people were trying to have it banned. When I heard that people in Romania had seen it before it was available in my region, I knew right that moment I would drive to the next state if I had to. How dare anyone tell me what movie I can and cannot see.
Maybe Moore just filled a void with his movie. Anyone who paid really close attention to the news before the war in Iraq should have been uneasy that no questions were being raised, no one was asking for better evidence. Unanimity makes me leery. Solid journalists were nervous about reporting anything negative; their editors feared it would seem unpatriotic and rejected the pieces.
A Bill Moyers' show entitled "Buying the War" told the story of two Knight-Ridder journalists, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel, who collected enough information using the government's own web sites to offer a strong warning against the war but these two reporters were largely ignored.
Since Landay and Strobel were not able to call attention to the questions that needed to be raised and thoroughly investigated, it falls to people like Michael Moore to get our attention. If it takes outrageous methods to get attention, perhaps the fault lies with us as consumers of news rather than a producer like Moore.
I found the same pattern in Capitalism: A Love Story. Little attention was given in mainstream media to Captain Scully (the hero of the Hudson River plane crash) when he testified before Congress about the sorry state of affairs facing America's commercial airline pilots. He testified to a mostly empty room. I guess all those "get the government off our backs" congressmen didn't want to hear a real-life American hero explain how damaging their policies had been to airline employees or how vulnerable passengers are when pilots are over-worked for the profits of their masters.
I also learned watching Capitalism about another American hero we don't hear much about: Jonas Salk, who perfected the polio vaccine. Gee, I didn't know Salk refused to pursue a patent for his work! In an interview (which Moore included) Salk explained that he made a good living and didn't need any more money. He mostly wanted to improve the lives of children by getting the vaccine out as quickly as possible. No wonder we don't hear much about him now!
Rather than debate whether Michael Moore's information can be trusted, it would be more valuable to consider what he contributes to the national dialogue. He presents information rarely seen elsewhere. He provokes thought and fosters healthy skepticism. He is a valuable counterweight to celebrity radio and television personalities.
I don't value him for the accuracy of his information as much as I admire the integrity of his vision and his courage in confronting powerful people who are not accustomed to being challenged, exposed and mocked. I enjoyed the catharsis as he yells out, "I am here on behalf of the American people. I've come to get their money back." I wish I could have done that! I'm glad he did.
Learn more about this author, Mary P Ivy.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
My husband just asked me if I had any facts to back my "No" vote towards Mr. Moore. I turned and smiled at him and said, "Why should I HAVE any facts, Mr. Moore doesn't use any real facts himself?" And with that said, I'm sure plenty of people will gasp with astonishment towards me for even thinking that way about Mr. Moore because he must HAVE facts, he makes documentaries! For one to make a documentary film does not require one to have any legitimate reasoning. Anyone can pick up a camcorder and go around polling people in different towns, asking questions about a particular subject, and have some half based truths suggested to them by some form of respected "authority" on such subject. Done. You are now a documentary film maker! Mr. Moore delights in the fact that he can do this as his career and gets accolations for doing so.
Mr. Moore's recent film about Capitalism is one that I find particularly contradictory to his work. The basis of his film is saying that capitalism doesn't work. He also suggests that capitalism causes men to be greedy and leaves all others behind. Never mind the fact that "capitalism" is what is backing his film in order for it to be produced, marketed and shown in theaters. Once again, the theme for which he started on turns around and bites him back because you can't have one without the other. It is obvious that a wealthy person, company or organization assisted him with money to make this film come to life. If we continue to bash the wealthy for working hard and making something out of themselves then who is going to support your films, Mr. Moore? Yourself?
Just like his other film about health care in our country. That's another film where he suggests that Americans are so desperate for help and are dying because they can't afford it. So he takes some more semi-truthful facts (or opinions, as I like to call them) and makes a film that blames the "BIG" insurance companies for having too much money and no sympathy for the little guy. Yeah, those evil corporations, they are so terrible. Except for the fact that they give JOBS to the little guy so he can HAVE a job to pay his bills! If we continue to berate the corporations then who is going to be left to give jobs to us?
And I don't even want to get started with his whole "9/11" film. It is "my opinion" (which we are all entitled to, even Mr. Moore) that Mr. Moore should find other documentary ideas. His approach to how he thinks Americans see things repulses me because he probably edits out people like me who see things as they should be and am proud that Americans work hard and should be rewarded accordingly and not punished for it.
Maybe Michael Moore should make films about bunnies. Hopefully, he could find some more realistic truths on bunnies.
Learn more about this author, Jennifer Corrow.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
