I never get that. Just because he supports the plight of lower income people, does that mean he shouldn't reap the benefits that being a brilliant, highly successful filmaker gets him in America? Can one only be empathetic to lower income people if they are lower income people? Does one have to renounce their wealth, give away all their money, and live on the street if they attend and support OWS?
As documentary filmmakers, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine looked up to Michael Moore .
Then they tried to do a documentary of their own about him - and ran into the same sort of resistance Moore himself famously faces in his own films.
The result is "Manufacturing Dissent," which turns the camera on the confrontational documentarian and examines some of his methods. Among their revelations in the movie, which had its world premiere Saturday night at the South by Southwest film festival: That Moore actually did speak with then-General Motors chairman Roger Smith, the evasive subject of his 1989 debut "Roger & Me," but chose to withhold that footage from the final cut.
http://www.englishforums.com/English/MichaelMooreLiedRoger/jrdjr/post.htm
Then they tried to do a documentary of their own about him - and ran into the same sort of resistance Moore himself famously faces in his own films.
The result is "Manufacturing Dissent," which turns the camera on the confrontational documentarian and examines some of his methods. Among their revelations in the movie, which had its world premiere Saturday night at the South by Southwest film festival: That Moore actually did speak with then-General Motors chairman Roger Smith, the evasive subject of his 1989 debut "Roger & Me," but chose to withhold that footage from the final cut.
http://www.englishforums.com/English/MichaelMooreLiedRoger/jrdjr/post.htm
My friend, former Detroit Free Press movie critic Terry Lawson, said it [COLOR=#FF6633 !important]best when wrote this about Michael Moore:[/COLOR]
His blue collar bonhomie is bunk.That’s the flabulous filmmaker in a nutshell. And Terry Lawson is a liberal, normally inclined to side with Moore’s polemics.
To say that Michael Moore is intellectually dishonest wouldn’t be correct. It’s not intellectual. He’s just plain, flat out dishonest. And hypocritical.
And “Capitalism: A Love Story,” his latest fake-umentary, is more like Hypocrisy: A Love Story. The lovers: Michael Moore and . . . himself.
That’s unless you count actor Wally Shawn, America’s new “economic scholar” . . . and a character actor who played a teacher in “Clueless,” a title more appropriate for this flick. Shawn is suddenly an econ expert “because he’s read and studied politics and economics.” Big Deal. Shawn tells us that the problem with capitalism is
To say that Michael Moore is intellectually dishonest wouldn’t be correct. It’s not intellectual. He’s just plain, flat out dishonest. And hypocritical.
And “Capitalism: A Love Story,” his latest fake-umentary, is more like Hypocrisy: A Love Story. The lovers: Michael Moore and . . . himself.
That’s unless you count actor Wally Shawn, America’s new “economic scholar” . . . and a character actor who played a teacher in “Clueless,” a title more appropriate for this flick. Shawn is suddenly an econ expert “because he’s read and studied politics and economics.” Big Deal. Shawn tells us that the problem with capitalism is
You have one guy who makes ice cream and nobody likes his, so they don’t buy it, and he goes out of business. You have another guy, and everybody likes his ice cream, so he succeeds.
And this is a problem because . . .? Capitalism . . . it’s bad because bad ice cream makers go out of business.
There isn’t a shred of honesty in this movie after that dumb “economics” lesson in “Duh!” Much of this “love story” is the same old retreads you’ve heard before, including from Moore. Barack Obama is a and the “hero.” Children are shown saluting capitalism in classrooms like a Hitler salute. Moore trots out Abu Ghraib and Gitmo scenes and calls America a human rights abuser (yup, for America, Michael Moore has no “love” story–it’s pure hate-America baloney). Capitalism, Ronald Reagan, Republicans and corporations–not the weather–are responsible for Hurricane Katrina, people losing their homes across America, and the end of America’s middle class. Americans need socialized medicine. General Motors is “bad” and still won’t give Michael Moore the interview they actually gave him while he made “Roger and Me.” And America needs workers to own and run companies . . . except Michael Moore’s filmmaking company. That needs to be majority owned by its creator.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/9886/lies-damn-lies-michael-moore-cinema-polemics/
-------------------------------------
wasn't looking for it, but I find the highlighted quote above to be pretty damn funny
And this is a problem because . . .? Capitalism . . . it’s bad because bad ice cream makers go out of business.
There isn’t a shred of honesty in this movie after that dumb “economics” lesson in “Duh!” Much of this “love story” is the same old retreads you’ve heard before, including from Moore. Barack Obama is a and the “hero.” Children are shown saluting capitalism in classrooms like a Hitler salute. Moore trots out Abu Ghraib and Gitmo scenes and calls America a human rights abuser (yup, for America, Michael Moore has no “love” story–it’s pure hate-America baloney). Capitalism, Ronald Reagan, Republicans and corporations–not the weather–are responsible for Hurricane Katrina, people losing their homes across America, and the end of America’s middle class. Americans need socialized medicine. General Motors is “bad” and still won’t give Michael Moore the interview they actually gave him while he made “Roger and Me.” And America needs workers to own and run companies . . . except Michael Moore’s filmmaking company. That needs to be majority owned by its creator.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/9886/lies-damn-lies-michael-moore-cinema-polemics/
-------------------------------------
wasn't looking for it, but I find the highlighted quote above to be pretty damn funny
The first among the many questions that could be raised these days about Michael Moore's ''Roger and Me'' is this: Why has this low-budget muckraking documentary, with no box-office stars, no glamour and none of the content that normally draws the moviegoing public, achieved such popularity and profitability?
The answer embodies an irony. Mr. Moore's success is almost certainly due to his style of deadpan facetiousness, a style of black humor that has been likened by some admirers to Voltaire's ''Candide'' or Jonathan Swift's ''Modest Proposal.'' ''Roger and Me,'' as the critics have pointed out, is plainly entertaining, and moreover, it is a kind of David and Goliath revenge story, in which a modest, plain-speaking nobody triumphs morally over an evil corporate giant.
But lately some dissenting voices have arisen amid the general chorus of praise for ''Roger and Me,'' and that is where the irony lies. These critics - notably Harlan Jacobson, writing in Film Comment magazine, and Pauline Kael, in The New Yorker - have complained that Mr. Moore's film, although funny, is factually inaccurate. The film maker, they say, is guilty of manipulating the sequences of events and compressing them for the sake of emotional and political impact. ''Roger and Me,''in their view, is thus biased and misleading.
Satire Is Exaggeration
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/01/movies/roger-and-me-documentary-satire-or-both.html
--------------------------------
my problem with Michael Moore is not that he's a hypocrite, it's the fact that he's a pathological liar. He intentionally and knowingly misleads the viewer by distorting the truth, often times creating an entirely new truth under the guise of being a documentary.
In Roger and Me, the whole premise of his argument is wrong. Roger Smith, the CEO of GM, actually granted Moore two interviews, yet Moore chooses to tell the audience Smith never interviewed with him. He also created his own accident scenes and response times, and told the audience this was a real life experience documenting the slow response of paramedic units. It was all fabricated
In the movie about Columbine, he insisted the NRA refused to cancel their convention in Denver that same year and took a quote from a different matter in a different time frame from Charleston Heston as proof of such. when in reality the NRA had cancelled their convention, and only the executive board met because they had to for legal purposes.
Where do you start in his movie about healthcare? Cuba's is better than ours? The most obese famous person on earth giving healthy living advice?
Not one of his works of fiction is a documentary, yet he calls them such. That's my problem with him. If he called them satire, I have no problems.
The answer embodies an irony. Mr. Moore's success is almost certainly due to his style of deadpan facetiousness, a style of black humor that has been likened by some admirers to Voltaire's ''Candide'' or Jonathan Swift's ''Modest Proposal.'' ''Roger and Me,'' as the critics have pointed out, is plainly entertaining, and moreover, it is a kind of David and Goliath revenge story, in which a modest, plain-speaking nobody triumphs morally over an evil corporate giant.
But lately some dissenting voices have arisen amid the general chorus of praise for ''Roger and Me,'' and that is where the irony lies. These critics - notably Harlan Jacobson, writing in Film Comment magazine, and Pauline Kael, in The New Yorker - have complained that Mr. Moore's film, although funny, is factually inaccurate. The film maker, they say, is guilty of manipulating the sequences of events and compressing them for the sake of emotional and political impact. ''Roger and Me,''in their view, is thus biased and misleading.
Satire Is Exaggeration
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/01/movies/roger-and-me-documentary-satire-or-both.html
--------------------------------
my problem with Michael Moore is not that he's a hypocrite, it's the fact that he's a pathological liar. He intentionally and knowingly misleads the viewer by distorting the truth, often times creating an entirely new truth under the guise of being a documentary.
In Roger and Me, the whole premise of his argument is wrong. Roger Smith, the CEO of GM, actually granted Moore two interviews, yet Moore chooses to tell the audience Smith never interviewed with him. He also created his own accident scenes and response times, and told the audience this was a real life experience documenting the slow response of paramedic units. It was all fabricated
In the movie about Columbine, he insisted the NRA refused to cancel their convention in Denver that same year and took a quote from a different matter in a different time frame from Charleston Heston as proof of such. when in reality the NRA had cancelled their convention, and only the executive board met because they had to for legal purposes.
Where do you start in his movie about healthcare? Cuba's is better than ours? The most obese famous person on earth giving healthy living advice?
Not one of his works of fiction is a documentary, yet he calls them such. That's my problem with him. If he called them satire, I have no problems.
I guess by that logic, you wouldn't have had a problem if Ted Bundy had been named the leader of a rape crisis center. After all, can't rapists be empathetic to those who were raped?
I have a real problem when Michael Moore runs his fat fucking mouth against capitalism, when it is that very system which gave him his livelihood. He wants redistribution of other people's wealth, not his own...which is what makes him a disgusting hypocrite. He shows up to Occupy Wall Street in a limo, and you don't see the irony in that? And btw, why do dimocraps never advocate redistribution of dimocrap wealth?
