Let's get one thing straight: Michael Moore is a demogogue, a panderer, a meanderer, and an exaggerater.
Not content to let his subjects feel their way to something they want to (or have to) say, he pushes and prods, leads and goads to get the strongest statement of his own message, and then cuts the film to leave only the bits that weigh in on the case he's making.
With those favorable to his politics (particularly, in the case of Fahrenheit 9/11, those who have a book on the subject to promote, and thus a vested interest in squeezing the most liberal viscera out of any given material), his approach is to interview them, sympathizing and encouraging them in their populist-pitched laments and quick digs. With those unfavorable to his politics, his tactic is to catch them unawares, and see if they do something stupid while in a state of surprise.
The recent film dwells endlessly on footage of people in positions of power reacting slowly or clumsily to unprecedented situations. Should we presume that Michael Moore would react more quickly, more decisively? Of course not; even when cornering Senators on the street, he's slow with a comeback or anything to keep them from sauntering away. On the street corner, then, he plays the quiet fool, who with the slightest gesture, makes those with a greater burden seem greater fools than himself.
There can be no doubt, he catches some amazing surprises in Fahrenheit (did I get it right? Did Bush really say to a room of wealthy donors, "Some call you the elite. I call you my base"?). But Moore constantly drives at conclusions that seek to undermine some subject or other without much force: just making Bush or some statesman look a bit doddering or callous. If he could quite playing the preacher, his films could be fantastic sociologies of the rich and powerful as well as the powerless and aspiring. If there's anything he does right, it's to act the fool himself and get down off his high narrative horse. When he does so he catches people in the enactment of instincts; a difficult and powerful thing to catch.
Bush really did say that about the elite.
I'm frustrated with Moore, too. I wish he had more respect for me and his other fellow citizens. I wish his persuasive techniques were less like those of the smiling villains in charge.
o.k... here we go again.. this is the reason i see the "left"wing as being broken.. because we are all trying to outdo each other.. we bicker with each other trying to out wit one another.. disecting each other's ideas and methods..we are intelligent and creative yet we can't seem to reign in our energies to work together.. i mean really.. do you think this world is worse off for having a man like michael moore devote his life to making movies and writing books which help to educate millions of people who otherwise would not get it.. michael moore is one of the good guys.. he is using the force..he just made one of the only movies i have ever seen which partly documented a war i am suppossed to not look at. he not only allowed us to see the coffins of the soldiers killed, but the civilians of the iraqi's.. how is this wrong..putting faces to a war.. your digs on moore is as unsettling as putting a soundtrack to a war "burn motherfucker burn". i understand he is not for everyone, but i surely feel grateful that there are people in this world, in this country spending all of their energy on the things which really matter.. on the real stuff.. living from a place of worth.. and you, who is probably on the same "side" as moore brutalize him so much what fuel does he have to keep going? what fuel do any of us ever have? it is hard enough in this world just getting by.. it is harder in this world just getting by and trying to make a change for the better, it is hardest in this world just getting by trying to make a change for the better and then getting slammed for it by the people who should have your back..
Penelope:
I only criticize those I love. That goes for Moore.
Agreed: that the left is fragmented. There needs to be a cohesive political agenda in order to make progress. But if we can't criticize each other, if we can't call the shots as we see them, then we're truly Lost, and not just unproductive.
Undoubtedly, some elements of Fahrenheit 9/11 make up critical documentation of this historical moment. But others, I honestly feel, are only documents of Moore's desire to make a simple point by any means necessary. The first fifteen minutes show nothing but Bush playing golf and making silly faces; the voiceover says he was "on his way ot becoming a lame-duck president." No mention is made of the tax cut, Bush's first act in office, and a far more dangerous thing, potentially, than any number of goofy faces. Moore suppresses important facts that would make his picture fuller and more real. And he avoids the kind of analysis that liberals need to learn to do (not to mention all the dignified faces that Bush made during those months!) in favor of a straightforward point that most of his viewers are already likely to agree with.
Moreso than the fragmentation of the Left, what pisses me off is that progressive people seem to spend so much time making Bush out to be simply dumb. So much energy is spent making "subversive" stickers and videos that say nothing about policy but just make jokes about Bush's name, or his his face. By failing to think at all about what Bush is doing to this country, and by favoring this cult of personality, the Left is failing into a very, very, dastardly trap. Moore could be leading the call to a more serious progressive politics; instead he's preaching to the choir, and not teaching that choir many new songs, either.
Howdy, I sow Your link at one page and I want to say only - i agree with You and dont forget keep up the good working!
Good day! Thanks for your last post. Even if I have slightly different point of view I realy appreciate what have you put on your website. Good job, take care.