The National: Moore is not necessarily better

Earlier this month Capitalism: A Love Story was released in theaters across the nation analyzing our corporate culture, to which I say, awesome! Finally, a film critical of our society’s love of the dollar, the dangers of global industries and the hypocrisy of…oh, wait, it’s a film by Michael Moore. Damn it!

When it comes to Michael Moore, America generally arrives at one of two conclusions. He is either viewed as a voice of the people against the Big Brothers of society, or he takes on a love-hate relationship with folks, in that people love to hate him. Keeping in mind that I do not love to hate anyone, I still feel compelled to throw it out there that Michael Moore remains for me, a horrible filmmaker who deceives his own audience.

Gasp!
I know, this is a student-run paper, right? How could I defame the hallowed name of the so-loved Michael Moore? Allow me to explain.

Moore’s films, if not himself, stand alone in the realm of political and social analysis. He is able to uniquely enter and forward public discourse like no other. Yet, when you really look at it, Moore’s tactics boil down to nothing more than deception, by taking morsels of truth and stretching them beyond the point of accuracy in order to make his argument. Some might call that propaganda.

Take for example, a scene from Moore’s film Bowling for Columbine. Moore is able to walk into a bank, open an account and, per the bank’s promotion at that time, was able to walk out with a gun. A strange concept, sure. Banks handing out guns just like that. Except the bank never did hand out guns just like that.

In his movie to counter Moore’s films, Michael Moore Hates America (which isn’t as harsh as it sounds), Michael Wilson went out and found the very same bank employees Moore interviewed in Bowling for Columbine. Not only do they not hand out guns at the bank, applicants must go through the normal background checks. It turns out that the vault they refer to in Moore’s movie is not the physical vault at the bank, but the guarded, non-customer-accessible vault miles away. The bank operated as such on the day of Moore’s interview, for filming purposes, at Moore’s request. Though this information happened to be omitted in his documentary.

Another aspect of the film that commonly gets by viewers is Moore’s encounter with legendary actor, Charlton Heston, who at the time of Moore’s “interview” was suffering from Alzheimer’s, a disease the man fought as it progressed until his death in 2008. I just don’t find cornering an elderly man suffering from a form of dementia very credible.

We can also go all the way back to Moore’s first successful entry into the world of documentary, Roger and Me, where he claims to have trouble getting in touch with GM CEO Roger Smith. It’s actually the entire premise of his film. The problem here is that Moore did speak with Smith, twice. As discovered by the filmmakers of another counter-Moore film, Manufacturing Dissent, Moore once spoke with Smith at a GM shareholder meeting where he had the opportunity to ask the man a wide array of questions. Furthermore, he was never cut off as depicted in the film. And they spoke yet again in an interview at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel.

I suppose the biggest bone I could pick against Moore, aside from the inaccuracy of his movies, is that he tackles issues people are passionate about, that truly do deserve analysis. Yet his brand of “documenting” such issues is so flawed and lacks credibility that he harms the argument in the end. Our corporate culture, love of guns and violence, health care and beyond should be questioned and debated. There is much to talk about. However, Moore’s conversations on these issues revolve around misleading facts, stretching evidence and lies. That’s the kind of misleading propaganda worthy of other famous stretchers of the truth, such as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

I must concede that Michael Moore is very funny to me and I do enjoy his brand of dry, yet slightly goofy, humor found in his films. Now if only that humor could be used to back up the truth. Will I go see his newest installment, Capitalism: A Love Story? Sure. As a self-described film geek I feel compelled to. However, I will view it at a $3 theater. Mainly because I am cheap, but also so I can have the aid of a beer or three while watching it.