Roger & Me

Michael Moore is making a key point with this movie that, judging from other people's reviews, seems easy to miss. The point isn't that the people of Flint expected GM to care for them "from cradle to grave," as one reviewer put it. The point was that the working people of Flint, despite doing everything they were supposed to do, despite keeping up their end of the bargain, were destroyed by a corporation that FELT NO OBLIGATION TO EVEN EXPLAIN WHY. That's the symbolism of the attempt to interview Roger Smith and Smith's unwillingness to answer questions.

In a corporation like GM, there is no one really accountable for what the corporation does at the end of the day. The stockholders hide behind the CEO. The CEO hides behind the board of directors. The directors cite "the stockholders' will." The PR men blame "market forces" (which is a code word for greed). The union bosses double talk. And in the end, they all dump squarely on the working stiff, who always comes last in the considerations of management.

This film is NOT supposed to be a documentary. It's the facts of the situation as seen by a kid who grew up in Flint among GM workers. He feels betrayed, he feels depressed and he feels angry. That's why the film is "manipulative." It's HIS opinion! And even if it IS his opinion, that doesn't excuse the disgusting behavior of all the rich cretins and politicians in this film. Didn't they KNOW that they were on camera?! As I watched, I wondered if America is really as full of snotty, middle-management punks as this film seems to show. And why do corporate androids get so rude when a camera is around? Are they really so terrified of someone exposing them for what they are? Sheesh!

By the way: when GM closed down the Flint plants from 1987-1989, they were making one BILLION dollars in profits per year. They took jobs from Americans and gave them to foreigners despite a nice profit margin. Isn't that treason?

A good film. A-.

Some things to watch for: Sleazy Jeri-Curl eviction man, one snotty PR person after another, Michael Moore's fashion sense, Ronald Reagan looking really dumb and confused, Bob Eubanks' sense of humor, Miss Michigan's off-the-cuff brilliance, rabbit meat.

I grew up near Decatur, Il, a city that was devastated in the late 70's and 80's by downsizing in the auto industry, the migration of jobs south of the border, and corruption in the giants of agribusiness. The city's economy has never really recovered and has been on the frontlines of the labor battles of this country, while the national media has ignored it. It bears a close parallel to Flint, Michigan, as depicted in "Roger & Me.

Moore goes back to his hometown and sees the effects of massive job loss, created by a company that cared more about executive stock options and bonuses, than the community it lived in. We meet people who have lost their jobs, benefits, and homes as a result of short-sighted decisions. With few alternatives that pay a living wage, the community spirals into decline. We see the arrogance of wealth, via lavish parties, while the poor are evicted from their homes. We watch as city leaders concoct one bizarre cosmetic scheme after another, without ever addressing the real roots of the economic problems of the city.

The film makes many valid points which still hold true and still occur. You can find fault with Moore's "ambush" approach and mockery of celebrities; but, Moore has usually made civil efforts to talk with these individuals, only to be ignored or driven off. So, he resorts to grandstanding tactics which brings attention to the issues he is pursuing. Also, the celebrities are so generally caught up in their own self importance, that they deserve the skewering they receive.

You can fault Moore's tactics and selective portrayal of an issue, but he does provoke discussion, which is usually his aim. In this, he is following the great tradition of the muckrakers, like Upton Sinclair, who were able to stimulate argument on vital topics and effect positive change. Moore is a great filmmaker and thought-provoking figure. Love him or hate him, he makes you focus on issues. Too bad politicians and executives don't.

Michael Moore's first major film was one of his best in my opinion for two reasons. First off, since he did not yet have a trademark style, he did not try to go over the top in this film as much as he does in his subsequent efforts. He does his normal routine of tracking people down in an effort to embarrass them by asking them pointed questions, but for most of the film he lets the story and the citizens of Flint do the talking. As you probably already know, this is the story of Moore's hometown, Flint, Michigan, and the utter despair that fell upon it after GM began shuttering auto plants under the supervision of then CEO Roger Smith. The film really highlights how clueless Flint's elite are as to the suffering that all of this "consolidation" is causing. At one point in the film Moore is talking to some wealthy people at a party who seem to think they are doing the unemployed some kind of favor by hiring them to act as living statues at one of their fêtes. When he asks the party goers about what is going on in Flint they seem somewhat offended that there is such "negative publicity" circulating and say there should be more emphasis on the positive things going on in Flint - they name the symphony and the opera. Ah yes, let them eat opera glasses!

The second reason I consider this film to be one of Moore's best is that even though this film was made in 1989, it is still interesting and relevant today. This is because the contrast between what average working people have to endure - the struggle to find secure jobs with decent benefits and their increasing vulnerability - and the desire of the captains of industry to improve the bottom line at any cost ... as long as it doesn't cost them ... has only worsened and deepened over the last 21 years since this film was first made.

The best documentary i have viewed. This is a powerful indictment of American Corporate greed and the results to the blue collar worker. Who pay the price by loosing there job with the only trade they knew how to do since joining the workforce. Yes, like the one user mentioned, Govt. has something to do with the way companies function with there laws, tax's, and tariffs. But you can't tell me that these rich companies with allot of political power in Govt. Can't just stand up and say, No. Your hurting our company with these laws. But why would they care. All Ceo's and upper management have there golden parachutes. You can say what you want about all of Moore's movies, but if they were really so full of crap like so many believe, Where are all the lawsuits. There's none, because for the most part he's telling the truth. People who hate Moore are the same, Well off Middle and or Upper class, with no worries. You won't find too many poor people or people who lost there only job they know how to do, calling Moore a fraud and bum. Because they know the truth of what greed does. The Gordon Gecko's of the world still exist. And thats a damn shame.

...Michael Moore should have stuck to the facts. I lived in the Detroit area (Milford, the home of the GM Proving Grounds) from the early 70's until 2002. The 80's were a rough decade for the auto industry.

Roger Smith became Chairman and CEO of GM in January, 1981. The man was an unmitigated disaster. Among some of the things he proposed was the elimination of GM's engineering division (pink slipping everyone). He didn't think that the world's largest automaker needed an in-house engineering capability. Absolutely moronic!

There were several other examples of Roger Smith's buffoonery. The viewing audience would have been better served had Mr. Moore stuck to the facts. There were several items in this film that were either staged or flat-out false (people who never worked for GM getting evicted, Pres. Reagan being quoted out of context, etc.). This is the typical tactic Mr. Moore uses in all his films.

The upshot? Mr. Moore is a gifted filmmaker and able storyteller. Unfortunately, he doesn't let the facts get in the way of the point he's trying to make. There was no shortage of material on what a moron Roger Smith was (is?). Had Mr. Moore kept with the facts, Roger & Me would not just be entertaining, it would have the added benefit of being factual.