Michael Moore Hates America

I always knew Michael Moore distorted things, but it never really bothered me. I like Bowling For Columbine, despite the gimmicks and misrepresentation that goes on in it. Those films (while not "documentaries) are a sort of "stand up" journalism and it was entertaining at least. F/11 was an inappropriate forum for Moore's style, went too far and was simply tasteless. That said, I don't hate Michael Moore, I sort of pity him. Anyway... I was reluctant to see this movie mainly and shallowly because of the title, but it was actually pretty good. There were a couple sophomoric parts I disagreed with, but the guy who made it (Mike Wilson) seems like a genuine guy, and is not mean spirited at all. The movie is not really about Moore, but rather what America means to Wilson. He is a very simple person with simple views - not stupid, but simple. The parts that involve Michael Moore are essentially about his approach to documentary making, and what objectivity means - especially if one is pursuing it. It's worth a watch - don't get freaked out by the title. Wilson explains the title is more a comment on the shrillness of political discourse in America right now. (I would have gone with a different title still.) All in all go rent it.

I've seen three or four Michael Moore films. While I often hear people deride Moore, I can't deny his importance as a documentarian--he literally changed the face of documentary film-making, for good or ill. For example, "Super Size Me" or "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" would not have existed without Moore first. Having said that, there is much to criticize about Moore. I think only the most hardened partisan wouldn't realize that he plays fast and loose with the truth. This film exposes some of the problems with Moore's films. Should that disqualify Moore? No. But it should serve as a warning to all people that when they view a documentary they should be on their guard. All documentaries, no matter how objective they appear on the surface, have been manipulated. I will agree that there are levels of truthfulness, but no one can ever achieve complete objectivity, and you're naive if you think a documentary can be a window on the world. At least Moore doesn't hide that he has a perspective. (And I must tell you that I'm a conservative, so I don't generally care for his perspective.) As a final note, I think the title of this film is horrible: it's almost false advertising because Wilson's documentary is much milder. The title prepares you for a conservative hatchet job. I would have advised Wilson to come up with something different. ("Bowling for Michael"? I don't know.)

I understand that this is purely a satire. I also understand that the movies that Moore makes need to be viewed in that same manner. Mike Wilson points that out throughout the film. I think this movie had more to do with the fact that Moore is really a satirist than a documentary film maker. I firmly believed that before seeing this movie (and feel the same after watching MMHA). MMHA is in no way a great documentary, far from it. But it's much more "real" than Moore films. I liked the fact that Wilson realizes part way through filming that he in fact was becoming Moore by doing the same things Moore did in his films. Don't be fooled, however - this movie is not a piece that champions the right or bashes the left. It simply points out that both extremes are the problem in this country.

My wish after seeing this film is to have Michael Moore actually meet Mike Wilson and do that interview, and have it televised. While I understand that it's likely that Moore will use it as an opportunity to blast Wilson and yell at the top of his lungs (as he did at the University of MN), it would go a long way to prove Wilson's point.

One sad commentary that this film reinforces is that people will believe the "truth" they want to believe, whether there is any validity to that "truth" or not. And it would be sad to see the real message of the film get overlooked by people looking to validate their own "truths" with this satire. As with anything in this world, do your own "due diligence" and find your own facts. Don't be swayed by message board warriors, reporters, or talk show hosts telling you what to think. Watch this movie and make your own decision.

First of all, let's tackle the provocative title, 'Michael Moore Hates America.' I believe Michael Wilson used it in order to get his movie noticed. It is clear that he is uncomfortable with it to the point that he apologizes for it: at the end of his interview with the extremely ethical documentarian, Albert Maysles, he sheepishly reveals the title, apparently expecting to be rebuked and possibly scolded. To his surprise Maysles simply responds, 'Maybe he does.'

The film is really about ethics in the making of documentary films, using scenes from Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' and to a lesser extent 'Roger and Me' (both of which I have seen) as a basis for the comments of recognized experts such as Penn Jillette, Albert Maysles, and David Horowitz as well as people whom Moore chose to interview in making 'Bowling for Columbine'. When viewed in that light, the film is quite interesting and worthwhile for any avid movie fan.

Some IMDb reviewers, along with other reviewers, have stated that all movies shade the truth or worse. That may be literally true; however, it is clearly unethical to manipulate scenes in such a way as to create 'facts' or connections (particularly to create the appearance of cause and effect or guilt by association) that are false or misleading. There is general agreement that Moore was repeatedly guilty of that in 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Roger and Me'. I have not seen 'Fahrenheit 9/11', but most movie reviewers, even those who apparently agree with Moore's cause, seem to agree that he does the same in that movie.

Telling lies in historical movies is not new, (I believe it may have been John Ford who said that when a director is forced to choose between telling what really happened and telling what should have happened, he should do the latter) and I would say it creates no major ethical problem when it simply fills in material that is unknown, such as unheard (fictitious) conversations that clarify issues for the benefit of the audience, or is of no major importance. Of all movies I have seen Oliver Stone's movie, 'JFK', is almost certainly the prime example of unethical movie-making because it is untrue in every important statement it makes and is presented as true. Although it is not a documentary, millions of people believe it portrays the JFK assassination accurately, which could not be further from the truth. A major point of Wilson's movie is that it is so easy to allow one's self to bend the truth for expediency's sake that he found it very difficult to avoid doing so in making his movie. To his credit, Wilson points out his flaws in this regard. This, however, is not an excuse that applies to the films of Stone and Moore.

Some reviewers indicate that the truth doesn't matter as long as a film is entertaining. Fine, as long as the fiction is advertised as such. The problem I have with Michael Moore is not so much that he is unethical; rather that his movies have gotten so much attention and praise that he has set the ethical bar for documentaries far lower than it has been in the past and will certainly encourage other film makers to follow his lead. This will mean that documentaries will no longer serve as credible sources of information. Since that is the primary reason documentaries exist at all, that is a serious problem.

More and more people are reluctantly coming to realize that newspapers and TV news have lost most of their credibility, so it shouldn't be too surprising that the trend would spread. Still, it sure is a pain in the butt to be forced to expend time doing major research on every significant issue in order to have a reasonably accurate view of the world.

Of course, for those who view factual truth as no big deal, ethics are no big deal either.

Okay, I haven't seen this movie but I have read and talked to people who have... and I just have this to say about the rating it has received on IMDb:

Don't rate it as a 10 or a 1... it makes no difference. IMDb calculates votes on a weighted system and most likely, on such a 'political' film, they will disregard the votes from users that display a history of voting tens or ones on certain other titles similar to this one.

Just watch the film and give it your honest rating... odds are it isn't one of the greatest films ever made in the history of mankind (10), nor is it the lowest turd ever to stink up the silver screen (1), GIVE IT AN HONEST VOTE AND STOP THINKING YOU CAN BULLY THE SYSTEM. I've seen it with The Godfather and LOTR and Shawshank people too and it's ridiculous. Seriously, if you are incapable of viewing a film outside of your own impassioned feeling-of-righteousness over it, then you have no business even venturing to rate it on IMDb. The rating it receives here is also not the be-all end-all of the film's worth, and thinking that you are accomplishing a great deal by voting for it to such an extreme is idiocy.

Alright that's my rant... give this film a chance. I'm a Bush-fan and I gave Fahrenheit my honest rating as a film, not according to how much I disagreed with its ideals.