Michael Moore Hates America

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.

I have to say that I am not a fan of Michael Moore. He makes very entertaining films, he has a good sense of humor, but it is an insult to call him a true documentary filmmaker. His films are really propaganda pieces to promote him as a working class hero. He makes himself the story. This film is by Michael Wilson, a guy who wanted to give Moore a taste of his own medicine. This documentary follows Wilson's attempts to interview Moore, a la Moore's own film Roger and Me. He is avoided by Moore at every turn, at one point he attends a speech by Moore, and in an open question session tells Moore the title of his film, and Moore shouts him down. It is a tactic that Moore uses, but when Wilson puts him on the spot he lashes out. It is ironic that a man who has become a multi millionaire by confronting people hates when it is done to him. It was great to see Wilson interview Moore supporters after the incident, and disagree with the way Moore had treated him. They were Moore supporters but had no problem with someone that disagreed with them.

To be fair, Wilson borrows a lot from Moore's style, the film is very much like Moore's own work. The difference is the tone, it is obvious that Wilson is not a Moore fan, he views America with a more positive perspective, for some people that would mean that Wilson is some right wing nut. He makes no real political proclamations, his point is that we should be able to debate without being so shrill. Both sides have bomb throwers, Moore is really just that, a bomb thrower that wants to wallow in how bad it is in America without offering any solutions. The right has Ann Coulter, she is just as bad as Moore. This film is not scandalous or inflammatory in any way, it does point out that Moore has every right to say what he has to say, but it exposes how he slickly puts his films together to get his messages across. He seems to be a very savvy and cynical filmmaker. Michal Wilson chooses to view his country in a hopeful light, Moore sees it in a bad way. Does "Michael Moore Hate America"?, as the titles says, I don't know, but this film makes a pretty good argument. But what this film does is that it champions his right to think and say what he wants, and that is the way it should be.

Grade: B

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.

In response to Frank Harrison's last posting, I would like to say that it is ultimately the public's decision who they want to believe.

Why are liberals so afraid of movies like MMHA? If Michael Moore wants to make movies laced with conspiracy theories and other unproven allegations, then people have the right to listen to the other side, am I right?

I've seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and I absolutely despised it. I think it is shameful of Moore to be working with foreign distributors to show his film in other countries. I don't mind that he is making millions of dollars, thats the American way, but if he is truly interested in making America better, he should show the movie only in the United States. There is no reason to show the movie outside the U.S. except for the fact that Moore and his cohorts want to make more money. Moore even takes great pride in listing all of the countries that are playing his movie right on his own website!

With that said, I still think the public (the U.S. public only) should see Moore's movie. I also think that those same people should also see MMHA. The people can then decide for themselves what to believe. If liberals truly want people to be free and open-minded, then they have to be willing to say that both Moore's film and Wilson's film are valuable to opening the public's eyes.

By the way, it sounds like Harrison has not even seen MMHA, yet he claims that it is 'shrill'. Was Moore's movie not shrill? When I came out of Moore's movie, the first thing that popped into my mind was that "at least we know freedom of speech isn't dead." Moore was allowed to say anything that he wanted, whether it was true or not, about Bush and his administration. To the liberals, the ends justifies the means, which is to remove Bush from office. Yet these same liberals do not want a movie like MMHA to be seen because it may expose the fraud that Michael Moore is.

I like how the liberals deal with dissent.

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.