Michael Moore Hates America

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.

Michael Wilson's film is an attempt to demonstrate that Moore "hates America" because Moore allegedly unfairly criticizes America and does not acknowledge the ways in which individuals in America can achieve "the American dream" through ability, hard work, and ambition.

Wilson attempts to interview Moore in the same manner that Moore attempted to interview GM's Roger Smith in "Roger and Me," and achieves the same result: no interview takes place.

Wilson shows how Moore edits his films to strengthen the perspective Moore is presenting and in doing so sometimes takes liberties with literal facts. However, none of the editing Moore does undermines the accuracy of his principal points. Any documentary has a point of view and tries to present it as convincingly as possible.

Wilson's film could have used significantly better editing. It is not organized well and jumps around incoherently. It is far too long and could have been made as a decent 1-hour television program. As a 2-hour movie, it is boring.

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 know... you look at the title and cringe. Either you love the title because you hate the guy, or you hate the movie already because you respect MM.

But I had been following this kid (not really a kid - probably late 20s) for a while. He followed his dream - he wanted to make movies. He lost his job, spent all of his money - just to make the film.

So I did something I never do - I bought the movie without seeing it. Ebert and Roeper gave it two thumbs up, so I knew it wouldn't be a total waste. I was pleasantly surprised.

It wasn't an all out attack on Moore. It did criticize his methods (the more shady ones) and acknowledged his talent. The movie was more of a feel good story... he talks to real people and funny things happen. The director (Mike Wilson) is completely open and honest about himself and his shortcomings. It wasn't laugh out loud humor (although Penn Gillette, who's in quite a bit of it IS laugh out loud funny at parts).

The best part of this movie is that you are smiling at the end of it. It actually felt good to help this guy achieve his dream of making a movie and pocketing some coin. You just know he is a decent guy - at one point he sends an apology email to an interviewee because he feels badly about deceiving him.

This movie is worth your investment if you like a good story and want honest-to-goodness independent entertainment. I am a movie snob and I really recommend it to anyone who has a few bucks to spend after Christmas.

Michael Wilson has a thesis and pretends he doesn't. The thesis is in the title. He sets out to prove it, locating people happy to get attention slamming Moore like Maysles and puts out the film just in time to cash in on the release of Sicko. Wilson figures his own deceptive practices can be excused by admitting them, but when you're out to slam someone else for doing the same thing, one should practice what one preaches. Moore should have granted the interview; the film would then have lasted about 10 minutes. There's nothing unique here that hasn't been done to death on numerous "Moore-watching" boards or the earlier film "Fahrenhype 911". This is about someone making a name for himself off Moore's career.

It's helpful that the film again reminds Moore to be more careful about errors and improve. But the film is not a work of note, just a work feeding off the creativity of others, namely that of Fahrenhype 911 and Moore. Wilson puts the spotlight on himself by showing us his family photos at the beginning and portraying himself as intrepid reporter on the beat throughout while complaining that Moore is making films about himself.