Doc ON Michael Moore

Status
Not open for further replies.

JRAnderson

Well-known member
By CHRISTY LEMIRE, AP Movie Writer Sun Mar 11, 5:59 PM ET

AUSTIN, Texas - As documentary filmmakers, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine looked up to Michael Moore. Then they tried to do a documentary of their own about him — and ran into the same sort of resistance Moore himself famously faces in his own films.
The result is "Manufacturing Dissent," which turns the camera on the confrontational documentarian and examines some of his methods. Among their revelations in the movie, which had its world premiere Saturday night at the South by Southwest film festival: That Moore actually did speak with then-General Motors chairman Roger Smith, the evasive subject of his 1989 debut "Roger & Me," but chose to withhold that footage from the final cut.
The husband-and-wife directors spent over two years making the movie, which follows Moore on his college tour promoting 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11." The film shows Melnyk repeatedly approaching Moore for an interview and being rejected; members of Moore's team also kick the couple out of the audience at one of his speeches, saying they weren't allowed to be shooting there.
At their own premiere Saturday night, the Toronto-based filmmakers expected pro-Moore plants in the audience heckling or trying to otherwise sabotage the screening, but it turned out to be a tame affair.
"It went really well," Melnyk said. "People really liked the film and laughed at the right spots and got the movie and we're really happy about it."
Moore hasn't commented publicly on "Manufacturing Dissent" and Melnyk thinks he never will. He also hasn't responded to several calls and e-mails from The Associated Press.
"There's no point for Michael to respond to the film because then it gives it publicity," she said.
"(President) Bush didn't respond to `Fahrenheit 9/11,' and there's a reason for that," Caine added.
The two were and still are fans of all his movies — including the polarizing "Fahrenheit 9/11," which grossed over $119 million and won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival — and initially wanted to do a biography on him. They traveled to his childhood home of Davison, Mich., visited his high school and traced his early days in politics and journalism.
"The fact that he made documentaries entertaining was extremely influential and got all kinds of people out to see them," said Melnyk, whose previous films with Caine include 1998's "Junket Whore." "Let's face it, he made documentaries popular and that is great for all documentary filmmakers."
"All of these films — `Super Size Me,' `An Inconvenient Truth' — we've all been riding in his wake," said Caine. "There's a nonfiction film revolution going on and we're all beneficiaries of that. For that point alone, he's worth celebrating."
But after four months of unsuccessfully trying to sit down with Moore for an on-camera interview, they realized they needed to approach the subject from a different angle. They began looking at the process Moore employs in his films, and the deeper they dug, the more they began to question him.
The fact that Moore spoke with Smith, including a lengthy question-and-answer exchange during a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting, first was reported in a Premiere magazine article three years later. Transcripts of the discussion had been leaked to the magazine, and a clip of the meeting appeared in "Manufacturing Dissent." Moore also reportedly interviewed Smith on camera in January 1988 at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.
Since then, in the years since "Roger & Me" put Moore on the map, those details seem to have been suppressed and forgotten.
"It was shocking, because to me that was the whole premise of `Roger & Me,'" Melnyk said.
She and Caine also had trouble finding people to talk on camera about Moore, partly because potential interview subjects assumed they were creating a right-wing attack piece; as self-proclaimed left-wingers, they weren't.
Despite what they've learned, the directors still appreciate Moore.
"We're a bit disappointed and disillusioned with Michael," Melnyk said, "but we are still very grateful to him for putting documentaries out there in a major way that people can go to a DVD store and they're right up there alongside dramatic features."
 
Actually, this is the 3rd doc to take on MM... the other 2 were decent and this seems a little too similar to be relevant.


ash =o)
 
Capt Quirk said:
I'd just like to see someone turn it around on him, just like he colors his views. But, there is no justice.



Think that became the point of this doc...

"The result is "Manufacturing Dissent," which turns the camera on the confrontational documentarian and examines some of his methods. Among their revelations in the movie, which had its world premiere Saturday night at the South by Southwest film festival: That Moore actually did speak with then-General Motors chairman Roger Smith, the evasive subject of his 1989 debut "Roger & Me," but chose to withhold that footage from the final cut."

I think it's hilarious that he refused to talk to them...
 
AshG said:
Actually, this is the 3rd doc to take on MM... the other 2 were decent and this seems a little too similar to be relevant.


ash =o)
It will be interesting to see this one, though, because it sounds like the filmmakers started out really respecting MM and his work.

I don't know - two quotes come to mind (probably badly paraphrased)

"It's true - I'm a bigot but, you know, >cough<, for the left"
- Woody Allen, Annie Hall

"Beware of a Holy Whore"
- (English) title of the Rainer Werner Fassbinder film about filmmaking
 
Moore has a habit of ambushing his targets, trying to capture them off-balance, and then using that footage for shock value in his films.

If a person doesn't want to talk with you, or doesn't want to be filmed, you can still tell the story with all the relevant facts, and add a salient, "Mr. Smith did not respond to numerous requests for an on-camera interview," or " Mr. Smith declined our invitation to respond," or "Mr. Smith declined our invitation for an interview but did respond with this letter..." Frankly that gives a much more professional feel to the production in my opinion, and shows that you made legitimate efforts get the guy's story. It also can give some pretty strong dramatic punctuation to a story. You lay out all this evidence in the film, and then the subject refuses to respond? Makes you wonder out loud. 60 Minutes and other shows have used this perfectly acceptable technique over the years with great success.

Look at what Morgan Spurlock did in Super-Size Me. He showed himself called McDonald's umpteen times trying to get their side of the story, and showed them ignoring him completely. It was a great fimmaking device! Again, they don't have to respond if they don't want to, but their silence speaks volumes.

Moore ambushes Dick Clark and makes him look like a jerk in Bowling for Columbine. Hey, the guy is busy; make a freaking appointment! And guess what? Regardless of who Moore is or what he's making a film about, Dick Clark doesn't have to sit there and answer his questions if he doesn't want to any more than I do! But Moore uses this kind of footage I think purely for shock value. Moore is a real jerk!

Also, I think an interviewee that agrees to respond should be given an opportunity to know what the subject is and what types of questions the interviewer wants to ask in advance. Something like, "We're going to be asking about the your company policy on hiring illegal immigrants and we'll ask you to respond to this allegation and that person's story," or whatever. Give him a chance to review his facts and get all the details before slamming him with accusations. If the guy lies, he's easily exposed, if there's another side to the story, the filmmaker gets it.

Moore however appears to use the silent treatment technique himself. No fuel, no fire. By rejecting the documentary filmmaker's request for interviews, he gives them no information that they can work with, no publicity, and no credibility. But it's totally ironic as has been pointed out, that he demands responses of others so vehemently, but provides absolutely none himself.

It's because of Moore's guerilla-style attacks that watching his films makes me squirm in my seat a little.
 
What really turned me against Moore as a human, was when he went after Charlton Heston. This is the story I read about it, condensed for space and bad memory-

Heston was the Head of the NRA, Moore hated guns. Even though Heston was ill and probably close to death, he agreed to meet him for a brief interview. All Moore did was attack this sick old man, berate him, and blamed him for all gun deaths. Not cool at all, and I would have called it justified for Heston to give him a double barreled dose of rock salt.
 
Well, I'm not crying for Charlton Heston by any means - but I do have to say that that scene was a turning point for me in regards to my feelings about MM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top