Michael Moore and Politics: Is He Relevant?
There is absolutely no doubt that Michael Moore has the right to hold the opinions that he holds and has the right to express them. In my opinion, the issue with Michael Moore is that he takes his preconceived notions into his films and tries to pass them off as documentaries, which are typically considered objective and factual. According to Wikipedia, a documentary is "a broad category of visual expression that is based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to 'document' reality". The process used to "document reality" is best when it is objective and when you haven't decided on a pre-determined outcome, which Michael Moore often has.
Michael Moore has a long (and profitable) history of anti-Republican statements and films. Moore has made several films masquerading as documentaries. Among his most popular films are the following:
Roger & Me - This film that launched Michael Moore's career in 1989 follows Moore's attempts to secure an interview with GM Chief Executive Officer Roger Smith to discuss GM's closure of a Flint, Michigan plant that resulted in 30,000 lost jobs.
Bowling for Columbine - An anti-firearm "documentary" from 2002 in the wake of the Columbine tragedy.
Fahrenheit 911 - A 2004 Michael Moore film that investigated the Administration's reaction to 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror.
Sicko - Michael Moore's 2007 film that attacked the North American healthcare system.
The real question is this: is Michael Moore relevant? Given that his disguise as a documentary filmmaker is blown, I am not sure that Moore has the power to sway opinions any longer. Without a semblance of objectivity in his films and with his reputation for misleading interviewing tactics, Michael Moore is most likely to attract the audience that already agrees with his points of view. It is doubtful that very many open-minded people will watch his films and form their views based on them.
Michael Moore has made himself a nice career by pandering to the liberal points of view. There is nothing wrong with that, but this fact undermines the objectivity of his "documentaries" and undermines his credibility. It is very dangerous to pass off information in any format as objective if it is actually slanted in a subtle way. If Michael Moore wasn't so obvious in his attempts to sway others' viewpoints, he would be a very dangerous man.
Sources:
Published by Chris Radtke
- How Can Two Parties Represent 300 Million Different Points of View?In America the winning party attracts about a quarter of our nation's potential electorate. Third parties might bring non-voters back to the election tables but they cannot compete in the winner take all competition t...
- Writing in the First Person Point of ViewFirst person point of view is probably the most natural storytelling voice for fiction. Writing in first person POV doesn't mean that there has to be a direct one-to-one correspondence between the writer and character.
- Tips for Novel Writing: What Point-of-View Should You Use?What point-of-view should you use for your novel, and why?
- What is Setting and Point of View?What do setting and point of view have to do with a story?
How to Handle Point of View When Writing FictionLearn how to handle point of view, and your stories will appear more polished and professional.
- Documentary Film Maker Michael Moore: An American Hero
- Points of View in the Documentary Film Hoop Dreams
- Exploring Prostitution from Different Points of View
- "Vantage Point" OMG Points-of-View...NO WAY!
- Narrative Points of View in Books of True-Life Crimes
- Abortion: A Pro-Choice Point of View
- Tips for Novel Writing: Defining Point-of-View
4 Comments
Post a CommentGive me Ben Stein any day!!
I'll admit that the man has some relevant points to make. However, the way he goes about making them turns me completely off. I find myself going in the opposite direction simply because he is too obnoxious for words. I prefer to listen to people who can present their case openly, honestly, and politely. None of those words describes this man.
I see your points of view. From my vantage point, Moore tries to use the term documentary to create an illusion of objectivity to suck in the independent-minded folks. Let's face it, he wants the viewers and the money, and if he only marketed his films to his die-hard fans, they'd be failures. Yes, there must be people who ask the hard questions. However, if you ask a question, and already have the answer in mind, you'll never be open to other possibilities.
As far as Fox News, while they do lean right, they have a large number of left-leaning hosts and contributors. Even O'Reilly (who claims to be independent, but clearly isn't), will criticize the administration on many issues even if he does agree with them on others. Now Olbermann on MSNBC is another story. I have never heard him say one positive thing about the administration (such as record contributions to AIDS research in Africa).
But he doesn't pretend to be an objective documentary maker. He's making his case -- I think it's a good case, as far as Sicko goes, at least. He's no more objective than Fox News; the only difference is that he doesn't pretend not to have a point of view, and they sometimes do pretend to be "fair and balanced."
By the way, when "documentaries" began, they were things like CBS's White Paper, "Harvest of Shame," about migrant workers. They didn't pretend to be objective either.
Sometimes you need someone who's not objective to be willing to ask the hard questions that the mainstream newspeople never ask.