Michael Moore. Propagandist Or Documentary-Maker?

[MrPresident]

With Michael Moore's new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, earning a 15-minute standing ovation when it was shown at the Cannes Film Festival and is favourite to win that festival's highest honour, the Palme d'Or, what do you think of Michael Moore? Is he a propagandist spinning the truth to fit his ideological point of view? Is he a documentary-maker trying to uncover the sordid truth of the Bush administration? Do like or dislike his work because of his political views or because the quality of his work, or lack thereof? Do you think his existence is a bonus for democracy and freedom of speech, or do you think he has wasted that precious and hard-fought gift? Do you think he reinforces an unhelpful stereotype of America in his work or is he exposing the hidden truth of 21st century America?

What do you think of Michael Moore?

BBC Review of 9/11 Fahrenheit

 

[The Last Conformist]

Are those two mutually exclusive?

I primarily consider him great entertainment.

 

[Pirate]

He's not somewhere in between. He is 100% both.

 

[the mormegil]

What Pirate said. I voted in-between though.

 

[cgannon64]

I don't think he would even call his movies documentaries.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I don't like his style, but it's not as if he's going to fool me into thinking anything I otherwise wouldn't. He's definately both, and it's not as if he tries to hide it.

 

[MrPresident]

I don't think he would even call his movies documentaries.

He did accept the Oscar for best documentary.

 

[amadeus]

I said he's the best propagandist since Goebbels, but in reality, he's just an entertainer.

 

[Double Barrel]

What do you think of Michael Moore?

He is a blowhard. The Rush Limbaugh of the left.

Is he a propagandist spinning the truth to fit his ideological point of view?

Yes

Is he a documentary-maker trying to uncover the sordid truth of the Bush administration?

In his mind, yes. In reality, see question #2.

Do like or dislike his work because of his political views or because the quality of his work, or lack thereof?

I enjoy them like I enjoy watching Looney Tunes. Seriously, no joke.

Do you think his existence is a bonus for democracy and freedom of speech, or do you think he has wasted that precious and hard-fought gift?

Bonus for democracy and freedom of speech. Not so much wasted, as sqaundered.

Do you think he reinforces an unhelpful stereotype of America in his work or is he exposing the hidden truth of 21st century America?

A little of both. But I think he is a stooge that is manipulated by the forces of the left, so he only sees part of the big picture. He points out the trees, but cannot see the forest.

What do you think of Michael Moore?

He's a blowhard. A weight-challenged, willpower-deprived, Twinkie-consuming, slob who claims to be a regular guy as he jets around in his private leer jet. Basically, he's a stooge for the socialists.

But he's got the right to say it like everyone else, so I've got no problem with him.

 

[cgannon64]

He did accept the Oscar for best documentary.

Yeah but he showcased his progapandizing skills when he got it!

 

[luiz]

Definately a propagandist. A documentary maker cannot twist facts, otherwise he's not documenting the truth.

 

[De Lorimier]

Like I said before, Micheal Moore is the WWE of documentary makers.
Some of it is real, some of it is fake. In the end, it's entertainment.
I'm now off to the clinic to remove the fence picket up my arse...

 

[marioh]

Definately a propagandist. A documentary maker cannot twist facts, otherwise he's not documenting the truth.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks Moore is a documentary maker should probably look up the word documentary.

 

[tonberry]

Exactly. Anyone who thinks Moore is a documentary maker should probably look up the word documentary.

Lets do it:

from Dictionary.com:

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.


The last definition look pretty much like Moore's work.

edited for clarity

 

[De Lorimier]

Come on Tonberry! All Moore does is editorialized, you have to admit it.
He does not produce objective material at all. Yes, he uses facts but he uses them to his advantage. That's not real documentaries, but docu-entertainment.

 

[amadeus]

Did you not read the definition?

2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

 

[WillJ]

I notice that no one's using this definition:

Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents

Certainly Moore's films consist of documents? But seriously, I'd say he's much more of a propogandist than a documentarian.

 

[tonberry]

I've edited my post. I should've been more clear. Of course Moore isn't completly objective. However, the last definition of a documentary is pretty much in line with Moore's work.

 

[MrPresident]

Presenting facts objectively without editorialising does not sound like Moore to me.

 

[luiz]

Lets do it:


2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

And now it's clear that Mike Moore is not a documentarist.