Michael Moore Hates America

This morning I watched "Michael Moore Hates America", a movie that came out in 2004. It is a film by Michael Wilson, who takes a page from "Roger and Me", and spends the movie tracking down Michael Moore for an interview. Along the way, meeting up with folks who appeared in his earlier films "Roger and Me", "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11".

My feelings on Michael Moore have changed over the years. I liked "Roger and Me" when it came out. I never saw "Bowling for Columbine" for the simple reason that watching a movie about guns and dead high school students didn't seem like a fun way to spend a Friday night. I did see "Fahrenheit 9/11" and I hated it so much, I have never gone back to see one of his movies again.

I never voted for George W. Bush (I have a long standing track record of always voting for the losing candidate). I walked out of "Fahrenheit 9/11" thinking three things:

1. This was not a documentary

2. There are inconsistencies in this movie that contradict itself

3. Why are people standing and applauding?

Documentaries by definition are objective representations of the facts. There was very little objective commentary in "Fahrenheit 9/11". I had spend enough time studying to be a failed film-maker to understand how he framed his opinions, to give the appearance of honesty, while promoting his position, and most importantly, while not saying anything personally. It can be argued that every movie or story has a bias, making it impossible to be truly objective. It is impossible to represent all the facts in any movie, or newspaper story; the act of editing inherently creates a bias (which is why I have intentionally calling "Michael Moore Hates America" a movie, and not a documentary.)

What was more disturbing about "Fahrenheit 9/11" was the contradictions. Michael Moore's strategy on the film was to throw as many insinuations on the screen, seeing which ones stuck. When I spoke with friends (the Michael Moore leaning ones) about the contradictions Moore makes within his own film, the arguments were dismissed with a "everyone lies" comment, so its okay.

That makes no sense to me. The ends never justify the means.

That led me to the part that I never understood: people standing and applauding at the end of "Fahrenheit 9/11". It didn't make sense to me until I saw "Michael Moore Hates America". The film has a lot of interviews with film makers, lawyers, and Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller fame). One of the people interviewed says it best: If you are a passionate fan of Michael Moore, you are willing to accept his lies, because it supports your views. If you are not a fan, then no matter what he says, no matter if it is true, you will hate his movies. He can not change your opinion. All he can do is stir up rhetoric.

And he is right. Wilson interviewed people on the street, who saw "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11". He asked them what they thought of these Michael Moore. If they had a favorable opinion of him, he asked what would you think of Michael Moore if you found out he fabricated his movies, or used deceptive methods to get his point across. Turned out, it didn't matter to these people because they agreed with Moore's views. It doesn't matter that he lied; he shared their opinions, so it made it all okay. Of course, this could all be another film trick by Michael Wilson. We only saw a few Moore loyalists interviewed. He could have interviewed 100 of them, and only the handful we saw on film were willing to ignore the lies.

I would suggest seeing the movie, but if you know Michael Moore, I doubt it will change your mind one way or the other. Voters on IMDB agree. Overall the movie gets a 5, but if you look at the breakdown of the votes, you get a different picture. Of the 2623 user votes, 28% voted it a 10 (Excellent) while 31% gave it a 1 (Horrible). None of the other ratings got even 7% of the vote.

You either love Michael Moore or you hate him; this post won't change your mind.