Moore Spreads More Controversy Than Other Documentarians Combined

Sorry for the pun, guys. If you haven't noticed, I love to include them wherever I can. I get a kick out of how groan-worthy they can be. But anyways, back to the subject at hand. A while back, I wrote a review of Roger & Me, Michael Moore's first documentary. In that review, I mentioned that my producing proffesor, who helped sell the film, believes that Moore deliberately excluded important footage from his film (specifically, a conversation between Moore and Roger Smith, that Moore claims never happened). Ellen posted a well-justified comment, asking if there was any evidence supporting this notion. I went to work to see what was available.

I soon discovered that my proffessor got his information from an anti-Michael Moore documentary entitled Manufacturing Dissent. The documentary, which I have yet to see, focuses on Moore's documentarian techniques, which the filmmakers consider highly manipulative and deceptive. The film apparently shows the lost footage of Moore talking with Roger Smith. Moore has subsequently come out in self-deffense, stating that he did have a talk with Smith, but it was brief, and before production on Roger & Me even started. He further stated that any exchange with Smith would have been valuable and obviously included.

Personally, I don't know who to believe. The evidence that both parties present seems atleast somewhat sketchy. Nonetheless, I was amazed, while doing my research, to discover the amount of critique that Moore has recieved overall. To date, the filmmaker's enormous controversy has spawned numerous critical documentaries (including Michael Moore Hates America, FahrenHYPE 9/11, Celcius 41.11, etc.) and one feature, the recent (and recently disastrous) American Carol, which features the brother of Chris Farley playing a very Moore-esque personality. I can't think of any other documentary filmmaker who has been critiqued more than Michael Moore.

Moore should feel lucky to have all these indivduals critiquing him. Many documentarians release a film to little controversy, and thus little critique. I think critique is a great thing. I love it when people say good things about my work, but I love it even more when I hear people saying bad things. I learn a great deal from the entire spectrum of feedback (not only about my film, but also about the people who view it). Conversely, the documentarians who have built their careers on critiquing Michael Moore should thank the filmmaker they find so disingenuous for their respective successes. Moore's controversy is the subject of books, films, tv shows, websites, articles, etc and i find it utterly fascinating.

So to Ellen, I unfortunately don't have a clear answer to your question, but in searching for an answer, I've raised another question: Is Michael Moore really bad for America? I say no. He has done more to stir a public discourse than any other filmmaker in recent history. Whether you agree with him or not (I don't, for one), we should all be thanking the man from Flint, Michigan for reinvigorating a much needed convesation on politics and documentary.