Michael Moore and I don’t agree on much – except maybe the merits of a good cheeseburger.
But it’s time to praise Moore for his contributions to film, especially since it was just announced his latest film didn’t make the cut for the Best Documentary category this year. (Hat Tip: Kyle Smith)
It’s hard to believe “Capitalism: A Love Story,” Moore’s recent polemic, not only failed at the box office by his standards but couldn’t convince Oscar voters it was worth being mentioned for an award this year.
How the mighty have fallen … but Moore’s work may already be done.
Let’s face it. The Oscar winner dramatically changed the way we think about documentaries. He even made more people consider them when planning a trip to the local theater.
Growing up, I wouldn’t pay money to see a documentary on a dare. Now, the genre is expansive enough to include odes to has-been rockers (“Anvil”), sobering news about our economy (“I.O.U.S.A.”) or simply toasts to a ribald era in movie making history (“Not Quite Hollywood”).
Don’t think Moore didn’t help make this happen. His work proved that documentaries could occasionally make a profit, and that audiences might lap them up if they plucked just the right emotional strings.
He also helped cement the first-person narrative that fuels so many docs these days. Where would “Super Size Me” be without Moore taking the lead?
That doesn’t mean Moore’s impact on the genre has been all positive. Today’s documentary filmmakers can play fast and loose with the truth, knowing Moore does it all time without negative repercussions.
Unless you call winning an Oscar such a “repercussion.”
And many people will look at important, fact-based documentaries with a cynical eye, knowing all the tricks available to the filmmaker to bend the narrative to his or her will.
Ironically, Moore’s work is getting more scrutiny these days than ever before. Some critics cried foul over “Capitalism’s” techniques, even though many applauded Moore for reflecting their own ideologies.
So let’s toast Moore and his impact on the genre, since this moment could be the one that marks the end of his reign as an influential force in Hollywood.
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Point taken re: Moore’s triggering of close scrutiny on the genre.
I’m fighting the urge to say two other things…well, here goes (I’m too weak to hold back!) :
It’s disappointing that it has to come to this. Perhaps after so many years of patronage by PBS and other biased supporters, documentaries were presumed to be the venue of protesters, rebels and those feigning rebel status, all of who spoke up for the oppressed, the little guy, etc.
The unsurprising thing about Moore is that he took full advantage of this, from “Roger and Me” onward. All in all, the closer scrutiny is as welcome as you’ve described it, but we’ll see how long that lasts, and whether docs can become more informative and profitable. That brings me to point #2:
As a not-so-aged curmudgeon, I can recall for you how film students studied documentaries and how we learned that the premise of objectivity was false. Doc filmmakers could and would be subjective. They easily manipulated images and narratives regarding a piece of the broader world out there, about people and places where, decades ago, an audience couldn’t encounter unless sent there by their governments. So, you’ll have to pardon my skepticism about the skepticism about documentaries. Without a rational-enough, curious audience, they’ll only need to “pluck” the right emotions to be profitable, after finding a naive and unsettled audience willing to sit down and have its fears soothed.
I fall into the last half. I used to watch documentaries all the time but Moore’s misuse of the documentary (or at least blatant misuse of it) turned me off because I know longer trusted the term. So when I see a trailer for a new one right off the bat I’m skeptical and opt not to see it. I used to enjoy them but now I find them too exhausting because I’m too busy wondering if what they’re showing me is true or not.
Gory — that is an excellent point. At the same time, that sort of knowledge is generally a good thing.
It’s like media bias. Once it’s on your radar you won’t read the local paper the same way again. It takes more work … but it ultimately leaves you better informed.
Even Mrs. WWTW, a liberal, watched “Food, Inc.” recently with a more skeptical eye than she might have a few years ago.
She still enjoyed it and agreed with much of it, but she watched it with a more discerning eye.
Let me put it this way, if you tell me if one is worth checking out then I’ll give it a shot.
Compare him to his contemporary, Spike Lee, who similarly catalyzed a new approach to a genre, and similarly has had the genre grow (properly) beyond his ability to influence it.
The industry has a self-promoting/self-reflective tendency to elevate its perceived pioneers repeatedly, even when circumstances indicate otherwise (note the support director Polanski still receives, decades after “Chinatown,” for example).
Moore thus likely will be in the Tarantino train for the foreseeable future, even as critically-thinking observers discover the inherent flaws of his legacy – although, as Toto states, he does have a legitimate legacy; that counts for something.