Comments on: Thank you, Michael Moore

By: Dagnabbitt

Dagnabbitt — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:22:24 +0000

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.

By: Gory

Gory — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:56:49 +0000

Let me put it this way, if you tell me if one is worth checking out then I’ll give it a shot.

By: cftoto

cftoto — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:53:16 +0000

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.

By: Gory

Gory — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:48:59 +0000

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.

By: Ronco

Ronco — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:21:04 +0000

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.