In case you missed it, Michael Moore has a new “documentary” he recently premiered at the 60th Cannes Film Festival. Prior to its grand opening the film’s notoriously outspoken (loud-mouthed) director told reporters how the original copy had to be flown to a secret location-on the advice of lawyers-to avoid confiscation by the US government. Isn’t that convenient? The director would like you to believe the current administration does not want you to see this movie, so much so that the government would be willing to suspend the director’s first amendment rights in order to censor him. Fooey! Personally, I would prefer LESS of Michael and his propaganda. The new feature is entitled “Sicko” and details the many shortcomings of the United States of America’s health care system. Do not believe the hype.
First of all, to this critic, Moore’s films are not documentaries. A documentary should present factual information about a subject in an unbiased and objective fashion. Certainly, Moore’s films do not fit this definition for a documentary, if anything the films would be labeled anti-documentary. Second, Moore has been alacritous to brow-beat anyone and everyone who dare criticize his work. Because of this the critics all praise his work despite its obvious and glaring deficiencies. Seriously, if anyone else made movies like Moore they would be universally panned by the critics.
Moore’s films typically present factual and/or fictional evidence to support the director’s delirious conspiracy theories about controversial subjects (gun control, terrorism, health care) and neglect all evidence that might refute or contradict the director’s theories. In Bowling For Columbine, Moore asserts that Canadians do not lock their doors (never mind the relevance of locked/unlocked doors and the connection to gun violence). Moore affirms this in the film by crashing through the unlocked doors of a few of our unsuspecting neighbors to the North. What we do not see is how many doors Moore was unable to open because they were locked. Since viewing the movie I have made it a point to ask Canadians I meet if they lock their doors. Their overwhelming response has been OF COURSE they lock their doors. Most of them said they even lock their doors when they are home, not just when they go out. Duh?! In Fahrenheit 9/11 Moore makes all kinds of accusations about the Royal Saudi family and does not allow the Saudi’s to respond despite the fact that the Royal Saudi family granted Moore a rare opportunity to access family members and to interview them explicitly for his film. Denied. Nothing the Saudis could say that would strengthen the director’s case, I mean, they are not all suffering from Alzheimer’s disease like the head of the NRA (poor Mr. Heston, being badgered by the ridiculously opinionated Moore) and therefore easy pickins. And yet, for being so subjective, Moore’s films do not provide the audience with any substantial solutions to the topics at hand. The films do not inspire anything (except rage in a few).
So why do we watch Moore’s films? I guess because he is presenting a counter to the Neo-conservative administration. But Moore’s movies are just that, movies. That’s why the current administration could give two shits about Michael Moore’s film: it isn’t policy and it doesn’t influence policy or legislation. Sure, a few liberal jerks gobble up Moore’s drivel but they are so far left (read: “whacked”) and so disorganized that sane people have a difficult time listening to them. Besides, they don’t vote like the evangicals. No, I am afraid Mr. Moore’s new movie was never in any danger of being seized or censored; it may very well have been in danger of being a flop. If we give the movie its proper due I am sure it will flop. Nice try, jerk ass.