Michael Moore & the documentary

[jimtron]

MM is far from perfect, and certainly is not above criticism, but IMHO he gets more than he deserves. The common complaints I hear are that he gets facts wrong, and/or that he is misleading, unobjective, unfair, only shows one side of the story, etc.

So my question to the Moore critics: who said that film documentaries should be balanced and objective (this is a sincere, not a rhetorical question)? Which documentaries or doc filmmakers that deal with politics or current events are more fair, or more factually accurate than Moore?

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I'll admit that the two I'm coming up with off the top of my head are not political. But they do deal with religion, which can go way off the deep end.

Ewing and Grady of Jesus Camp. They let the story speak for itself. While I can watch it with horror and say "this is disgusting!", the lady who runs Jesus Camp herself believes it was a fair representation.

Lucy Walker of Devil's Playground also. It's a very difficult task to present the Amish the way she did, including the drinking, drugging teenagers. It was very fair and informative.

I rarely expect a documentary to be completely objective, but it can be done. I don't mind if Michael Moore tries to make a point according to his bias. It's a free country and he can make the kind of film he likes. I just find plenty of factual refutations to all his films. Somewhere between his harshest critics and his own hyperbole, there is truth.

I wouldn't look to Michael Moore for an education on an issue any more than I'd look to Ann Coulter. But occasionally the debates spurred by one of them leads me down a path where I can find the real facts.

 

[jimtron]

Ewing and Grady of Jesus Camp. They let the story speak for itself. While I can watch it with horror and say "this is disgusting!", the lady who runs Jesus Camp herself believes it was a fair representation.

I liked Jesus Camp quite a bit, but I wouldn't call it objective. One thing that struck me was the creepy, ominous music that came in sometimes when they were showing the kids. If I was one of the heads of KOFS Ministry I would probably cry foul (eta: noted that the woman who runs camp called it fair). If someone wanted to apply the kind of criticism to this film that MM gets, I'd bet they could come up with plenty of criticisms.

I rarely expect a documentary to be completely objective, but it can be done.

I'm not so sure about that--could you provide an example? Someone could have made a doc about the camp with a completely different viewpoint, showing the kids smiling and having a good time instead of crying. When you make a doc there are many choices to be made, such as where you point the camera, when you shoot, and especially in editing--most docs have a very very high ratio of raw footage to what makes it in the film. Every choice made is subjective, no matter how hard the filmmakers strive for objectivity.

I just find plenty of factual refutations to all his films.

Do you know of a reliable source that lists factual errors in his films? I'd like to look at it.

more eta: Here's a link Fischer calling the film fair. Though her camp really creeps me out, I really appreciate her respect and defense of the filmmakers.

 

[MWare]

He and CNN's Sanjay Gupta have been having a bit of a go at each other lately.

MM's side:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=216

CNN's side:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/15/moore.gupta/index.html

I only bring this up, because Gupta brings up a very good point about how Moore misuses statistical data essentially cherry-picking his data for shock value.

I'm no film expert, but when I hear documentary I don't necessarily think balanced, but I certainly expect accurate and to a large degree honest. While many documentarians may have agenda's they are pursuing, Moore is a propagandist more than a journalist. That isn't necessarily a bad thing if it helps bring to light an issue of public concern, but his last few films IMHO seem to be much more about him than about his subjects.

 

[jimtron]

I'm no film expert, but when I hear documentary I don't necessarily think balanced, but I certainly expect accurate and to a large degree honest.

If there are factual inaccuracies in Sicko, could someone please list them? I've read some of the CNN/MM stuff but I'm not clear on whether there are or are not factual inaccuracies. MWare, do you feel Sicko (if you've seen it) and/or other MM films are essentially honest?

While many documentarians may have agenda's they are pursuing, Moore is a propagandist more than a journalist. That isn't necessarily a bad thing if it helps bring to light an issue of public concern, but his last few films IMHO seem to be much more about him than about his subjects.

I think most or all political filmmakers could be called propagandists. If you don't like his films because you think they're too much about him, I think that's a legit criticism, although personally that doesn't bother me--I think it sometimes helps by injecting humor into the scenes. I don't consider Moore a journalist, I consider him a filmmaker.

I'm not sure if you could make an entertaining and wildly popular doc about an issue like U.S. healthcare, or what he covered in Farenheit 911, without resorting to some propaganda and cherrypicking (can anyone think of any?). It's important to get these issues out to a wide audience, which Moore has done with most of his docs. I prefer documentaries like the ones found on the Frontline series, but I'm afraid they would bore most people to tears.

 

[jimtron]

Another thought: filmmaking (including documentary filmmaking) is an art form. With art, it's appropriate, and maybe imperative, to have a strong point of view. When I read or listen to news reporting, I expect a more scientific approach--balance, factual accuracy, effort to compensate for bias, etc. A polemical approach is appropriate for editorial columns and documentary films, in my view.

Also, one more thing regarding Jesus Camp--I think the filmmakers did an excellent job trying to be fair and balanced, and even working with Fischer in that regard. But to me their point of view seemed pretty clear; I think it was similar to my own (that the camp was indoctrinating impressionable children in a disturbing way). I believe that a fair and balanced film could be made about the same exact subject from someone with a different pov, and the film would be much different, and leave a different impression with the viewer.

 

[Segnosaur]

If there are factual inaccuracies in Sicko, could someone please list them? I've read some of the CNN/MM stuff but I'm not clear on whether there are or are not factual inaccuracies.

The think about MM films is not that he necessarily lies... he tends to distort things through omission.

For example, I have not seen Sicko yet, but from what I understand, he praises Canada's health care system, while glossing over some of the faults. For example, wait times... he gives the user a false sense of our wait time problem by interviewing people in a waiting room... this totally ignores things like the waiting lists for cancer treatment, hip replacement surgery, MRIs, time to see specialists, etc.

Another example is that he claims the U.S. health care system ranks around 37th in the world (based on the U.N. rankings). Of course, he doesn't go into the details about how the rankings are done... they are based both on quality of health care AND on costs, so basically the U.N. rankings are more about "value for money" rather than how good your medical treatments are. (And in some ways the U.S. actually ranks #1 in actual care... it just costs a sh*tload of money.) Is it lying not to go into that much detail? I guess that's a philosophical question.

Personally, I think Moore gets so much criticism for 2 main reasons:

- His movies are popular, and he's probably the only 'documentary' maker most people know by name. More people probably see his movies than read the books by people like Coulter and Franken. Just on that basis alone he presents a bigger target

- His 'claims' of perfection. With F9/11 (he may have also done it with Sicko) he claimed there were no faults in the movie, and set up some sort of 'fact checking' war room. (And often when people DO find fault with the movie, he simply ignores their criticism and claims 'victory'.)

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So my question to the Moore critics: who said that film documentaries should be balanced and objective (this is a sincere, not a rhetorical question)? Which documentaries or doc filmmakers that deal with politics or current events are more fair, or more factually accurate than Moore?

None. A completely fair and balanced documentary has never been made. And likely never will be.

 

[Ziggurat]

If there are factual inaccuracies in Sicko, could someone please list them? I've read some of the CNN/MM stuff but I'm not clear on whether there are or are not factual inaccuracies.

Mixing sources for statistics isn't exactly factually inaccurate (those statistic do exist, so in a sense they're facts), but it is deceptive and dishonest. People assume that when you cite statistics like Moore apparently does (such as Cuban per-person medical expenditures versus American per-person medical expenditures), that they're comparable. But they aren't really: they're from different sources, which used different methodologies to get those statistics. When you mix and match like that, you can exagerate or minimize differences which might be the same (relatively speaking) within either data set, hence creating a false impression despite the fact that no single number is exactly false.

For example, suppose the American Farmers Association calculated that it cost an American farmer $0.50 to produce an apple, and Canadian farmers $0.30 to produce an apple. The Canadian Farmers Association calculated that it cost $0.60 for an American farmer to produce an apple, and $0.36 for a Canadian farmer to produce an apple (they figure certain indirect costs differently). Both sets of statistics indicate that Canadian farmers can produce apples for 60% of the cost that American farmers can produce them. But let's say I mix and match: I could say that according to the CFA, American farmers produce an apple for $0.60, and according to the AFA, Canadian farmers produce an apple for $0.30, thereby implying that Canadian farmers produce apples for 50% of the cost of American farmers. Is that false? Well, not exactly. Is it dishonest? I think the answer is clearly yes.

 

[strathmeyer]

None. A completely fair and balanced documentary has never been made. And likely never will be.

I always did think "Predators at War" favored the hyenas.

 

[MWare]

MWare, do you feel Sicko (if you've seen it) and/or other MM films are essentially honest?

I haven't seen Sicko, but as much as this may sound ignorant, I think I have a pretty good sense of the content, the style, and the intention of the film. I have my own opinions about universal healthcare in the US and I don't think seeing a bunch of 9/11 workers shipped off to Cuba for medical care is going to have much of an effect on this.

If I was to carefully study each movie, I imagine I would find more examples of mixing and matching statistics, misleading images (showing one thing on the screen while describing another), and other sorts of things I would refer to as somewhat intellectually dishonest. But that's as far as I'll go. His intention is to be a polarizing character and he is quite effective at it.

I can't believe I've said so much in a Michael Moore thread! Let me end by saying that generally, the only films I watch carefully are porns, and often, I don't even make it through the previews.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I find this Michael Moore bashing very tiring. Most of the negative issues against him seem very niggling. Moore seemed to have went out of his way to ensure that Sicko is as factual as possible.

Moore does documentaries. He is purposefully trying to put forward his viewpoint of the subject.

I would like to see some examples of any documentaries that don't employ the techniques that Moore used. Or better still, what is an example of what a good (great, proper, righteous etc) documentary should be ....

Charlie (please, no Ken Burns slow pans across photos) Monoxide

 

[The Painter]

It must be disheartening to make a movie very few people see.

Domestic Total as of Jul. 15, 2007: $15,876,000 (Estimate)
Distributor: Lionsgate Release Date: June 22, 2007
Genre: Documentary Running Time: 2 hrs. 3 min.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 Production Budget: $9 million

15 million. Not so good. I think they call that bombing. Harry Potter made that much in 2 minutes.

 

[jimtron]

I find this Michael Moore bashing very tiring. Most of the negative issues against him seem very niggling. Moore seemed to have went out of his way to ensure that Sicko is as factual as possible.

Moore does documentaries. He is purposefully trying to put forward his viewpoint of the subject.

I would like to see some examples of any documentaries that don't employ the techniques that Moore used. Or better still, what is an example of what a good (great, proper, righteous etc) documentary should be ....

Charlie (please, no Ken Burns slow pans across photos) Monoxide

I agree. I'd like to hear examples of political docs that cover the kind of stuff Moore covers, that are more balanced/fair/accurate etc.

As for the niggling; I heard people complain about Bowling for Columbine--for example, the details supposedly weren't presented perfectly accurately regarding the bank that gave away guns for opening an account. But his basic points are true, IMHO, in this case that we Americans love us some guns. I think people get lost in the details instead of discussing the general points he makes (which are usually good ones, at least worthy of discussing).

It must be disheartening to make a movie very few people see.

What's your point--are you being sarcastic, or do you genuinely believe that these are low figures for a documentary?

 

[ChristineR]

It must be disheartening to make a movie very few people see.





15 million. Not so good. I think they call that bombing. Harry Potter made that much in 2 minutes.

I wouldn't turn down $6,000,000 profit. And at $15,000,000 that would be something like 1.5 million viewers. I wouldn't scoff at 1.5 million people who wanted to hear my views on something.

Or maybe I am just missing the irony in your post.

 

[kellyb]

From the CNN interview, I get the impression that Sicko is probably fairly accurate with stats. Of course, I've also looked into UHC stats before and I don't think you'd need to fudge anything to make a strong point, anyway.

With Bowling for Columbine...I thought that documentary was horrible because it never proved any points at all. In fact, if the idea was to prove that American having guns was responsible for all our violent crime, the conclusion of the film debunked itself. So the whole thing just left me confused....

 

[ChristineR]

From the CNN interview, I get the impression that Sicko is probably fairly accurate with stats. Of course, I've also looked into UHC stats before and I don't think you'd need to fudge anything to make a strong point, anyway.

With Bowling for Columbine...I thought that documentary was horrible because it never proved any points at all. In fact, if the idea was to prove that American having guns was responsible for all our violent crime, the conclusion of the film debunked itself. So the whole thing just left me confused....

I don't know who first said that the idea of Bowling was to prove that guns are responsible for our violent crime. I've heard a lot of people claim it was supposed to be an anti-gun film, but I thought just the opposite. I'm inclined to think that the supposed anti-gun bias was itself just a biased criticism.

 

[kellyb]

I don't know who first said that the idea of Bowling was to prove that guns are responsible for our violent crime. I've heard a lot of people claim it was supposed to be an anti-gun film, but I thought just the opposite. I'm inclined to think that the supposed anti-gun bias was itself just a biased criticism.

But what was the idea, then?

That KMart shouldn't sell bullets or something???
(I thought Moore getting injured kids to go picket KMart was kind of sleezy, too.)

I couldn't ever figure out exactly what the point was supposed to be. It was like he set out to make a documentary, had no idea where it was going to go, and then just ended with a big questionmark.

Very bizarre, and a bit of a waste of time to watch, I thought.

 

[Ohmer]

I don't like Michael Moore for the same reason I don't like watching television commercials. He manipulates, he doesn't educate. Like advertisers, one can do that without actually lying. Sicko is an advertisement of socialized medicine. I'm not necessarily opposed to socialized medicine, I just have no interest in watching a commercial for it.

 

[ChristineR]

But what was the idea, then?

That KMart shouldn't sell bullets or something???
(I thought Moore getting injured kids to go picket KMart was kind of sleezy, too.)

I couldn't ever figure out exactly what the point was supposed to be. It was like he set out to make a documentary, had no idea where it was going to go, and then just ended with a big questionmark.

Very bizarre, and a bit of a waste of time to watch, I thought.

I think it was meant as a critique of violent American values--not so much that people shouldn't have guns or that guns have no legitimate uses, but that we have all these unrealistic attitudes towards guns and what we should do with them, and that these ideas extend to our foreign policy, our treatment of young men who happen not to be good at sports, and of course our banking system.