1
   

Michael Moore Resists Film About Him

 
 
cjhsa
 
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 06:03 am
Film Questions Michael Moore's Tactics

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NQB9600&show_article=1

Mar 12 05:01 AM US/Eastern
By CHRISTY LEMIRE

As documentary filmmakers, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine looked up to Michael Moore.
Then they tried to do a documentary of their own about him _ and ran into the same sort of resistance Moore himself famously faces in his own films.

The result is "Manufacturing Dissent," which turns the camera on the confrontational documentarian and examines some of his methods. Among their revelations in the movie, which had its world premiere Saturday night at the South by Southwest film festival: That Moore actually did speak with then-General Motors chairman Roger Smith, the evasive subject of his 1989 debut "Roger & Me," but chose to withhold that footage from the final cut.

The husband-and-wife directors spent over two years making the movie, which follows Moore on his college tour promoting 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11." The film shows Melnyk repeatedly approaching Moore for an interview and being rejected; members of Moore's team also kick the couple out of the audience at one of his speeches, saying they weren't allowed to be shooting there.

At their own premiere Saturday night, the Toronto-based filmmakers expected pro-Moore plants in the audience heckling or trying to otherwise sabotage the screening, but it turned out to be a tame affair.

"It went really well," Melnyk said. "People really liked the film and laughed at the right spots and got the movie and we're really happy about it."

Moore hasn't commented publicly on "Manufacturing Dissent" and Melnyk thinks he never will. He also hasn't responded to several calls and e- mails from The Associated Press.

"There's no point for Michael to respond to the film because then it gives it publicity," she said.

"(President) Bush didn't respond to `Fahrenheit 9/11,' and there's a reason for that," Caine added.

The two were and still are fans of all his movies _ including the polarizing "Fahrenheit 9/11," which grossed over $119 million and won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival _ and initially wanted to do a biography on him. They traveled to his childhood home of Davison, Mich., visited his high school and traced his early days in politics and journalism.

"The fact that he made documentaries entertaining was extremely influential and got all kinds of people out to see them," said Melnyk, whose previous films with Caine include 1998's "Junket Whore." "Let's face it, he made documentaries popular and that is great for all documentary filmmakers."

"All of these films _ `Super Size Me,' `An Inconvenient Truth' _ we've all been riding in his wake," said Caine. "There's a nonfiction film revolution going on and we're all beneficiaries of that. For that point alone, he's worth celebrating."

But after four months of unsuccessfully trying to sit down with Moore for an on-camera interview, they realized they needed to approach the subject from a different angle. They began looking at the process Moore employs in his films, and the deeper they dug, the more they began to question him.

The fact that Moore spoke with Smith, including a lengthy question- and-answer exchange during a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting, first was reported in a Premiere magazine article three years later. Transcripts of the discussion had been leaked to the magazine, and a clip of the meeting appeared in "Manufacturing Dissent." Moore also reportedly interviewed Smith on camera in January 1988 at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.

Since then, in the years since "Roger & Me" put Moore on the map, those details seem to have been suppressed and forgotten.

"It was shocking, because to me that was the whole premise of `Roger & Me,'" Melnyk said.

She and Caine also had trouble finding people to talk on camera about Moore, partly because potential interview subjects assumed they were creating a right-wing attack piece; as self-proclaimed left-wingers, they weren't.

Despite what they've learned, the directors still appreciate Moore.

"We're a bit disappointed and disillusioned with Michael," Melnyk said, "but we are still very grateful to him for putting documentaries out there in a major way that people can go to a DVD store and they're right up there alongside dramatic features."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 934 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 02:37 pm
First let me say that while I enjoy Michael Moore's films I'm not a member of his fan club.

Then let me say that this just sounds like sour grapes to me. They wanted him to be in their movie. He didn't want to be in their movie. They accuse him of !!!!!OH MY GOD!!!!! editing.

Not editing. Please, anything but editing.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 03:00 pm
I heard this couple interviewed on CBC--and i think they have a very good point about Roger and Me. Moore wasn't simply "editing," he was lying outright. He used a false claim that Smith would not talk to him in order to create a sensational atmosphere to promote the motion picture, and to give himself credentials as a fearless and indefatigable crusader for the truth.

But then, i never like the fat little smarmy bastard.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 03:04 pm
Are we to be upset that famous people try to avoid paparazzi?

I think a teapot is too big for this particular tempest.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 03:06 pm
Interesting vocabulary there, DD--so Moore is a documentary film maker, but Melnyk and Caine are paparazzi?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 03:22 pm
Should people be required to grant interviews? To the competition?

C'mon....
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 03:27 pm
Apparently, you haven't carefully read this article. I've read it, and i heard this couple interviewed. They aren't the competition, they were admirers, and seem still to be admirers of Moore. However, they have a good point about him suppressing the Smith interviews while claiming that Smith would not agree to an interview.

At all events, i don't say that Moore should grant them an interview. I continue to consider that you've attempted to put a biased spin on this by describing Melnyk and Caine as paparazzi, when clearly they are just what Moore claims to be, documentary film makers.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 03:37 pm
I read the article and this is what it says...

Quote:
The fact that Moore spoke with Smith, including a lengthy question- and-answer exchange during a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting, first was reported in a Premiere magazine article three years later. Transcripts of the discussion had been leaked to the magazine, and a clip of the meeting appeared in "Manufacturing Dissent." Moore also reportedly interviewed Smith on camera in January 1988 at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.

Asking questions during a stockholder's meeting and "reportedly" interviewing someone does not an interview make.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 03:39 pm
<sigh>

I did not call them paparazzi.

I was pointing out that one is not required to assist others in making money, or being successful.

They asked for an interview. He refused.

They tried to film an event, and presumably they did not have the media rights to it, and so they were asked to leave.

And I would presume that films marketed as documentaries would compete with each other for screens, so I'd describe them as the competition.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 03:45 pm
Read yourself what you've just quoted, Boom--it says "including" question and answers at a stockholders meeting--it does not say that it was limited to the question-and-answer period at the stockholders meeting. At any event, even if the question-and-answer period was the only material which Moore had, suppressing it would remain dishonest.

Moore is an opportunist who seeks his self-interest. That doesn't make him any worst than other film-makers, but it hardly makes him a candidate for crusader for truth, justice and the American way, which is, at the least, what many of his admirers would have us believe. I suspect Moore would like us to believe that, too.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 04:36 pm
I'm not trying to defend MM but really "spoke to" could mean just about anything.

I just think that if there was any more oomph to it they would have listed it instead of "including.....".

I agree that MM is self serving but it sounds like these people are too.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 04:45 pm
Despite Moore's "hypocrisy" in not granting interviews and the fact that I've not read any of the materials alluded to here, I do suspect that sooner or later there will be politically-motivated efforts to discredit Moore. I hope he continues to resist "interviews" and films about him. We should focus not on Moore but on the substance (right or wrong) of his documentaries.
Eventually, efforts will be made to discredit the "scientific" credentials and motivations of Al Gore as well.

BTW, if I were to attempt to discredit aspects of the oeuvre of Moore, I would stress that I am one of his staunches admirers in order to make my motives look pure.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 06:47 pm
I thought I saw Michael Moore on the freeway the other day. No kidding. He lives in Michigan, so it could have been him. Hard to believe he would be travelling alone though, in a car with a huge "Impeach Bush" window sticker. Well, maybe hard to believe.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Michael Moore Resists Film About Him
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 10:52:05