NP Michael Moore

[jbor]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/09/1089000339554.html?oneclick=true

Excerpts: 

[...]
Moore's moral universe is in large part an illusion. The bedrock of his
public persona is the carefully nurtured image that he is a knockabout,
blue-collar guy from a blue-collar family who grew up in a quintessentially
blue-collar town, Flint, Michigan, an industrial city since screwed by the
giant corporations he despises.

Problem: Moore is not from Flint. He is from Davison, Michigan. The two
places are not far apart, but the social distance between them is
considerable.
[...]

This self-serving distortion is a metaphor for the man. It follows a
well-worn pattern of convenient distortion in his work. The title of his new
film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is a literary allusion to a sci-fi classic,
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury's 1953 novel, still in print, about a future
America where state censorship is overpowering and book-burning is routine.
The temperature at which paper burns is 451 degrees Fahrenheit (233 degrees
Celsius). Moore has sub-titled his film "The Temperature at which Truth
Burns". He thus presents himself as the anti-propagandist, the antidote to
the lies and distortions spun by the Bush Administration since the tragedy
of September 11, 2001. Problem: Even for those who think the Bush
Administration has exploited September 11 for political advantage, or
believe the decision to invade and occupy Iraq was at best misguided and at
worst disastrous, the moral trail laid down by Moore leads to an abundance
of evidence that he has become what he despises - another spin doctor.

He may be funny, smart, outrageous, even genuine, but he is also a media
practitioner who resorts, routinely and fastidiously, to distortion,
omission and gutter innuendo with a viciousness and ideological
cartoonishness characteristic of all fundamentalists. Within two weeks of
its release in America, all the film's conspiracy theories have either been
dismantled or rendered questionable by the American media.

Even America's pre-eminent magazine, The New Yorker, no friend to the Bush
Administration, which has published revelations in the past about Moore's
manipulative hypocrisy, has panned the new film as no more than propaganda.
David Denby, in a review published in the June 28 issue, described Moore as
skilful but concluded: "But the great documentary filmmakers at least make
an attempt, however inadequate, compromised, or hopeless, to arrive at a
many-sided understanding of some complex situation. Michael Moore is not
that kind of filmmaker, nor does he want to be ... He's too slipshod
intellectually to convince many except the already convinced, too eager to
throw another treated log on the fire of righteous anger ...

"Moore never talks about Islamic fundamentalism and training camps,
obsessive anti-Westernism, or suicide terrorists and the difficulty of
guarding against them; he never asks how the American Government should
conduct itself in a war against religious totalitarians. There are,
apparently, no justifiable fears, only hysterical fears manipulated by the
authorities, whose every act is purposive and conspiratorial ... Fahrenheit
9/11 offers the thrill of a coherent explanation for everything, but parts
of the movie are no better than a wild, lunging grab at a supposed master
plan."

[...]
Many critics have noted that Moore is so preoccupied with attacking Bush
that he cannot bring himself to cast even a glance at the genuine evil, on a
massive scale, that existed under Saddam Hussein, nor face up to the
monstrous repression, especially of women, when the Taliban ruled
Afghanistan. The Iraqi insurgents are presented in his film as justified in
their outrage. Perhaps the most egregious factual error is the bald and
absurd claim that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked, killed or even
threatened any American. The visual images of pre-invasion Iraq are benign.
Children are at play. Nowhere does Moore canvas the 35 years of Saddamist
repression that seeped into every sinew of Iraqi society. This was the true
Fahrenheit 451. And about this there is not one word.

[...]
His hectoring tone, too, is a reflection of the times. No sooner had Marxism
collapsed as an organising force or a credible moral universe than other
orthodoxies filled the void left by the end of the Cold War. Religious
fundamentalism has flourished, and the leading chronicler of this change,
Professor Philip Jenkins, found that the clear winners have been the most
uncompromising, most conservative and most combative groups with "a strongly
apocalyptic mind-set".

Sounds like Michael Moore. His scorched-earth rhetoric, selective moral
absolutism, hatred of opponents, and innate conservatism - he uses the
nostalgic rhetoric of old-line socialism (preached but not practised) - are
markers of the fundamentalists and evangelists. Moore happens to be a
secular fundamentalist. In a film-driven, celebrity-obsessed,
hyperbole-drenched society, Moore has attained the wealth, laurels and fame
that western culture can offer. An Academy Award. A Palme d'Or. Best-selling
author. Multimillionaire. A standing ovation greeted him at the glitzy
Ziegfeld Theatre in Manhattan two weeks ago at the premiere. The blue-collar
Moore now charges $US20,000 ($28,000) and above for speaking engagements.

Now he wants to turn the 2004 US presidential election. His website is
explicit: "Seen the film and fired up to do something about it? Check out
our voter information and sign Mike's voting pledge and head to a swing
state!" If Bush is defeated, Moore will no doubt claim a slice of the
credit, and perhaps rightly so. But is he a vote-changer? The Democratic
candidates he endorsed in this year's presidential campaign were Wesley
Clark and Howard Dean, and both quickly flamed out despite huge media hype.
Does Moore fuel prejudices rather than dismantle them? David Denby believes
so: "Michael Moore has become a sensational entertainer of the already
converted, but his enduring problem as a political artist is that he has
never known how to change anyone's politics."
[...]

best