Manufacturing Dissent: Uncovering Michael Moore (12A)

Film

Documentaries

migrate.31633.jpg

Time Out rating:

<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>4</span>/5

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>4</span>/5
Rate this
 

Time Out says

Mon Oct 1 2007

Only a fool would think that Michael Moore is an exemplary documentary-maker. He’s a polemicist who’s prone to playing hard and fast with the truth for emotional and commercial effect. Nevertheless, some of the accusations in this documentary by a pair of Canadian filmmakers who initially set out to make a positive portrait, will make your eyes water, especially in the light of the recent crises at the BBC. There’s a lot of Moore-esque trailing of the big guy as they try and fail to get an interview with him during the 2004 US election campaign, but the real meat emerges from their analysis of particular episodes in his work. The staff of a bank featured in ‘Bowling for Columbine’ claim that the scenario in which Moore opens a bank account and leaves with a gun was a set-up, while, more seriously, there’s evidence that Moore did in fact interview Roger Smith of GM for ‘Roger and Me’, so negating the thrust of that film. Moore himself comes across as thoroughly unlikeable – but that’s news to nobody.
0

Reviews

Add +

Release details

Rated:

12A

UK release:

Fri Oct 5, 2007

Duration:

97 mins

Cast and crew

Director:

Rick Caine, Debbie Melnyk

Music:

Michael White

Editor:

Bill Towgood, Robert Ruzic

Producer:

Rick Caine, Debbie Melnyk

Cinematography:

Rick Caine

Users say

0
<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>0</span>/5

Average User Rating

3.8 / 5

Rating Breakdown

  • 5 star:0
  • 4 star:1
  • 3 star:0
  • 2 star:0
  • 1 star:0
LiveReviews|2
1 person listening
psucarrierae

All in all the filmmakers did what they set out to do: they took a hard look at a filmmaker who is hated by some and worshipped by others from the perspective of fans of his work. What they found surprised them, and it may surprise you. This documentary shows a side of Michael Moore that should be seen by anyone interested in the facts behind Moore's movies. It seems that Moore has a bad habit of stretching the truth, editing clips to create a false narrative, and outright fabricating some parts of his movies for dramatic effect. A portrait of Moore comes into focus by the end of the film; one that leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I am personally a fan of Moore's movie's and I found the narrative in this film to be straightforward, fair, honest, and to the point, although a bit lacking in the flashy storyline department. Why does Moore have to stretch the truth, when the bulk of his movies are based on fact? The answer to this question is found by looking at the man behind the persona that is Michael Moore.

psucarrierae

All in all the filmmakers did what they set out to do: they took a hard look at a filmmaker who is hated by some and worshipped by others from the perspective of fans of his work. What they found surprised them, and it may surprise you. This documentary shows a side of Michael Moore that should be seen by anyone interested in the facts behind Moore's movies. It seems that Moore has a bad habit of stretching the truth, editing clips to create a false narrative, and outright fabricating some parts of his movies for dramatic effect. A portrait of Moore comes into focus by the end of the film; one that leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I am personally a fan of Moore's movie's and I found the narrative in this film to be straightforward, fair, honest, and to the point, although a bit lacking in the flashy storyline department. Why does Moore have to stretch the truth, when the bulk of his movies are based on fact? The answer to this question is found by looking at the man behind the persona that is Michael Moore.