Michael Moore critique

[Mari333]

Before I am flamed, let me state that I am really glad Michael Moore made the movie Farenheit 9/11. Hurray.
That said, I have heard rumours that his movie has some scenes in it where Michael goes to DC and confronts US Senators and Congresspeople, asking them specifically if they are willing to enlist and sign up their sons and/or daughters into the military.
About 4 months or so ago, I wrote to Michael Moore via email and mentioned this idea to his staff.
I mentioned the idea , but asked that his staff use the parents or family members of servicemen and women who are in Iraq as the catalyst..in other words, use the parents and family members to ask the Congresspeople and Senators if they are willing to enlist their sons and daughters. I thought, at the time, it would make a great statement, to have the mothers and fathers of kids serving in Iraq to go to DC and ask their representatives (the ones who voted for the Iraq war), if they would be willing to take enlistment forms to their own sons and daughters.
Evidently, Michael Moore must have listened to my idea, or his staff did. However, if the rumours are true, he didnt use family members of kids serving in Iraq to ask the politicians, but only himself.
This bothers me a bit, because I believe it would have been FAR more effective had Michael Moore used real people, real family members of the military in Iraq,to ask the elected representatives these questions.
If it was just Michael Moore asking them, he has no child in the military, or in Iraq, ergo, the whole point would be lost to the average viewer of the scene , imo, and would not reach an everyday US citizen viewing the movie.
I am glad, as I said, that Michael Moore did the movie. However, I do
believe in critiquing everyone, right and left, and sometimes I wonder if people are thinking appropriately as to what is the most
effective way to communicate to average Americans, if their heads swell just a bit too much or they become very wealthy and powerful.
Flame away.
As I said, I am glad he made the movie, but no human being is so sacred that they cannot be critiqued.

[redqueen]

1. Why flame?

You made a nitpick and it's your right to do so. I agree it would have had more impact, but really don't think it would make all that much difference. Family members of troops who criticize bush are just as unAmerican in the eyes of the mindless acolytes of the bush gang as Moore is.

[sangh0]

5. I agree

Though "constructive criticism" has been used to justify just about anything, including Drudge rumours, your comments are nothing but constructive.

[Spazito]

2. I'm wondering if he didn't use the family members because...

he would then be accused of "using" them by the right wing?

[Mari333]

7. Well, there are a lot of family members against Bush and the war

heck theres tons of us, including military..
http://www.mfso.org
I think it would have been much more effective, myself.

[redqueen]

10. By the way

Hope things are going OK.

[Mari333]

23. I know what One day at a time means now =)

Michael emailed us from Abu Ghraib..he sounds lonely and wants to come home..understandably so. A group of his friends , police officers here from our area, came by and asked for his email and addy. I was so delighted to give it to them, they are very concerned about him.
Suffice to say, Michael was in heaven when he got the emails from these guys. I think it made him very homesick. He wrote a sweet email to his dad saying he felt so lucky to have friends and family who think about him. He has no idea how many people ARE thinking about him , for petes sake!
Sometimes, when you read "between the lines", you hear a sighing, and a sadness. Words convey emotions , if you read them using your instincts.
Nonetheless, I will believe he will come home,safe and sound, and having learned a grand and great lesson about the cruelty of politicians who blatantly send anyone they choose off to wars to fill their own pockets.
((((hugs to you for asking))))

[DrWeird]

3. Ummm...

I thought he AND a mother of a kid in Iraq were going around hassling the reps.

[Mari333]

8. Oh good!

Then that dispells the rumours I heard that it was just him. Thanks for the information!

[mrfrapp]

16. Trailer

The trailer shows only him doing the asking so I suspect that's where the "rumour" started.

[bpilgrim]

4. actually he used the son of a gov official who is actually serving

great idea, btw... i am glad he used it and i CANT WAIT to see it :toast:

peace

[bobbyboucher]

6. 4 months ago,

the movie was probably in the can.

[RummyTheDummy]

9. No doubt about it

That's exactly what I was thinking.

[xanadu1979]

11. not quite

According to his website, he finished it just before Cannes. But I would bet that those particular scenes were shot well before four months ago. I think he's been working on the movie for over a year.

[maggrwaggr]

17. it takes months to edit a movie, especially a doc

those scenes would have been shot LONG before "4 months ago".

Anyway, Michael Moore is the star of his own movies, like it or not. Even though I love what he does, sometimes I feel like he can be a bit vainglorious in his posturing.

Like when he was interviewing Charlton Heston and yelling after him as the guy walked away. I thought that was over the top.

[newyawker99]

19. Hi xanadu1979!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[gratuitous]

12. It's a reasonable critique

And I think if you addressed it to Michael Moore (particularly considering who you are, and what you're doing), he'd give you a respectful and credible answer. Lacking that, I'll weigh in:

Moore's films are almost always about himself and his own personal search for answers. From "Roger & Me" through "Bowling for Columbine," his documentaries are about subjects that he feels a personal responsibility for: What happens to a company town when the company leaves? Why are Americans, as a society, so worried about crime that they arm themselves to the teeth? What do other countries do?

In posing the questions to the congresscritters personally, Moore continues his personal involvement in the questions he raises in his documentaries. I think there's also an element of control; Moore is fully capable of answering for himself. Someone else doing the questioning takes some of the control out of his hands. What if the questioner confronts a Senator and gets a rude response, and reacts in kind? Sure, the screaming match might be fun, but that may not be what Moore wants to get on film.

What if it turns out the person on screen has a questionable or colorful past? There is an entire cottage industry devoted to smearing and slurring folks who cross the powers that be. The issue (why don't our elected representatives send their own sons and daughters to get shot up) becomes obscured when someone digs up the past: Hey, that military mother had a DUI 15 years ago! Or, that military father is behind in his child support payments!

Moore can deal with detractors who get personal. He'd have a tougher time dealing with other people's problems. That's my opinion, anyway. As I said, Michael Moore would probably give you a respectful hearing and answer (and the answer might be almost as good as mine -- joke).

[Mari333]

20. Thanks for the answer and I agree.

I am delighted that Michael Moore made his film, as I stated before. I am glad to see the rumours dispelled somewhat, and I hope, that if he continues to expose the hypocrisy of the congressional residents currently inhabbiting OUR sacred hallways and the beltway, he feels comfortable in contacting people such as Nancy Lessin at www.mfso.org or any number of military families who are hell bent on removing Bush from office asap and bringing our kids home asap.
Again, thank you for the answer.

[onecent]

13. My guess would be if you wrote to him about this 4 months ago, that

his movie was already edited, and filmed and completed.

[progdonkey]

14. hold off judgement

I'd want to hold off most of my judgement until I actually see the movie, but as I've seen footage of these scenes, I think it's alright for me to discuss them just a bit.

First up, I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Moore or his staff was acting on your suggestion. Since it's widely known that there's a great lack of military service among the children of congressmen, I would think it's rather obvious to go to Capitol Hill and ask congressmen to get their children to enlist. I'm sure Moore or his staff came up with the same idea as you independent of your suggestion. After all, what you suggested (and what Moore's actually doing) is just a variant on the return of bullets to Wal-Mart. (K-Mart?)

Concerning the difference between Moore's using himself and using military family members, I think there are two ways of looking at it, and maybe even a mixture of the two. As much as I love his movies, it's no secret that Moore is quite a camera whore; his movies largely center around him. That is his schtick, though, so using himself in the scene at Capitol Hill is just par for the course.

If he had used military family members, I do think it would be much more poignant, but I think there would be a sizeable amount of people who would feel he's exploiting the family members. Also, his impetus was probably in making a point, not simply opening the congressmen up to the wrath of family members.

The most important aspect of the scene is just to get the point across that these bellicose congressmen calling for Americans to sacrifice their sons and daughters have expressed a distinct lack of sacrificing their own children. If he can get the point across with just himself, bringing family members into it is rather superlative.

[a_random_joel]

15. I agree conceptually, but...

I believe Moore was probably just trying to protect them from the backlash of hate and vitriol they would receive.

Moore has proven he is more than willing and capable to take the heat. He is probably just trying to protect them.

That's my .02

[TexasSissy]

18. No, I agree w/the Moore way. Reason is....

professionals should be used in such a key part of a movie, even if it is a documentary. Using ordinary folk would take too long, be too unpredictable, and they wouldn't handle the rejections the same way.

He did it correctly in using a pro. Guess that's why he's a successful moviemaker and we're not?

[ShaneGR]

21. 4 months ago....

The filming was, for the most part, completed. If I remember correctly, he was on the hill early last fall.

[AP]

22. This doesn't have to be the only movie made about this issue.

Also, I think Moore tries to balance seriousness with humor in his movies in order to make his point more effective. And maybe they decided that this segment had to be a funny one (like riding around with the ice cream truck reading the patriot act). If he had used parents, it would have been very serious.

[Cocoa]

24. the biggest problem with your critique...

is that you haven't seen the movie.

It's way too tricky to go on news accounts. I don't know of anyone who has had his work more twisted than Mike.

He's even hired some democratic political people, including Chris Lehane, to help him counter the distortions he knows is coming.