Michael Moore: An Underrated Director

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 9/5/05 at 2:06am

Anyone else feel the same way about him, even if you don't agree with him? I mean, if you don't look at the movies as "documentaries" and just as a "story" in which fact is mixed with bias....they're actually quite excellent.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was one of the most riveting experiences I had in a movie theater last year, but that was mostly due to the fact that it was during the heat of the election. Either way, though, it was quite excellent even if the conclusions that Moore drew were....putting it lightly....not that great.

I'm looking forward to his health care movie, but with trepidation. I really hope he doesn't resort to shameless exploitation. Stuff like actually filming someone die as they use their dying breaths to curse the health care industry.
Updated On: 7/11/07 at 02:06 AM

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 9/5/05 at 2:09am

Although, it must be said, that I prefer Bowling for Columbine to Fahrenheit mostly because Bowling actually draws some cohesive points and has far more interesting subject matter that won't date in five years.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/5/05 at 2:12am

Moore's films are factually accurate--even if one doesn't agree with the way his angles things. He has hardly been sued for his films--and never lost when sued on a fact vs fiction case.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/5/05 at 2:17am

oops!

Updated On: 9/5/05 at 02:17 AM

[Plum]

Posted: 9/5/05 at 2:40am

I've only seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but judging by that, he isn't a particularly good director at all. He doesn't back off and let his subject do the talking nearly enough- he likes to insert his own smirky touches, like stupid background music, going for the cheap laugh and some eye-rolls instead of real substance. When he quits winking exaggeratedly, he's actually pretty good, but I wouldn't be nominating him for an Oscar just yet.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/5/05 at 2:44am

Though he's already won one. You should see that film.

And, I don't believe Aristotle ever addressed that documentaries should avoid the "error" of "He doesn't back off and let his subject do the talking nearly enough- he likes to insert his own smirky touches, like stupid background music, going for the cheap laugh and some eye-rolls instead of real substance" in THE POETICS.

A documentary can have a POV. It doesn't have to be objective. If you think his film cheesy--ok. But, do check out BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE.

Updated On: 9/5/05 at 02:44 AM

[Plum]

Posted: 9/5/05 at 2:47am

I meant a Best Director Oscar. Sorry about that; I was unclear.

And of course I don't mind his documentaries having a POV; I went in expecting and hoping for just that. But his POV came across with a lot more dignity when he just showed the mother of a soldier talking about her feelings in her own words, no smirky dumbass touches needed. A lot of the first half of the film just looked immature and annoying by comparison.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/5/05 at 2:53am

I didn't feel that way at all, but I understand the criticism.

I kinda like that he takes a topic and kicks its ass! I can't wait for him to kick the healthcare system's ass. I can't wait for him to kick Bush's ass again, if the sequel is really happening. I wish he would kick homophobia's ass--I think a film on the religious right's obsession with gays would be excellent and is needed.

I can understand people not digging his style or conservatives not digging his spin on things. But whether they like it or not--his films are factual and he has the documentation to prove it.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 9/5/05 at 2:54am

In that case, you might hate BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE (although it's a more fascinating film). I felt Moore actually held his persona back in FAHRENHEIT 9/11.

[Plum]

Posted: 9/5/05 at 3:01am

I thought the most shocking and effective parts of Fahrenheit 9/11 were those with people talking- that mother I mentioned, the soldiers talking about what music they listen to on the ground, etc. Hearing these words out of the horses' mouths, so to speak, is a lot more affecting, for me, at least, than seeing coverage of Bush clearing brush with comical hoedown music in the background.

Yeah, the equivalent of drawing devil's ears on Bush with a Magic Marker is kind of funny, but it's not that funny. Or that good of an argument. I can't deny the man (Moore, that is) knows how to get attention, though.

[Pinguin]

Posted: 9/5/05 at 4:01am

I don't think he's that great of a filmmaker -but I definitely prefer Bowling For Columbine over F 9/11. I just think it's better put together.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 9/5/05 at 4:29am

I totally agree, Plum. The frustrating thing is he does have such compelling material and incriminating facts, but his style of presenting them and the smirky touches, to me, is counterproductive in giving him (and the left-leaning supporters) more credibility. He would be best off letting his subjects do the talking and dig their own graves. (The soldier singing, "Burn, motherF*CKer, burn." is still etched in my memory, because I remember shaking my head in disbelief.)

[Pippin]

Posted: 7/10/06 at 12:52pm

just want to say that I finally saw Bowling for Columbine over the weekend and was blown away. I watched 911 in the theatre, and really liked it. but this was even better. the cartoon was priceless and I think this docu. brought up many more lasting points that 911 did. of course, that makes sense because 911's theme is much more narrow. Bowling is Broader and I am so glad that I finally saw it. all these years after the Columbine incident, it is still very powerful and gripping, and makes a universal statement. this video should used as a textbook and viewed at least once buy every high school student.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 7/10/06 at 12:57pm

I don't know about being viewed by every high school student, but it is an enjoyable and thought provoking documentary. My only quibble with it is that he should have addressed the issue of gun responsibility.

[peach]

Posted: 7/10/06 at 1:00pm

I wouldn't say he's underrated per se, just controversial. That's one of the reasons I always see his films. Yes, they are heavy on POV and angled a certain way, but as jerby points out, no one can sue him. His footage is real - and that is fact. His "man on street" interviews are particularly classic.

What about Roger & Me? That was my favorite of the three, actually.

Updated On: 7/10/06 at 01:00 PM

[pab]

Posted: 7/10/06 at 1:01pm

To actually answer the question asked in the thread I would have to say no, he is not an underrated director.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/10/06 at 1:05pm

One might make an arguement that he is overrated, but he's hardly underrated.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/10/06 at 1:06pm

I can not wait for SICKO to come out. That's his film on the health care system.

[blueroses]

Posted: 7/10/06 at 1:11pm

Eh. I don't know that he's "underrated"...I think Hollywood kisses his ass enough. He has his shtick and I guess he does it pretty well. I think his best film was Roger & Me.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/10/06 at 1:19pm

I don't consider him underrated, with glowing box office and critical successes behind him. He is very controversial, so he stirs up extreme emotions on both sides.

But he has an Oscar on his mantle and MANY devoted and enthusiastic followers.

...and he also has people out there who hate his guts. That's to be expected, in his case.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 7/10/06 at 1:47pm

Underrated? No

Overrated? Definitely.

Posted: 7/10/06 at 2:05pm

Not underrated but still excellent in his craft.

I loved Farenheit 9/11 with one exception. The scenes with the mother who lost a son in Iraq seemed too "directed."
Updated On: 7/10/06 at 02:05 PM

[Craig]

Posted: 7/10/06 at 2:05pm

Apparently he's also making 9/11 1/2

[Dabadoll]

Posted: 7/10/06 at 2:11pm

I hope he gets the original cast back together.