Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion

Michael Moore has been all over the Wisconsin union fight, giving a pointless speech a few days ago that basically repeated the ignorant interview I fisked below.  And, last night on Maddow, he went completely non-linear after the Senate vote, calling it a war on the middle class.  The latter is a truly a classic rant from Moore, a deranged factually-challenged diatribe ranging from the Air Traffic Controllers’ illegal strike to demands for students to strike in favor of Wisconsin.  He repeats the false claim that there are trillions of unused dollars out there; he repeats various myths about wealth distribution; he incorrectly claims that the Wisconsin bill strips all unions of their rights.  It ends with him holding up handcuffs and saying the people are coming for “you”, whoever “you” are.

(He also goes on about Michigan passing a bill to dissolve city governments.  I’m not familiar with this bill and can’t find much on it beyond progressive websites.  If the reports are accurate, I doubt it will pass constitutional muster as it does seem rather extreme.)

Moore thinks this is the beginning of a people’s revolution against the Man.  Of course, he’s thought that—off and on—for the last twenty years.  But if you watch the speech, it’s just standard socialist trope and “revolutionary” rhetoric.  It might have been relevant 75 years ago, when unions were a large minority (as opposed to about 8% of non-government workers today).  Today, it will play well with progressive crowds but the rest of the country will yawn and go back to work.

I would like to smack down a few of his lies, however.

MooreandMe

To be honest, I’m not sure what to make of the #MooreandMe business.  Here’s a rundown:

If you’ve been on Twitter in the last week, it’s probably been hard to miss the Twitter protest against Michael Moore for dismissing and mischaracterizing the rape accusations against Julian Assange—first in a post announcing he was posting bail for Assange and then on Keith Olbermann’s show.

Launched by Sady Doyle and Jaclyn Friedman last Wednesday and waged under the hashtag #mooreandme, the campaign has called for Moore (and Olbermann) to correct the misinformation they spread, offer an apology for minimizing rape allegations and smearing the accusers, and preferably donate $20,000 to an anti-sexual assault organization.

Almost a week later, there’s still no response from Moore (although he has written a letter to the entire government of Sweden) but the protest is still going strong, has attracted the inevitable anti-feminist trolls, and even caused Keith Olbermann to quit Twitter for 3 days “until this frenzy is stopped.”

Here is Doyle’s latest post, which is long and heart-rending.  She’s been getting death threats and rape threats for what seems a fairly reasonable demand—that Olbermann and Moore apologize for revealing the name of Assange’s accuser and characterizing her as a potential CIA agent based on the unsubstantiated rantings of one of Assange’s aggregators, a known Holocaust denier.

There are three tangled issues going on here.  First, is the unsubstantiated accusation from within Assange’s organization that this woman is a CIA plant. I’m not sure why Moore is at the center of this.  It seems to me that Olbermann was at the center of this and Moore just repeated it.  Moore’s two blog posts on the subject have not repeated the claim.  As much as it pains me to say this, I think the mooreandme campaign, while having the right intentions, is focused on the wrong person.

However, having retweeted the name of the accuser and the unsubstantiated “blame the victim” accusations, I think an apology is the least Michael Moore can do. No?  That would make the controversy go away awfully fast. (Moore’s second post—a letter to the Swedish government—sideswipes an apology but doesn’t get there).

Second, is the accusation, which Moore continues to repeat, that Sweden has made this case a priority to get Assange (or something). That’s not unique to Moore, either, nor did it originate with him.  Many Wikileaks supporters are saying this, most notably Naomi Klein (once described by Lee, quite accurately, as a third-rate intellect).  Their basis of this is Naomi Wolf’s misleading analysis of Swedish rape statistics.

** Sweden has the HIGHEST per capita number of reported rapes in Europe.

** This number of rapes has quadrupled in the last 20 years.

** The conviction rates? They have steadily DECREASED.

The Amnesty International report specifically says that Sweden’s rates are difficult to compare to other countries because they charge for each incident (most countries charge once per victim) and Sweden has a much more expansive definition of rape than other countries.  So this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Of course, as we’ve shown many times, Michael Moore is no stranger when it comes to comparing apples to oranges and thinking he’s found lemonade.

Maybe there’s something here, but accusing the Swedish government of concocting these charges implicitly accuses the alleged victim as well. Instead of being a tool of the CIA, she’s a tool of the Swedish government.  I really can’t let him off the hook for this, although, again, it seems like focusing on Moore specifically, is a bit misguided.

The third issue is the nasty, brutal and personal attacks that Doyle has endured. We’ve seen this kind of behavior from Moore fans before, but I think this is more an issue of Julian Assange’s deranged fans than Michael Moore’s.  Still ... would it hurt Moore to ask people to knock it off?  Would it hurt him to say something along the lines of, “I think this #mooreandme stuff is crap, but lay off Doyle. It’s a free country.”?

In the end, my feeling about the rape charges against Assange is to let them play out in the courts.  What matter is if they are true or not.  I really don’t give a shit why these charges are being brought, but they do not seem trivial.  I don’t begrudge Moore posting bail money for him (although I’m curious as to why he needs it).  But it is detestable to make unsubstantiated accusations against a potential rape victim because you happen to like what her rapist does for a living. What Moore and his fellow travelers continue to do is no different from people who “blame the victim” whenever their favorite sports star is accused of rape, assault or domestic violence.  I don’t think they would put up with it if Lakers’ fans had accused Kobe Bryant’s victim of being a Celtics fan.  But their feminism and support for victims goes out the window when it’s their hero in the crosshairs.

Whatever their intentions, this came across as “blaming the victim” to a substantial number of people.  Whatever their intentions, they repeated unsubstantiated allegations against the alleged victims and revealed their names.  Moore is not the source of this, but he actively participated in the smear, passing it on to over 700,000 twitter viewers.  He may not deserve to be at the center of the storm.  But an apology seems the least he can do.

The Declining Influence of Moore

The Telegraph is putting together a rundown of the 100 most influential liberals and conservatives in the US.  And who is that at #91?

A reviewer of Moore’s 2007 movie Sicko, about the American health system, summed up his career as being “a multimedia attempt to undo Reagan’s great achievement: persuading blue-collar factory workers and other members of the working class to embrace his heady brew of jingoism, anticommunism, contempt for government and admiration for the virtues of unfettered capitalism”.

By that standard, the university dropout from Flint, Michigan has failed miserably. But his Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) on the war on terror (the highest-grossing documentary of all time) and Bowling for Columbine (2002) about the gun lobby became the far Left’s contribution to key debates. But with liberalism now mainstream and in the White House (where Moore is unlikely to be a guest) the filmmaker’s influence seems to be on the wane.

They ranked him #7 two years ago.  I have to agree with them that his influence is declining.  Capitalism did not produce nearly the buzz and hysteria that his past movies did.  And, with a box-office take just above $14 million, it was his least successful film in the last decade.

So does that mean the end of Moorewatch?  Not when he still has so many followers.  And not when his twitter feed contains such pearls of wisdom as this:

Thank God the first troops in the surge to Afghanistan got there in time to stop a Nigerian man on a flight to Detroit.

Apparently, the idea of layered defense doesn’t make much sense to Mikey.

Hypocrisy abounds in the NY debut of “Capitalism”

The premise of Moore’s newest opus is that the economic system of capitalism is inherently evil and must be destroyed. The LA Times is not alone in noting how ironic it is to hold a premiere for a movie with this as its thesis in such a manor:

As the Deal Journal’s Michael Corkery notes in a surprisingly evenhanded report, having the film open at New York’s Lincoln Center was a huge blunder, since it made Moore a fat target (no pun intended) for charges of hypocrisy.

After all, as Corkery puts it, the center’s sleek new theater was largely funded “by the very institutions that Moore lambasts as greedy, sleazy and beyond repent. Before the film, the crowd sipped champagne and cocktails in the ‘Morgan Stanley Lobby’ and then headed to their seats in the ‘Citi Balcony.’ Movie tickets were available at the ‘Bank of New York Box Office’ and there’s outdoor seating at the Credit Suisse Information Grandstand.’ “ (Geez, when you have to pee, do you think you can do your business at the Alan Greenspan Memorial Urinal?)

Corkery says there is “plenty of good entertainment” in Moore’s film while acknowledging the emotional impact of some of the film’s scenes, including one where Moore exposes how Wal-Mart profited from a life insurance policy it took out on a young woman who died unexpectedly, leaving behind a young family scrambling to make ends meet. But he also points out that Moore is often guilty of “throwing stones in a glass house he often frequents.” Noting that Moore has gone from assembly line worker to well-compensated indie filmmaker, Corkery contends that “his journey alone exemplifies the social mobility made possible by the very economic system he savages in his latest film.”

But wait! There’s more from The Business Insider, who noticed something rather interesting at the NY premiere:

Held at the fabulous, sprawling, lushly-appointed Esquire Apartment in Soho, it was packed with good-looking, well-dressed people, had multiple bars across two suites and two balconies, featured a Steak Bar, and even had a hot tub, complete with young lovelies lounging steamily therein. Meanwhile, the Hackers were there — the Hackers from Peoria, Illinois, whom an hour ago I had watched get evicted from their home, bewildered and tearful, burning their worldly possessions. I wondered what they must think. (Actually, I asked Mr. Hacker, who said that everyone in New York seemed to be beautiful, that it was their first trip and that they were having fun. I said I was glad to see that they were doing okay; he said, “Well, we’re not in that movie for nothing.”)

Hmmm… I wonder what exactly the Hackers did receive for appearing in Moore’s new film? Given Moore’s past of attempting to buy opinions and silence (*cough*), one has to wonder.

More heat for “Capitalism”

When even The Huffington Post starts to turn on Michael Moore’s new film, you know there’s trouble a-brewin’ for our favorite polemicist. I couldn’t believe my eye when I read their review the review of “Capitalism”. Now, for the sake of fairness, it starts out with a slew of compliments:

Like I said after a screening on Wednesday here in L.A., Michael Moore’s new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story is awesome and I want to recommend it (again) to everyone-- except for one part.

But after a short time, reviewer Howie Klein skewers Moore to the wall over Moore’s treatment of Chris Dodd in his film. Listen to this:

Well, okay, the traditional media, sure, the AP, of course, but not a liberal media source like Michael Moore, right?  Right?

Wrong.

Moore:  As I point out in the film, I have an exclusive interview with the VIP loan manager at Countrywide Loans, the largest mortgage company in the country, was giving sweetheart loans to Senator Dodd where he didn’t have to pay fees, they did away with the paper work for him, he got all-- things the average person couldn’t get. ... I think people are going to be surprised.

Hell yeah, they are going to be surprised!  Surprised that Michael-freaking-Moore ate this guy’s story up without even the most basic fact check!  Sure, it fit his narrative well, but c’mon, could you at least check to see if he, in fact got a special deal? Time to hand over that $10,000, Michael.

Also, if you are Michael Moore, and you have basically made a career out of getting powerful people, people who you have no business interviewing, on film, how is it possible that Chris Dodd is not interviewed in the film?  Roger-- check. Charlton Heston-- check.  Chris Dodd-- [crickets].  If you get the accuser on video, making wild accusations that everyone now agrees are completely false, how is the accused not here, allowed even a moment to mention that HE GOT THE SAME FUCKING RATES AS EVERYONE ELSE?

Why does this feel like, in the interest of being able to sit on Leno and say, “I went after Democrats too!,” Moore passed up the real story here?  It would have been really powerful if he made the connection between the bullshit allegations about Dodd and the banking industry desperately wanting to put the breaks on important housing and foreclosure legislation that Dodd was championing in the Senate at that very moment.  Well, mission accomplished assholes, excuse me, the Sheriff is here to foreclose on my house (is it possible its the same one from Roger and Me? Oh, the irony).

Finally, exclusive?  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.  Maybe what he meant was that, even though the Feinberg Interview Express has more miles on it than the Madden Cruiser, he was only getting interviewed by Moore at that particular moment, so it was exclusive as to that particular place and time.  Or something.  (Seriously, not counting Darrell Issa’s I-am-doing-the-bidding-of-the-NRSC’s sham investigations, Feinberg has done roughly seven quintillion interviews.  You can look it up.

Ummm… yeah. I won’t comment on Klein’s opinions about Dodd, but I do think it says a lot when The Huffington Post puts out a piece that slams Moore this hard.

But wait! There’s more! The National came out with an exceptional review of the film’s premise and execution thereof. You should read the whole thing, but I especially liked this section:

On Tuesday, pitching his latest film on the Jay Leno Show, Mr Moore declared capitalism as “evil” and called for Americans to “go back to the roots of our country, democracy”, to fix the system.

The implication seemed to be that democracy and capitalism are somehow incompatible, like oil and water. In fact, they are as combustible as fire and a stiff wind.

Unless Mr Moore is aware of some as-yet-to-be-written revisionist history, America was a democracy in 1837 when a massive banking collapse led to a six-year long recession.

It was democratic during the crippling depression that began in 1873 and lingered on for a quarter of a century.

It was similarly pluralist during the mild recession that began in 1920 and it remained so in the run-up to the Great Depression a decade later.

The October 1929 stock market crash occurred on the presidential watch of Herbert Hoover who, far from an amiable dunce as he is popularly portrayed, was one of the most able men of his generation, a self-made multimillionaire, philanthropist, humanitarian and pioneer of the liberal “progressive” movement with which Mr Moore seems to so closely identify.

In his interview with Mr Leno, Mr Moore said capitalism was “legalised” greed, as if there was such a thing as “outlawed” greed. It would be more accurate to say that a common feature of democracy, particularly in one as unfettered as America’s, is legalised excess.

Nicely put. So once again, it seems that even liberals who normally defend Moore tooth and nail are angry with him for at least parts of “Capitalism”. If these are the early reviews, I can’t wait to see what’s going to happen when the general public gets a look at it. 

Oprah puts a lid on Moore… for now

It seems I’m not the only one who’s been wondering why Michael Moore has been nearly silent in these crucial weeks before the US release of his new movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story”. When a reporter from the LA Times tried to get an interview with the usually boisterous Moore, he was told Moore wasn’t talking… for now:

But Moore has been strangely silent in this run-up and the LA Times’ Patrick Goldstein has learned that he plans to keep a lid on it for weeks to come no less.

When Goldstein called Overture Films, Moore’s distributor to arrange an interview, he was told that the filmmaker would sit for interviews after the premiere, but the pieces would all be embargoed Sept. 23rd, the day the film opens in New York and Los Angeles.

“Why? Because Moore is doing a sit-down interview with Oprah Winfrey, which won’t air until Sept. 22. And if Oprah wants an exclusive, she gets it, since when it comes to books, movies or music, no one offers a better promotional platform than La Winfrey.”

There is perhaps no bigger winner here than Barack Obama, who is trying to persuade America that his health care package is not a socialist takeover of their lives. He will get a precious few weeks wherein Michael Moore is not clogging up the airwaves with his caricature of Middle American GOP fears. A conspiratorial mind might even wonder of Miss Winfrey is slyly doing her old pal on Pennsylvania Ave. a solid.

The conclusion this reporter reached in the last paragraph above is certainly intriguing. With Obama’s health care plan going down in flames and the tea parties heating up left, right, and center, one must wonder if keeping Moore quiet for these precious few weeks might in fact be advantageous to Obama. Of course, having Oprah give Moore such a solid and far-reaching platform is just as good of a reason for Moore’s silence - after all, who helps artists out more than Oprah? Moore does have a couple of appearances scheduled before the big Winfrey interview on the 22nd, but as they were scheduled before snagging the Oprah spot they will air as scheduled.

Silence from Moore before his movie is released. Now there’s something I never thought I’d hear. ;)

Early responses to “Capitalism: A Love Story”

I know I’ve been an absent landlord for a while, and I do apologize for that. I plan on becoming much more present in the near future, and there is certainly much to discuss as Moore’s new film, “Capitalism: A Love Story”, has just debuted at The Venice Film Festival. Set to debut in US theaters on October 2nd, the film garnered Moore a nearly eight minute standing ovation from the Venice film audience. However, reviews outside the festival have been lukewarm at best. Even traditionally liberal and Moore-friendly publications are slamming “Capitalism” right and left to a rather surprising degree. So what are reviewers saying about Moore’s newest opus?

From The Telegraph Online:

I wonder, is there a more serious reason than his weight behind Michael Moore’s demise? Seven or eight years ago, his films - such as Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine - were incredibly fashionable, and he was one of the most talked about directors around. But although his new film - Capitalism: a love story - has received an eight-minute standing ovation from the luvvies in Venice (”the longest in memory”, according to Moore’s twitter account) for most people, his hypocrisy is too much to bear.

Don’t be fooled by the scruffy cap and trampish demeanour. Moore is as well-to-do as the “stupid white men” which he has made millions of dollars from criticising. The Guardian interviewed him shortly after he became a best-selling author and discovered not only that he was the best paid presenter at Channel 4 (during his short-lived career as a chat show host), but that he was no stranger to the high-life....

Sadly for Michael Moore, many of the people that should be watching his films don’t get the joke either. He is supposed to be the champion of the oppressed, who spends his career holding the rich and famous to account. Now he’s one of them, and lapping up the lifestyle like a banker in boom time, it makes no sense. Still, at least he gets to rub shoulders with Hugo Chavez.

From The Examiner:

“Capitalism is evil” is the conclusion of Michael Moore’s coming film, “Capitalism:  A Love Story”.

What an embarrassment....

So what socialist country does Michael Moore like better than the United States?  And don’t write in by trying to prove the Netherlands, or France, or whatever:  Michael Moore says CAPITALISM is evil.  Not a mixed system.  I’ll debate the U.S. being better than those places, but not right now.  Which socialist, fascist, communist, anarchist, or other system is better than capitalism?

Every possible experiment in socialism has been a colossal failure with millions dead from starvation.  It is a system that is pure evil; stealing from some to give to others and leaving everyone poor.

And if Michael Moore is advocating that, then he is the evil one.

From CNNMoney:

VENICE (Fortune)—If anyone has profited from the free-enterprise system in the past 20 years, it’s Michael Moore. Since 1989, when his “Roger & Me” pioneered the docu-comedy form of nonfiction film, Moore’s movies, TV shows and best-selling books have given him an eight-figure net worth.

And in all of these, he is the improbable star: a heavyset fellow with a doofus grin, alternately laughing and badgering but always at the center of his own attention. Why, there he is, at the end of his new movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” wrapping the New York Stock Exchange building in yellow tape that reads: CRIME SCENE…

By now, a Michael Moore film is its own genre: a vigorous vaudeville of working-class sob stories, snippets of right-wing power players saying ugly things, longer interviews with experts on the Left, funny old film clips and, at the climax, Moore engaging in some form of populist grandstanding.

This time, he goes to the headquarters of the former AIG, a multibillion-dollar recipient of government largesse, and attempts to make a citizen’s arrest of its chief executives. He also asks Wall Streeters for advice on healing the nation. One man’s quick reply: “Don’t make any more movies.”

“Capitalism” has lots of statistics, like the Rasmussen poll that showed only a slight majority of young adults prefer capitalism to socialism. But this is a lecture from a charismatic comedian of a professor; he makes his points with gag movie references and quick visual puns.

From The Atlantic:

Instead, I’ll just say that I highly doubt that either movie will do particularly well at the box office, though Moore’s film may spark some interest due to the economic events that it considers. I think much of the public’s wary response to Washington’s efforts at healthcare reform shows that Americans are still generally pretty nervous about the government being too involved in their lives. So the thought of trading in free-market capitalism for government-run socialism probably won’t appeal to most Americans at this time.

I will also note that no one going to see these films should expect a thorough examination of the economic merits of capitalism versus socialism. Neither of these directors, to my knowledge, have much experience in economics or finance. As a result, I doubt either is a particularly rigorous film, but probably more based on opinion and anecdotal observation.

From Variety:

Unfortunately, elsewhere, Moore strives so hard to manipulate viewers’ emotions with shots of crying children and tearjerking musical choices that he’s not so much over-egging the pudding as making an omelet out of it. While it could be argued that Moore needs to milk the human-interest stories for all their worth to get auds to engage with his denunciation of capitalism, more often than not, such tactics just patronize the audience and descend into cheap sentimentality. Moore all but stops short of holding up dead puppies Hank Paulson personally murdered.....

No Michael Moore film would be complete without scenes of the writer-helmer arguing with security guards in glassy office-building foyers as he attempts to have an impromptu word with the company’s CEO. Predictably ill-fated attempts are made to storm the citadels of various banks and financial institutions that survived the crash. In perhaps the funniest moment, Moore tries to find a banker who can explain what derivatives are; he corners one and says he wants some advice, to which the reply comes, quick as a flash: “Stop making films!”

Moore shows no signs of heeding this injunction, and ends the pic on a combatative note, vowing, “I refuse to live in a country like this, and I’m not leaving.” It’s a pugnacious riposte to his right-wing critics, but in the end, Moore also fails to answer his left-wing doubters, who will have plenty of evidence here that Moore’s argument is less with capitalism as Marx and Engels understood it, or even as the North Koreans and Cubans do, than with capitalism’s most egregious excesses in the U.S. His ideal is not the end of private ownership, just more cooperatively owned businesses where everyone shares the wealth and makes collective decisions. Moore merely flirts with counterpointing socialism with capitalism, and ultimately sets up an inoffensive-to-the-point-of-meaningless notion of democracy as capitalism’s opposite.

Ummm… wow. I honestly didn’t expect such an immediate derogatory response to Moore’s work, but here it is already pouring in, and these are just the early reviews. So how off-the-mark is this film? Have people finally had their fill of Moore’s particular brand of polemic? Time will only tell, but I’ll do my best to look back through the last week or so of news to see if I can put some more meat and perspective on this negative response to Moore’s new film.

This should be an interesting car-crash of a film premiere, that’s for sure. 

Moore is Right.  And Wrong

You just knew the media was going to have to probe the wisdom of the creator of Roger and Me on the auto industry bailout.  But, surprisingly, Moore actually says something right!  Yeah, I know you don’t believe it.  Here it is:

I’ll tell you, it was hilarious just watching these CEOs there (Tuesday) and (Wednesday) testifying in Congress, saying that, you know, that the problem wasn’t theirs, you know, the cars they were building. It was the financial situation that we’re in now.

The problem is the cars they’ve been building. They’ve never listened to the consumers. They’ve just gone about it their own wrong way. I’ll tell you, you know, I’m of mixed mind about this bailout, Larry, because I don’t think these companies, with these management people, should be given a dime, because that’s just going to be money going up in smoke or off to other countries.

GM is currently building a $300 million factory in Russia right now to build SUVs, right outside of St. Petersburg. That’s where your money’s going to go, no matter what they say.

Now, granted, he thinks their big problem is building cars overseas rather than here.  He makes no mention of American companies paying 50% more per hour than other companies thanks to union benefits and featherbedding.  And his cure is, if anything, worse than the disease:

President-Elect Obama has to say to them, yes, we’re going to use this money to save these jobs, but we’re not going to build these gas-guzzling, unsafe vehicles any longer.

We’re going to put the companies into some sort of receivership and we, the government, are going to hold the reigns on these companies. They’re to build mass transit. They’re to build hybrid cars. They’re to build cars that use little or no gasoline.

We’re facing a national crisis, not just an economic crisis, but a crisis of the polar ice caps are melting. There’s only so much oil left under the Earth. We’re going to run out of that, if not in our children’s time, our grandchildren’s time.

There’s got to be a plan set out to find other ways to transport ourselves in other ways than using fossil fuels.

Yes, Barack Obama, who drives an SUV, certainly has the expertise to turn around a flailing industry.  With his degrees in Business Management, Engineering and Chemistry, he’s the perfect man to run this industry. One day, we can look forward to the auto industry being run with the same skill and efficiency with which the government runs Amtrak.

But let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth.  Mikey said something right.  He was due to say something right at some point this year as one correct statement per year is his established performance level.  And we, at Moorewatch, are nothing if not fair.

Moore’s new movie… version 2.0

I know I said in the comments to the previous post I would have this up a couple of days ago - I apologize for the delay. WotLK has me a bit under it’s spell… ;)

Remember the announcements a few months ago about Moore’s new film, the sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11? You know, the one he’s been shooting for a good couple of months? Well… he’s still shooting it… it just isn’t a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 anymore. Anyone else confused? Cinematical seems to be as well:

By now we all know that Michael Moore doesn’t make documentaries like our grandfathers did. He’s a master of polemics, using his films to rail against corporations, guns, governments, insurance companies, and whatever else riles up his David vs. Goliath sensibility. When his most recent project was announced in May, it was described as a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 that would “tackle what’s going on in the world and America’s place in it,” as pointed out by The Hollywood Reporter. Now, however, THR says the film will focus on “the global financial crisis and the U.S. economy.”

Moore is still “feverishly shooting” and it’s hoped the film will be ready for release next spring. At first blush, though, it sounds like he decided to make the mid-project adjustment in reaction to (or in anticipation of) the Democrats’ victory. Without Bush to bash, and without the Republican Party in control of Congress, how much mileage could he get out of criticizing U.S. foreign policy with a new President steering a (presumably) different course?

So.... let me see if I have this right. Moore has COMPLETELY changed the topic of his film. It was going to be a polemic that railed against US foreign policy, and now it’s going to be an study of our economic crisis. These are two completely and totally different topics… and yet Moore isn’t stopping his filming or scraping his footage. Somehow he’s going to make all the footage he’s shot about foreign policy now work for and focus on the economy.

.... ummmm...... anyone else confused about how he could possibly pull that one off without coming to both projects with very similar theses, preconceptions and foregone conclusions? Me either. I think Cinematical states the problem quite well:

Unlike many documentary filmmakers, Moore appears to start with a conclusion on his projects and then search for footage to back it up. Documentarians often say they don’t really ‘find’ their film, or discover the story, until they’re knee-deep in editing, but it doesn’t sound like Moore works that way. Which doesn’t mean his films lack meaning or substance or entertainment value, just that they’re more like personal essays than traditional docs.

According to THR, Moore is now saying that the project is less a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 and more of a bookend to Roger & Me. What more could he say, though, about corporations and big business than he already has? When he endorsed Barack Obama in April, he wrote: “Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so.” Maybe he wants to hold their feet to the fire until they burst into flame.

If all Moore does is bitch about the economy and complain about corporations, I don’t think it’ll be a very welcome message.

Well said.

I open to the floor to you fine ladies and gentlemen. Thoughts? Comments? Opinions? What do you think about this sudden and drastic turn in Moore’s agenda?

Moore’s new movie getting some downloaders in hot water

Everyone hang on to your seats… I’m about to defend Michael Moore. ;)

Cinema Blend has a hot button article up on their site accusing Moore of a few things. The most important allegation of theirs is that Moore was trying to get the people outside the US and Canada who downloaded “Slacker Uprising” through his site in legal trouble. To be completely fair to Cinema Blend and to ensure that I don’t quote anything out of context, I’m going to republish their article in its entirety.

First of all, the idea that Moore would want to get people who wanted to see one of his movies in trouble with the law deliberately seems more than a bit far-fetched to me. Moore’s all about getting people to see him, hear him, watch him, believe in him. Why would he intentionally alienate a single one of his fans, even if they aren’t US citizens? It just doesn’t make sense.

Secondly, Moore doesn’t own the international distribution copyrights for “Slacker Uprising”. Brave New Films does. They get to decide who outside the US and Canada get to download Moore’s movie, not Moore himself. And if they don’t want the movie floating around internationally, they legally must make a showing that they intend to protect their copyright or they could be accused of abandoning it. By suing people and companies who are downloading or distributing “Slacker Uprising” in other countries they are simply protecting what is legally theirs and making a proper legally showing. Michael Moore isn’t part of this equation since the copyright isn’t his. He simply cannot be blamed for this one.

Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, Moore told everyone in his letter of September 22nd, 2008 that this movie was only available for download in the US and Canada. He said it plainly, albeit perhaps not overly clearly, that this download was only available to US and Canadian citizens: “That’s why I’m giving you my blanket permission to not only download it, but also to email it, burn it, and share it with anyone and everyone (in the U.S. and Canada only).”. HE TOLD EVERYONE. He gave proper notice to those outside the US that this download was not for them. He did his legal duty and I cannot find fault with him on this front.

Now, I will agree with Cinema Blend on one point. Moore really should have made sure that either this movie was available throughout the world or he should have worked out a deal with his distributors to make it so before the lawsuits came flooding down on his fans. However, to lay the blame for this problem at Moore’s feet is wrong. He doesn’t own the international copyrights and he did give notice that the download was only available to the US and Canada.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Moore. I personally see no need to invent ones that have no real merit, and this one doesn’t.

The response to Moore’s latest book and movie offerings

In answer to your first unspoken question - no, I have not yet seen Moore’s newest free movie, “Slacker Uprising”, nor have I read his book “Mike’s Election Guide”. In answer to your second unspoken question - yes, I do plan on watching the movie but not reading the book. So, since I have no first hand knowledge about the quality of either of Moore’s newest products, I have to turn to the Internet to see how the rest of the world seems to feel about them. The reponse? It’s mixed, but in general things the reviews tend to sound like this:

From The National Review about “Mike’s Election Guide”:

Well, at least he’s spared the local cineplex.

Michael Moore didn’t really bother trying to influence this election with another documentary — his new film, Slacker Uprising, is online-only and merely a travelogue of his 2004 anti-Bush tour — so instead he’s tossed off a book, Mike’s Election Guide. With Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, Moore at least tried to make a case for voting against Bush, even if it was all conspiratorial nonsense. This time around, Moore’s just been lazy. He’s actually published a book straight-up telling people how to vote.

Given that Moore is a leftist radical given to astounding acts of greed-driven hypocrisy, it’s pretty presumptuous (even for him) to publish an election guide. Let’s face it: Asking Michael Moore to tell you how to vote is like asking Stevie Wonder to drive you to the airport — no good can come of it and ultimately you’re to blame. Now let’s get something out of the way — Mike’s Election Guide is a lame bit of cultural detritus that every living thing can and should safely ignore.

Ouch. I will admit that was one of the harsher reviews I read, but the tenor is about the same all around. But maybe “Slacker Uprising” is faring better after it’s dismal premiere at TIFF last spring? Let’s see:

From MLive.com:

Thankfully, the title has been changed for the better. But the 102-minute film isn’t up to snuff as far as Moore’s films go. It’s a straightforward and repetitive travelogue, consisting primarily of footage of Moore stirring up large audiences with anti-George W. Bush polemics, and introducing celebrity guests, from the sublime (Eddie Vedder) to the shrill (Roseanne Barr). In between, he splices bits of newscasts covering his speeches, which were often subject to Republican vitriol, and fly-on-the-wall scenes of Moore chastising the media at press conferences.

Regardless of what side of the partisan divide you fall, it’s easy to see with Moore’s previous work — “Roger and Me,” “Bowling for Columbine” — that he’s a talented filmmaker and satirist. Those expecting his wit and behind-the-camera skill will be disappointed with “Slacker Uprising” — it’s visually inert, and lacks the by-turns snarky and poignant first-person narration Moore usually provides.

From Emory Wheel:

Where “Slacker Uprising” truly fails is in its lack of organization. The film almost completely abandons the structure of his earlier work, replacing it with the loose, unpredictable structure of a 1970s variety show. It has numerous musical numbers and mediocre guest stars like comedienne Roseanne Barr, who fails to amuse a hefty portion of the on-film audience.

A select few of these musical numbers make for some of the strongest moments in the movie. Eddie Vedder, Pearl Jam’s infamous frontman, delivers an inspired acoustic cover of Cat Stevens’ “Don’t Be Shy,” while Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave fame delivers an uncharacteristic acoustic performance.

These pleasant musical interludes do little more than break up the monotony of speeches — and sometimes they don’t even do that.

When R.E.M. and Anti-Flag take the stage, it is only to deliver more speeches, not to play any of their hits. While the appearance of these very political bands is fitting, especially in a youth-heavy setting, the lack of musical performance is quite disappointing.

Moore’s first-person narration is also absent, making the film feel much less personal than his previous works. Combined with the amount of footage that shows Moore being mobbed by his adoring public, this causes the film to feel a bit like a self-congratulatory pat on the back.

Ouch again. It doesn’t seem that Moore is faring too well with either his book or his movie. If anyone in our audience has seen or read either product, please comment and let me know what you thought. I mean… it *can’t* be that bad...... can it?

What in the world is Michael Moore thinking?

Normally I try to be as unbiased and non-judgmental as possible when I’m reporting on the letters or speeches Michael Moore delivers. However, this particular speech, delivered at the premiere of Slacker Uprising in Ann Arbor, goes so far over the top that I find myself questioning if Moore is either playing an enormous practical joke or he’s really lost his way somehow. Before the screening of his new “free” movie (that he is of course selling copies of for those who don’t download… so much for free for all!), Moore offered seven “modest suggestions” for Barrack Obama should he in fact win the presidential election. The “suggestions” range from the potentially practical to mildly amusing to the rather offensive to the downright ridiculous. I seriously can’t do this justice. Here… read the synopsis for yourself:

Proposal One: Institute a military draft, but only for the children of the top five percent of wage earners in the country. “I am convinced that if they have to send their own kids off to war, there won’t be any wars,” Moore said.

Proposal Two: Sign into law congressman John Conyer’s universal health-care legislation (HR676). “The Obama health plan is no good. The McCain health plan is really, really no good,” Moore said, explaining that on this issue, his support for Obama comes down to the “lesser of two evils.”

Proposal Three: Ban high fructose corn syrup. “And I will be the poster boy of that campaign.” Earlier in his lecture, Moore suggested that corn syrup’s historical dominance as a sweetener was a result of government collusion with large agribusinesses.

Proposal Four: Build wells in the developing nations to provide clean drinking water for all. Moore says it will cost $10 billion to dig wells in villages. “We’re going to spend $12 billion on Iraq in this month alone. $12 billion. One month of Iraq and the entire world can have clean drinking water. What is our problem?”

Proposal Five: Remove the $102,000 income cap on the social security tax. “If you make over 102,000 a year, do you realize the people in that category do not pay one dime on wages they earn over $102,000 ... Why shouldn’t they have to pay the same six-and-half to seven percent rate that you have to pay on 100 percent or your income?” Moore cited former presidential candidate Chris Dodd, who said that if the cap was lifted, the resulting income would be able to fund social security for 75 years. He also told the audience to remind their neighbors that President Bush wanted to “put social security in the hands of Wall Street five years ago ... We’d all be Lehman Brothers.”

Proposal Six: Change the way we do elections. Moore offered several suggestions, including holding elections on the weekend so that more people can get to the polls, allowing multiple parties access to the debates and discarding voting machines in favor of paper ballots.

Proposal Seven: Change the Pledge of Allegiance to reflect “the America we all believe in.” Moore closed his lecture by reading his proposed pledge: “I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America / and to the republic for which we stand / one nation, part of one world / with liberty and justice for all.”

I’m.... speechless. Truly speechless. Band high fructose corn syrup? Draft only the children of the rich? CHANGE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE???  I’m telling you… if Obama has friends like this he certainly needs no enemies. If Moore et al keep these types of stunts up I predict McCain will have no problems at all winning in November.

*shakes head*

Mkey’s Got A Brand New Film

Um, OK:

Inspired by Neil Young and Radiohead, Michael Moore will release his new film online and for free.

The film, “Slacker Uprising,” follows Moore’s 62-city tour during the 2004 election to rally young voters. It will be available for three weeks as a free download to North American residents, beginning Sept. 23. An official announcement of the film is planned for Friday.

Moore said he considered releasing “Slacker Uprising” theatrically as “Michael Moore’s big election year movie” as he did with 2004’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which was highly critical of President Bush.

Instead, Moore opted for a symbol of gratitude to his fans as he approaches the 20th anniversary of his first film, 1989’s “Roger & Me.”

“I thought it’d be a nice way to celebrate my 20th year of doing this,” Moore said. “And also help get out the vote for November. I’ve been thinking about what I want to do to help with the election this year.”

Wait.  Wasn’t this “Captain Mike”?  I’m confused.  I guess you might as well release it for free since it’s likely that no one will pay to see it.

But this is what makes life beautiful:

The 97-minute long “Slacker Uprising” will be the first major film to be released in such a way. Last December, “Jackass 2.5” was streamed online and for free, but that was only a collection of left over material from “Jackass 2.” Companies like ClickStar, which Morgan Freeman co-founded, have made films still in theaters — such as 2006’s “10 Items or Less” — digitally available for purchase or rental.

Jackass 2.5.  Slacker Uprising.  If the symmetry were any more perfect, I suspect one of us would burst into tears.

The good thing about the film being free is that we can now watch it without having to give Michael a penny.  Maybe we should have a Moorewatch festival complete with drinking game.  To steal a line from P.J. O’Rourke, you just turn the movie on and boy, do you need a drink.

Fred Thompson give Moore something to think about

This was just so funny that I had to share it with you all. PJTV caught up with Fred Thompson last night at the RNC and asked him about Moore’s statements in the last week. Thompson’s reaction was simply priceless. Here, just watch:

Classic. I wonder what Moore’s response will be to this one? ;)

Moore set to publish an “Election Guide” in the fall

I must be honest… I’m not quite sure what to make of this yet:

Michael Moore is coming out with a new book. The tome, titled “Mike’s Election Guide,” a manual of mockery for the 2008 presidential election, will be published Aug. 19 by Grand Central Publishing, Jimmy Franco, a spokesman for the publisher, said Friday.

Promotional material for the book reads: “Perfectly timed to coincide with the national political conventions—and to capitalize on massive campaign coverage.”

That is the sum total of all the details I’ve been able to find as of now, so I have no real idea what this book will be about. “Manual of mockery”? What does that even mean?

Moorewatchers… any guesses as to what types of shenanigans Moore is cooking up this time? 

Moore declares new film to be toxic and dangerous… again….

I think we’ve all heard these claims from Moore about his movies before, haven’t we?

Oscar-winning documentary maker Michael Moore, who this week unveiled plans for a follow-up to his anti-Bush polemic “Fahrenheit 9/11,” said on Friday the new film would cover topics so “toxic” he probably should not make it.

But Moore, whose work ranges from an expose of American gun culture in “Bowling for Columbine” to a scathing critique of U.S. health care in “SiCKO,” relishes controversy, so his unnamed new movie will likewise be risky, he told reporters at the Cannes film festival.

“It’s something I shouldn’t make, something that is dangerous,” he said.

Is is just me or is this hype of Moore’s becoming something of a mantra for him? He said it about Bowling, he said it about Fahrenheit, and he said it about Sicko. Not one of those films turned out to be either “toxic” or “dangerous”, largely due to the hefty amount of factual errors, inaccuracies and outright untruths contained within them. But no… *this* one will be different:

At box offices, his new movie will face risks. Recent films dealing with the current wars, such as “Stop-Loss” and “In the Valley of Elah,” were commercial flops.

But Moore said he believed those movies failed because most Americans no longer support the wars, whereas in 2004, when “Fahrenheit 9/11” was released, most Americans still backed U.S. military pursuits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He believes “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which ranks as the top-grossing political documentary of all time with more than $220 million at global box offices, was a hit because it told audiences things about the Bush administration that they were surprised to hear.

Similarly, he said his new movie will succeed by exposing information about President George W. Bush and his policies that will leave audiences stunned.

“What I’m going to say in this film is what probably 70 percent of them (audiences) don’t want to hear,” Moore said.

Yes, Mr. Moore. You’ve got something right. We probably aren’t going to want to hear what you have to say in this new film venture of yours. You see, we’re all getting a little tired of your fictional diatribes against America getting masqueraded as documentaries. If you’d like to truly shock us… how about making this movie… I don’t know… based on the truth? That would certainly shock me.

Moore would like to bring Fidel Castro to the Oscars?!?!

Please bear with me here… I have a torn-up shoulder and can’t type very well at the moment, but when I saw this story I had to tap this out for the site. Apparently, Michael Moore has a new mission… he wants to bring Fidel Castro to the Academy Awards:

Moore’s Oscar-nominated documentary on the health care industry ends with a trip to Cuba, where he seeks care for a group of Nine-Eleven responders who’ve had health problems.

Moore told AP Television he’s been trying to figure out how to get Castro into the Oscars, and Castro’s resignation as leader of Cuba comes with great timing. Moore says now Castro can come to L.A. and be Moore’s guest at the Academy Awards and maybe even get to give an acceptance speech—as long as he keeps it under five hours.

As most of you might know by now, Fidel Castro recently “resigned” as the President of Cuba and handed over the governmental reigns to his brother, Raul. Raul Castro has in fact been running Cuba for some time now due to Fidel’s health issues, so this isn’t a monumental change for the Cuban people, who remain horrifically oppressed, starved, and completely controlled by the governmental machine. I’ve written extensively about Cuba for Moorewatch in the past, so my passionate hatred for Castro and all he and his government have done to destroy the people of Cuba is no secret. Indeed, I have openly stated that Moore’s trip to Cuba in “Sicko” made him a Castro collaborator and demonstrated that he, on some level, supports Castro’s despicable treatment of the Cuban people.

Moore’s statements about bringing Castro to the Academy Awards proves most every allegation I have made towards him in regards to his trip and attitude towards Cuba. The fact that Moore wishes to bring a Communist dictator, a mass murderer, a man who systematically slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people in order to establish his totalitarian government is not only offensive to me as an American but a huge slap in the face to all Cubans and Cuban-Americans who have fought their way out of Cuba over the last fifty years. Clearly Moore has no regard whatsoever for the feelings of the thousands of Cuban-Americans and Cuban refugees whose lives and families have been destroyed by this monster, and this cavalier attitude just disgusts me to no end. It seems that whatever will bring Moore press is a good thing, no matter who it might hurt or offend.

Once again… shame on you, Michael Moore. Shame on you indeed.

UPDATE: I just thought of something that really makes the idea of Moore bringing Castro to the Academy Awards this year even *more* repugnant, if that’s even possible.

As some of you will know, I published a long series of articles about the extraordinarily talented dissident Cuban author Reinaldo Arenas. In the year 2000, director Julian Schnabel brought the story of Reinaldo Arenas to the silver screen with his film “Before Night Falls”, an adaptation of Arenas’ memoirs by the same name. In the movie Arenas was played so well by the talented Javier Bardem that he won an Oscar nomination for his performance.

How does this movie made nearly a decade ago connect to Moore’s desire to bring Castro to the Oscars this year? Simple, really. This year, Julian Schnabel is up for Best Director for his work in “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”, and of course Javier Bardem is the favorite to take home the Best Actor in a Supporting Role statue for his astounding performance in “No Country for Old Men”. So… Moore would like sit Castro just rows away from the man who brought Reinaldo Arenas’ story to the world and the man who immersed himself so deeply in the tortured soul of Reinaldo that he won an Oscar nomination for his work. Can you imagine the effect having Castro so close to them would have on both of these men, on what should be one of the happiest nights of their lives? How selfish and thoughtless could Moore possibly be?

I am, quite simply, disgusted beyond words.

Moore to get DGA award, and you can protest

Mikey is getting the International Documentary Association’s Career Achievement Award from the Director’s Guild of America tonight.  This is rich with irony, as he doesn’t make documentaries nor does he use union workers in his films.  As we all know, the show business guilds are all supporting the Writer’s Guild strike.  Another level of irony.

Care to spread the word about Mike to some of the Los Angeles faithful?  Head down to the The Director’s Guild Theater around 5 or 6 PM tonight.  The ceremony starts at 6:30.  The Director’s Guild Theater is located at 7920 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles.  Some people I know are planning to hand out flyers about Mikey and Manufacturing Dissent, plus generally protest the ceremony.  It does seem rather ridiculous that Moore should get an award from a trade union that alleges to support the unions Mikey shuns, given the whole writer’s strike (which, despite my generally anti-union beliefs, I 100% fully support.  Writers get screwed eight ways from Sunday by the production companies, and they deserve a bigger piece of the billions and billions of dollars that would not exist if they didn’t write).

If you’d like to go in to the ceremony, there may be tickets available for anyone who wishes to attend. They are available on site for $105.32.  Steep, but if you have the cash and the time, it would be wonderful to see people turn the tables on Mike and use his techniques against him.  If you go, film everything!  I’ll host and post any good video here.  Also, ask around for a guy named Matt and tell him I said hello, and don’t get arrested!

The truth about Cuban health care exposed on Hannity & Colmes - UPDATED

On October 10th, Hannity & Colmes ran an amazing piece about the REAL health care that REAL Cubans receive in their own country. It is a disturbing video that shows the real life hospital conditions that average Cubans must endure in order to obtain even the most basic health care. For the first time on American television the ugliness, despair, and abject poverty of the Cuban health care system has been shown for what it truly is. It is a direct rebuttal to everything that Michael Moore portrayed in “Sicko” and further validates the arguments I made against him in my articles about the Cuban dissident writer Reinaldo Arenas, in particular my summation to the series in Part 4. Watch it and see the truth about real Cuban health care for yourself:

If that isn’t disturbing enough for you, there’s more. Cuban Truth has quite a few additional videos that fully demonstrate the horror of living under the thumb of Castro and the abject horrors of Cuban health care. These videos are quite disturbing, so please be warned if you follow that link and choose to view them.

After watching this piece that Hannity & Colmes ran I have only one thing to say. Michael Moore, you have purposely deceived the world with your portrayal of Cuba in “Sicko”. You have turned your back on the suffering of the Cuban people in order to further your own personal agenda without a thought of what damage your actions might have on a nation of desperate and impoverished people. And, worst of all, you have collaborated with Castro and his regime in order to do it. You have proven yourself to be a liar and a collaberator and I hope that now America can see you for what you truly are. Shame on you, Michael Moore. Eternal shame on you for what you have tried to do to the people of Cuba.

I would like to give a hat tip to Val Prieto and Babalu Blog for letting us here at Moorewatch know about this broadcast. I would also like to personally thank Mr. Prieto and everyone at Babalu for the outstanding work they have done and continue to do to expose the truth about Cuba and for doing everything they can to aid the Cuban cause. Mr. Prieto, I salute you, sir.

UPDATE: Val Prieto has put up the second part of the Hannity & Colmes piece on Babalu Blog along with some commentary. Here is the second half of the Hannity & Colmes piece:

Last word from TIFF on “Captain Mike”

I don’t know about you, but I would tend to take it as a bad omen when even the World Socialist Web Site doesn’t like Michael Moore’s new opus, “Captain Mike Across America”:

Michael Moore’s Captain Mike Across America speaks indirectly to some of the peculiarities of American political life, in fact, to the essential untenability of the two-party system. It documents Moore’s tour on behalf of Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry through a number of “swing” states in the weeks before the November 2004 election. Moore, of course, was riding high on the great success of his Fahrenheit 9/11, which had opened in late June.

The peculiarities of the new film begin with its opening titles, which criticize the Kerry campaign, faulting it for a lack of aggressiveness in response to Republican attack ads and so forth. Indeed, whether Moore has edited it out or not, as far as this spectator could determine, there was not a single verbal reference to Kerry in the remainder of the film. This is a film, in other words, from the failed school of “Anybody But Bush.”

Its politics stay at a very low level, for the most part little more than vague populist attacks on the Bush administration, which would educate and enlighten no one. The signs of a growing radicalization, however, which the Democratic Party is incapable of and hostile to seizing upon, are there in the film. Moore makes appearances in a variety of small and medium-sized cities, to enthusiastic crowds. Aside from pointing to that phenomenon, Captain Mike Across America has minimal value.

Again I say.... OUCH. With this type of response thus far, I can’t imagine this film will do well in American release. Stay tuned....