Manufacturing Dissent (2007) User Reviews (37)

Interesting Counter-Point to Michael Moore Films

[michael_the_nermal · 7/10 · 2 July 2008]

Some plot spoilers ahead.

This movie may seem like an anti-Michael Moore screed, but in reality it was a lot more balanced on the issue than I had originally anticipated. I was actually surprised that the filmmakers were able to interview people who worked with Michael Moore, or those who supported the movies he had done. To be fair, this movie was biased towards an anti-Moore bent, but on the whole the criticism was not vicious.

It was amusing to see the filmmakers use the same tactics that Moore used in his movies against him, such as using fake credentials to get into an event, or shoving a microphone in a celebrity's face, in this case Moore himself. To his credit, Moore seemed very gracious and respectful towards the filmmakers, unlike the secretaries and company representatives who rebuffed Moore in "Roger and Me."

As with Moore's own films, one must be wary of the claims those being interviewed made against Moore, such as the assertion that Moore *did* interview Roger Smith, or that Moore's charity was tied up with some big-name defense companies. Moore has just as much right to deny these claims as anyone who is accused by Moore of doing something suspicious. I recommend doing your own research before you swallow some of the claims presented in "Manufacturing Dissent"; though, to be be fair, those being interviewed, or some anti-Moore book, make the claims against Moore, rather than the filmmakers themselves. The "Donahue" footage, though, seems credible.

Some of the best stuff is in the deleted scenes of the DVD, such as the parody of the cartoon from "Bowling for Columbine", which had the same ultra-cheap computer-animated style and fast-paced dialogue and narration. I also liked the discussion of Flint's affinity for "Coney Island Hot Dogs."

I recommend this movie as a counterpoint to Michael Moore's bold so-called "documentaries", but be careful with regards to some the claims made by the filmmakers here.

Despite being yet another attack on Moore, it offers some unique perspectives

[dumpydooby · 7/10 · 8 September 2007]

I liked that this film did not focus too much on the same stuff we've all read about before. About half of the film discusses Michael Moore before he made Bowling for Columbine. Specifically, they examine his work as a magazine editor, and they examine Roger and Me. But even then, the main focus wasn't to illustrate Moore's manipulative techniques. Most people already know about that. Instead, the main focus in the film was to illustrate that Moore, himself, is a phony.

There is a distinct parallel to the plot of Roger and Me, which I thought was too much of an homage to Moore, but perhaps appropriate given the context of this documentary. The film crew is constantly struggling to get an interview with Moore, and Moore consistently gives them the runaround.

So I guess one interesting aspect of the film is that they show how Moore is very willing to put other people in uncomfortable situations or catch them off guard so as to juxtapose their fumbling against his well-prepared rhetoric. However, when Moore is threatened with the same tactic by his opponents, he cowers and fights dirty to avoid it. He knows how chicken sh*t it is.

They should take a lesson in editing from their subject, but interesting nonetheless

[kenalbertson · 7/10 · 17 September 2007]

The film makes an important distinction for those who are still unsure about how to view a "documentary" film. Recently we have seen "mainstream" film makers such as Ron Howard and Clint Eastwood make movies that are based upon actual historical events, but purposely deviate from the truth in order to make a more dramatic movie. Michael Moore has done this in every "documentary" he has ever made. He admits as much, claiming that the words spoken by his subjects are theirs alone, but he is in charge of editing them however he likes. Using this technique, Moore has managed to make films which were more successful than they might have been otherwise. The success he has enjoyed has allowed him to assume the same "fatcat" attitudes which he criticized and parodied in Roger and Me. This is nicely pointed out in this film. One fault with this film is that it starts slow and you wonder if you are in for a very dry and unfocused personal history of Michael Moore. After about 20 minutes, it picks up speed and focus and has a powerful conclusion.

It is amazing..

[brad12d3 · 30 June 2009]

how people will defend Michael Moore as if somehow showing he is dishonest is representative of the democrat party as a whole. I found this movie an honest look at Michael Moore and who the man really is, compared to what he sells himself to be. Sure, the filmmakers were probably a little miffed at Moore by the end of their film, but that was a result of Michael's mentality. He claims to support the little man, but offers little support for the crew of this film who ask time and again for a sit down interview.

Michael is doing the same thing that he demonized Roger Smith for supposedly doing 20 years ago. On top of that his excuses are incredibly lame. "I can't interview with you until after the election, but then I have to sleep for 6 months,.. then we can do an interview." "Oh now, I can't do an interview because I am about to start my next movie, and it will be another years or so before I could possibly do an interview." (not exact quote mind you)You would expect someone like him to not only be supportive of those who admire him, but also a fellow documentary filmmaker.

So yes a large part of this film is meant to show Moore's character, which seems to have more of the same qualities as the type of people he claims to be against as opposed to those he claims to defend. Apart from that it is not hard to find evidence of his factual inaccuracies in his films. It amazes me how people still defend his work only because he is outspoken and shares the same political views. A little research will bring up many things that show how dishonest his work is.

Bottom line.. this is a film made by left winged filmmakers who are not making a documentary against democrats, but rather a dishonest filmmaker that ultimately would do more to harm the party he claims to represent rather than help it. I don't care how much I agreed with someone's view points, I would never support someone that was this dishonest, and in fact would be ashamed to have them be apart of my party.

Interesting points

[fariska · 6/10 · 17 November 2007]

This film makes some really interesting points about Michael Moore Films.

Is very interesting to know about him before his film maker career and his first movie. As well as is very curious to see how the troupe actually uses against him his very own reporting methodologies.

But said that, this movie doesn't really de-manufacture the points that Moore made on "Bowling for columbine" and Fahrenheit 9/11. Not any single key fact of those movies has been revealed as fictional or erroneous or too edited apart what I personal consider as details (like the Bush speech on Fahrenheit 9/11 or the "Bank with rifles") on the whole narrative and argumentative structure of the movies.

At the end the movie succeeds to present Moore as an hypocrite, pointing out the mistakes and omissions on "Roger and Me" but at the same time forgets to say that the facts on his later films are not questioned.

Politics Schmolotics, just a review of the film

[riddickrom · 3/10 · 2 September 2007]

I approached this film from the position of being a Moore fan.

I use the word "fan" loosely here really because while I've enjoyed his documentaries and come away from them believing I'd learned something, I've also had problems with them.

Now I don't want to get political here, I'll leave that for others to do. I just wanted to open my review with an honest statement about where I stand with Moore myself.

With that said, I felt this movie had far more problems than your average Moore film. I felt it was manipulative and at times, extremely biased. It felt to me like the film makers were just annoyed they couldn't really get any quality time with Moore. I got the distinct impression that Moore was not only aware of this movie but was aware of what the movie was trying to do. Namely, to try and cast a shadow over Moore using the very same techniques they damn Moore for using.

It was good that some aspects of why I've always been unhappy with some elements of Moores documentaries were addressed in this movie. Only the gullible believe Moore is unbiased and presenting only truth. However this film fails to satisfy my doubts because it laces the documentary with such bias itself that you cannot extract whats true and what is just purely anti-Moore propaganda.

Revelation: Michael Moore is a meanie and not a real documentarian

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 1 October 2015]

It's 2003. Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk take on Michael Moore after infamous anti-war speech at the Oscars. Debbie Melnyk claims to be a big fan of Moore at the beginning. They go on to debunk many of his assertions in his films as they follow him on his Fahrenheit 9/11 tour in 2004.

Debbie Melnyk is trying to steal a page from Michael Moore's playbook but it comes off as being naive and silly. It would be better not to be so simplistic. "I thought he liked Canadians." Honestly, she sounds whiny. The narrative is scattered. Coming from other documentarians, this comes close to being jealousy. The best and possibly the only thing about Michael Moore that is revealed is that he's not a documentarian. That's a good revelation but it fails to make GM saints. They're actually digging too far into story. There is also a clash of personalities but it doesn't make Michael Moore evil. There is obvious bad blood with some of Ralph Nader's people after Moore switched his views on Nader's 2000 campaign. The film is trying to push the idea that the left should be a kumbaya movement and Michael Moore is equivalent to the right wing talk show agitators of the Republicans. Honestly, I don't think Moore would mind.

Poorly made film with flimsy arguments

[opiumwillow · 1/10 · 10 September 2007]

I don't have particular feelings for or against the work Michael Moore does, so hopefully you won't see this as a pro-Moore attack on naysayers. The arguments and supporting evidence presented are are weak and blown-up, and in most cases hypocritical. A typical example of this is juxtaposing footage of Moore arriving at the Oscars, while nearby protesters demonstrate against the war. Trying to imply that Moore is just a glory-seeking filmmaker who would rather hobnob with celebrities than join in the protest, the point falls flat when you consider how the now infamous acceptance speech made by Moore (and the film itself) did more for the Anti-war cause than a street protest ever could. I am all in favour of films to counterbalance the polemics of Michael Moore, but please don't accuse him of manipulating footage and then do exactly that, adding sinister music. A badly-made film presenting a poorly-made case.

A Balanced Film On An Unbalanced Filmmaker

[joshuatate · 10/10 · 14 February 2007]

It's hard to count how many documentaries have been made about Michael Moore, but those made by Canadian left-wing fans seem to be a bit scarcer. Supported largely by Canadian financiers, Manufacturing Dissent starts out as a balanced exploration of filmmaker and political personality Michael Moore. The film documents Moore during his 2004 national touring campaign for Fahrenheit 9/11, his politically sensational documentary that spoke out against the integrity of the Bush Administration. As the film progresses, the filmmakers are disappointingly unsuccessful in securing an interview with Moore, and as they try, facts arise questioning Moore's credibility as a journalist, his film-making techniques, and his personal character. It concludes on a much less optimistic note than at the beginning, gradually disclosing a reluctantly-developed disenchantment with the fervent Midwestern public activist. What makes Manufacturing Dissent particularly unique is its resistance from sensationalizing its condemning findings. With an attitude of professional reserve, Manufacturing Dissent strategically uses subtlety and a careful resolve to disclose straightforward facts and present the comments of interviewees with accuracy and integrity—a set of convictions that many viewers, in turn, observe to be lacking from Moore's bountiful supply. This is a film that speaks, first and foremost, to the die-hard fans of Michael Moore. Leftist followers owe it to themselves to experience the cautious, revealing process that this film provides.

Unintended hatchet job on Michael Moore or sour grapes?

[dfle3 · 6/10 · 19 June 2008]

If you've heard somewhere that the documentary movie maker Michael Moore ("Fahrenheit 9/11", "Bowling for Columbine" etc.) isn't honest about the stuff he presents in his movies as "facts", then this is the documentary for you.

Employing the same guerrilla tactics as Moore himself, documentarian Debbie Melnyk pretty much stalks Moore, in trying to get an extended interview with him for her documentary. She says from the outset that she is a fan of his documentaries but, perhaps acting like an unrequited lover, she goes over all the incidents/scandals of Moore's professional life-from his time as the editor of a left-wing magazine (before he tried his hand at making documentaries) to the footage he used out of context in "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Melnyk has got good access to people who identify themselves as Moore's friends (or as ex-friends), which gives you a broader insight into his character than Melnyk alone].

There is one telling scene in the movie where a critic of Moore says that it was possible for someone to be against certain US foreign policies but yet not be an apologist for certain South American or Central American dictators (which Moore is accused of being). This is the main fault of Melnyk's film, I think. In other words, in the same way as devotees of Moore will lap up his attacks on the right-wing in the US and disregard some of Moore's own 'sins', die-hard right-wingers will watch this documentary and consider it to demolish all of Moore's claims. Manufacturing Dissent seems, in essence, part of the right-wing 'backlash' against Moore, even though Melnyk may have initially intended to do a positive piece on him.

There is a funny scene towards the end of the movie where Melnyk acts the infatutated school-girl with Moore despite there being friction between her and Moore over his evasiveness in agreeing to be interviewed by her.

For people like myself, I think it is possible to agree with some of the assertions in this film yet not think Moore is total bunk.

Many of Melnyk's bleatings are risibly half-baked.

Childish

[cineastFGD · 2/10 · 25 December 2016]

I say it upfront, coming from Europe I like Michael Moore, most probably because I share his political ideas. However I'm no die hard fan of his. I watched a couple of his documentaries and found them entertaining. Still, I was never one second in doubt that he bent the truth to fit his narrative in order to make the story more entertaining and to emphasize a certain point. Whoever takes Michael Moore's films literally and sees them as the beacon of truth is a fool. And as such I would describe this filmmaker couple of 'Manufacturing Dissent'.

The story strikes me as a film that starts out with two naive and blinded fans who end up butt hurt because they figure out that their huge idol is not as approachable as they thought. These people are two nobody's who stalk a very famous and probably very busy guy and get busted along the way, as most people would get busted if they started running after their famous idol. However, it seems they cannot accept that the mere fact that they decided to make a documentary on Michael Moore and them being Canadians doesn't open all doors to them. At some point they try to take unauthorized footage of one of his speeches and naturally get kicked out. They use this episode to claim that Moore prohibits their right of free speech? Sorry, what? First of all, what does filming have to do with free speech and, secondly, one cannot just walk into an event and film commercial material without seeking authorization first.

As the film progresses, the narrative becomes increasingly negative and they start to present themselves as victims shunned and threatened by the tough staff of Michael Moore, who out of some inexplicable reason doesn't want to talk to them, despite of them being Canadians, heaven forbid. Well, what about him being extremely busy at the time - to the point of total exhaustion, as he told many times in later interviews. The film is a long chain of complaints by people who hold a grunge against Moore out of various reasons, as well as footage from people who simply don't like him and his political agenda. Accusations are taken at face value and go totally unchecked, which makes the journalistic value of this documentary questionable and gives it a sensationalist underpinning.

Sure, Moore probably has a huge ego, which person working in the movie industry hasn't? Sure, Moore is probably no angel and being as exposed as he is, it's probably no too hard to find some people whose toes he stepped on. But to accuse him of manipulation of the same level as Nazi Germany's propaganda machine, to indicate he hurt the Kerry campaign through his documentaries and support, and thereby enabled Bush's reelection, is outright ridiculous and straps this documentary of the last rest of credibility.

Closer to the Truth than Michael Moore's films

[JustCuriosity · 8/10 · 10 March 2007]

This film showed at Austin's SXSW Film Festival and was very well-received by audience. It is a balanced and fair biopic about controversial leftist film maker Michael Moore. The film makers seem to genuinely admire Moore's progressive politics and his desire to mobilize Americans against President Bush and the Iraq War, but have almost relunctantly come to question his methods. As the project continues they explore the nature of Moore's fuzzy relationship with the "truth." They become increasingly troubled by his penchant for using just about any means to promote his political ends.

They document numerous inaccuracies and manipulation in several of his films. They suggest that Moore has become larger than life and cares more about his own success than his political goals. The portrait is a fair one that presents him as an insecure megalomaniac and roughly the leftist equivalent Rush Limbaugh. The audience is left to consider whether Moore really helps the causes that he supports or merely promotes greater political polarization for his own personal benefit.

This is a thoughtful and intelligent biopic that delves into Moore over-sized personality and in doing so raises many important questions about the Moore personally, about his films, about the nature and rules of documentary film making itself. Every Michael Moore fan should see it so that they can begin to evaluate the veracity and ethics that underlie his work.

Manufacturing Michael

[SubterraneanCinema · 1/10 · 17 March 2008]

Im not a blind Michael Moore fan by any stretch, in fact I think "The Big One" is probably one of the worst films of all time, and I think that he is an annoying blowhard. Being a proud independent, I can see the idiots on both sides.

But as Im watching this, I noticed a glaringly ridiculous scene (mentioned briefly by someone else in an earlier review). They showed a group of Flint High School girls doing some sort of irritatingly silly amateur schoolie play that mocks "Roger and Me" (the kind that only the mostly blindly adoring of right wing parents would be able to endure in their pompous little brats), and then the teenage girl "writer" of this play is interviewed, and she claims that Moore "fabricated" a news report that shows a female reporter stating that a Nightline report was cancelled because their news van was stolen, even as the scene from the film with her report is being shown over the girl's claims. It is from all visual inspection a real news report. Is she truly trying to say that Moore literally created the report in the film himself, hiring an actress to pose as a reporter and putting a fake station logo on the screen? If so, its funny because I cant seem to find any mention of it anywhere else but on this site, about this film. Did this little girl just make it up and these idiot filmmakers put it in at face value? Doesn't that make them complete hypocrites (like most people who do these kinds of amateurish no-budget "gotcha" documentaries).

The female narrator (I assume its a woman named "Debbie Melnyck", who is listed as one of the "writers" and "directors") tries for a parody of Moore's sardonic style, but her lispy, effete elementary school teacher housewifey monotone would be more apt for Romper Room or selling jewelry on QVC. (Maybe the girl who put on the play is her daughter or something.) Sure, Michael Moore is a jerk, but what comes out much more glaringly in this film is the vapidness of young people in the majority of the spineless post-baby boom generations. We're doomed, folks. Face it now and save yourselves the Christmas shock. There's no hope. This documentary is depressingly effective at showing how our nauseatingly effete youth are going to sissy their way into the end times. We're all going out with a whimper, followed by a bang. This film is a good argument in favor of everyone deserving it. Both sides are chock full of fooles. The difference between the swishing grade Z Canadian twits who created this and Michael Moore is, Moore has talent for making films, and they don't. Stay home, Debbie dear, you aren't worthy to speak to Moore for a reason. It's not because he's avoiding you. It's because you are insignificant.

This wretched film is showing on Sundance Channel this month, so watch it for FREE by all means, if you must at all (please don't pay people like this to make more films like this). Or better yet, watch a good documentary instead (like "Grey Gardens", which is also playing this month on Sundance).

Very biased analysis to manufacture a personal attack

[solanokiedaisch · 1/10 · 24 July 2018]

This documentary was filled with a great deal of bias and half truths to spin a narrative that I can only assume is coming from an emotionally impelled hatred and bias. Logic was almost entirely lacking. I'm not a Moore fan myself or politically motivated in my analysis of this documentary but I suppose if I were somehow biased against Moore, a narrative of this type would simply be a conformation bias that would make me feel good and vindicated... all while lacking any real substance. Shameful imo.

About what you would expect... Triumph of the Will for Idiots

[austin_silver79 · 1/10 · 18 May 2007]

Considering the subject matter, you already know whether you will agree or not with this film. The damage here is how bloody boring the thing is, and how one major interviewee has actually accepted money from Moore to aid his (get ready for it) sick wife that her insurance wasn't covering properly. His name is James Kenefick and the story is on the daily IMDb news feed. Check it out for yourself, but so far all this film proves is that Moore is a charitable human being. As for the rest of it, nothing we haven't heard before from various members of the pretenders to the documentary throne. Just ask yourself why all of a sudden medical industry people are so nervous about Moore. Could it be he has a point? Conservatives get cancer too, and it seems more and more of them are seeing Moore's point enough to cash his check.

An interesting film that rises above the shrill political silliness around Michael Moore's politics and messages.

[snucker · 8/10 · 2 November 2007]

Though I'm aware of the various liberties Michael Moore takes with his films, I never really gave it much careful thought. Mainly because I like Michael Moore and I agree with many of the arguments he makes. The film portrays Moore as a manipulative performance filmmaker who is quite egoistical and doesn't allow for much dissent against his own views when ever he organizes an event or make a speech. The film portrays him as a man who doesn't practice what he preaches, particularly when Moore's various security guards and media handlers refuse to allow the filmmakers film Michael Moore events and speeches. It demostrates that by careful editing, Michael Moore can manipulate events to fit his version of what happens and is a master of pulling stunts on camera to prove his point.

The film isn't a shrill diatribe about how Moore's ideas will lead to America's ruin. Instead it's a thoughtful film that asks people to be more media savy by setting Moore as an example. The fact that it's a Canadian production probably removes the filmmaker from the distracting American liberal and republican "issues" concerning Moore. Instead, we focus on the veracity of what Moore presents to us and the ethics of the way he manipulates the documentary genre. How Moore's appeal is not based on what he says but the entertainment value of how he presents his point of view.

After watching this film, I'm more cautious about Michael Moore, to always be mindful about what he presents and not always accept it as is. But even at that, I still like Michael Moore. He's a talented man who seems to have his heart in the right place when he makes his films and I don't think he's as egoistical as the film suggests he is.

Very Good

[Michael_Elliott · 22 March 2008]

Manufacturing Dissent (2007)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

This documentary has director Debbie Melnyk following around Michael Moore as he promotes Fahrenheit 9/11 and calls him on various lies he's told throughout his career. I've said this countless times that I find Michael Moore to be a very talent filmmaker and I think he makes very entertaining films but there's no denying that he's a hypocrite and lies just as much as the people he goes after. This documentary tells Moore's story from his high school days all the way up to the release of his controversial film and the funny thing is that when this documentary is released, there's even more lies out in the open. Moore's use of fear is something that he often tries to go for yet he uses this against people claiming they use fear to push their points. In 2004 Moore was saying the draft was coming yet here we are four years later and this appears to have been a use of fear to try and sell your point. Another thing that I'm glad got cleared up was the heated debate over the Charlton Heston sequence in Bowling for Columbine. I've always felt Moore crossed the line in this segment and we get to see that the original speech from Heston was not made days after a little kid was killed but four months before it. There's a lot of debate on whether Moore really believes in freedom of speech but I'll let the clips in the movie speak for themselves. I'm not sure if this movie was made to make one hate Michael Moore but it really didn't change my mind of the mind. I still think he's a great talent but as far as calling him a documentary filmmaker is a joke. There are three legendary documentary makers interviewed here and their comments are priceless.

Possibly the worst "documentary" ever made.

[arcadiangenesis · 1/10 · 8 September 2009]

First of all, I have no allegiance to (nor do I have anything against) Michael Moore. This review is as unbiased as can be. I appreciate his films that I have seen, but I rented Manufacturing Dissent with the intention of seeing a thorough counterargument from the other side. What I got was nothing short of childish.

There is not a single logical argument presented in this entire film. An argument goes like this:

1) If p, then q. 2) p. 3) Therefore, q.

This never happens in this film. The entire film is based upon naive associations and assumptions which anyone over the age of 10 should know not to make. For example: Moore is anti-George Bush, therefore Moore is bad! (This is actually suggested in the film. I am not making this up.) To even take this argument *seriously* (much less accept it), you'd have to actually support George Bush. And unless you entirely support George Bush, then you have absolutely no reason to be offended by such an association to Michael Moore! If this sounds ridiculously obvious, that's because it is. And that's how stupid this film is.

Another example: Michael Moore is a bad musician, he's fat and ugly, and here's a creepy picture of him with creepy music playing! (Once again, all of these are actually presented in the film.) This, of course, should be an insult to every human's intelligence on the earth. This is just sad. This is nothing less than an 8-year-old attempt at brainwashing/behavioral conditioning.

The day after watching this film, I woke up wondering if it was real. At this moment I am looking at a rented copy of Manufacturing Dissent from Blockbuster on my desk...so unfortunately, it is real. And it is possibly the worst documentary of all time.

Intelligent and balanced

[mattrochman · 8/10 · 8 September 2007]

Probably the biggest point that this film makes, regardless of your political beliefs, is that Mike Moore is largely a cultural icon rather than a strong and rational political voice. And following on from this, the film correctly draws a distinction between the more intelligent left - Chomsky, Hitchens and so on - and the popularist left like Moore, whose desire to bring about genuine political change is seemingly surpassed by an ambition to make money.

But it's far from one-sided. The film shows intelligent restraint at times with its criticism of Moore. For example, we are shown how Moore manipulated the chronology of Roger & Me, but one of the interviewees correctly points out that criticism of the manipulated chronology is largely pointless in real terms as there was no doubt that the closure of GM was devastating to Flint. I liked how it qualified or tried to balance some of the common criticism that we would hear from the die-hard Moore-haters.

Similarly, we get the reports of Moore being a shocking senior member of staff at the newspaper that he was fired from, yet we get another member of staff saying that Moore gave him a few days off work and paid for his airfares to and from Canada for the premier of his film. That balance helps you appreciate the film for rising above ridiculous one-sidedness that so many other documentaries are guilty of, including Moore's.

As for substance, the fact that the documentary makers are lefties that start off seemingly admiring and wanting to interview Moore (though we'll never know whether this was their real motivation from the beginning) works to alleviate concerns about this being a response from the right.

There are some troubling techniques that Moore employs to augment his documentaries, but that alone wasn't a killer punch. The knock-out blow really came from disgraceful facts that more severely undermines major points in Moore's documentaries, such as the fact that he did interview Roger Smith, despite the film's premise, and the fact that handguns are deeply restricted in Canada, despite Moore's implication that their gun laws are commensurate with US. A private Moore trust that owns Honeywell stock will similarly leave some Moore fans a bit red-faced.

But definitely the most important aspect that emerged was the view that he's just a celebrity and cult icon who sells popularist politics that lacks thoughtfulness and thoroughness. Well presented doco from the more intelligent left.

Look out Mike! They are coming for you!

[alan_v35 · 5/10 · 12 September 2007]

Now, I like Michael Moore. I know that his features are less documentaries than they are carefully crafted diatribes that are laced with humor, questionable facts and are always completely one-sided. So, when I heard about this feature (named as a play on Noam Chomsky's book, 'Manufacting Consent') that takes a hard look at him, I wanted to see it. I have to say that their argument is persuasive, and there are several very unflattering items, that I'm sure Moore would have preferred not to see on film.

What happens when the hunter becomes the hunted? Michael Moore is known to the movie-going public as a corporate bigwig buster, and the Republican Party's most vocal opponent (at least the most vocal opponent that has never appeared on a ballot). This Canadian-made documentary features a couple of determined filmmakers trying to get an interview with the biggest name in mainstream documentaries. Unfortunately the American champion of the little guy proves to be as elusive as he claimed GM Chairman Roger Smith was in the Moore's first feature, 1989's Roger and Me. While the deadly duo is following Moore around the country trying to get a sit down, they are also exposing fallacies that they found in his various films and talking about his professional rise to his current level of wealth and, complete with interviews with friends and business associates, past and present. There is also, of course, ample footage of Moore, himself, from his features, other speaking engagements and encounters with the filmmakers themselves. The attacks upon his work include everything from careful editing to assure that he remains in the forefront and downplaying the efforts of others to outright lies.

I already knew that Michael Moore does not even attempt to put forth a balanced view in his features and knew that his 'facts' should not be accepted completely at face value. Although, I understand Caine and Melnyk's frustration at trying to get an interview, I have to wonder why they think they are entitled to one? Moore is a busy celebrity who, undoubtedly, has many demands on his time. Some of the material presented about Moore is disconcerting, but I usually find myself in agreement with his views, so I guess I am willing to forgive his character flaws and look forward to his next work. He should try to be a better person, though. I should too.

This work was first published on realmoviereview.com

Another parasite film hits the stores

[maryindie · 8 November 2007]

Strategically timed with the DVD release of "Sicko", as is the other Moore-stalking film, "Michael Moore Hates America", a wannabe documentary maker cashes in, again using the same "Fahrenhype 911" rehash and Albert Maysles ax-grinding as Michael Wilson's film used.

It's good for people to remind Moore of any factual errors he needs to improve on, which can be done in an article. As to the film's refrain about Moore's film not being a "documentary", Moore has said repeatedly he is not a fan of documentaries, does not watch them and is not trying to make them. People keep putting his films in the documentary category and they win prizes there.

So aspiring directors Caine and Melnyk, as with Michael Wilson, latch on to him playing "gotcha" to make themselves famous. Melnyk has the camera focus on herself intermittently as she plays "investigative journalist on the phone taking notes", then puts forth the message in her film that Moore's including himself in his films is bad film-making. Sour grapes abound from film people interviewed, at least one of whom defames him personally. As with "Michael Moore Hates America", the crew follow Moore from place to place for interviews.

One would think that the fact Moore was himself making a film (Sicko) the past two years might have entered their minds as a reason he might have been busy, but they take their complaints in with them to his public appearances to paint him as a hypocrite. Moore has brought this on himself to a degree by his "Roger and Me" film's style of following Roger for an interview, but in that case it was to try to bring attention to a problem affecting other people. This new crop of directors following Moore are all about manufacturing images for themselves to no particular end since the topic has already been handled in full by Fahrenhype 911 previously.

Inventing Criticism

[Karl Self · 5/10 · 12 October 2009]

This movie tries to deconstruct Michael Moore. I saw it twice to give it a fair chance to get its point across to me, and it actually made me understand and like Michael Moore better.

At this point I should tell you my stance towards MM: I consider his first movie Roger & Me a work of genius, but I disliked (sometimes intensely) his later docu-props. For example, I thought that the interview of Charlton Heston in Bowling For Columbine was atrocious, with Moore acting as a leftwing Jerry Springer. So I'm by no means an unabashed acolyte of Moore.

The makers of "Manufacturing Dissent" (an allusion to another, but great, Canadian documentary, "Manufacturing Consent") have taken more than a page from Michael Moore's book. The documentary is stylistically an eerie clone of Moore's movies, which begs the question whether imitation isn't the most honest form of flattery. It constantly brings in new points (without ever solving the old ones) and fresh scenes, which makes the movie interesting to watch but difficult to follow. Like Moore, it uses the tactic of "the more mud you throw, the more will stick".

On balance, the movie recycles some criticisms of Moore, and fires a barrage of new, but untenable (and often ludicrous) ones. That's simply not good enough.

To give one salient example: we see a college thespian claiming that Moore fabricated a scene from Roger & Me, where a satellite van gets stolen by an unemployed auto worker before a live Ted Koppel broadcast from Flint. So how come no-one, for example someone from Nightline, noticed until now? In all likeliness the claim of the fabrication was itself fabricated. The documentary should have investigated this, instead it takes the claim at face value and moves on to fresh accusations. That's propaganda, not journalism.

So what's the message? Michael Moore's everyman image is a carefully constructed role -- true to some extent, but really nothing new. He has a number of detractors, who are often pretty unpleasant themselves (such as the snooty film critic who proudly states that he instantly disliked Michael Moore from the moment he walked into the studio until he "waddled on out" -- what an incredibly biased and shallow statement from a professional critic). The makers of the movie purport to have started this movie as fans -- so why do they rely so heavily on the material of his rightwing critics? I got the impression that Moore sees himself as being on a crusade not just against the political right, but also against ivory-tower leftwing intellectuals. He wants to reinstall a street credibility to the political left. With detractors such as Debbie Melnyk of Manufacturing Dissent, I choose to praise Moore rather than to bury him.

dishonest boring movie

[roedyg · 4/10 · 20 June 2012]

The movie has a new cover, different from the one shown above, to fool people into thinking it is a Michael Moore movie, not a movie about people who don't like Michael Moore. I got fooled myself. It not even a movie about Michael Moore. At first I thought Michael was just having fun letting some of his loonier tunes detractors go at him.

Basically is is a bunch of right wingers complaining that Michael Moore says things they disagree with. They think he should present their views in his movies. The way they see it, he is deliberately telling things that are not true, because what he says conflicts with their ideology.

It just goes on and on "Michael Moore is a terrible person. I don't like Michael Moore. Michael Moore is a mean s.o.b. Michael Moore tells only lies." without every explaining just what he did or said that was so terrible.

It is a movie terrorists might show to convince recruits that all Americans deserve to die. They are a sorry lot of overweight bigots and whiners.

It opens with a group elderly unknown documentary makers complaining that Michael Moore is popular, wins awards, and makes money. They figure they deserve this more than he does, so he is evil.

I am sure a pointed movie could be made critical of Moore, that might, for example, go after him for stretching the truth about a bank giving away shotguns on the spot, but this movie isn't it. This is a sloppy amateurish, slovenly piece of work hoping to capitalise on the Moore controversy.

Brings up some issues of fairness missing from the Michael Moore universe

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 25 May 2009]

The makers of MANUFACTURING DISSENT say that they began this documentary as fans of Michael Moore. Whether or not this is really true isn't really important. What IS important is that they bring up many issues concerning Michael Moore that he and his supporters simply won't honestly address. The biggest problem (and it's almost always ignored by the press) is that he makes so-called "documentaries"--yet in order to make his points, be often misrepresents and distorts the truth again and again. And, in essence, they aren't true documentaries, but are more like propaganda pieces because of the lies and fabrications. Now there's nothing wrong with making a propaganda piece--but don't call it a documentary or refuse to acknowledge the distortions. This IS Moore's m.o., though ironically, he himself refuses to discuss or explain his films unless it's to a friendly audience that doesn't in any way question his methods. The makers of this film try, again and again in vain, to talk with him just to ask some questions concerning his films. This is especially reasonable considering that Moore himself made a name for himself by ambushing people for his films--and here they won't let people with any questions come close to him....period. So a man who is "of the people" and a "champion of free speech" is, ironically, only interested in this when it comes to others, not himself.

As to how well this documentary was made, it seemed pretty honest and straight forward. It tended to interview people on all ends of the political spectrum and even many of his supporters on the left acknowledged the way he plays fast and loose with the truth in his films or in his public comments. Some felt that the ends justified the means while others seemed angry at Moore for being more interested in self-aggrandizement than the issues he publicly champions. I know that there will be many who think the entire film is evil but the bottom line is that it asks good questions AND isn't just a one-sided piece. There were many different opinions concerning the man that were in the film. What's not to like about that?!

Somebody's reaching pretty damn far...Pointless, bitter, and jealous. A waste of time.

[ReelFilmster · 3/10 · 30 October 2007]

This film accomplishes nothing. Even the tagline is exaggerating, far reaching crap. It should have been:

"Because we're small time and couldn't get an interview- it's never been so hard to get Michael Moore in front of a camera."

The film shifts tone, focus, and favoritism with each interview or point. What's the big deal with Moore doing the same thing as Republican politicians with their tainted media? It's like fighting fire with fire- you lie, we lie. It's obvious he does it much better than this group of filmmakers trying to ride his coattails- and by the way- they're late. This film should have come out decades ago so it's dated and tired out already. If it had a point to prove, they blew it by waiting decades to state it, because with time facts and footage are lost- so if this films investigators couldn't find facts or footage it must be because Moore was lying...dumb way to prove your point. The only thing this film achieves is letting the audience realize what a bunch of amateurs this group is by comparison to Moore. If you're going to lie, do it well...and for a frigging reason at least. Moore has moved on to other topics, other films, and new focus. This film lives in the past, so there's nothing compelling about it other than a cover design featuring graphic art of Moore as a caricature.

LMFAO "Unbiased" my ass. They'd be more credible, in my opinion, if they just said this was an anti-Moore film. They're lucky Moore wouldn't waste his time discrediting these hacks, because all this film had going for it is Michael Moore's name. This film has been made before at least twice, so come up with an original concept for once- instead of remaking Republican propaganda that discredits Moore. Instead the filmmakers waste our time telling us something we all know already. It's more about their self- importance and how they're 'worthy' to continue on their journey to discredit Moore. This is a bitter and resentful documentary with jealous undertones and I'm sorry- but they don't have the chops or charisma to win over Moore's popularity.

Aren't their more prominent world figures to discredit? Like ones who influence the world because they RUN IT- and not watch it on CNN while eating chips and thinking up conspiracy theories? the man may throw out a lie here or there, but at least he gets his audience to think with a different view or mindstate- unlike this film, which has nothing to say other than: "we're as good as him"- which they also are not.

sin-surely,

RF

"This is me...ya anonymous bitches" http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PREVALENTMIND