Michael Moore Hates America Review

[Professor S]

Well I finally saw this controversial film, which is really not controversial at all as it turns out. Its name is very misleading and is actually more ironic than mean spirited. In fact, after seeing how The Daily Show treated the director it only proved that no one on the show saw his movie, and that The Daily Show has taken that final turn to being no more than a funnier version of Michael Moore, but thats something for another post. Lets concentrate on the movie at hand.

The movie actually plays out in three distinct sections:

1) A criticism of Michael Moore's deceptive filmmaking techniques and pessimism. Most of this was already known by me, but there are a lot of areas that have not been explored by other debunkers and a lot of great interviews from people who were misrepresented by Moore in various films. He also has brief sections mirroring Moore's Roger and Me, showing the director's repeated attempts to gain an interview with Moore. Overall, though, this was the least complelling of Director Mike Wilson's sections.

2) A revisiting of many of Moore's locations and interviews that try and capture accurate portrayals of how areas like Flint Michigan are doing, in an attempt to shine a more trythful and yes, positive light on America than Moore portays (which isn't very hard to do). It also criticizes the seeming entitlement that many people feel the government owes them. he shows an America where hard work and perseverance overcome the obstacles that Moore believes are overwhelming.

3) A critique on the documentary genre itself and how it lends itself to abuses and mistruths, and how even the director finds himself using many of the same deceptive techniques that he accuses Moore of abusing. This is the best part of the film, as it shines a mirror on itself and analyses how documentaries can easily be skewed by those who DON'T intend to communicate an agenda. It was facinating how the producer was Wilson's constant check to guard against bias taking over the film. There are also great interviews with Penn Gillette and legendary Academy Award winning documentarian Albert Maylses (who loves Moore's politics, but despises his films) about the documentary genre. The amount of humility that Wilson shows in allowing his own faults as biases a director to take center stage is amazing for a filmmaker.

I recommend this film to anyone, whether you love or hate Moore, as a great viewing. It sheds a ton of light on the entire documentary genre and actually is more of a criticism of how polarized our country has become to the point of idealogical totalitarianism (believe in what I believe or you are not worth listening to). In the end Mike Wilson's film is about discourse and the honest exchange of ideas, and not about trying to silence dissent.

4 out of 5 stars. Its not what you think.

[KillerGremlin]

I enjoy Moore, as the comedian that he is.

There's really no such thing as a "real" documentary, at least not when there is a voice. I've seen movies that are just comprised of video footage of the war in Iraq, or of poor areas in cities, and videos like that touch you. But even those can be one-sided.

If you walk into Moore's movies with a sense of humor, I think you will find them quite enjoyable.

I may well end up seeing this film. Not because I hate Moore, or because I like him, but because I enjoy watching movies like this.

[Jason1]

I like Michael Moore, so Im guessing I wouldnt like this film.

[Professor S]

I like Michael Moore, so Im guessing I wouldnt like this film.

Well, as my review stated, its more than just a Michael Moore bash. Its takes all documentaries to task, including itself. It shows the arrogance in stating that anything can be considered "truth" when it is filtered through an editing and directing process.

Penn Gillette has a great intreview where he states that all documentaries become a lie once the camera is turned on, as one man with his own pre-disposed beliefs and bias' is controlling what is being filmed. The question is, how much of a lie are you willing to tell?

Also, liking Michael Moore shouldn't prevent you from watching a film that criticizes him, as he is far from beyond criticism. I have watched almost all of Moore's films, and I think he is a horrific individual with a severe narcissistic personality disorder. I don't like what he does, but I recognize that he is brilliant at it. This film kind of takes that position. Its about the loss of public discourse and how the polarization created by people like Moore has ground the market of ideas to a halt. Besides, how dedicated to your personal political and social beliefs can you be if you won't watch anything that contradicts them? If you can watch the criticism without automatically dismissing it, and it survives an internal debate of reason with the critic's points, then you know you truly believe in your ideals and they aren't just lies that you have carefully protected.

You can be a Moore fan, and still enjoy this movie. You might just stop liking him if you see it, and that might be more frightening than anything to the true believers. But this takes the documentary to task more that Moore. Wilson just uses Moore as his main example of the bad documentary, which he should.

On a side note, I'm still shocked by the amount of people who still love Moore's films even though it has been proven that he misleads his audience at every turn, which is basically a HUGE insult to their intelligence. I'll never understand the "ends justify the means" argument of many modern "muchraking" journalists or their followers.

[Dylflon]

I like Mike as well.

It's good that this film maker highlights his own biases.

Because even the title (Michael Moore Hates America) drips with bias.

[Professor S]

Because even the title (Michael Moore Hates America) drips with bias.

Its meant to be ironic. And for dripping bias... well just look at the titles of Moore's books and you'll see an ocean of it. Yet they don't prevent anyone from reading them.

[Dylflon]

Its meant to be ironic. And for dripping bias... well just look at the titles of Moore's books and you'll see an ocean of it. Yet they don't prevent anyone from reading them.

Stupid White Men is a fairly biased title, yes.

[KillerGremlin]

I propose a new medium of entertainment:

Titles that aren't catchy.
Jokes that don't affend.
Soda with no flavor.

[Jason1]

I have watched almost all of Moore's films, and I think he is a horrific individual with a severe narcissistic personality disorder. I don't like what he does, but I recognize that he is brilliant at it.

You just dont like him because he tells the truth.

[Dylflon]

You just dont like him because he tells the truth.

:D

[Typhoid]

In fact, after seeing how The Daily Show treated the director it only proved that no one on the show saw his movie,

I would just like to take this time to point out that the Daily Show isn't news, but is a comedy show. :confused:


Jon Stweart himself, even says that his show is fake, made up news.

So he wouldnt HAVE to see it to do a report on it.

[Dylflon]

I would just like to take this time to point out that the Daily Show isn't news, but is a comedy show. :confused:


Jon Stweart himself, even says that his show is fake, made up news.

So he wouldnt HAVE to see it to do a report on it.

The news is real.

They just play with it and twist it around.

[BlueFire]

This is so lame. Haha. Now Strangler is going to come in and reply to all your posts and you guys are just going to say something stupid, then he will, then you, etc. :P

Sorry, I just find it funny how it kinda seems Strangler is being attacked just for saying he likes a movie with the title Michael Moore Hates America. Don't jump the wagon and accuse me though. :]

[Typhoid]

Sorry, I just find it funny how it kinda seems Strangler is being attacked just for saying he likes a movie with the title Michael Moore Hates America. Don't jump the wagon and accuse me though. :]


You obviously arent in terms with the style of sarcasm this board and its members posess. :(

[Professor S]

I would just like to take this time to point out that the Daily Show isn't news, but is a comedy show. :confused:


Jon Stweart himself, even says that his show is fake, made up news.

So he wouldnt HAVE to see it to do a report on it.


I won't talk about the Moore movie anymore, but I find the excuse that The Daily Show is a comedy act to be exactly that, an excuse.

The Daily Show does more than simply do comedy, just like Lenny Bruce did more that do stand-up. Stewart is an opinion maker, and he believes his own press.

1) Count the number of laughs that the show gets compared the the rounds of applause. Applause doesn't indicate comedy, but rather agreement with an OPINION. If I was still in college, I would do a media analysis of his shows to see how this trend has progressed.

2) Know who else guises his agenda in comedy? Michael Moore. When he's around those that think like him, he's a muck raking journalist. When he is challenged, he suddenly is just a comedian.

3) For someone who says its all a joke, Stewart sure does like to take himself incredibly seriously. His appearance on CNN's Crossfire is a perfect example of this. While he is a comedian, he did enough damage to the show to have it cancelled by just saying that it was a bad show and blind-siding that poor bow-tied idiot Tucker Carlson. That doesn;t sound like a funny joke to me. It sounds like someone who wields an enormous amount of political power and influence over public opinion.

4) The Daily Show manipulates the news. They show clips severely out of context to form a joke with an agenda, and also tend to do so to one specific poltical party over the other. Yes, the democrats are crtiticized from time to time, but it is rare. They don't just manipulate the news for jokes, they attempt to re-write it for them, and they send messages to the polulace that reinforces ignorant opinion.

The bottom line is that The Daily Show is a comedy with an aganda, and they excuse that agends through their comedy. Its the best of both worlds. They can say whatever they want and take no responsibility for the fatc that intended or not, people take the themes and tone of their jokes seriously. Through the mask of humor, Jon Stewart and his crew can excuse themselves from any form of social and yes, even journalistic, responsibility.

That said, I still watch the show and find it hilarious when its not being overtly biased or stretching the truth.

And Bluefire, was this what you were talking about? :D

[Typhoid]

1) Count the number of laughs that the show gets compared the the rounds of applause. Applause doesn't indicate comedy, but rather agreement with an OPINION. If I was still in college, I would do a media analysis of his shows to see how this trend has progressed.

I can only coherently disagree with this point in my sleepened state.

Applause isnt always an agreement thing.

Applause has moved its way into stand up comedy. When someone makes a joke that isnt all too funny; meaning not funny enough to laugh at, people clap. Watch stand up, there is lots of clapping.

I dont think the audience is agreeing with the racist joke George Lopez just said, either.

[Professor S]

I can only coherently disagree with this point in my sleepened state.

Applause isnt always an agreement thing.

Applause has moved its way into stand up comedy. When someone makes a joke that isnt all too funny; meaning not funny enough to laugh at, people clap. Watch stand up, there is lots of clapping.

I dont think the audience is agreeing with the racist joke George Lopez just said, either.

George Lopez is a social critic as much as he is a comedian. The applause does not denotate laughter, laughter does.

[Typhoid]

George Lopez is a social critic as much as he is a comedian. The applause does not denotate laughter, laughter does.

I'm saying the applause is usually a pity thing at jokes. The joke isnt funny enough to laugh at, but you feel bad, so you applaud the person for trying.

If you look back, all in all, I'm agreeing with you about the Daily Show.

But you missed that part, obviously. :p

[Xantar]

3) For someone who says its all a joke, Stewart sure does like to take himself incredibly seriously. His appearance on CNN's Crossfire is a perfect example of this. While he is a comedian, he did enough damage to the show to have it cancelled by just saying that it was a bad show and blind-siding that poor bow-tied idiot Tucker Carlson. That doesn;t sound like a funny joke to me. It sounds like someone who wields an enormous amount of political power and influence over public opinion.

Jon Stewart wasn't on Crossfire as a comedian. Obviously, his excuse for being there was to plug his book, but it became abundantly clear that he wasn't joking. As you know, it's possible to be joking sometimes and not joking other times.

4) The Daily Show manipulates the news. They show clips severely out of context to form a joke with an agenda, and also tend to do so to one specific poltical party over the other. Yes, the democrats are crtiticized from time to time, but it is rare. They don't just manipulate the news for jokes, they attempt to re-write it for them, and they send messages to the polulace that reinforces ignorant opinion.

Of course it's clear that the Daily Show has an agenda. Any comedy show that deals with politics is going to. That said, I want to point out that the Republicans have control of all three branches of government. They're the ones taking action right now while the Democrats basically sit on the side and make objections. So which party do you think is going to provide more material for the Daily Show to make fun of?

Actually, I'm genuinely interested to see what happens to the show when a Democrat becomes president.

The bottom line is that The Daily Show is a comedy with an aganda, and they excuse that agends through their comedy. Its the best of both worlds. They can say whatever they want and take no responsibility for the fatc that intended or not, people take the themes and tone of their jokes seriously. Through the mask of humor, Jon Stewart and his crew can excuse themselves from any form of social and yes, even journalistic, responsibility.

Is that an indictment of the Daily Show or the sad state of all other media? After all, if the real news were considered reliable, then people wouldn't think of the Daily Show as the most trustworthy news source, right?

That said, I still watch the show and find it hilarious when its not being overtly biased or stretching the truth.


I find the fact that you don't find it hilarious when it's being overtly biased or stretching the truth hilarious.

[Professor S]

Jon Stewart wasn't on Crossfire as a comedian. Obviously, his excuse for being there was to plug his book, but it became abundantly clear that he wasn't joking. As you know, it's possible to be joking sometimes and not joking other times.

Thats a little too much like having your cake and eating it to, for my tastes. Plus, his comments on that show could easily be swung around and shoved in his own face. He said that Crossfire did not inspire good public debate and made people adversarial. Well, at least Crossfire presented both sides on every show and didn't edit information that would ruin their "joke".



Of course it's clear that the Daily Show has an agenda. Any comedy show that deals with politics is going to. That said, I want to point out that the Republicans have control of all three branches of government. They're the ones taking action right now while the Democrats basically sit on the side and make objections. So which party do you think is going to provide more material for the Daily Show to make fun of?

Yes, The Daily Show lampoons all news and politics, but there is definite skew to the left. They go after Michael Wilson, yet let Michael Moore slide even though his films are perfect for lampooning. Stewart's interviews conservative guests he puts them to the task (but is more than fair and polite), but his interviews with liberals are more than merely softball, they're close to idealogical fan-worship.

Honestly, its the obvious attempts to gain applause over laughter that worry me the most and have changed my opinion of the show. I want to laugh at a comedy, not cheer. Cheering denotates a serious agenda. Also the fact that in many of their jokes their punchlines aren't funny to me because I know the information that they have left out in their attempts to be funny.

Actually, I'm genuinely interested to see what happens to the show when a Democrat becomes president.

Honestly, I am too. I used to love The Daily Show, but their material on the last election made me wary, and they've continued on their current opinion-making path. Here's to Lieberman running again and hopefully winning. And I'm serious when I say that.

Is that an indictment of the Daily Show or the sad state of all other media? After all, if the real news were considered reliable, then people wouldn't think of the Daily Show as the most trustworthy news source, right?

Well you know how much I love the media...

I find the fact that you don't find it hilarious when it's being overtly biased or stretching the truth hilarious.

I would find it funnier if so many people didn't seem to take it so seriously or get a lot of their information from it. Yes, they joke about how silly it is for people to get their news from them, but they do allow the show to help form their opinions or at least reinforce them. Thats what worries me about the show.