Bad Form?: When Filmmaker/Bloggers Attack Other Filmmakers

First, a recap.  I arrived at SXSW eager to see the documentary that had piqued the highest level of curiousity - Manufacturing Dissent.  I had followed the somewhat intense pre-screening discussion on certain doc message boards about the issues raised by the film, had plugged it in a previous blog post and was looking forward to seeing how this film would differentiate itself from the legion of conservative attack pieces on Michael Moore, a notion promised in much of the film´s press and marketing.

To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement.  More to the point, I was kind of angry about the film, for reasons that I spitted out in an earlier blog post.  Deciding to write about my strong feelings regarding the film didn´t feel particularly controversial to me, even though I had never gone after a film in nearly two years of blogging the way I did here.

Soon, I heard from someone that I respect, telling me that I had gone over the line:

"I think you made some valid points about Manufacturing Dissent that the filmmakers should hear - especially about that misconceived sequence with Canadian film critic David Gilmour.  However some of your other comments seemed to fall into the category of the snarky.  And that surprised me in this respect: why would you come to a film festival where there's a collegial atmosphere between directors and post something like that during the festival?  I truly do not understand that philosophically....Perhaps you wish the NY Times had been devoting space to About A Son, not Manufacturing Dissent."  

As I noted in another post on SXSW, the panel Blogging on Film, delved into this very topic, with panelists feeling that it was not their usual style to go after another filmmakers´work, however they wouldn´t rule it out if the subject matter particularly moved them to write.  In this case, I felt that what Manufacturing Dissent had to say about documentary filmmaking (or rather the lack of what it had to say) was enough of a reason for me to break my own long-standing tradition. 

Here are some other perspectives on that film, some who liked it and some who did not, but all of whom seem drawn to the question of whether arguing the sins of Michael Moore is undercut by the sins of Manufacturing Dissent. 

From Joe Leydon, reviewing the film for Variety:

An intelligent, provocative and, arguably, even necessary examination of the phenomenon of Michael Moore -- the man, his movies and his methods -- "Manufacturing Dissent" is not an assault by right-wing ideologues but a dissection by two self-described "progressive liberals," and has all the more impact for it. Canadian documentarians Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine draw heavily upon interviews with Moore’s critics, acquaintances, former colleagues and longtime observers to fashion an even-handed but largely unflattering warts-and-all portrait of a firebrand filmmaker who’s described here even by a purported friend as "a bit megalomaniacal at times, with a paranoid tinge."

(....)

The filmmakers undercut their case against Moore’s m.o. with their own minor fudging of chronological details. (Note how Moore appears to intro a Toronto preview of "Fahrenheit 9/11" even before its world premiere at Cannes.) But Moore’s handlers inadvertently allow them to reinforce their position as relentless seekers of truth: Melnyk and Caine are forcibly ejected during one public event spotlighting Moore and denied access to sound recording at another.

From Alison Willmore at the IFC Blog:

Melnyk and Caine don't have Moore's undeniable gift for the entertaining polemic, as well as his less appreciated ability to thread his arguments into a narrative, and "Manufacturing Dissent" wobbles between unflattering unauthorized profile and closer chronological look at the "Fahrenheit 9/11" years. There are plenty of provocative ideas floated: Moore exaggerated his working class hero image (the filmmakers visit the Flint suburb in which he grew up, paying a visit to a fair in the town and talking to a few kids, who deem it "rich"); Moore manipulated his footage (the "Roger & Me" moment in which his mike is cut off at the GW stockholders meeting was apparently faked at another theater); Moore lies (he actually did get an opportunity to question Roger Smith, but left the footage on the cutting room floor and asked others to forget it happened); Moore wants fame and fortune (we get a shot of his expensive house). There are also plenty of strange pettinesses brought up as evidence of...what? Moore's 80s Michigan alt-weekly didn't pay the $10 a month it owed for a syndicated rock column! Moore didn't want to admit to a film critic on Canadian television that his sole narrative effort, "Canadian Bacon," was not very good! When Moore made the leap from his local alt-weekly to the editor-in-chief position at national magazine Mother Jones, he didn't have enough experience to pull it off!

These moments just muddy an already unclear moral. The slippages and falsehoods amongst Moore's films are unfortunate, but not a stunning revelation in these days of reality show techniques. That Moore's films are manipulative is not a new idea either — back in 1989, when "Roger & Me" made its US premiere at the New York Film Festival, Vincent Canby observed, gleefully, that "Mr. Moore makes no attempt to be fair." We can't speak for everyone, but we've always regarded Moore's work as a series of pragmatically entertaining and blatantly one-sided attempts to inflame a passive liberal population. He may be a blowhard, he may be a provocateur, but we don't think he ever made the claim for being a practitioner of journalistic remove.

From Agnes Varnum:

I don’t think Manufacturing Dissent provides much critique. I’ve never looked at those anti-Moore websites but I have always viewed Moore with skepticism. Like I never believed Bush when he said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I never believed that Moore gave us just the facts or that he wasn’t crafting his raw footage to support his particular point of view. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it doesn’t seem to me that this film actually uncovers any new fabrications by Moore? All of the facts (like he had interviews with Roger Smith for Roger & Me, or that there are completely fictionalized elements in all of his films) have been uncovered elsewhere. Lefties might be surprised at the nature of his fictions, as I was, since we rarely seek out right-wing messages that are created simply to knock us off our blocks, but that doesn’t mean presentation here is news.

So, if the facts that are presented in the film are not newly discovered, what else is there? The title of the film implies plans, schemes, even conspiracy. It sounds like maybe there is a revolution underway, and I expected a thesis about Moore’s grand plan. I got no sense from the film that Melnyk and Caine understood Moore better for having followed him around. The most damming part of the movie is Moore himself and I believe they did expose him in a way. When the filmmakers ask him for interviews at press conferences, he was continually sheepish and would say maybe, but then never granted their requests. When his sister and a group of body guards kick the filmmakers out of a public speaking engagement, it’s clear that Moore is not any less of a thug than the politicians he likes to bash An Unreasonable Man when Ralph Nader tries to attend a presidential debate!).

From Jette Kernion at Cinematical:

The documentary does achieve the result the filmmakers hoped: They want us to be skeptical of the facts that Moore presents in his movies, and check the validity of the footage we're watching. However, this documentary uses some of Moore's own tricks to make some of its points and to add structure and entertainment value. Melnyck's pursuit of Moore as the backbone of this film is a direct copy of Moore's pursuit of Roger Smith in Roger & Me. And in order to get press credentials to attend one of Moore's speeches, Melnyck steals a trick Moore has used in the past, and prints up her own business cards affiliating her crew with a Canadian broadcasting station (admittedly, one that has agreed to air the documentary).

Taking the film's message to its logical conclusion makes me skeptical of the film itself. Did Melnyck and Caine use any of Moore's other filmmaking gimmicks without telling us? Perhaps they did get an interview with Moore and decided not to use it because it didn't lend anything to the film, perhaps they mixed up their own chronology, or re-edited footage to suit themselves. Melnyck seems far less egotistical on-camera and in person than Moore, so I doubt that's the case ... but how do we know what the truth is behind this film or any documentary? Will Manufacturing Dissent make us too cynical for any documentaries, and is that a good or bad thing?

From Eugene Hernandez´article at Indiewire:

In a movie that will no doubt embolden Moore's enemies, Melnyk and Caine challenges aspects of "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" and re-visits forgotten claims that Michael Moore conducted a one-on-one interview with General Motors chief Roger Smith in the film with the central premise of CEO evading a sit-down interview, deciding to exclude the footage to suit his own story needs. It also adds that Moore falsely reported and faked other sequences in the movie.

Melnyk and Caine track Moore on his Slacker Uprising tour preceding the 2006 Presidential election, in scenes reminiscient of "Roger & Me." Despite the attempt by Moore staffers and family to stop the Canadian filmmakers, they push on, even interviewing apparent friends of the director who characterize him in rather unflattering terms.

Admitting that they had at first intended to make a "straightforward biography" of Michael Moore, Melnyk said that when that wasn't possible, they resorted to "plan B," depicting the difficult process they faced in trying to report on the filmmaker."

This last part leads me to something that I did not include in my initial blog post on this subject, but have said to friends: that I don´t buy the filmmakers´"official story".  Oh, I believe that they are liberal and that they are at least sympathetic to some of the same causes as Michael Moore.  I even believe that they got the idea to make the film from seeing Moore´s Oscar speech and that, as they´ve said in other interviews, that after working on a film about a right-wing Canadian, they wanted to spend time with a subject that they liked, or at least agreed with politically.

What is less convincing to me is the argument that the duo intended on making a straightforward biopic and only changed their minds after two things happened: a.) they had a hard time getting Moore to sit down for an interview, and b.) they discovered that Moore uses questionable tactics in his documentaries.  As to point A, There are many people who I´d like to make documentaries about, but I certainly don´t think I have a God-given right to do so.  Particularly if I want the subject to be involved, via interviews or archival materials.  Rights must be obtained, hands holded, egos coddled.  And if that doesn´t work, then you probably don´t have a film.  At least that´s how I´d feel.  But as I noted, we now have films in which the central conceit is a sense of documentarian pique that the subject won´t participate in his or her own unflattering portrait (this has been a staple of unauthorized literary biography for years, see Kitty Kelley, et al.)

How is this different from what Moore himself did it Roger & Me?  Wasn´t that film all about the sense of moral outrage that Roger Smith wouldn´t deign to look down from his ivory tower and acknowledge what was happening in Flint?  Perhaps.  But while Roger & Me basks in Roger Smith´s unattainability (and may have, in fact, covered up that he wasn´t so difficult to reach), there´s a difference between a film like Michael Moore Hates America (which seemed to take the same level of joy in showing Moore to be uncomfortable in the glare of an unwelcomed lens) and a film like Manufacturing Dissent, in which the filmmakers actually do get to talk to Michael Moore - several times in fact, and at least once for a good length of time (we are unclear how long they have him, on camera, answering questions, because they edited the footage, although Moore claims it´s 20 minutes).  But instead of trying to pin Moore down on the arguments raised by the film - "Is it true that you actually did interview Roger Smith and you left it on the cutting room floor?" - they just complain to him that they can´t get a sit-down interview with him.  If I were a filmmaker (wait, I am) and someone came up to me in the same fashion as these filmmakers do Michael Moore, I think I´d find the nearest publicist and ask to rescued.  Which is essentially what happens.

But the second point, that the filmmakers suddenly became aware of Moore´s questionable practices (and how these are not exactly journalistic) doesn´t pass the smell test.  How in the world can anyone who is making documentaries, particularly documentaries on somewhat political or tabloidy subjects, not be aware of all the arguments against Michael Moore.  I mean, even saying that they didn´t, wouldn´t a quick glance at Wikipedia (his controversies have their own, separate, entry) or any article on the subject made it abundantly clear?

So, what are we left with?  A catalog of charges - some true, some petty, some imagined - stitched into a piece of work that fails to take account of Moore´s influence (for good and ill) on documentary filmmaking, one that simultaneously criticises and then resorts to Moore´s own  tactics of unrevealed chronology-twisting and selective editing. 

Are there good things about the film?  Perhaps, in terms of what Agnes Varnum raised (and an issue that was brought up by Joel Heller in the blogging panel) regarding her desire for increased media literacy.  Responding to Jette Kernion´s question, I don´t think it´s a bad thing to question documentaries (or any other source of information) - whether it is intent or bias or method and style.  I think it´s a healthy thing for nonfiction, particularly in that I feel we shuold not be constrained by any specific rules or guidelines.  In fact, as alluded to in my earlier post, I´d love to see a movie on how Moore´s flaunting of journalistic rules to make provocative essay films along with Errol Morris´challenging of visual and stylistic norms have forever changed how nonfiction films are made.

And so then to the other question, the one raised in the title of this post and by my letter writer.  Is it, ultimately, bad form for me, as a filmmaker with my film at the festival, to criticise the work of another filmmaker, to question their motives or raise a proverbial eyebrow at their backstory?  Is it just bad to do it during the festival?  Would it be OK to wait until days later?  What if I was covering the festival for this blog and had no film (and the suggested competing interest - if only it was me who had the article in the Times!) in the mix?

In some ways, I guess it depends on what on thinks is the purview or purpose of this blog.  In some ways, it´s an activist site, in which I evangelize for documentary films, both individually and as a format.  It´s a place for me to make arguments about Oscar qualification rules and the occasional political story.  It´s a place to talk about what films I´m seeing, particularly those I love, and which festivals I am attending.  It´s a place to talk about my own filmmaking, although less so than my letter writer probably assumes.  And, on Sunday last, I decided it was a place where every once in a great while, I´d find myself taking on another person´s film.  Ultimately, bad form, like criticism and beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Comments

[Agnes Varnum]

I'd add, as a reader of your blog, that you tend more toward journalism than most. The nature of your blog doesn't seem to me to be a place to discredit others' work in favor of your own. We have a lot more discussion ahead of us around this issue (blogs vs. journalism).

I also find it confuses some people when we wear many hats at a single event. People want to be able to fit us into a spot (you are journalist, you are filmmaker, etc.). I've never felt that I can't compartmentalize my duties, but perhaps those lines are less clear to outsiders. And do we have a responsibility to make them clearer?

[Stephen]

There's a sea of bogus criticism out there (follow link for just one example).

Why don't you do your own film on Michael Moore? Restore some much needed balance.

http://tinyurl.com/2xnw6h

[ligaya]

Excellent! Thorough, well-thought out, fair and balanced. Thank you for your initial post and this comprehensive account.

[Chris]

I realize that you are in a difficult position as both a blogger and a filmmaker, but I personally would appreciate more (negative) criticism of films that are deserving of such. There are increasingly more and more films out there (like Manufacturing Dissent) that have a great PR campaign, but are actually not very well made at all. Your comments on it have helped us steer clear of being sucked into making it a "must-see" film. To me, that's a real positive contribution -- in addition to making note of some of the smaller films that really do deserve more positive buzz.

[James McNally]

My reasons for not seeing this one were clear before: I'd seen Citizen Black and thought it was not very good. But your entry was very enlightening. Thanks.

[Jill S.]

Check out these two enlightening pieces on Michael Moore

http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/m_westfall/04142007.htm

http://michaelwestfall.tripod.com/id104.html