Rick Caine Responds

I've written plenty about the anti-Michael Moore film, MANUFACTURING DISSENT, over the past few months, but my recent post about John Pierson's Open Letter to Michael Moore drew a response from one of the directors.  I'm reprinting Rick Caine's thoughts below, rather than let them sit solely inside a comments section.  If you want to get to the good part (also known as the bitchslap, in case you think I'm in need of one), you can scroll to the end.  By the way, I stand by my previous writing on the subject, which you can find here and here.

Thank you for yet again dicussing our film Manufacturing Dissent (coming soon on DVD and depending on where you live a theater near you). We made it in the hopes that it would be a film that would be thought about and discussed long after the usual 5 minutes of discussion that typically follows any film viewing. We made it in the hopes that audiences would question not only Moore's films and tactics but also ours and every other documentary filmmaker as well. You falsely impune our motives (yes maybe we should have known more about Moore going into this doc, but the fact remains we didn't) and accuse us of the same tactics Moore employs. Please point to the fictional devices we have tucked into our non-fiction films, omitted (maybe we landed a sitdown with Moore we're hiding?) or distorting interviews and showing them in a false light (hello Larry Stecco)and taking them out of context (Bush speaking sarcastically about his public image at the Al Smith Memorial Dinner, among others) and cobble them together to make flat out lies (the splicing together of seperate Charleton Heston speeches, literally puttng words in his mouth, in Bowling, which isn't even in our movie.)

In one scene in Manufacturing Dissent Moore discussses how the Bush administration used fearmongering (trumped up WMD claims, bogus imminent threat claims, false testimony before the UN regarding mobile chemical weapons labs, etc, etc) to manipulate the American public into siding with him on the invasion of Iraq. Then in the same speech Moore turns around and tells the college students that if they don't vote for Kerry then Bush will draft them and send them right to the front lines. That statement had no more truth in then Bush's claims about WMDs. So fearmongering for Bush bad but fearmongering for Moore good? And what about the truth, or is getting people all riled up, even if its based upon lies, good enough?

We're just as frustrated as the next person that we have not gotten to the promised land with Moore's assistance. Why isn't he more effective? How about effective at all? Just maybe Moore's approach has something to do with it, which is exactly the issue Manufacturing Dissent raises. We're lefties so we get the whole speaking truth to power argument but what if it's half truth? Is it half as effective, or maybe not effective at all? Moore is hard to ignore but easy to dismiss.

Pierson writes in the open letter to Moore "You're on the side of the fucking angels with "SiCKO" and no lapses, omissions or oversimplifications can detract from its contribution to the greater good." But this is exactly the problem: the lapses, omissions and oversimplifications do distract from the greater good and to all of our detriment. This is akin to arguing that lying for the cause is good for debate. What's the point if it's based upon lies? We all want the same thing to live in a well-functioning democracy the only way we can get there is by having an informed electorate that acts upon their knowledge at the ballot box and the only way we can get there is by having media that chooses not to lie to the people. Part of our argument in Manufacturing Dissent that it is also destructive when Moore does it as it is when FOX News does it. Some say who cares if Moore lies to his lefty base and gets away with it? Others will argue it doesn't matter if FOX News lies to their viewers. For better or worse it does have an impact an that is exactly why its important. We need to be having debates based upon facts and not resting upon misconceptions and lies. How will this get us to where we want to be?

For the record, Mike Westfall, who seems to always have the last word in internet posts (under whatever pseud he chooses) was both interviewed and contributed footage to Manufacturing Dissent but it is incorrect to term this a "consultant" however grateful we remain. We never made any pretense with Westfall, we told him repeatedly that ours was a film about Moore. And yes Westfall is right there remains marvelous opportunity for films to be made about the plight of working Americans. Hopefully someone will "consult" with Westfall about that.

SiCKO, just like Moore's previous films, will have no impact on the American health care system. But hey why should some piss ant Canadians stand in the way of mighty America trying to get universal health care right? We meant many things with this film, this was not amongst them.

And maybe sometime we can go for a beer AJ and you can confess all of your ethical lapses to us like other filmmakers are doing. Let's start with the violating of your own 'self imposed' standards (if you don't follow your own 'rules' what's the point in having them?) about blogging about other films, even as you suck and blow your own mediocre and largely ignored film. I know I was at SXSW when it screened during the music part of the fest and all of like 50 people turned up for a screening in the 1,200 seat Paramount Theater, and that's the music crowd. Then we can discuss your ethically challenged principles that allowed you to put together a doc about deceased Kurt Cobain based upon interviews he granted to another under very different circumstances. To say nothing of what I don't yet know. Ethics smethics, who's kidding who here? Come confess, the filmmakers always seem to feel better afterward. Now if they just could have been as honest with their audience to begin with...

Comments

[MICHAEL WESTFALL]

Your various comments, including Rick Caine’s, relative to my participation in Manufacturing Dissent are quite interesting.

Debbie and Rick are avowed leftists. I am solidly on the right. There are certain issues that we will never agree on. That said, there are many matters on which we do have a meeting of the minds.

Movies are one of the most powerful influences that impact our culture. It took a certain amount of courage for them to use someone from the right in their movie, and the fact that Debbie and Rick wanted to use my material lends itself and exemplifies the importance of the issues that I have championed for 30 years.

In my April 9, 2007 piece, Michael Moore Versus America, I stated that Debbie and Rick did a credible job in questioning Michael Moore’s ethics and failings.

I like both Debbie and Rick. I found them intelligent, honest and passionate about the issues. Our disagreement is not personal, but rather on the big picture relative to the ongoing destruction of America’s auto industry, and how Michael Moore used the work and the ideas of Flint activists back in the 1980’s to jumpstart his career.

How successful or how much celebrity he garners only matters to Moore. What does matter is the bigger historical truth.
My disagreement with Debbie and Rick is that they followed direction from those who weren’t closely connected with the total Flint story beginning back in the 1970’s. They failed to chronicle the bigger picture when they could have so easily. If they had, then their film would have been much more of a contender. Did they show that Moore has a problem with ethics? Yes. Did they miss the bigger story? Yes.
They simply made the mistake of listening to the wrong people. By listening too closely to the wrong people and not understanding the complexity of what was going on in Flint, Debbie and Rick failed to tell the deeper and more important story about how Moore used the Flint story to create himself.
I am not sure what Rick’s definition of a consultant really is. I don’t think that he would deny that my material plays a major part in their movie.

I am sure Rick and Debbie would concur that for months they e-mailed me weekly and sometimes daily, requesting information. They traveled a long distance to visit and discuss the movie for hours at my home. They spent much time going over my documented and archived material at the University of Michigan-Flint Frances Willson Thompson Library. They sent me an autographed copy of Manufacturing Dissent as it was premiering in Texas in March.

I also furnished them critical information including documents showing that Roger Smith was accessible to us. I shared hours of my videos and audiotapes with them, and clips from my tapes were used throughout the movie. Significantly, some of the most central information that I furnished them was smoking guns, which was shockingly compartmentalized and ignored. It verified the bigger story and was just not used.

The big picture story included worker, union, religious and educator activists who were fighting to preserve America’s middle class. It is a story of corporate mismanagement, restructuring of huge American based multi-nationals and weak union leadership. It is about corporate greed and the struggle and demise of Middle America.

Come on, couldn’t the movie have more strongly asked the questions, what is the authentic Flint story, where did Michael Moore come from, what did he really base his career on and does he have any genuine credentials? Is he really on the side of the common man and an expert on everything from politics to health care, or a charlatan multi-millionaire playing out his illusions?

Since he claims to have come from the people, just what did he do? Did he lead any large rallies or demonstrations like the honest hard working activists who had the intestinal fortitude to address the big picture that covered all of the complex issues ranging from automation to global sourcing?

Today, the talking heads that weren’t there are all talking. They are from academia land and the film industry. They base their assumptions on biased opinions, not on historical fact. They only prop up information that supports their opinions and skim over any factual information that runs contrary to their political persuasions or ideologies. They fail to understand that the true history of Michael Moore’s beginning is the essential key to the narration of Moore’s story.

They don’t get the real story, because they are not after it.

[Matt Dentler]

Hey, AJ, as you may or may not have heard... your movie drew around 200-300 people at its second screening at SXSW. FYI.

[Aaron C.]

Up until that last graph Mr. Caine was making a reasonable point... but then showed the world that he's a dick. At least I know I can skip the DVD release now.

I will however be at the St. Louis screening of ABOUT A SON in a couple weeks.

[Doug Block]

Okay, I confess! I used an interview with my deceased mother in 51 Birch Street that was shot about 10 years ago and used it in a different context. (Of course she was dead so I couldn't ask her permission, but still clearly an inexcusable ethics violation.)

Phew, I feel so much better getting that off my conscience, at last! Now, as for her diaries...

[Sujewa Ekanayake]

Re: "Then we can discuss your ethically challenged principles that allowed you to put together a doc about deceased Kurt Cobain based upon interviews he granted to another under very different circumstances."

Where is the ethical issue in showing Cobain talking about his life in a movie about his life? I don't see a problem. Cobain was talking with a journalist, so these conversations that were used in the movie were not secret, private recordings, so I see no problem with AJ using interviews conducted by a journalist in his very pro-Cobain movie about Cobain.

But I am no "self-proclaimed ethics expert" as Rick Caine comes off here as being, I am only speaking as a fan of the excellent About A Son.

It is also the height of ill judgement to use box office figures/attendance (at one screening no less!) to gauge the total worthiness of an art/indie movie. I am pretty sure About A Son will be (and probably already is) more popular than Manuf. Dis. And I am sure Transformers is gonna be more successful than both those movies. Does that mean Transformers is a lot better/worthy of attention & respect than the other two movies? No, 'cause you can't compare the complete value of an art/entertainment work solely on ticket sales/attendance alone.

I've found AJ's blog to be a great read, whether it is posts about his own movies (of which there are few - really, many other filmmakers - such as myself - promote our own work at our blogs a lot more than AJ does w/ his films here) or posts about the industry & relevant film news in general. Further, I think indie directors promoting their work is totally cool and is very necessary in order to get the movie seen & talked about in a Hollywood $s dominated media & distribution landscape.

It is funny that Caine says that AJ talking about his movie is a negative thing even though Caine is here talking about his own movie.

- Sujewa

[Paul]

Though I'm not a fan of Michael Moore, he's at least smart enough to know that one can't win when trying to respond to criticism of one's work.

On the other hand, Caine's response -- particularly the last paragraph -- further confirms my belief that m(o)ore often than not, it just creates more of a mess of things.

Oh, for what it's worth, a helluva a lot of people packed into the Durham Civic Center at Full Frame when I saw ABOUT A SON. For those that don't know, that's the "documentary crowd."