The unbearable sadness of Michael Moore
I am sure I was not alone in feeling a crushing wave of boredom come over me when I heard that Michael Moore was about to release another of his activist documentaries. The boredom however became a faint sense of nausea when I heard that it was to be a caustic attack on ‘capitalism’. Wow. Moore had finally caught up with the radical thinking of mid to late 19th century Europe. What next, I wondered — a devastating assault on critics of Copernicus? A bold expose of the slave trade? Or perhaps an assault on the tyranny of King George III?
Anyway, my fears were compounded when I saw the trailer, which showed the well- nourished multi-millionaire shuffling about in his trademark baseball cap, shamelessly flogging the same old working class hero schtick. There he was standing outside the HQ of AIG, loudspeaker in hand, claiming he had come to carry out a citizen’s arrest on its directors. If he is on his usual form the film will no doubt include at least one scene in which he humiliates a low ranking employee of a company, asking them questions they are not empowered to answer, reducing a complex issue to a crude parody of itself for the sake of a cheap n’easy emotional effect. And so on.
Fuck me, I thought but doesn’t he just hate himself for doing this? Doesn’t he feel as if he is standing outside his body, watching all that sweaty flesh go through the motions for the umpteenth time? Years ago when his show TV Nation was on British TV, the stunts were still cynical and calculating, yet entertaining and occasionally thought provoking. But now — watching Michael Moore in action is like seeing Bret Michaels emoting his way through Every Rose Has Its Thorn for the millionth time at a County Fair. There’s a sad, middle aged man trying to recapture past glories, inhabiting a persona that was invented by someone younger and more inspired.
Moore himself seems to be aware of this slow death. In a 2007 ABC interview he lamented that he had made all these activist films, designed to change the world, and yet the world just kept getting worse:
“There’s a big part of me that feels like a failure, in the sense that I started out by making a film about General Motors to save my hometown of Flint, Mich., and … Flint today is in far worse shape than when I first made the movie,” Moore said.
“I made [“Bowling for Columbine”] in the hopes that there wouldn’t be anymore school shootings, and look? We’ve gone through another tragic school shooting. & ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’? Bush was re-elected a few months later. You have to understand that there’s a part of me that feels like, geez, when are you going to make a movie that can actually get something done? So I’m hoping that this film, ‘Sicko’ will do just that.”
Well as for Sicko, even the most optimistic of commentators would have to admit that Obama’s dog’s breakfast of legislation(s) appears unlikely to satisfy many on either side of the debate, meanwhile foisting massive debt on generations to come. And as for guns well, last month Obama signed off on a law permitting individuals to carry loaded guns in national parks, thus expanding the empire of the firearm into virgin territory. And now with this track record of failure behind him, Moore has turned his sights on Capitalism, which the USSR, with its vast nuclear arsenal failed to destroy in 70 years of trying. Moore meanwhile appears to be as bereft of a sense of irony as the most naive, Warren Jeffs- worshiping Colorado ultra-Mormon: as a good capitalist himself he has identified a market, responding to the economic crisis with a film attacking the easy targets that people today most hate. No doubt he will make a lot of money, reaping the benefits of the system he professes to despise.
Indeed were I of a conspiratorial mindset I might argue that Moore is a secret agent of the very powers he claims he has come to dethrone. His films — filled as they are with well- documented distortions — are not really documentaries, and as he himself admits have been totally ineffective as agitprop. What we are left with then is a kind of political pornography for bien pensants in which Moore carefully orchestrates and manages his scenes and arguments to arouse a sense of anger and moral outrage in an audience which he knows desires to be thus titillated. Moore then feeds a series of stimulating scenes to the viewer, keeping that engorged muscle of angry indignation fully enflamed, until a climactic release at the end of the film. But once that climax has been reached, the world has not changed and the viewer has not participated in any meaningful form of protest, rebellion or dissent. This is ultimately an experience without real contact, without consummation, or the exchange of any bodily fluids. The energy of outrage is dissipated and fades away. The manipulated viewer simply returns to his life, most likely carrying on as a good servant of Capitalism.
Alas, I don’t think Moore is all that complex. There is no sinister conspiracy. There’s just old Michael Moore gurning for the cameras, entirely unthreatening, going through the charade of critiquing the system that rewards him so handsomely. Well, good luck to him. His political erotica has made him a very rich man, and he has been showered with rewards and acclaim by the critical and cultural establishments of the Western world. The sad truth however is that he is little more than a pet provocateur, defanged and unthreatening, a figure of fun, not even remotely hardcore.
He is, in other words, the Hugh Hefner of activist film- making.
Latest posts by Daniel Kalder (Posts)
- Book Review: Retroworld (plus, why I hate Star Trek) - April 3, 2014
- A very expensive fungus - October 16, 2013
- The secret rituals of history’s most creative minds - October 9, 2013
- Apparently we are all getting very old - October 3, 2013
- Vasily Grossman: from Stalingrad to toilet trouble - August 28, 2013
Print This Post
Which leads us to ask – who would be a viler sexual partner? Moore or Hefner?
Ooooh, “the unbearable sadness of Michael Moore.” Oh, that is sooooo clev-air. See, it shows the subtlety of your understanding, the piercing analysis that pulls the scales from others’ eyes. So much more better, this froth of words, than simply saying that you think Michael Moore is full of shit. You do not get angry at Michael Moore, for he is more to be pitied than censured. Ooooh, the blinding insight, oooh, the penetrating critique. It shows the height from which you observe this frail vessel, which is a height not of condescension, but of – well, gosh darn it – of sadness. Not just plain, everyday, garden-variety sadness, but UNBEARABLE sadness. How admirably delicate of you. It is so terribly sad that none of us can bear it, we avert our eyes. It shows that there, but for the grace of better sense, go you. And all done, I take it, without having seen his film.
What. Consummate. Horse puckey. What unbearable lightness of criticism. Michael Moore admits he feels he has failed? Any artist, artisan, or creative person, if he is any good at all, ultimately feels he has failed, because he knows he HAS failed to a lesser or, more usually, greater degree. Only a tiny fraction of works of art or criticism, whether high or low, have any either immediate or lasting effect upon society. (Immediately to mind comes Upton Sincliar’s “The Jungle,” and as art it is laughable.) Most of the time it is enough to point out the problems, and that Michael Moore effectively has done.
Parsifal, with your biting invective facile way with the language, I’ll bet you cut quite a swath at your community college.
Which still exceed what Michael Moore has ever done.
Ah yes, the burning problems nobody’d ever identified until Michael Moore showed up to … what was that again? … “pull the scales from others’ eyes”? I’ll give Michael Moore this: he is very good at manipulating dimmish people into thinking themselves well informed and insightful. Oh wait, that’s never been very difficult, has it?
Hi, Parsifal.
well said parsifal. i think that michael moore has really been a gift from god(whatever god is). the shame is that so many ,usually white people, “choose” to remain ignorant……this sad web site attempts to satisfy the lower (ego) self of those in the film business out in l.a………..the sad aspect is that anyone who is in touch with their creativity would be fooled by a site such as this………in fact, they probably won’t allow my post to be shown here……..
The rotunded liberal is opposed to investments that are determined by private decision and mainly by competition in the private market. But he is not adverse to acquire and multiply his possessions through his own industry or craft. He try’s to gain adherents by persuading them to a cause, that Capitalism is evil.
Unfortunately for the imbeciles that follow him, he is a person who acts in contradiction to his stated beliefs. The only thing that is not a sham about him is his lust for food. His habit of voracious eating and his known contacts with domesticated swine not yet sexually mature, he likes them on the wild side, has some of his adherents proclaiming that he is starting to resemble the pigs that he is cohorting with.
Every time he appears on T.V. lamenting the evils of Capitalism the butchers associations across the country express their anger that the demand for PORK plummets.
john lear, what is the intellectual/creative/psychoanalytic significance of your passion for ellipses and disdain of capital letters?
“So much more better, this froth of words, than simply saying you think Michael Moore is full of shit.”
Ha ha!
I’ll take your cue Parsifal (which you seem unable to do); you’re full of shit.
OK, I can’t help it. Is there anything more boring than someone who goes to great lengths to demonstrate how impressed they are with themselves in order to show how unimpressed they are with others?
“Fuck me, I thought but doesn’t he just hate himself for doing this?”
Heh.
Maybe it’s a clever way to show how capitalism has destroyed his soul?
I don’t get this working class hero thing… when has he ever done a documentary about working class heroes? Working class heroes believe in capitalism because they believe in themselves and their ability to improve their life or the life of their kids. A feeling of efficacy is one of the human needs that surface once food, clothing and shelter are met. People who feel effective believe that they can succeed if given a chance and feel proud of their accomplishments.
All I’ve seen from Moore is how beaten down people are and how unable people are. Anyone who believes that they can do better through their own effort, that they are effective and able, will see calls to socialism such as those from Moore, not as calls to fairness but calls to take away anything extra that they are able to produce… so why produce it?
“…the sad aspect is that anyone who is in touch with their creativity would be fooled by a site such as this.”
I guess that means you are not in touch with your creativity, John Lear.
What do you have against community colleges, noMOREtv4u? Typical of the establishment elite, scorning the unglamorous, hard-slogging life of everyday people (the “dimmish” people, as Jericho dismissively calls them). I’m surprised you think that a community collegian could possess what you call a “biting invective facile way with the language.”
Walworth, you ask, “Is there anything more boring than someone who goes to great lengths to demonstrate how impressed they are with themselves in order to show how unimpressed they are with others?” I take it you refer to the original post?
So Michael Moore is fat. So? G.K. Chesterton was fat — a “rotunded” right-winger, in fact — and he would have despised what Moore is doing. (“Rotunded.” Hmmm, can one be rotund and then somehow be made rotunder?) Whether Chesterton had any “known contacts with domesticated swine not yet sexually mature” — oh, how kinky! — has been lost to history.
Clarification: I dismissively call “dimmish” only the people who find Michael Moore thought-provoking. Actually, more of them come out of high-end schools; people who graduate from community colleges frequently have enough street smarts to know when they are being sold a bill of goods.
Parsifal, I think you are right that G.K. Chesterton would have despised Michael Moore and his shtick. What you are wrong about is trivializing one of the Western world’s greatest thinkers as a “right-winger.” You really should try to absorb a concept sometime without pinching off just a tiny portion that you are certain you can handle. Be brave. You’ve heard of Chesterton – that’s already a good first step on the road to intellectual rotundity.
I’ve not only heard of Chesterton (I didn’t go to a community college, you see), I have read more of his stuff than is good for anyone. Great thinker, my Aunt Fanny. Man was a clever phrase-maker and a dab hand at a mystery story, little more. “Without God there would be no atheists.” Ha ha, that’s one in your eye, you dirty little atheists; you can’t refute that. Has anyone ever examined this piffle? What Chesterton means, did he and his enthusiasts but know it, is that without the IDEA of God there could be no IDEA for atheists to deny. No proof or even support of God at all. Talk about trivial.
The chief reason Chesterton would not like Michael Moore is that Chesterton — and his weaselly right-wing co-conspirator, Belloc — preferred to move mankind back to the Middle Ages or earlier. where God’s in his heaven, the king’s in his castle, and the villein’s in the muck, where he belongs, singing God’s praises and grateful for the crumbs from the table. Moore simply prefers a 21st century in which the people, dimmish or otherwise, are aware of how badly they are being screwed by right-wingers and other medievalists and that they can do something about it.
Maybe Moore should buy the film rights to Tom Bethell’s devastating assault on advocates of Einstein
Insulting Moore’s weight and his personality distracts form the real focus here, which is his movies and his point of view. As a film maker and entertainer, moore has pulled come cheap stunts, like placing the murdered girl’s photo outside Charlton Heston’s house. But aside from that, his movies are trying to make a bigger point.
Bowling for Columbine – the question was does America have so many gun deaths every year? Compared to several other countries with similar issues and measures of gun ownership, the one difference is that in America, the media spews a never-ending barrage of sensationalist, fear inducing and reality-distracting stream of nonsense. I think the lesson is to view media and corporate news with a more critical eye.
What I took from Sicko is that the health care system is broken and needs to be fixed.
I haven’t seen the new movie but it sounds like Moore has documented the history of the unraveling of the regulations which were enacted in the wave of the depression and New deal and related them up to the economic meltdown.
In another realm, Oliver Stone is shooting a sequel to Wall Street, tackling the same matter.
Peace out.
Regardless of one’s political persuasion,
Those of you who get worked up over Michael Moore’s films seem to be forgetting that he is in the entertainment industry. Should we also criticize Jon Stewart for his imbalanced news coverage? Lighten up a bit.
Also, you can call me old-fashioned, but shouldn’t a critic watch a movie before reviewing it?
Yes, Bruce, that is sooooo 30 minutes ago, actually seeing the movie or reading the book.
I have seen the movie. It’s terrific, his best yet. My favorite part is where the airline instructs its employees not to wear their uniforms when they apply for food stamps. But of course Moore unfairly cherry picks. I am sure there are some airline employees who are not on food stamps. Why doesn’t he do a documentary about them?
Moore!. People just might listen to him and take notice if he’d wear an ironed shirt and wash his hair once in while.
I happened to stumble across this blog by accident. I really have no opinion on Michael Moore, but I just wanted to say to the commenter Parsifal: your ignorance of Chesterton is really quite baffling. Do you really claim to have read him at all? There are so many examples that I could use to refute your claims about him that I don’t know where to start. Please, read “What I Saw in America”…or basically any of his nonfiction…and you will readily see how wrong you are.