8/5/2007 11:18 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Sicko
Michael Moore's films always raise important issues. It is just too bad how manipulative his style is. I liked Sicko very much, and in fact found it to be one of his more straight forward films.
The problem with Roger and Me (and all of Moore's films actually) is his sequencing of events. He shows event "B" as a result of "A" when the two aren't related. For example, take nearly every "consequence of GM's plant layoffs" that Moore portrays in the film. Regean visiting, a mall being built, a hotel being built, a museum, a new sloagan, etc. Every single one of those events happened months to years before the layoff even happened. So his entire premise is false that GM devistated the town in a single blow. But is the issue of layoffs important, and being an advocate for the poor? OF COURSE! So why does Moore have to use his talents to create fiction?!
And BFC, all the ruckus about Charlton Heston coming to Denver after the Columbine shootings is wrong. He cancelled his rallies, and the footage is shown from an entirely different speech. Heston's reaction was actually very touching and sympathetic to the families.
So despite how good his films are and how important the issues, audiences need to remember how manipulative documentary film can be. The term "documentary" is not a free pass to believe everything you see.
(I've written several ten page papers for film classes on Moore. I'm full of Moore facts.)
Finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I really liked Sicko.
|