Uh, hasn't this been done already? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/

Nope not like this from what I understand.

I saw piece about it in NYTimes today. Sounds interesting but I won't be at SXSW will it show anywhere else?

Not like this. I read piece in NYTimes today about it. Sounds interesting. I'm not going to SXSW is it showing else where?

The best thing about it is, he's being skewered via his own tactics. It's unfair, crude, cynical and for profit - and Moore has no legitimate complaint against it, as he was the pioneer of such abusive behavior in the first place.

I hope everyone involved has lots of fun.

I've heard the film presents a very fair look at the situation. The filmmakers are liberals who admired Moore and wanted to make a film about him. Instead, they uncovered some unsavory truths. I think this is a MUST SEE.

Aw.

NO glimpse of MM's treasonous treasoning treason about Roger Smith in the trailer ? How strange. I thought it was a HIGHLIGHT. You get glimpses of highlights in trailers... normally ?

And NO one noticing this most surprising flaw ? How strange. I thought that ther right was anti-Moore and the left was shrewd.

Aw.

BTW, thanks to Claudasur for the comic relief. This poster sure knows a lot about what admiration means and implies....

The husband and wife team that made this mocumentary must be Republican scumbags. No good Democrat would insult the Honorable Michael Moore this way.

ohgee, I beg to differ.

The scumbags are NOT the Republicans RIGHT NOW. Not anymore.

Today, the scumbags are those who are getting the anti-Moore message across while/by posing as center left, moderate and objective "thinkers".

This way, said stinkers give the anti-Moore faction all the cred that it lacked until now.

Shame on you, "left-wingers". Shame on you.

"I don’t really understand the point of this documentary?"

Really? While I've not yet seen it either, I HOPE the point is to rather discredit the false and underhanded tactics which some documentarians employ to "make better film".

If Moore used them...which honestly those who know him would/should not be surprised ... then yes, the film may justly act to discredit him by shining light on such manipulations of us masses and thus prove him to be not a "fool", but perhaps something more sinister.

Sure, Moore is not alone in this.... I'm no apologist for the golden arches, but Spurlock's SuperSize Me was a far cry from a "scientifically valid" method...but at least he disclosed that...sorta...kinda....almost...

And Gore's doc? While I agree humans are adding something to global warming, phases like "all the best scientists and scientific institutions (agree with him)" are just patently meaningless, and showing glaciers calving - a natural process - but with ominous score and script leaving the layperson to believe it is all caused by man is classic fear mongering hype.

Hey, I’m sure there are conservative doc makers that are also guilty…I just don’t recall any good exposés from an honest conservative point of view! (Darn…those conspiracy theorist on the repressive Hollywood elite must be correct!) ;-)


Seriously…call me naive, but when did faithfully presenting "the truth" and calling out ALL frauds be come a partisan issue?

"I don’t really understand the point of this documentary? Is it to discredit Moore? To make him look like a fool?"

I believe the point is to show that Moore`s truth, isnt always THE truth. Things are a bit more complicated and complex than what Moore so often show in his documentaries.

Anyway: I`m looking forward to this film. I really hope it gives people another perspective on Moore. That he isnt neccesery the selv-proclaimed, rightous spoksman of the (moore) truth, as he claims he is. (sorry about me english.I`m from Norway)

During the "Bowling For Columbine" editing process, I was in the middle of a major documentary of my own. Being Canadian, I'm dependent on public funds via grants, television fees, etc... all originating from tax payers money. As I was making a film about Canadian issues (specifically kids in the remote north, who often sniff gas and fall victim to horrible deaths and suicide), I was begging Michael Moore for some advice. Since he supposedly loves Canada so much, I thought he'd help me with some generous words. Turns out, "Bowling For Columbine" was produced by a Halifax company (I lived in Halifax at the time!)... yes, that's right! Bowling for Columbine was paid for by Canadian Tax Payers money. An American filmmaker had free reign to tell an American story with Canadian money, while I couldn't access money for a Canadian story about Canadian kids.... and he was in the same city as I was, and couldn't even afford a minute to email me or acknowledge my existence in anyway. So he went on to win an Oscar, while I am STILL working on this film with no money. Thanks Mike. (and an honourable mention to Canada, of course.).

Response to Brian White :

"I was begging Michael Moore for some advice. Since he supposedly loves Canada so much, I thought he’d help me with some generous words. "

Moore is generous but he's got millions of beggars on his back. As Michael Palin put it in one of his travelogues, he can't feed Bombay by himself.

He doesn't SUPPOSEDLY love Canada so much. He LOVES Canada, and he loves Mr Harper's country so much that he paid it with a golden reputation that it blatantly doesn't deserve (Harper, this movie, your mindset, etc). It's just that he cares about YOUR COUNTRY... Not YOU.

"Turns out, “Bowling For Columbine” was produced by a Halifax company (I lived in Halifax at the time!)… yes, that’s right! Bowling for Columbine was paid for by Canadian Tax Payers money. An American filmmaker had free reign to tell an American story with Canadian money"

This non-revelation is a worthy counterpart to Caine and Melnyk's, who claim something about Roger and Mike that everybody has known since 1992.

"he was in the same city as I was, and couldn’t even afford a minute to email me or acknowledge my existence in anyway. "

NO he couldn't. He had other priorities than YOU. Shocking, isn't it ?

"So he went on to win an Oscar, while I am STILL working on this film with no money. "

YES he went on to be a GIANT, and you wernt on to remain a jealous DWARF. Win an Oscar and we'll see how time YOU'll have left for beggars.

"Thanks Mike. (and an honourable mention to Canada, of course.). "

YES you CAN thank him. But just in another fashion.

Actually, the point was (if you actually read the comment) was that an American was benefitting from Canadian money... while Canadian kids die. Does that make sense to you? I am not a jealous filmmaker...just one who walks the walk AND talks the talk. Learn to read.
Brian

Hey if Moore is such a fan of Canada, by all means he should move! (Sorry - just couldn't resist the standard reply to calling out Hollywoodie waxing about our Northern Brethern,)

Hey F&H 9_11...with posts like that... you should too! I'll even pack your bags.

Too bad Brian may no longer be willing to serve as a reference on either of your visa applications! Hopefully, he'll take the high road and give you the reply your post deserves....none.

Seriously, no one is interested in you starting a private flame war. And I for one found Brian's personal story germane and interesting. So shut yer cake hole ...even if your handle shows you have at least one or two neurons in your noggin.

Can we drop it?

Let's stick to the topic. This film.

Too late. At least still the high ground was taken. Wouldn't expect anything else from a true son of the North.

So where is the insert poll option on this blog? I'd love to see what the other readers here would vote to the question "Do you think F&H 9_11 is actually the
nom de guerre of MM?"

And obviously, you have lots of time to just persistently disagree with anyone who makes a valid point, lkely without understanding a thing about what it takes to actually make a film (not just rent one). So, if you were fact to face with children who just watched their little sister or brother who lit themselves on fire, while sniffing gas (because of the marginalisation of the Canadian governement)... what would you say? "Sorry I can't help. I mean, my strengths are to tell stories about the truth via documentary, but since our government prefers to fund American films, it's going to take me ten years intsead of two... hopefully only a few more kids die in the meantime". As for "begging" Michael Moore... as I stated, I was begging for ADVICE, not MONEY. I mean, who else would I beg for advice from.... but the master himself. I just never imagined that the value of said advice would have been as high as it was... I didn't know he had his nose so far up Canadian government funders' asses that he could have actually given me a clue as to how to get some of my tax money to make this film. You see, a tenth of his salary would have paid for the whole film... not my salary, but the travel to the remote north, lawyers, equipment, etc... Luckily for me, I found some real people who believe in the power of the medium to help. I never asked mike to help me. I asked him to help me help the KIDS... CHILDREN.... the future.

Thanks for your "thoughtful" response behind your annonymous cyber-name. Google me... email me... I'm real, like the kids I speak of.
Peace.

damn. you were right SandyEggoJake... I was almost embarassed responding in the first place, but you can see I'm passionate about what I do. Thanks for your kinds words... I truly appreciate it. I'm a novice at these boards ( and shalll stay that way).... I forgot people here just do that stuff. I just thought I'd toss in a little story to validate Melnyk and Caine...not that they need it. peace all.

...well, so much for the "high road". Someone call the webmaster and order a "time out".

-SEJ

PS: "Won't somebody please think of the children?" Movie anyone?

OK, Brian...get back to the editing room!

“Won’t somebody please think of the children?”
that sounds like a simpsons quote to me... and how did you know I was procrastinating, SEJ? :) head low... back to editing I go... (for real).

I think some of you do not understand the ideological issue properly.
Moore is not that Left. He is often quite reactionary. Take a brilliant documentary such as THE CORPORATION that is made by people who are much more Left as I am than Moore, but the quality of the work is so superior and the research so much better than a Moore film that THE CORPORATION a damning criticism of corporate capitalism got its best reviews in place like The Wall Street Journal.
Why? Because the so-called "liberal" consumer media were too scared to touch it while the business media knows just how accurate it is. The difference is in the quality and honesty of the work. Moore is both lazy and dishonest.

Very well put, Howard. I tend to be a bit reactionary, too... the forest for the trees scenario applies here. That's a great perspective, and I'm a better filmmaker for it. I've often had to defend myself against Moore's antics and dishonesty. So while many people credit him for opening doors with the audience (which he has), he has also put very real restrictions in the same door frames. We now have to work extra hard to build trust with our subjects, audience and funders.

Response to Howard :

I hope that it doesn't disturb you too much if I remind you that the inspiration for The Corporation is Moore ("Downsize This"), that Moore was interviewed for The Corporation and that Abbott and Achbar both claim their TRUE admiration for Moore ?

Consistency doesn't seem part of your agenda - nor the "true left"'s, besides.

Nope. That's not disturbing at all. Michael Moore is a true conundrum, and I have no problem admitting that people can have complex feelings. Nothing is black and white, though you seem to want people to fit into a mold. This is also why I left politics. My main issues are his lack of tact and truth-telling. Charleton Heston might be an unsavoury character, but I don't think it serves anyone justice to have the imagery of a stalky middle-aged man chasing down a frail old guy in his own home. My concerns with Canadian film companies who hire multi-million dollar directors to tell American stories are common among many Canadian filmmakers. Michael would have had no problem getting funding from American sources, but instead managed to soak Canadian tax money, leaving our industry indies without a good shot at telling Canadian stories. My agenda is to help kids with the power of this medium, which is why I'll never be rich. Money should not be the main motivator for a truth-teller, don't you agree? Thanks for your comments. they're all thought provoking in some small way. Peace.

Oh boy!! So now I am evil eh?

In fact I did not think about Moore being in that documentary until after I had made my post. I could have sited another superb doc such as LIFE & DEBT and my oversight would not have been present.
As for THE CORPORATION it is true though that Moore is merely one of so many people and a very contrasting group of people featured in that documentary. Even with Moore THE CORPORATION does not fall from grace as the wealth of content is so vast. Especially when you add the second disc of the DVD set. The diversity of people interviewed in THE CORPORATION is far greater than in any Moore film.

Voice of the middle, here... I must admit I'm having great fun listening to you self professed leftists, struggling with your "complex feelings" on the Michael Moore "conundrum".

But since this topic is related to the metatopic of balance and truth in the media, I'm please to report to our dear readers that, from at least what I've seen, the majority is really not so conflicted on Moore. They understand Moore to be a puffed up, aggrandizing, self-created brand...getting rich by selling his product...stories of conspiracy, tragedy and fear... to his audience... the passionate young looking for a cause célèbre and to those honest and devoted lefties who are only too ready to believe the yarns he spins. If not willing to critically examine the evidence, both deserve being hoodwinked by the corrupt methods of Moore.

But...what was that Brian? Charleton Heston is an "unsavoury character"??? Based on what... his conservative beliefs, specifically on the right to bear arms? When did we all start defaming a person's CHARACTER because of his or her BELIEFS? Damn you Dirty Apes! :-)

Regardless of where you or I stand on gun ownership, you must admit it took guts for Heston to publicly take his stand... one he know was unpopular at that. Has anyone ever even suggested that Heston used deceit or tricks of the editing room to make his arguments? Nope. (I'd bet Heston would have spit in the eye of Machiavelli.)

And as such, we should be defending Heston's CHARACTER...REGARDLESS of whether you agree with his beleifs.

So why am I taking time here to talk about Heston? Because it serves as an interesting counter to the very issue we are talking about!

At question here is the role of CHARATER plays in making one's argument. I for one say deception is NEVER a valid tool to get one's point across. “The means” DO NOT justify “the ends” CHARACTER COUNTS.

As such, despite if you agree with his aims, we all must admit MOORE'S deceptions, if true as exhaustively detailed by both the left and the right, should cause us to rather award him the label "unsavoury character". The methods of Moore belongs in the same trash bin as those of Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. (Note: At least Glass is now seemingly honest in asking our forgiveness and changing his ways.)

But what do I know? To paraphrase Heston; I'm just a God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, or—even worse—Evangelical Christian, Midwest, or Southern, or—even worse—rural, apparently straight, or—even worse—admittedly heterosexual, gun-owning average working stiff, or—even worse—male working stiff, because not only don't I count, I'm a downright obstacle to social progress! (http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/speech.html)

-SandyEggoJake

PS: While I'm at this rant, as a former New Yorker and one who had close friends who suffered in 9-11, you Hollywood types tell Charlie Sheen next time you see him sipping his latte at the Coffee Bean in Malibu that if he doesn't stop pandering for press coverage by mouthing his lunacy about the US government causing 9-11, I'm going to personally kick him in the balls. And I'll kick Rosie in her balls too!

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"

PSS: Has anyone here actually seen this "Manufacturing Dissent" MOVIE??? Can we get back to TOPIC?

SEJ,
Cool Rant. I like that one. The term "character" is often used in "stories." Writers like to use characters to help further the story along. Such characters might be seen as "protagonists" or "antagonists". In Moore's particular story his protagonist was himself, along with the morality he portrays. Charleton Heston was portrayed as the perfect "foil" to our dear protagonist. Thus, as the "audience," I should assume that since Heston was effectively cast as the "antagonist," his "character" must be deemed "unsavoury". I coule have used the term "villain" but then I was afraid people might take it the wrong way...

"Manufacturing Dissent"? I didn't know that was a movie. I just thought it was the purpose of this board. Ahh jeez!

Well, Brian, you're welcome. And right back at ya for your cool clarification/rebuttal.

But before F&H 9_11 tells us to get a room, let me just say I've the feeling you and I have the making of a decent talkshow pairing.

Anyone know if “Manufacturing Dissent” is to get a wider release? If not, as FOX is likely the only outlet in broadcast to even consider it, does anyone have Rupert Murdoch's cell number?

Let me tell you something about Rupert Murdoch, SEJ..... LOL! Maybe
making money isn't a bad idea....

Is there any possible way to keep Right-Wing, War-Loving, Corrupt, Scumbag Lunatics like SandyEggoJake and Brian White out of this forum?

right-wing war loving... that's about as accurate as the reasons for the iraq war, itself. good one!

As for the conversation with Charlton Heston I think everyone has missed some very big points on that issue.

1. I have always said that Moore owes Heston and a huge thank you and a profit share.
1B. Heston was relishing playing the bad guy. I believe the reason why he took the position of President of the NRA is because it was his last chance for a Mosses type role in his life. He is an actor with an epic pedigree. He was playing "bad cop" for Moore and Moore seems the naive one.
2. During the course of the Heston/Moore conversation it is Heston who is far more brutal and honest in emphasising the blooddrenched history of the USA.
Moore deflects from that history by talking about Germany and Russia. So who is
the real reactionary ?
3. The issue of gun control was NOT the issue. Moore admits both inside and outside the film that when he started he thought a lot like the New Yorkers he interviewed on the streets of Manhattan. When they were asked why Canada has fewer murders their answers were...

less poverty
fewer ethnic divisions
fewer guns

in Canada

WRONG on ALL counts...

As Moore discovers and concedes Canadians own even more guns than Americans do. So to this extent the NRA folks are seemingly correct GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE !! OR rather the American mentality kills far fewer
people than the Canadian mentality.

To be fair to Moore he admits that his learning curve in Canada made him change his mind.

In fact Moore could have emphasized the point even more had he pointed out the constant political battles between Canadian provinces (non-violent battles that is) and the constant threat of Alberta and Quebec to leave the country if the rest of Canada does not constantly give in to their blackmail. If that was the USA there would be a bloodbath !!

BIG CORRECTION

The American mentality kills far MORE people than the Canadian mentality...obviously...sorry typo there. There does not seem to be an edit function or proof function on this site.

Well put Howard. And actually, I didn't miss the point others had made, but was ignoring it all together...as I felt an examination of the juxtaposition between Moore and Heston highlight the very issue of this movie and was just to rich to pass up.

Oh, and Ohgee, that right-wing blah blah blah group known as the ACLU protects all our rights to free speech. Even yours. But since there is no such thing as the "right to listen", feel free to pursue your right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness elsewhere.

SandyEggoJake

Thank you.

I would like a "right to be listened to" though.
Never going to happen.

A great documentary tip...GUERRILLA the taking of Patty Hearst
this DVD rocks !!

Also thefirstyear...a lovely social-docu plus loads of extras on the DVD.

best H

Wait. You say:

"I don’t really understand the point of this documentary? Is it to discredit Moore? To make him look like a fool? Can someone explain to me the point? Is it negative? Positive? Non-partison?"

... in the same post as you call BFC the best documentary ever made? I mean, you you want to talk about a meandering diatribe that tells you next to nothing about the motivation behind Harris and Klebold, or the supposedly violent culture of this country, there's your answer right there.

A more revealing and provacative view of Michael Moore and the film Manufacturing Dissent can be seen at
http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/m_westfall/...

I'm glad there's at least a small minority of people in the world who are smart enough to recognize that his films are propaganda films are really meant for the mindless masses...anybody who gets their information from him is a compltere and utter moron.

Just telling it like it is.

A fun movie, but really weak informationally. Much second hand info and an obvious move to curtail on the fame of a political satirist. The film makers themselves used dishonest tactics with false IDs to get close to Mike Moore...then claim "journalistic Integrity!"...get off the high horse and accept it as a secont rate video done in the style of Mike Moore. No more journalism than the Enquirer or any other tabloid. Don't waste your time or seven bucks copy it from a right wing friend.