Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Michael Moore To Transition From Documentaries To Narrative Feature Films?

Posted on Sunday, August 2nd, 2009 by Peter Sciretta

michael moore bailout

This year might be the last time you see a Michael Moore documentary on the big screen. This according to the filmmaker, who tells The Detroit News that while making his upcoming doc, titled Capitalism: A Love Story, “I’ve been thinking that maybe this will be my last documentary… Or maybe for a while.” Moore says that he would like to transition into the world of narrative fictional feature films. He’s even been working on a couple screenplays.

“I have been working on two screenplays over the last couple of years. One’s a comedy, one’s a mystery, and I really want to do this.”

A few of you might recall that Moore attempted to make this transition earlier in his career with the 1995 comedy Canadian Bacon.  For those of you who haven’t seen Bacon, the film, as you might expect, was infused with political comedy. With the US economy in a rut, and the President’s approval rating at an all time low, a faux war between the U.S. and Canada is invented to invigorate the economy. John Candy played a local sheriff in Niagara Falls along the US/Canada border, who takes it a bit too seriously.

The movie is probably best known to most as the last film John Candy made before he passed. I’m a huge fan of Moore’s docs (aside from F911, which just wasn’t very well put together), but couldn’t stand this film.

That’s not to say that I don’t believe that Moore is capable of making a good narrative fiction feature. He has been able to craft some fantastic narratives with his documentaries. Bowling for Columbine even won Best Original Screenplay from the Writers Guild of America, the first time in the 55-year history that a documentary had been awarded with that prize. Moore has also demonstrated the unique ability to have the audience laughing one second, and in tears the next.

But it isn’t over just yet. Moore’s latest, possibly last, documentary Capitalism: A Love Story hits theaters on September 23rd 2009. Moore says that the film will “go right to the source of the problem — an economic system that is unfair, it’s unjust and it’s not democratic. And now we’ve learned it doesn’t work. This issue informs all my other movies. I started thinking if I can only make one more movie — I started thinking this of course during the Bush years — what would that movie be? And this is the movie.”

Thanks to FirstShowing for passing along this story.

Comments 

Related Posts

Tags

Comedy, Documentary, Mystery/Suspense, Screenwriting, ,

  • Bigzilla
    Michael Moore never made documentaries to begin with, Peter. He makes one-sided propaganda. Find one of his movies where he portrayed both sides of an issue fairly. It's never happened.
  • There's always one. Just didn't expect it so early
  • As a guy who agrees with Moore I agree with Bigzilla to some extent. I find that while he will show the other side he never pulls back all the layers on it. Though Columbine is and always will be his masterpiece. It's just so well put together and damn it's funny.
  • Do me a favor and look up the definition of a documentary on wikipedia:

    "Documentary film is a broad category of visual expression that is based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality."

    There is nothing about "portraying both sides of an issue fairly." Documentation of reality can be subjective, and often is. The last 2 films he made he had fact checkers comb his docs for inaccuracies before release. They found none. You can say he only showed one side, or twisted some of the facts, BUT you can't say that the facts weren't true.
  • mangos
    it's almost no different than watching the news nowadays. everything is twisted somehow. except on the colbert report.
  • Here's a fact: Moore is a sad lonely man who makes movies to get the approval of one half of the population by mocking the other. Moore is a creative artist in that he documents his impressions of the world, as opposed to someone who makes a genuine attempt to document reality.
  • Gelman
    Uh, how about we look up "documentary" in an actual dictionary. From the Random House Dictionary:

    "Based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements."

    Because Moore's films have a political spin and intentionally avoid numerous facts, they cannot be considered documentaries. I feel sad for those who have allowed their minds to be warped by such one-sided rubbish.
  • Gelman
    Also, I'd say BORAT and BRUNO are more deserving of being called documentaries. They present the unvarnished truth. Moore does not.
  • BenNadler
    That's not entirely accurate. Borat, and especially Bruno, had major edits to them. It is quite obvious that most of the scenes in Bruno were entirely scripted and very few actually included people who weren't "in on the joke."

    When Sacha Baron Cohen interviews people, we have no idea if we see the whole conversation. Things could be edited out. People could apologize and realize what they said was wrong and they misspoke. As much as I love those movies, Cohen tends to push people into corners and it isn't a surprise they saw some pretty messed up things.

    Either way, whether it be Moore or Cohen, they are movies above all else, whether we classify them as documentaries or not. They are both edited and condensed in order to prove a point, and some amount of truth will always be left out when that happens.
  • Burton
    That is a correct definition but the job of a documentarian is to convince their audience. Harlan County USA is a good example. The film is about a union dispute. There are 3 ways to document the strike: 1) factual details such as guns fired, picket line blocking road, ect. only facts not an opinion which is a news report, not a documentary. 2) from the point of view of the company running the mine; this POV would probably be anti-union 3)from the view of the strking union workers which is the POV that Barbara Koppel chose. All 3 of these options are legitmate ways to document the strike. The director's job is to convince his or her audience. If Michael Moore did not convince you then he didn't do his job correctly but that doesn't mean he doesn't make documentaries. The word that you need to look up is purports. Definition: 1: to profess or claim as it's meaning 2: to give the appearance, often falsly, of being, intending.
  • Dysthymia83
    There's no such thing as an objective documentary. The very act of observation changes that which is being observed. And a documentary doesn't need to present both sides. His films are obviously the filmic equivalents of Op-ED pieces, and people walk in knowing that, and may later do their own research later if they are interested or if they question any of the facts or opinions drawn from them.
  • BenNadler
    That's a great explanation. If Moore's movies do anything, it is that they get people interested in a subject.

    Knowledge is power. Whether Moore is able to distill any truth with his documentaries is another argument, but his ability to get the audience to research the topic more broadly is important.

    It may be a flawed, but necessary, stepping stone that at least gets society to look at important issues we so commonly tend to skip over.
  • Guest
  • It's funny how Michael Moore needs to quit making docs because Bush isn't in office anymore.
  • Mackie
    Some of Moore's best stuff was on the television show The Awful Truth, which was in production during Clinton's presidency. Also, Moore took his fair shots at Democrats. While Moore is undeniably liberal, you should go watch these two seasons to see that he attacked both sides.. Also he attacked Hilary pretty hard in Sicko.
  • For one, he attacked Hilary because she caved on her/Moore's ideals. Not really sure what your point was there.

    And I have seen the Awful Truth and what he did on the show.

    Point is, there's little coincidence in the timing of his departure from doc making. I think its because he pretty much said all he needed to say about Media, Corporations, Democracy, Poverty, Health Care and now Economics and Bush acted as a fantastic foil to platform all those ideas.
  • MrCavanagh
    Yeah, because he's only started making documentaries during Bush's two terms in office.
  • With the exception of Roger and Me, yes. He's made his MAIN features all within/about the Bush years.
  • Mackie
    It is kinda ridiculous to make that statement since the last 8 years bush has been in office. Thats like me saying that all of judd apatow's films were made during the Bush years. Duh. Most of his films were made in the last 8 years.

    Also, Moore made The Big One, the tv doc And Justice For All, The television series The Awful Truth and shot half of Bowling for Columbine as Clinton was in office.
  • MrCavanagh
    Making that argument just because Bush was in office during one of the most important times of American culture as a whole is dubious at best. During Bush's terms hee made documentaries about gun violence, health care and the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Bowling and Sicko are two issues that we've been dealing with for ages now, and Fahrenheit was something he, as a filmmaker, was very passionate about pursuing just to make heads or tails of the thing.

    Dammit, Vegabro, don't let Michael Moore tear us apart!!
  • Nothing will tear us apart bro.

    All I'm saying is there was a very specific mindset people had during the Bush years that Moore was trying to change...and he did in a big way.

    Bowling for Columbine was largely about how the Media/politicians use fear to manipulate us.

    Fahrenheit 9/11 was simply in two parts about 1) how the war is bad for America and 2) who is benefitting from it

    Sicko is about a very un-Bush medical care system. The Guantanimo Bay scene also comes to mind.

    Thing is, Moore works best against the current and whether you want to admit it or not, he really influenced the public view of these issues.
  • MrCavanagh
    But you're contradicting yourself there. Moore's previous two movies were released when Bush's approval ratings were either at a dead heat or in the negative. How is that "working best against the current"?
  • Wait. Didn't Bush get elected again right after one of those?

    And Sicko sucked.

    Point Bro
  • MrCavanagh
    Then how are they working best?! Quit creating paradoxes, Doc. Brown can only work so fast!
  • There's a difference between paradoxes and puerility
  • MrCavanagh
    I wonder how small these reply boxes can get...
  • I smell another Michael Moore doc topic.

    Looks like he's gonna postpone his fiction career
  • MrCavanagh
    Stop changing your responses! How can I properly respond when Disqus refuses to remember me (and by proxy allow me to edit my reply) while you tinker with your own words? Unfair, sir. Unfair.
  • The people expect perfection from my comments, bro
  • MrCavanagh
    That's about as believable as a three dollar bill.
  • You're as jealous as a three dollar bill
  • quintushalls
    I CAN'T READ THIS WHEN PEOPLE COMMENT TOO FAR!!
  • Colonel_Kurtz
    I have nothing to add. I just want to see how skinny the replies can get.
  • Guest
    Hello?
  • quintushalls
    I think we can get skinnier!!!
  • Depicting truth is often way harder than depicting fiction. I love how Moore constructs his "documentaries" and think he could do a good job. Though I could easily see him doing a terrible job. But Canadian Bacon is a guilty pleasure and the dude just has so much charm.
  • drchicago
    I still find Canadian Beacon hilarious
  • Bigzilla
    I wonder if Moore will blame all of this on Bush, despite the Democrats having control of Congress since 2006.
  • Where do you get your news?

    "Politics Digest" ?
  • BenNadler
    Considering this is your second comment on the matter (and you completely got owned in the responses to your last one) you sound just as "one-sided" as you claimed Moore was.

    Moore doesn't blame Bush for everything. He has taken quite a few shots at Obama lately, and fairly so. He is undeniably liberal, and while most of his ideals line up with the Democrats, when they don't he blames the Democrats as well.

    I have no problem with you disliking Moore's ideals, but you are way more one-sided, and subsequently a huge hypocrite, if you fail to see that Moore stands by his ideals and not necessarily a political party.
  • Gelman
    Ben, Bigzilla isn't claiming to make a documentary. Your comparison is foolish.

    And yes, Bigzilla, even though the Dems are in complete control of government, the economic tanking, job losses, and increasing poverty is OF COURSE going to be blamed on republicans by the liberal media. It's so pathetic, it's laughable.

    But just look at California -- a state run by dems for 40 years -- to see where democrat politics lead society. The state used to be #1 in the country on so many levels (eduction, job growth, productivity). But now that liberals have control, they've run the state into the ground to the point where California is now on the bottom of the list in nearly all accounts.

    THAT's what the dems are bringing nationwide.
  • BenNadler
    Except that California has been run by a Republican governor since 2003. In fact, if you look at this list on Wikipedia, twice as many Republicans have been governor in California in the last 40 years than Democrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_...

    Sure, other parts of California's government has been in control by Democrats, but the Governor easily has the most sway in politics.

    I'm not blindly picking sides as you are. You fail to see that this is not the fault of one party or another - Democrats and Republicans both have a lot of explaining to do for their choices.

    As for why California is no longer in the lead, I can hardly say that it is liberal ideals that pushed it there. Our education is horrible because people aren't willing to pay the taxes required to have a good educational system. Liberals are constantly pushing for higher taxes on oil companies to get that done.

    I've already stated this, but it is worth stating again: this is not one sides' fault. By using terms like "liberal media" and blaming the decline of the quality of living in California on liberal and democratic ideals does nothing to solve the nation's problems. It is simply promoting hate and a partisan agenda. Instead of getting all worked up about how the Democrats are destroying our nation (which they really aren't), the patriotic thing to do would be to think of how you could unite with your fellow Americans and make something productive rather than negative comments based on little to no fact.
  • Wagons East was actually Candy's last film. He died during its production.
  • Joe
    Michael Moore's films are scripted propaganda narratives. They are not documentaries because they do not document what has happened, or is happening, they do repeated takes to get the events that fit the script on film.

    When he makes up numbers to display on the screen as if they were statistics, he has to write them just like any scriptwriter who is creating a narrative.

    It is the epitome of leftist anti-intellectualism that this kind of propaganda is called "documentary", because leftists, unable to argue for their positions based on reality, must always pretend that their fantasy IS reality, and ignore actual reality as non-existent. Like all those scientists who have shown global warming doesn't exist disappear in the face of the repetition of the mantra "scientific consensus" by people who have never heard of the scientific method. (Or at least are sure its some sort of republican plot.)
  • MrCavanagh
    Care to share some examples? Some factual evidence? Or are blanket statements easier to type up?
  • Andyrooskie
    I was going to make a joke about how his movies weren't "documentaries" to begin with, but I see that others have already made that suggestion, and in a much less jovial manner. As I'm extremely tired right now and leery of arguments, I shall instead proclaim that this sounds kinda cool, and I look forward to seeing what he does with a a scripted feature. He's got a knack for developing narrative tension regardless of whether you agree with his politics.
  • Jack B
    Thats funny, because Moore's last 2 films were professionally fact checked. There were no numbers or facts made up. Some you could question how they were presented, or question what facts weren't presented that should have been. But to say he changes the numbers is dead wrong.
  • Bobby
    It just seems like alot of Moore haters who want to deny that his "documentaries" were factual. Hate him or love him, F 9/11 was filled with nothing but facts. Yes it was 1 sided but regardless it was filled with nothing but facts about the people who were running and ruining our country at the same time. I'm guessing some of you guys speaking on the subject are the same guys who voted for Bush twice. Thanks alot for voting for someone who cheated the presidency his 1st term then won off false hopes and claims his 2nd term. We have to thank you guys for helping us get into this shitty economical climate.

    Anyways I'd like for somebody to really make a "documentary" that looks into the sheer amount of corrution in government. The US is no less corrupted then any other courupted government. Granted the film would probably never be allowed to be released but it would be gold regardless just to hear the excuses for why the film won't come out.
  • Attorneys on both sides of a case use the same facts to reach different conclusions. It's called logic.
  • Nick
    I think "essay film" describes Moore's works better.

    I disagree with you about Farenheit 9/11, as did the Cannes Jury.
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.