HEY GENERAL... ABOUT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

General,

It’s been a hard day’s night, this battle is lost, and the backlash has begun. Vae victis. The mob is jeering at King-Kong in chains following Caesar’s triumph. The few statements I read from you since we were defeated left me wondering. Those I didn’t read made me uneasy. I know you’ve got to keep a low profile, and that the winter might be long. But I’m worried. How shaken are you ? How dug in ? Up to your heels ? I feel I have to break my duty of reserve.

I hope you know you bear no responsibility in our army’s wreckage. The Emperor’s victory was begotten by the terrifying marriage of cynical smear tactics and plebeian stupidity, then born out of Doofus’s consistent silence about the patricians’ wheeling and dealing, his consistent failing to be either inspired or inspiring, and his consistent refusal to acknowledge a banner that was both. To say nothing of the Votergatum. Call yourself Cassandra.

No need to elaborate either on the way you served. You served. Heart, soul, blood, sweat and guts. At the front line. That’s more than what most of those who blame you can say. For lack of any proof whatsoever, we can schematically assume that F9/11 fired up our side, counter-fuelled the enemy and changed a few minds, most of them for the better. As for the Tour, it unmistakably caused a more significant turnout, and we’re not going to let anyone tell us that the majority of the slackers who saw you plebiscited the Emperor, are we ? So, at worst it was a draw, at best you got the 1 % to 2 % more Doofus voters you had planned to conquer. Mission accomplished.

But, General, from the legitimate feeling you did no wrong and can stand proud and impassive in front of the rabble, you seem to deduce there’s nothing you should change or question. It’s not like you. And that’s puzzling me.

General, I’ll be blunt : I don’t like the idea of a F9/11 ½. And I like it even less hearing the way you talk about it. I hope for the best but I fear the worst. “We’re communicators” ? “Convince the 51 %” ? “Weren’t told the truth” ? Shit, General, what are you talking about ? You were an artist, do you mean to become a team of publicists ? You were speaking your mind and raising awareness, do you mean to arm-wrestle the words into the people’s minds ?

I think I understand what you mean to do, actually : you plan to go back to this initial French concept of “cinema d’intervention” that gave birth to F9/11. You want to witness the American lie as fast as it unwinds, you want to use images as weapons for a permanent revolution, you can’t stand the useless waste of human lives and you feel from deep inside you just couldn’t find peace if you called it a day now.

Yes… But are these motives still real, or are you kidding yourself ? Things have changed in an awful lot of ways in the last few months. Glory blessed and cursed you. More annoyingly, it defined you. You’re no longer a voice in the crowd, a modest symbol of free speech and democracy. You’re the man who wanted to topple the President. The man who couldn’t topple the President. And no one ever calls you Roger Moore anymore.

What can you do now ? What more can you do ? Why enhance this slippery image ? You can’t outshine F9/11, be it commercially or artistically. Your credibility is bullied. Your name is sealed by scorn or hatred. This persona is up shit creek without a paddle. Who is going to believe Michael Moore, apart from those who already believe him ? What are you prepared to do to make the others listen ? Are you about to commit your first bad work ? Your first pointlessly bad work ? Will there come a day when someone will say F9/11 ½ is crap and I shall remain silent ?

General, I’m looking back and it’s plain to see that if you spot hubris so well in others, it’s because you have it in you. Yours might be sublime – it’s still hubris, and you’ve got to make sure your fantasy of saving the world all by yourself doesn’t get fruitlessly out of control at the end of this parabola which saw you set a trend, steal the show, take the lead of the untamed, top the scene, impose a worldview and reach the top of your career. A source of strength can so silently backfire into a road to ruin. And the wisest way to go in citizen action or civil disobedience is to go in the largest possible numbers.

Resistance surrounds you. I saw “Le monde selon Bush” and “The Control Room”, to name but these two. Of course it’s nothing like your blazing, majestic fresco, but it’s no intellectual, abstruse stuff either, and it was a vital complement to your work : Karel investigated over the oligarchy as a whole, Nouhaim showed how the Arab world saw the invasion of Iraq. You were in a position to openly rally the other artists, make their movies commercially attractive, promote their works, actively create a culture. You’re a wonderful teacher, you have the energy and the authority, you could have done it.

Instead of that you just recommended them on your site and we were led to treat F9/11 as a fetish. God, the meetings and the rallies were centred only about that : how to persuade people to see F9/11, how to advertise for F9/11, the anti-R rating campaigns, the hacking of the repug sites who were sending death threats to theater owners… That, and voter registration. We had a broad range of issues of discussion, but as far as action was concerned : F9/11. I don’t blame you. Not at all. I’ve been the first one to play this game. It was Cannes, the Palme d’Or, full recognition at last after years of struggling and obscurity. It was intoxicating. Especially for me, who was there at the very beginning. It’s just that all the weight was on your shoulders, and you thought you could bear it, and so did I. But now time has come to sober up.

You can’t.

Yes, I know, many a time has a single human being started great things – but not always – not alone – not in any context - not against all odds. You’re not Rosa Parks. And the truth is not yours. It’s because you have implied the truth was yours that the slander has been all yours to take. Dissociate the truth from your name, and the mudslinging will fail. Open a school, train students, federate followers… I don’t know. Running for best picture to leave room to your fellow documentarians, shooting more consensual and still dangerous works like Sicko seem to me the right way to go. I whole-heartedly commend these moves. You need to clean yourself from the mud by diluting the responsibility and refusing that devil suit. Free the truth, General. Free yourself. Stop playing Superjeez now, it’s Gibsonland.

And do F9/11 ½ as well if you feel it’s the right thing ! Just make sure it’s about the war, not about the Return of the Son of your Revenge – and all will be well.

General, you’re right to be unapologetic. You’d be wrong to be autistic. You’re right to be tenacious. You’d be wrong to be stubborn. You’re right to remain insane. You’d be wrong to lose your sanity. You’re right to be yourself. You’d be wrong to stay on your own.

Don’t let your glamour get in the way of your power. Such is your responsibility.

Please consider.

Yours.

Private fear_and_hate_9_11


PS – This just in - I hear you’re currently spending your time going to church, taking walks in the woods and catching up on sleep. And following my advice before I even gave it…

While he has no problem being a "designated hitter" in the political game, he's not interested in being the coach or most valuable player.

"Being a figurehead is a responsibility and a burden," he said. "Still, people have gone to my movies and read my books, and I'm not going to let them down.

And F9/11 ½ has now become only a “potential follow-up”. Wonderful. Of course you’re aware of all that… Silly me. Oh, I'm going to post my letter since I wrote it. But sometimes I wonder what it is I worry about. Guess I’m simply bored from not hearing enough of you.

SHOULD MIKE USE HIS TALENTS TO ADDRESS HIS CRITICS AND HIS OWN METHODS ?

Yet another wonderful idea from this treasure of intelligence and humanity called kusturica :

I like Moore's idea for his next film, and the nice thing about it is that I think even a lot of his detractors will be sympathetic to his subject. We'll see how that goes.

But I have another idea that may be a brilliant move for him, or a horrible can of worms he should never open. Not sure, so tell me what you think.

I believe, strongly, that the things he is accused of screwing up on are minor points, admissible errors that don't significantly affect his thesis, and misunderstandings of the process of filmaking, editing, satire, and his very intentions. I have seen, upon first viewing, minor gaffes and things that even I didn't think logically followed or helped his point (the use of whole numbers in BFC, rather than ratios according to population, for example). But I forgave this and other, yes, "piddly" little things because I understood where he was going and why. He occasionally made someone look dumb through editing, and it may have been harsh, but it may also have been deserved. But I always figured that people risk having this done to them whenever they appear on camera, and there is enough footage of Michael Moore lying around, that someone who really wanted revenge could splice some interesting, very unflattering montages together to make their own points.(…)

I don't think Moore has ever been full of bullshit. And I don't think he's ever that crass. That's not where I'm going. But this gave me the idea that maybe he should use his talents to address his critics and his own methods. Maybe not in his next movie, or his next book, but maybe a TV special? A chapter in a book? He could give us lessons in irony, satire, the difference between a fact and an opinion, answer some token accusations (there is no way anyone can expect him to tackle every claim made on every blog or message board out there; that's absurd, and I think some people want him to spend his time doing just that, and that's just a crock), and maybe even own up to times he thinks he may have erred, gone too far, or been off in some way. Whatever.

This could make people at least see in him what I see: a person who wants to make a difference in the world for the better, in the only way he knows how. He's fallable, sure, but who isn't?

Or it could completely undermine his work and be a waste of time. Who knows. Perhaps admitting to anything is merely a sign of weakness to his enemies, a concession will be taken as a confession of guilt, and they will tear him to pieces. I don't know. But it's worth pondering.

Any thoughts?

My answer :


Should Mike use his talents to address his critics and his own methods ?

I’ve been mulling over it. For two days. The answer is not simple.

First, here are the facts available :

1) He has already addressed his critics rationally on technical points. Briefly about BFC, stark raving madly on each and every minute of F9/11. He has even answered to Kopel.

2) He has already been self-critical. Discreetly, reluctantly, incidentally, occasionally, vaguely, and on minor points. He once publicly apologized to one of his employees he had had a row with. He admitted two or three times he should do a diet. He wrote in "Stupid White Men" that he had "many flaws".

3) His methods are available for all to see on his site :

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/m...index.php?id=63

4) He doesn’t take exception to criticism. Not even to abuse. Not when it’s personal. But he does when it becomes symbolic of an infringement to a liberty or a human right. He bellowed against the censoring of “Stupid white men”. He peacefully but firmly refused all forms of slander, including being called a “propagandist”.



Now, my own ideas and interpretations :

I’m not sure, but I think he does mind being criticised and has more or less fled from criticism, from the very beginning. Why ? Because he’s already utterly harsh on himself. He’s his own sternest critic.

“He’s definitely the product of a Catholic upbringing,” Moore’s friend Danny Goldberg says. “He’s very hard on himself—really, really worries about whether he’s doing the right thing and how to do what he’s doing better, tortures himself about every little detail.” Chris Kelly says,“I think he has a very powerful moral sense.”

(from “The Populist”, a wonderful essay I strongly advise you to read – you will learn a lot).

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact7


So I think all his doubts, all his questions, all his uncertainties – all these happen between him and God. He’s probably too proud to feel he owes anything to anyone else and too fragile to accept to be contemplated on an equality level by another human being. Including his fans. He acts absolutely.

More specifically, he’s also too sensible to think he’d get more understanding out of self-criticism or explanations than what he can already get from a normal amount of good will. Good will goes with good faith : if his bashers just disagreed, if they just disliked him as a person, he’d be able to prove them wrong. He does, each time he can. Proof is, another great article written by a Conservative rabbi who met him at the RNC and tells how he started, thinking Mike was full of hatred against Israel, and changing his mind as they chatted. At the end of the day, he concludes : “I was left feeling that he can have a charming side and is certainly not Satan.”

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/artic...RTICLE_ID=40258


Oh yes – but this guy had written “Who says God doesn't have a sense of humor? “ as his first sentence. That says it all.

The huge majority of Moore bashers have no humor, no love, no open mind. They are filled with arrogance and especially hate. A hate driven by a spiritual urge – the will to go on sleeping, the hatred for the hand that woke them up to tell them their house was on fire. Moore bashers are, at worst, spin doctors, at best, sleepwalkers.

Think of what self-criticism means in an Orwellian, intolerant, totalitarian society. It means nothing but self-deprecation toward the followers and a degrading humiliation toward the enemies. In America everything is a show. Everything is strength. Everything is a show of strength. Self-criticism means nothing without love, explanations mean nothing without a desire for truth. Mike can’t make any move toward the Inquisition – and people like Kopel and Hardy are nothing but inquisitors, keen on proving what they’ve decided to prove from the beginning. As for those who aren’t as “educated” as the polite spin bastards, they’re just getting ready for the lynching after the “judgement”.

Supposing (you do have a wild imagination, so you can) America is not totalitarian – if Mike made a film about himself, wouldn’t he be even more accused of narcissism and self-promotion than he already is ? Wouldn’t it be taken as a spin-off, a by-product, a kind of pro-Moore Fahrenhype ? Wouldn’t his fans be lost when seeing him suddenly turn away from his deep involvement ? And wouldn’t he have to turn away, too, from his real burning desire, which is to serve ?

At best, it would end up like the deceits – an endless, fruitless, inane stream of nitpicking. “He said that… But I can tell you that….” “Oh really ? Well in that case I can prove that… Yes, but me I can prove that…”

I personally believe anything Mike touches turns to gold. If he made a self-explanatory movie, it would be neither of limited interest, neither narrowly narcissistic. He would manage to make it sound as significant and universal as his previous ones. It would be a meditation on the persona of the artist and the meaning of citizen action. It would be beautiful and loving.

But he’ll never make it.

Never mind. He’ll make something else. And it will be beautiful and loving.

ANTI-MOORE PATTERNS : THE CURRENT TOP 5

Today I picked up a post about the hypothesis of the existence of ambient anti-Moore patterns. What I find interesting about the idea is that it breaks with the convenient manicheism of “them” and “us”.

from kusturica

I've noticed this trend, and I think there must be a formula being passed around, posted somewhere, or whatever, because I've seen a lot of these posts that sound the same.

Here's some ingredients:

1) I watched BFC and/or F911 and was so angry at NRA/Bush/whoever
2) Then I did a bunch of "research" on Moore
3) Moore is a liar and a manipulator, and I'll never believe what he says
4) I'm going to buy/rent/see [insert anti Moore film or book]
5) Fans of Moore are idiots
6) His lies hurt America and/or the troops

I don't know if I'm leaving anything out. It's even more suspicious when they claim they never heard of Moore, or had no opinion, or were even sympathetic to his causes.

My answer :

There are indeed ready-made anti-Moore patterns meant for the “intellectuals”. Like in the field of fashion the color or the brand can vary so as to create an illusion of personal thinking, and like in fashion if buttonless shirts are in you’ll wear buttonless shirts, no matter how inconvenient they really are.

Just the same, there are a few formulas around, but you’ll find the “research” (a fundie reading and rote learning of Hardy and Bushnell mainly) and the “sheepish Moore followers” can always be spotted, because they are the points that matter.

CURRENT TOP 4 (with kust's it's top 5, you tell me where you think it fits guys) :

#1 Spanish Inquisition special :

1) His followers are sheep.
2) I can tell by the way they believe him although he’s full of shit.
3) Therefore they believe anything he says.
4) Therefore nothing he says is to be believed.
5) Oh, and now I’m going to do some research to prove he’s full of shit.

#2 Smart Ass special : (used to be #1 but slipped to #2 since the confidence crisis struck home)

1) I did some research about his movies.
2) I found he uses editing and communication tactics.
3) No other documentarian does.
4) I also found nobody has ever been able to sue him and win, but I’ll remain discreet about that.
5) His followers are sheep.
6) Don’t be so gullible, don’t be a sheep.

#3 Universal Love and Peace special :

1) F9/11 is leftist propaganda (leftist version : F9/11 is the same as Fox News)
2) I can tell by the way he smears our President (leftist version : I can tell by the way he plays on emotions/ exploits the tears of a mother)
3) I can tell by the way he smears our troops (leftist version : I can tell by the way he flatters the WASPs)
4) I can tell by the way he describes Iraq as an oasis of peace (leftist version : I can tell by the way he conveniently over-simplifies things)
5) His followers can’t see any of these, they are just sheep.
6) I won’t bother about research because I know better.

#4 Good Old Days special :

1) He was good when he did “Roger and me”. (Naderite version : He was good when he supported Ralph).
2) He wasn’t a liar then. (Naderite version : He wasn't a traitor then).
3) He began to lie when he did BFC. (Naderite version : He began to sell out when he supported Clark).
3) Who does he think he is going after President Bush. (Naderite version : How dare he support these corrupt Democrats).
4) I did research on F9/11 and found it was all lies/all clever editing. (Naderite version : I did research on F9/11 and found he had left out this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this...)
5) He’s a sell-out now.
6) His followers are sheep.

Why are these "sheep" and "research" points so essential ? Because Moore bashers must feel smart and informed. This way, they won't listen to a smart and informed guy.

The success of these patterns is due to most of Moore bashers being happy with acting as clones spreading cloned propaganda. They’re generally tepid human beings, afraid of freedom and reassured by conformism. At the end of the day, I think that what they really can’t stand isn’t Mike’s ideas or Mike’s style – it’s Mike himself. He’s too much for them. Nowadays America thinks she's great, whereas she's just big. She's not used to great men anymore. Especially inescapable great men !

TO CUT UP ANTI-MOORE ERECTIONS

Here is a valuable (the only one) right wing post which was submitted on another board, and my answer to it :

From rasqual :

Time for some soul searching from Mike

As I posted some time ago, Moore is either irrelevant (at least, with respect to this election) or counterproductive, turning people off. I think the election results vindicate that judgment.

Let's say Moore's fans wish to preserve the notion that Moore made a big mark in Kerry's favor in this election. In that case, there's something peculiar that bears explanation. If we were to give however many votes they imagine Mike gleaned to Bush, then we'd see that apart from Mike's work, Kerry would have lost by an even wider margin. This seems implausible; how could Kerry possibly lose worse than Al Gore with Moore's help, and if we discount Moore's help, even worse?

The logical conclusion of that line of thinking is that Americans lent Kerry less credence than Gore even when up against a president so much worse, if Moore, the man who helped Kerry so much, is to be believed. But this is incoherent. How is it possible that Moore's message that Bush is terrible won voters, whereas the man who's certainly much better than such a bad man lost them?

No, the answer's simpler. Moore isn't irrelevant -- he hurt Kerry. His effort was unbelievably huge. A blockbuster film. A book. Or was it two? A campaign DVD release. Giving pirates a pass on downloads of his film (it's everywhere now). A pre-election PPV showing. An unprecedented celebrity tour of campuses and other venues.

And Kerry lost worse than Gore. More votes for Bush than ever for any president. The Senate tipped deeply into Republican territory. Daschle is history. A few seats gained for Republicans in the House. That doesn't show that people are dupes who are fooled by Bush. It shows that Americans tarred the whole freakin' Democratic party with a brush Moore helpfully dipped in unattractive paint.

Moore apparently didn't even have anything in the queue for posting at his site in the event of a loss. This is a man who's so delusionally narcissistic that he can't imagine losing. And really, that's his downfall. Believing he can do no wrong, he persuades everyong that he's a dangerous nut case.

Mike, time for some soul-searching. Americans rightly saw you as the leader of the tinfoil hat brigade. Turn a corner and put your immense skills to work in an honest way.

http://www.michael-moore.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2831&posted=1#post2831

I've got an itch to smirk at how Mike is suddenly acknowledged as utterly relevant toward the election now that he has lost it and that the right wingers want to believe his credibility is dead. But your sincere and intelligent analysis deserves no irony and I’ll answer as respectfully as you posted. Thanks for your class.

First of all, Mike’s relevance is a factor among others. It has to be objectively measured, in itself, compared to other forces and put into perspective, and it probably will be. I agree with you he was extremely relevant. I always said he was. I have admired his will and his ability to pull it through. The fact that he has lost doesn’t change anything, it only proves relevance is not mastering reality.

I also agree that my beloved Irish hothead does need a cold shower from time to time. If he had won, I’m dead sure that he would have clattered his high heels like mad, asked Kerry to kiss his ass and made himself totally unbearable. He’s very conceited. He’s as conceited as he’s humble, and he’s conceited because he’s humble and vice-versa – but that’s not our topic.

Now what I don’t agree with is that Mike has hurt Kerry. The most objective reason is that responses are dialectical by definition, not isolated. What defined Mike was the image Kerry granted to him : a leper. Kerry refused to see F9/11, never acknowledged Mike, copiously humiliated his far left voters, banking on the fact they’d vote for him because of their detestation for Bush anyway. By doing so, he deprived himself of his most powerful and most precious support, and he let Mike’s persona take over his film. Mike is very left, F9/11 is not. Kerry could have taken the film and let aside the filmmaker. He could have used its treasure of facts, taken pride in its artistry, defined it for the mere revelation of what CNN should have shown 3 years ago that it was. But he preferred to treat it as the monster the neo-cons said it was. He went for the 30 pieces of silver of a few moderate pussies and undecided wankers.

And so Mike gradually had to define himself according to this poor place, and what’s more he had to compensate more and more for Kerry’s poor campaigning and various blunders. He started as an independent and distanced himself from Kerry as long as he could – to preserve the balance with Kerry’s own ignoring and also because he was aware of how polarizing he was. When it became obvious that Bush’s obnoxious smearing against Kerry was working all too well, he broke his silence for the first time, but not to praise Kerry, just to speak out against the slandering methods – and I was very moved because I thought of how much he personally knew about slander… It’s only a month ago that he officially announced he’d personally vote for Kerry, and even so, he never actually called to anyone else to do so. His message remained : “Get involved”.

If someone has hurt anyone else, I’d say Kerry hurt Mike.

That’s the truth. Of course, Bush’s propaganda told quite another story. Kerry’s lack of story, to be precise. Moore was a liar, a traitor, a pinko, and wait – a Democrat. Yes he could be both a pinko and a Democrat, you can spoon-feed anything to brainwashed dimwits, especially as long as there are spineless Dems around to confirm it by fleeing in horror from Mike’s bravery’s glorious stench.

Moore apparently didn't even have anything in the queue for posting at his site in the event of a loss. This is a man who's so delusionally narcissistic that he can't imagine losing. And really, that's his downfall. Believing he can do no wrong, he persuades everyong that he's a dangerous nut case.

Mike has been caught in a mad spiral. He was so genuinely frightened of Bush’s victory (I have a lot of quotes proving it) that he simply couldn’t bear the thought it could happen (he told so, word for word). So in order to convince the others, he convinced himself, and as he was the only one he was sure to have an effect on, he brainwashed himself into believing Kerry could do no wrong. His latest letters were shrill, unconvincing, poorly written.

It was all or nothing. He played his word and lost. He acted like a prince. An exhausted prince.

You see, pragmatism is part of the American soul. If you win, you’re right. If you lose, you’re wrong. Mike uses this spirit but doesn’t share it, and that’s what makes him a universalist even more than an American patriot. He always said a man’s got to do what a man’s got to do, whatever the consequences. That’s what he does. That’s what he’ll keep on doing. And that’s why I thanked him BEFORE the results.

PS – An anonymous hero just posted this on my blog, probably meaning harm : “hey mike......you can take kerry's cock outta your mouth now......”

Yes you can, poor Mike. Somewhere, somehow, you must be relieved.

HEY MIKE... IF YOU LOG IN

I posted this open letter yesterday to several Moore forums. The link will direct you to the most entertaining thread.



Dear Mike,

So it’s November 1st, and soon we’ll know if your modest, immediate dream has come true. And so, because as you put it so well, you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do whatever the consequences, I think this suspended moment in time is the best one, the right one - to thank you.

I know it's a secret, I know you don't want that, but I'm just one who considers you're more important than Bush, more important than Kerry, more important than the result of the election, for the force that lies in you and surges from you, what you are and what you do, the visions you've radiated and the ones you will impulse, those who need you and those who hate themselves through you, none of these will stop whatever America's fate, for you ARE America's fate.

For if it's a sea there'll be no land in sight and you'll still be there at the helm, if it's a sky there'll be no limit and you'll be the guiding star, if it's a forest the wolves will loom large and you'll be the fox who will fool them.

An artist in a propagandist's clothing, never so sharp and shrewd as when you pose as a dumbass, you had them believe you were big when you were alone, and you had us believe you were nothing much so as we could do it - so as we could do maybe the 1, 000th of what you do - and such is your magic that perhaps a few among us did - perhaps one or two dozens created some sparkles, planted some seeds of the reality we want to live in.

Son of Abbie Hoffmann, grandson of Thomas Paine, brother to all, father to none, you've made yourself cynical not to be slaughtered, you've tamed the media at the risk of your soul, you've sold and sold, you've talked and talked, and you're not down, and you're not hoarse, and you're still pure. You're a fountain of youth and a never-ending last stand, you are God's clown and the people's whore, you have the hunger of a thin man and the energy of a star, a true star - a wizard, one who turns hydrogen into helium - be blessed, be hailed, be saluted, and, most of all, give us always more of your tough love, and keep the haters and the tired skeptics at bay !

Yours in small and humble, but permanent and uncompromising revolution,

fear_and_hate_9_11