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.