Shaun Anderson

Presentation Script – The Politics of Michael Moore’s Films and his Political Stance on the Documentary Genre.

[Lights down, projector run video clip of Bowling for Columbine]

Speaker: Welcome to this presentation that focuses on Michael Moore and his films. My aim throughout this presentation is to discover the contribution and impact Michael Moore’s films have done for the Documentary genre. I also aim to find out how his political stance has affected his films and overall the Documentary genre.

Projector: Images of Michael Moore throughout his life and career.

Speaker: Before we begin, I’d like to briefly take you through the life and career of Michael Moore. Moore was born in Flint, Michigan and raised by his parents in nearby town, Davison. With an Irish background, Moore was raised Catholic and still remains on to this day, though he opposes some beliefs (e.g. abortion, same- sex marriage). After attending Catholic schools throughout his school years, Michael Moore attended the University of Michigan but dropped out following his first year, moving on to become the editor of a local magazine and moving to California to work for the magazine company, Mother Jones. After he was fried from that job, filed a lawsuit against the company (for wrongful dismissal) earning him $58000, which was put towards his first of several controversial Documentaries, Roger and Me. Moore is a political activist, and is known for his centre-left views on

Shaun Anderson

Politics, making him a supporter of the Democratic Party.

So with trying to discover the significant addition Michael Moore’s films have affected the Documentary and his political stance in his films and how they affect his documentaries, there are certain points that need to be discussed.

Projector: Shows list of points.

Speaker: The points that I will discuss throughout the presentation are:

- The controversy Moore has received from Bowling for Columbine

- How Moore’s political views may make Bowling for Columbine seem biased.

- How Bowling for Columbine affected the Documentary genre.

- Critical reception of Fahrenheit 9/11 and its controversies, including political views.

- Moore’s different approach when making SiCKO.

- How Moore has made the Documentary genre more popular.

Speaker: Bowling for Columbine was a 2002 Documentary, which gained critical acclaim and overwhelmingly positive reviews. The film focuses on America’s laws of gun control and some controversial happenings that were made infamous because of the use of guns. The film got 4 out of 5 stars from Empire and his hailed as one of Michael Moore’s best works.

Shaun Anderson

Projector: Quotes from sources from annotated catalogue

Speaker: However, his Documentary has also received some shocked and negative reactions. Reviewer for the New York Times, A.O. Scott wrote, “Outright demagoguery on display in Bowling for Columbine should be enough to give pause to its most ardent partisans, while its disquieting insights into the culture of violence in America should occasion sober reflection from those who would prefer to stop their ears.” Moore often gains criticism for lack of empathy towards certain infamous moments and makes them look comedic; Bowling for Columbine is no exception.

The film mainly focuses on an infamous moment that shook the world when it happened in April, 20th

1999, the Columbine High School Massacre. The massacre was responsible for the lives of 12 students and a teacher. Moore already gains controversy before the film’s release. The title of the film is an insinuation of what the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were doing before shooting at several students, they went bowling. The title is amusing in a sense but also rather insulting and some people take offence to it, claiming Moore’s insensitivity towards the subject makes it look like he is parodying the horrific events.

Michael Moore is openly a supporter of the Liberal party and he does not shy away from showing his views in his Documentaries. Moore does not usually keep a balanced view on his films and instead tries to “lure” the audience into a passionate outrage on behalf of the Liberals. He’s aware that his films don’t do much to persuade those who disagree with him, but that doesn’t bother him. He said, “I may be preaching to the choir. But the choir needs a

Shaun Anderson

good song.” Tackling subjects like gun control in Bowling for Columbine, it shows he wants to touch on subjects that are a cry out for help on the Liberal’s side. It is because of views like this that supporters have compared him to the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr. However, those who are against his views or who may criticize his films compare him to the likes of Nazi Propagandist, Josef Goebbels.

Bowling for Columbine changed the Documentary genre dramatically. Its revolutionary tale helped it to become the highest grossing Documentary film of all time (before being overtaken by Moore’s next controversial flick, Fahrenheit 9/11). In May 2002 this film became the first documentary to compete in the Cannes Film Festival's main competition in 46 years. After it was screened at the Cannes Film Festival, it received a standing ovation that lasted for 13 minutes. It changed the way people perceived Documentary films as it was usually passed off as “generic factual films” until Moore’s controversial flick allowed audiences to give a new perspective on Documentaries as they are not only good sources for knowledge on certain things and events, but also delivers entertainment and comical value, along with a message at the end.

Arguably just as controversial as Bowling for Columbine is Michael Moore’s next Documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. The film focuses on what happened to America after the events of the September 11 attacks and how Moore (and other Liberals) believe the Bush Administration used this horrific event as an excuse to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan over oil. The film received huge praise by critics highlighting Moore’s courage to create a film like this. Rotten Tomatoes consensus says, “Extremely one-sided in its indictment of the

Shaun Anderson

Bush administration, but worth watching for the humor and the debates it'll stir.”

Projector: Plays Michael More’s acceptance speech at 75th Annual Academy Awards. [source 6]

Speaker: Although this was Moore’s Oscar win for Bowling for Columbine, his acceptance speech was based around his opinions on the Bush Administration, which is havily emphasised in Fahreneit 9/11. In his speech Moore exclaims the fact that, “We live in a time where there are fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president who send our troops to war for fictitious reasons.” This speech was filmed just a few days after President Bush sent in American troops to Iraq. It sows he is highly critical of Bush and the voting that took place in Florida, which many believed to be forged, and “robbing” Al Gore of becoming President. In an in depth interview that details Moore’s career [source 8] Moore discussed the aftermath of his speech and the amount of controversy it gained at the time. He described it as being “crucified by the press.” Nevertheless, Moore ultimately triumphed with this film and he won the Palme d’Or award at Cannes Film Festival in 2004 [source 9], along with a 15-minute standing ovation, the longest ovation in film festival history.

Sight and Sound magazine [source 9] published an article in July 2004, on Michael Moore’s Palme d’Or victory at Cannes Film Festival in 2004. In the article they described Fahrenheit 9/11 as a “victory” and “it’s a gesture of political and aesthetic maturity.” This insinuates that despite the political criticism and left-wing bias views, the film overcame those odds and was a proven success, both critically and commercially, by overtaking Moore’s predecessor, Bowling for Columbine to become the highest grossing Documentary of all time, grossing over $220 million [source 1].

Shaun Anderson

The third film I have chosen on Michael Moore is his 2007 Documentary, SiCKO. This Documentary focuses on America’s highly profitable Health Care system and comparing it to the free, universal health care in countries like the UK and Canada. What is noticeable about this Documentary is that Moore decides to go a different route. He chooses to tone down the comic value and controversy, as he believes the health care is in dire need of a serious change. This is also Moore’s first non-political flick. One of the most notable changes in this film, one that has not been seen in his previous films is along with the Republicans, Moore also blames the Democrats for their failure and inaction to resolve and their often willing attitude to being bribed by pharmaceutical companies and insurance carriers, which is ironic as, although being very liberal minded, Moore describes himself as a supporter of the Democratic party. There are still themes that SiCKO and Moore’s older films have in common. Moore still chooses to point the finger at a big corporation and he still maintains his one-sided liberal arguments. In Roger Ebert’s review of the film [source 7], Ebert backs up my point of Moore taking a more leniant approach by writing, “It's a different Michael Moore in "Sicko." He still wears the baseball cap, but he's onscreen less, not so cocky, not going for so many laughs.” He also goes on to say how it could be seen as neutral by saying, “Moore's films usually make conservatives angry. This one is likely to strike home with anyone, left or right.” This demonstrates how Moore’s neutral approach would allow left-wing and right-wing political supporters to both be affected in the same way.

Overall, Michael Moore has cemented his place as arguably the most influential and controversial figure in Documentary filmmaking. He has popularized the genre immensely with his 2 highest

Shaun Anderson

grossing films, garnering over $300 million worldwide. He has ultimately proven that Documentaries are not just boring factual data, but also can be comic, heartbreaking and shocking. Moore has maintained his opinions and strategies over the years, with keeping with the ways Americans these days absorb information and gauge veracity. His highly opinionated views and his political stance on America’s laws and affairs have managed to stick with us, long after viewing any of his memorable documentaries. Love him or hate him, everyone has an opinion on Michael Moore, which I think is what he wanted, along with America to wake up and smell the coffee, Moore wanted to be known and feared by the right-wing political parties. He has succeeded in this by seemingly intentionally damaging their reputation by his documentaries.