The Trouble With Moore

Micheal Moore. For me he's a troublesome figure. While on the one hand he it's a given good that he gets people to question such things as 9/11, the media and the American health industry, on the other hand his need to be at least half to story, his more obvious manipulations and the feeling that he's often grandstanding for effect rather than the truth mean that the thing that often gets questioned, although perhaps not literally, is Moore himself.

Fresh off of a documentary on Conrad Black, two film-makers, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine, decided that Moore, being closer to their own politics, would make a fascinating subject in his own right. A recent article in the Guardian suggests that they may have been more right than they imagined:

As they pursue their interview [with Moore], they go over a series of charges against Moore, some about his character and work habits, others about his attitude towards documentary film ethics. The result is an occasionally disturbing portrait, though at times rather scattered. At times, former co-workers and journalists appear to suggest that Moore is egomaniacal and self- aggrandising; others make charges far more serious, contending that Moore often injects his non-fiction films with decidedly fictionalised segments.

The closer, though, is damning indeed:

Given Melnyk and Caine's filmography, it prompts an obligatory question: who was easier to deal with as a subject, Black or Moore? "Actually, Conrad Black was really quite gracious and polite. He was much easier to deal with than Michael Moore."