Vox Polis

Michael Moore’s commercially successful but controversial films have attracted much attention to the question of their validity as documentaries. Clearly they have been presented as ‘documentary type’ films, but their integrity and accuracy appears to fall short of the paradigmatic view of the documentary genre. Moore has produced five successful ‘documentary type’ films. Roger & Me (1989) that explored the social and political effects of the downsizing of American industry on Moore’s hometown of Flint during the 1980s; Pets or Meat (1992) that shows Moore’s return to Flint; the Big One (1997), which followed his book tour around America; Bowling for Columbine (2002) on gun-control and Fahrenheit 911 (2004) that explores the links between Saudi Arabia and the September 11th terrorist attacks. Moore has also made Canadian Bacon (1992); a completely fictious film, and two television series; TV Nation (1994-95) and The Awful Truth (1999-2000).

Roger & Me, the highest grossing non-concert documentary ever has been criticised for its creative chronology; the slicing of scenes together to make them appear as if they happened in an ordered, chronological and linear progression. As Cottle (2004) argues, “a number of events presented as fall outs from General Motors’ (GM) mass layoffs actually occurred before the layoffs.” Even so it has attracted less criticism than Bowling for Columbine, perhaps offering some leniency to Roger & Me as Moore’s first attempt at the visual arts. Lambasted by both the Liberal press; “Moore twists, misrepresents and reinvents reality to fit his agenda,” concurrently the Right, for example John Fund from the Wall Street Journal, Moore’s film on gun control has been heavily criticised.

When presented with this, Moore’s replies that he is an entertainer and comedian. In an interview for the Guardian, Moore was quoted as saying “I set out to make a movie that I’d go out and see on a Friday night. When I make a film I’m not doing it purely for political reasons.” Similar comments were made in an interview for Dissent magazine he said “how can there be inaccuracy in comedy?”
Yet his work is presented as documentary and Bowling for Columbine was given an Oscar for best documentary in 2003. This raises the questions of what he and his work is trying to achieve and whether we should consider him a documentarian or Hollywood entertainer?

This is not to suggest that both cannot exist simultaneously, for all film is entertainment to an extent. Similarly, all film represents and documents the period it was made. But the accusations of factual inaccuracies that Moore is presented with have challenged his credentials as a serious documentalist and therefore undermine his political message. The question is can we forgive him for his manipulation of details if he manages to get his point across?

In searching for a definition of documentary, most begin with Grierson’s description of “the creative dramatisation of actuality” (see Grierson, J., 1979, Grierson on Documentary edited by Hardy, F., Faber and Faber Ltd). Unfortunately this definition’s inherent contradiction has raised more questions than it has answered. As Winston (1995) argues “the supposition that any actuality is left after creative treatment can now be seen as being at best naïve and at worst a mark of duplicity” (See Winston, B., Claiming the Real, The Documentary Film Revisited, British Film Institute, p11). What Gierson’s definition does do is pose the underlying problem that exists with documentaries; that between the real and its representation. Gierson wanted the term ‘documentary’ to be reserved as an exclusive description of a particular form of factual cinema but this government sponsored model of filmmaking (see Rotha, P.,1984, Documentary Film, London, Faber & Faber Ltd) does not take account of the changes in technology over the 20th Century. In this respect Nichols’ (1991) documentary modes are useful in showing the effect of technological change. He identifies five modes and suggests that documentary film evolved over time from the expository to the performative (see Nichols, B., Representing Reality: Issues and concepts in documentary, Indiana University Press). Although his ‘family tree’ approach has been criticised for imposing a “false chronological development onto what is essentially a theoretical paradigm,” (Bruzzi, S., 2000, New Documentary: A critical introduction, Routledge, p2) it does differentiate and explain the developments of the documentary. As Nichols (2001) says “documentary is what we might call a ‘fuzzy concept.’ Not all films that count as documentaries bear a close resemblance to each other” (Nichols, B., Introduction to Documentary, Indiana University Press, p21).

The traditional theoretical approach to documentaries stipulates that the ultimate aim is to find the perfect way to represent the real (Bruzzi, S., 2000, p10). However, this objectivity is impossible for “all film involves the manipulation of images and that to accord a privileged relationship with the real is therefore non-sensical,” (Vaughan, D., 1999, For Documentary, Twelve Essays, University of California Press, p29). What documentaries do is present a particular view of the world and try to install in us a belief. They are different from fiction films in that documentaries are a reconstruction of events that have actually occurred. Fiction is events, which have never taken place. So what does this tell us about Michael Moore’s work?

Moore’s work has a blatant left wing bias, and he is pursuing a highly politicised agenda, trying to bring his left wing message to the people. In America where such a left wing tradition has been marginalised, for example there is no major socialist or social democratic political party as in the European democratic model, Moore has become a well-known dissident and representative of the left. The media is often only interested in extremes and sensationalism. Politics, in comparison, deals with compromise and focuses on centrality, agreement and the avoidance of such extremes. This means the two often have an uneasy relationship. What Moore has successfully accomplished is an amalgamation of the two, making “political criticism entertaining.” His use of ‘guerrilla theatre’ in the left wing tradition is stylistically useful in portraying him as “a socially conscious nebbish who will do whatever is necessary to get to the bottom of pressing social concerns” (Nicolas, B., 2001, p14). Coupled with his persona as a causally dressed working class man, this helps to convey a man of the people against an evil and corrupt system. Mattson (2003) argues that these confrontational methods are not political but emotional and melodramatic, and “rarely produces deliberation or reform.”There are several examples where Moore fails to get past the security guard or the receptionist, but on the occasion he does, his approach can be successful. Take for example his visit to K-Mart headquarters in Bowling for Columbine with two of the Columbine High School shooting victims. Here the company is convinced to remove the sale of ammunition from its stores. Whether these confrontational means can be said to be political or helpful in achieving his goals maybe unclear, but they certainly highlight issues rarely discussed in the mass media.

McLuhan’s (1967) “the medium is the message” (see Medium is the Message, Penguin Press) is certainly useful here, for Moore clearly understands that the medium of film has a social effect. Moore began his career in journalism, and moved to filmmaking with Roger & Me. As Stone suggests Moore is not someone who approached film with an aesthetic sensibility or even with the premise of most documentarians- that the camera will tell the story better than words (see Stone, A. A., 2003 Cheap Shots, Boston Review, Summer, p2). Moore understands that film and television offers more possibilities than the newspaper to get his message across, especially if he can create a winning and commercially successful formula. To Moore the message is more important that the medium, and he will use whatever means he can to achieve this. As Yonge argues, he occupies a unique space in US media and politics because “of the combination of what he says, and the way he says it, on television, film and books.”

Bowling for Columbine is a journey film, which depicts Michael Moore on a quest to discover the cause of violence in America, where supposedly 11,127 people are shot every year. Stylistically it represents a documentary. It uses historical footage, for example Clinton’s speeches to the nation, interviews a number of individuals, from Marilyn Manson to James Nichols, and outlines real life events. The use of a ‘voice of God commentary’ is consistent with many aspects of the documentary tradition, including ‘The World at War,’ with Olivier as commentator, and Nick Broomfield’s (2004) ‘Aileen: a death of a serial killer’, who became personally involved in the case. As a commentator, Moore becomes personally connected to the film’s subject matter; a fact Moore is determined to emphasis. In both Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine, there are segments where Moore outlines his personal experience. In Roger & Me, he begins the film by explaining why he made it; the loss of his job at Mother Jones and on return to Flint seeing the damage being caused by the closure of GM plants. Bowling for Columbine includes several scenes where Moore explains his experience with guns during his childhood. He also attempts to create by association a link with Charlton Heston; both being members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and from Michigan State. Some of the academic literature perceives the use of voice-overs as a threat and an “unnecessary evil of documentary, the resort of the unimaginative and incompetent” (Bruzzi, S., 2000, p41). But Moore goes further than just using voice-overs; he appears on camera, writes, directs and produces most of his work. It can be argued that this is egotism and self-promotion on Moore’s part, rather than allowing the subject to speak for itself. At the same time, it is a useful technique for it enables him to connect personally with the audience.

Many have criticised the film for its factual inaccuracies. Moore’s coverage of Charlton Heston’s visit to Columbine seems to consist of two speeches merged together, and the use of creative editing to take Heston’s words out of context. Some scenes are staged for satirical effect. An illustration of this is the offer of a free gun from the North County Bank, which apparently was staged; “bank customers actually have to go to a separate gun shop for their rifle.” Other accusations have included Moore’s use of exaggeration, such as in his international homicide rate comparisons. Also there are a number of facts that he chose to withhold, such as the fact that the six-year-old child that killed Kayla Rowland was living in a crack house and the stolen gun used was supposedly received from a customer in exchange for drugs. But do these inaccuracies matter?

Several commentators have compared Bowling for Columbine with Christopher Guest’s ‘mockumentaries’ such as Spinal Tap (1984) that “mixed impromptu interviews with counterfeit archive material to create a new kind of comedy.” As Plantinga (1998) points out, Spinal Tap “tempts us to approach it as a serious documentary, but introduces comic makers- typically ironic incongruities or exaggerations to disrupt our serious viewing” (See Chapter 19- Gender, Power and a Cucumber, Satirizing Masculinity in This is Spinal Tap p321, in Grant, B.K., & Sloniowski, J. (eds), Documenting the Documentary, Close reading of Documentary, Film and Video, Wayne State University Press). Certainly Moore’s heavy use of irony and satire can sometimes degrade the point he is making. As we have seen there is some evidence that he massages the facts to make them more entertaining, and also “avoids abstract complexities that would not have entertained the audience” (Bernstein, M., 1998, Chapter 24- Documentaphobia and mixed modes, Michael Moore’s Roger & Me, p420 in Grant, B.K., & Sloniowski, J. (eds) Documenting the Documentary, Close reading of Documentary, Film and Video, Wayne State University Press). An illustration of this is where in only a few minutes Moore gives a cartoon version of the entire American history. Earlier in the film, clips from America’s foreign involvement since the 1960s are shown in quick succession, to the song ‘it’s a wonderful day.’ His films are also rhetorically organised to support his thesis. But is this necessarily different from other documentaries?

The Soviet films of Eisenstein, which include the Battleship Potemkin (1925) and October (1927), had to rely on the reconstruction of scenes and incidents that had happened more than 10 years before (Rotha, P., 1984, Documentary Film, London, Faber & Faber Ltd, p99) and the work of Emile de Antonio, who used original material, were full of historical inaccuracies. These documentarists were political in purpose, for example De Antonio was a strong advocate of bias and the foregrounding of opinion and used democratic didacticism to get the audience to reach the same conclusion as he held. (Bruzzi, S, 2000, New Documentary: A critical introduction, p24 Routledge). Why should Moore’s work be judged any different from this rich tradition? He does not present his work as fact and clearly says his films are entertainment, unlike Eisenstein’s work, which was used for propaganda purposes.

It is conceivable that the criticisms of Moore’s work are more about what he represents than the films themselves. He has become the well-known face of the left in America, and this in turn brings with it opposition. Moore has achieved what Chomsky could not; “Chomsky reached thousands, maybe tens of thousands. Moore reaches millions, maybe tens of millions.” If his films can be discredited then that in turn discredits his politics and his connection with the people. Moore has also been faced with, what Gramsci noted in his analysis of the organic representative, (see The Prison Notes) that when you become a representative of a group you have to acknowledge that you are better than the rest. Moore’s lifestyle has become very different from the working class persona that he claims to represent, now with a penthouse in the richest part of New York. However, Moore would argue that this now gives him the ability to make the films he wants; “because I have this money now, nobody can tell me this has to be taken out of the movie.” Although the experience with Disney over Fahrenheit 911 shows that even this is not always possible.

Michael Moore’s films are able to achieve a number of objectives in today’s media saturated society. He is able to reach a huge number of people with a political message and simultaneously entertain them. This is clearly his greatest virtue and at the same time may possibly be his undoing. Some are willing to forgive him for his factual inaccuracies, because they believe his message is important. Others are not so warming and believe that by undermining his films, they can discredit his message.