Manufacturing Dissent (2007)

Good concept, poorly executed.

Blistering performances.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

This movie tries to deconstruct Michael Moore. I saw it twice to give it a fair chance to get its point across to me, and it actually made me understand and like Michael Moore better.At this point I should tell you my stance towards MM: I consider his first movie Roger & Me a work of genius, but I disliked (sometimes intensely) his later docu-props. For example, I thought that the interview of Charlton Heston in Bowling For Columbine was atrocious, with Moore acting as a leftwing Jerry Springer. So I'm by no means an unabashed acolyte of Moore.The makers of "Manufacturing Dissent" (an allusion to another, but great, Canadian documentary, "Manufacturing Consent") have taken more than a page from Michael Moore's book. The documentary is stylistically an eerie clone of Moore's movies, which begs the question whether imitation isn't the most honest form of flattery. It constantly brings in new points (without ever solving the old ones) and fresh scenes, which makes the movie interesting to watch but difficult to follow. Like Moore, it uses the tactic of "the more mud you throw, the more will stick".On balance, the movie recycles some criticisms of Moore, and fires a barrage of new, but untenable (and often ludicrous) ones. That's simply not good enough.To give one salient example: we see a college thespian claiming that Moore fabricated a scene from Roger & Me, where a satellite van gets stolen by an unemployed auto worker before a live Ted Koppel broadcast from Flint. So how come no-one, for example someone from Nightline, noticed until now? In all likeliness the claim of the fabrication was itself fabricated. The documentary should have investigated this, instead it takes the claim at face value and moves on to fresh accusations. That's propaganda, not journalism.So what's the message? Michael Moore's everyman image is a carefully constructed role -- true to some extent, but really nothing new. He has a number of detractors, who are often pretty unpleasant themselves (such as the snooty film critic who proudly states that he instantly disliked Michael Moore from the moment he walked into the studio until he "waddled on out" -- what an incredibly biased and shallow statement from a professional critic). The makers of the movie purport to have started this movie as fans -- so why do they rely so heavily on the material of his rightwing critics? I got the impression that Moore sees himself as being on a crusade not just against the political right, but also against ivory-tower leftwing intellectuals. He wants to reinstall a street credibility to the political left. With detractors such as Debbie Melnyk of Manufacturing Dissent, I choose to praise Moore rather than to bury him.

The makers of MANUFACTURING DISSENT say that they began this documentary as fans of Michael Moore. Whether or not this is really true isn't really important. What IS important is that they bring up many issues concerning Michael Moore that he and his supporters simply won't honestly address. The biggest problem (and it's almost always ignored by the press) is that he makes so-called "documentaries"--yet in order to make his points, be often misrepresents and distorts the truth again and again. And, in essence, they aren't true documentaries, but are more like propaganda pieces because of the lies and fabrications. Now there's nothing wrong with making a propaganda piece--but don't call it a documentary or refuse to acknowledge the distortions. This IS Moore's m.o., though ironically, he himself refuses to discuss or explain his films unless it's to a friendly audience that doesn't in any way question his methods. The makers of this film try, again and again in vain, to talk with him just to ask some questions concerning his films. This is especially reasonable considering that Moore himself made a name for himself by ambushing people for his films--and here they won't let people with any questions come close to him....period. So a man who is "of the people" and a "champion of free speech" is, ironically, only interested in this when it comes to others, not himself.As to how well this documentary was made, it seemed pretty honest and straight forward. It tended to interview people on all ends of the political spectrum and even many of his supporters on the left acknowledged the way he plays fast and loose with the truth in his films or in his public comments. Some felt that the ends justified the means while others seemed angry at Moore for being more interested in self-aggrandizement than the issues he publicly champions. I know that there will be many who think the entire film is evil but the bottom line is that it asks good questions AND isn't just a one-sided piece. There were many different opinions concerning the man that were in the film. What's not to like about that?!

My curiosity kept me watching this movie on the Sundance channel when I happened upon it. I agree, Moore can be ridiculously melodramatic in his style, but who isn't in regards to the entertainment industry? It includes documentaries, non-fiction. The makers of this, supposed expose, kinda SUCK. It appears they're trying to show that Moore manufactures much of the content in his movies, & they fail miserably. Yes, Moore does make up some crap to get his point across, but that's a standard practice in our wonderful Hollywood, even in documentaries. The points they make in this movie are equal to a high-school student's project, & the grade wouldn't be above a C. Anyone who likes this movie is either a Bush supporter and/or someone who has issues with Michael Moore's character. They're trying to show how Moore manipulates the facts & shapes the story to his own bias. That's scriptwriting 101, "you morons"! As if that has not been done throughout the history of film making, of scriptwriting for theater, of authoring books and articles. Yeah people, talk about how pointed & biased Moore is in his movies, & then go & watch the History Channel & say that it's documentaries & history on religion are based completely on NON-DISPUTABLE FACTS. I would consider you the easiest MARKS for any con-man who 'says' that he believes in 'YOUR' God & 'YOUR' Jesus. By the way, I'm wondering, did I see Ann Coulter in 'YOUR' movie? I also agree with many, that Moore can be a little, to a lot overbearing at times. Michael Moore can be grating, unfair in his treatment of others, hypocritical at times, but will those unpleasant flaws about his character cause you to despise and disregard his productions? How about it if everybody watches everything that's produced as NON-FICTION, with a critical eye. It's like a film student watching the business end of Hollywood productions that are on TV or at the movie theaters. Where's the product placements, which of our emotions is the script trying activate, who are the villains, the scoundrels & do the roles they play work at all into the politics of today. Politics are in every aspect of your life. Look around yourself, the war, the price of gas, the 4th amendment, the cutbacks. If film makers want to make a left-leaning director look bad, they need to do a lot better than this movie does! Just making Moore look like an inconsiderate assh*** & then letting those who represent the completely opposing views have their say, while throwing all the trash they can on Moore's work, causes me to suspect whether these film makers were ever truly fans of Moore. I don't think so & the proof is in the pudding & even Don Quixote would say that it tastes horrible. OK Bush devotees, point at my incorrect use of that aphorism, about the pudding. Or was it incorrect? Look up the word, "aphorism", in your DICTIONARY, & it starts with the letter A. Or are you like GWB? Is the DICTIONARY, a job for someone else? Oh yes, the "you morons" written above is my tribute to Bill O'Riley, which I think is himself talking to himself and his multiple personalities. If only one of them could be intelligent.

Canadian look at Michael Moore and his movies is an interesting view of the man and his image. The film's conclusion is that Moore is more interested in himself than in anything else and he will go to almost any length to protect said image.I have a love hate relationship with Moore. I do appreciate that he gets people fired up but it annoys the hell out of me that he often cooks the books. For example: Moore started with a film called Roger and Me about trying to see Roger Smith but neglected to say that he actually met with Smith twice. The bank gun scene in Bowling for Columbine was set up 30 says in advance so he could walk out of the bank with the gun. His recent Sicko simply stated the obvious about a the broken American health care system. At the same time I like that someone is saying what he is saying. I like that he is challenging the status quo, I just wish he wouldn't call it documentary film making.It was with that love hate attitude I sat down to watch Manufacturing Dissent on the Sundance Channel. I would let the film take me where it wanted to and if I didn't like it I could turn it off in favor of something else. I stayed all the way to the end. Seemingly fair minded the film speaks with a good many people who know or knew Moore and it lets them say their piece about him and his behavior, going all the way back to his high school days. At the same time the filmmakers follow Moore around the country and try to get him to talk to them about a variety of issues (his charitable trust having Halliburton stock for example). The people he speaks with all seem to have the same love hate relationship, they love him, but ultimately what matters to Michael is Michael .One person connected with the awful truth talks about having to stay in a flea bag hotel while Moore stayed in a suite in a ritzy hotel. When the person asked Moore about it he said "You know Midwesterners, they're all about making money". Its a telling comment.Also telling is how Moore reacts to being questioned by the filmmakers who film their entire exchanges with Moore, none are what you could call difficult except that Moore doesn't like their questions and you can watch his demeanor change. It seems Moore doesn't like to be questioned or seen negatively. Film critic David Gilmour shows clips from the interview with Moore when his film Canadian Bacon came out. Gilmour was very candid about critical reaction to the film and you can see Moore's persona change as he seems to want to kill Gilmour (who was taking a bit too much delight in tormenting Moore when his discomfort was revealed). Moore reins himself in but one gets the sense that he was not going to let that happen to him again.(And lest you think its a one off we get an interview with the former head of Film Comment who did an interview with Moore where Moore became surreal when asked about factual problems in Roger and Me.) Strangely most of the people interviewed seemed to like Moore,at least when he is the jovial Moore. They just don't seem to understand this other Michael Moore who is the "rock star" who must have his way.For me its the fairest of the documentaries or pieces I've seen bashing or if not bashing questioning Moore since it's point of view is not purely right wing. The film focuses on Moore but it does get some jabs in at people like O'Reilly and other TV pundits of his bend. It seems to feel that Moore is the only one, outside of Ralph Nader, who he may have betrayed on some level giving voice to the left, but that he's not all that he seems. It also argues that we should (rightly) question what Moore tells us is true since it may not be the gospel truth but rather some approximation altered for effect.I could be wrong, but it seemed to make sense.I liked it if for no other reason then its seemingly reasoned approach requires much thought and no knee jerk reaction.7.5 out of 10.