While we’re on the subject… on those few occasions (most of them within the last week) that I’ve written about Michael Moore, I’ve referred to him as a filmmaker. If I’m pissed off, I call him a propagandist. But I don’t think of him as a journalist. Here’s why.
(No, it’s not because you disagree with him.)
Journalists are objective. They are finders and reporters of facts, some of them more reliably than others. Ideally (and no, I’m not naïve enough to believe that this is true of everyone) a journalist starts by accumulating facts and points of view and then – only then – ciphers a narrative from them. (Insert standard caveats about human fallibility, including deadline pressures, here.) Moore, on the other hand, starts with a nugget and then searches out facts and sources that support it.
And you know what? There’s not a thing wrong with that. It’s a free country, and Moore has every right to make films that promote his point of view. But that doesn’t make him a journalist. When you’re watching one of Moore’s films, you need to know that he’s starting from a set point of view, and that he’s going to use an army of production techniques to manipulate you into agreeing with that point of view.
As an example, let me tell you about the particular technique that was the last straw for me, Moore-wise. My all-time favorite movie is “Broadcast News,” which you should absolutely watch if you haven’t seen it, and I don’t think the giant spoiler I’m about to write about will ruin it for you. Long story short, you have a network news producer (Holly Hunter) in a bit of a love triangle between her BFF, a geeky reporter (Albert Brooks), and the shiny new anchor-in-training who, while hot, is also kind of dim (William Hurt).
The thing that really put Holly over the top for Team William was his sensitive story about date rape victims (which I would love to believe was only an issue in the mid-80s, but hahahahaha), in which he’s shown tearing up listening to one of the women he’s interviewing. That story makes William, both professionally and personally as far as Holly’s concerned. Unfortunately, she learns at the end of the movie that William only had one camera for the interview.
For those of you that never took a production class, that means that the camera was pointed at the woman throughout the interview. Only after the whole thing was over was the camera turned around to face William to shoot those cutaway shots of the reporter during the interview… and he faked crying. This is too big a violation of journalistic integrity for Holly, and she dumps him.
Now take the climax of “Bowling for Columbine,” where Moore confronts then-NRA head Charlton Heston (who was also suffering from Alzheimer’s as we know now) about the proliferation of guns in the U.S. At one point Heston has had enough and he starts off down a walkway (staring at about 7:30 in the linked clip). Moore calls to him, and Heston turns around. Moore shows him a picture of a child killed in a school shooting by another child, saying “This is the girl!” and Heston just walks away, and ZOMG Charlton Heston is such a jerk! Michael Moore is so righteous! I hate guns!
Oh, wait, no I don’t. Because… where was the second camera? There’s the camera shooting Heston walking away, and there should be another camera behind him that’s aiming at Moore. But there isn’t. So, where did the “This is the girl!” reaction cutaway come from? Either Moore had a second camera hidden in the bushes, or he shot it once Heston had scooted off. In other words, that cathartic anger at an insensitive man far removed from the consequences of his gun advocacy… fake. Ahem, acted.
Journalists don’t act. Period.
No comments:
Post a Comment