MovieChat Forums > Manufacturing Dissent (2007) Discussion > This movie's producers could be using th...

This movie's producers could be using the same tactics...

posted 16 years ago by macraig-2
11 replies | jump to latest

... of which they accuse Moore. I believe in psychology that's called transferrance. In politics it's just called good strategy.

If you rely on a movie as the sole source for "evidence" upon which you try to base conclusions, regardless who produces or directs it, it shouldn't be much shock that your conclusions prove wrong as much or more than right. It might be fine to use it as a starting point for actual research and evidence gathering - call it a hunch - but to use it as a source of fact in and of itself is an invitation to serious manipulation.

I can't draw any conclusions about Michael Moore's motivations or behavior from this movie alone. Neither should you try.

[–] ceetedee 16 years ago

true, but its nice to see a counter point to michael moores movies, the truth is probably somewhere inbetween, take it all with a grain of salt

[–] macraig-2 16 years ago

That grain of salt is exactly my point. ;-)

[–] sanian 16 years ago

If I make a movie suggesting that this is MILES away from the truth in whatever direction I wish, with the sole intention of making you doubt what you see and say "its probably somewhere in the middle", how would you judge the fact that there are several movies? By how many are for and how many are against? It's not exactly empirical evidence.

It's better to judge the movies intention rather than its content. What does Michael Moore want with his movie, and what do the people who criticize him want?
The same goes for Al Gore and his critics.

[–] guitar_fun 16 years ago

The difference between this movie and Moore's is that this film lets those being interviewed give their side and how they are misrepresented. For the most part they interview people that are 100% Moore followers (Janine Garofalo for example) or colleges that worked on his films that had problems with the ethics of his methods but still complemented him. Moore never allows interviews with people that support whoever he is railing against unless he can find an angle to make them look worse. It wasn't like they were going for the obvious Dick Morris, Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh etc.

[–] macraig-2 16 years ago

Doesn't mean it's not still spin or manipulation. The best manipulations are those that don't appear to be manipulations even under casual scrutiny.

You missed my point completely and have mis-framed the discussion. I don't think you were conscious of it, but deliberate mis-framing does happen to be one of the most common tactics of manipulation.

[–] guitar_fun 16 years ago

No, I got your point (it wasn't that complicated). Of course you shouldn't use a documentary for sole source fact gathering (that is true for anything). My point is he was given fairer treatment (so they aren't using the same tactics, your own original premise) than any of the subjects of his criticism. The people interviewed are giving first hand experiences using longer cuts not using Moore's famous "context editing". The movie wasn't spun, it just might be showing you things that you find uncomfortable.

[–] guitar_fun 16 years ago

"I can't draw any conclusions about Michael Moore's motivations or behavior from this movie alone. Neither should you try."
Are you serious or making a joke? No one should try questioning him? That is scary even by Michael Moore fan standards. Why not say "He is all-powerful, all-knowing, he should never be questioned". Why not call his critics "Infidels" or the "Unbelievers". Pay no attention to the 700 pound man behind the curtain.

[–] sirwoodz 16 years ago

the more and more I read the responses on this movie, the more i'm convinced that

A) you people didn't watch the film
B) you are in denial.

like someone above said, an overwhelming majority if not ALL of the people interviewed in this film are supporters of moore or people that have worked with moore directly in the past in some way shape or form, hell, THE FILM MAKERS ARE/WERE FANS OF MOORE!!!

when I was growing up, people use to say "the truth is out there!"...well the truth is right here in your face, the problem is that people refuse to accept it. what's more disturbing is that the peace-love-happiness-togetherness far left are the people that don't want this film to recieve any publicity or good press...THAT is what i find disturbing.

[–] tetrahex 16 years ago

basically yea, go ahead and try to disprove the film point by point instead of just slamming it for no reason other than hero worship.

the sad fact is that michael moore is everything shown in the film, a big fat hypocrite. and standing by him basically undercuts your own side.

[–] turtleneck_mafia 15 years ago

The thing that bothers me is, I believe Michael Moore's popularity has increased the other documentaries to use the same tactics. Blurring timelines, or editing film to just state their side. I have seen this more and more in newer documentaries. It bothers me that documentaries are more fiction and biased than in the past.

The unmedicated life is not worth living.

[–] nypoet22 13 years ago

this is true, moore really is a pioneer of the modern "prop-umentary." davis guggenheim used many of the same tricks in an inconvenient truth and waiting for superman, right down to the cartoon segments. i thought it was very clever to present moore's reaction to seeing his own interview tactics turned back upon him. it's in many ways the highest form of praise, but i'm sure michael moore's detractors viewed his nervous and irritated reaction, reminiscent of all those targets of his own interviews, as sweet irony.

"Because you're an idiot. No, no, don't look like that, practically everyone is."
~Sherlock