Question from last week:  No one is quite like Michael Moore. That is, I believe, why he has the recognition and celebrity spotlight he does.  No one is quite as obnoxious, as point-forward, or as controversial.  I did, however, find several other liberal ---and conservative—documentarians in my research this week.  None are quite as influential as Michael Moore because none have made such controversy or are as pointed as Moore’s works. Robert Greenwald, a libertarian filmmaker and documentarian is the closest thing I could find to Moore.  Greenwald has made several films and short clips on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the media and the 2000 presidential election.  His main films, “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism,” and “Uncovered: The War on Iraq” both made considerable splashes, but nothing like Moore.  Maybe this is because Greenwald isn’t as talented? Maybe he doesn’t draw as much emotion out of his viewers?  Or maybe he doesn’t create as much controversy?  Maybe he is less likely to twist the truth for entertainment?

Summary of this week in class: 
This week in class we started a new movie, "Michael Moore Hates America" by Michael Wilson.

It was a direct attack at Moore’s film, “Bowling for Columbine”, and even though there were several film techniques Wilson emulates from Moore’s work, I actually agreed with a few of Wilson’s points.  I finally realized that Moore’s films DO make a negative impact on organizations and people, for example, the NRA and Charles Heston.  It was also obvious how Moore fabricated some of the situations and events that happened in his film.  When he supposedly received a gun from a bank in Michigan, just by setting up an account, there was a whole different story behind the event.  In “Bowling for Columbine” Moore makes it seem like the bank keeps 500 guns in the vault at their bank, when in fact, it was made clear in Wilson’s film that they are shipped in, one by one, from a vault in a separate location.  In Wilson’s work he interviews one of the bank clerks featured in “Bowling for Columbine.”  She explains how Moore lied about his intentions when filming, called ahead asking the gun to be transported from the vault in advance to the bank so he could pick it up the day of, and left out several other points that were made by the bank before handed the gun.  Some argue that the point is Moore still received the gun in the bank that day, and there is a small amount of validity to that point, but where is the truth in Moore’s work?  Why would it take such a scheme to come up with a three minute part of his documentary?  Why is there a need to twist the truth? Wilson, most likely, does some truth-twisting in his film, too.  That’s when I realized how great it is that we have two documentaries to watch, two people with two different views, that check themselves on the truth of their beliefs and work.  You have to appreciate the two perspectives you are handed when watching these films, take the best out of both and form your own opinion.

Question for next week:

I want to know more about the counter-films after Moore.  What were the reviews for “Farenhype 911” and “Michael Moore Hates America"?  Did Moore ever respond to these films?  If so, how?

Sources:
Robert Greenwald. Web. 04 Oct. 2010. <http://www.robertgreenwald.org/>.