Michael Moore, Large Figure
Michael Moore's first serious film, "Roger and Me" was really, really funny in its own way. You did not have to like Moore's politics to appreciate the skillful wit displayed in that movie.
Let's be honest: the guy's a Communist. In a day when Communism has been proven to be an abject failure as a philosophy and political system, why get mad at him? It's like being outraged at someone for being a Zoroastrian.
We're all entitled to our opinions in our country. Moore is entitled to his, and wants us to hear all of them. And he's won some awards, and he's making plenty of money.
But honestly, he's better when he's funny. In "Bowling for Columbine," for example, there is some funny stuff, but it is really a seemingly honest exploration of three things:
1. Why do we like our guns so much?
2. Why do we use them to kill each other so frequently?
3. Moore [a successful creature of the media] wants to know why the media fascinate us so much. Weird.
It's a fine movie, containing nowhere near the intentional missatements of fact that plague "Fahrenheit 9/11." And it has some funny moments in discussing such serious subjects...but:
In this movie he celebrates a "win:" because he brings Columbine shooting victims to K-Mart, K-Mart agrees to quit selling ammunition. What's really enlightening is that this moment reveals something of Moore: while he expresses appreciation, he does not seem much happy. In fact, his affect (not his words) expresses a measure of disappointment. So, his emotional game is never to be happy. And never to project happiness. He is a chronically dissatisfied person.
This chronic dissatisfaction, like Jerry Seinfeld's, can be a source of really considerable amusement. But now, in and after "Columbine," Moore takes himself very, very seriously, and this film marks one of those significant transitions.
Moore thus has begun walking the road to his own doom. He has begun believing his own press releases. He sees himself as a social symbol larger than he can ever possibly be as a human being.
See, he lacks optimism and generosity of spirit - two qualities essential for any true leader. You cannot be followed or respected solely by villainizing other people. You can, however, be funny, and Moore's no longer content with that media identity. He wants to be a serious dude, and thus he's condemned to be our next Ralph Nader - a pain in the ass who will never amuse anybody nor make any real difference in our society. Nader and Moore both lost the election last year.
Unless Moore decides to do something next to water his humor-based roots, he's on his way out. And I'll miss him; I like him and think our society really needs his presence.
So, Mike, the choice is yours: Will Rogers or Ralph Nader. What's it gonna be?
Let's be honest: the guy's a Communist. In a day when Communism has been proven to be an abject failure as a philosophy and political system, why get mad at him? It's like being outraged at someone for being a Zoroastrian.
We're all entitled to our opinions in our country. Moore is entitled to his, and wants us to hear all of them. And he's won some awards, and he's making plenty of money.
But honestly, he's better when he's funny. In "Bowling for Columbine," for example, there is some funny stuff, but it is really a seemingly honest exploration of three things:
1. Why do we like our guns so much?
2. Why do we use them to kill each other so frequently?
3. Moore [a successful creature of the media] wants to know why the media fascinate us so much. Weird.
It's a fine movie, containing nowhere near the intentional missatements of fact that plague "Fahrenheit 9/11." And it has some funny moments in discussing such serious subjects...but:
In this movie he celebrates a "win:" because he brings Columbine shooting victims to K-Mart, K-Mart agrees to quit selling ammunition. What's really enlightening is that this moment reveals something of Moore: while he expresses appreciation, he does not seem much happy. In fact, his affect (not his words) expresses a measure of disappointment. So, his emotional game is never to be happy. And never to project happiness. He is a chronically dissatisfied person.
This chronic dissatisfaction, like Jerry Seinfeld's, can be a source of really considerable amusement. But now, in and after "Columbine," Moore takes himself very, very seriously, and this film marks one of those significant transitions.
Moore thus has begun walking the road to his own doom. He has begun believing his own press releases. He sees himself as a social symbol larger than he can ever possibly be as a human being.
See, he lacks optimism and generosity of spirit - two qualities essential for any true leader. You cannot be followed or respected solely by villainizing other people. You can, however, be funny, and Moore's no longer content with that media identity. He wants to be a serious dude, and thus he's condemned to be our next Ralph Nader - a pain in the ass who will never amuse anybody nor make any real difference in our society. Nader and Moore both lost the election last year.
Unless Moore decides to do something next to water his humor-based roots, he's on his way out. And I'll miss him; I like him and think our society really needs his presence.
So, Mike, the choice is yours: Will Rogers or Ralph Nader. What's it gonna be?
posted by John Bernat @ 6:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home