Manufacturing Dissent
Manufacturing Dissent
R | 11 February 2007 (USA)
Manufacturing Dissent Trailers

"Michael Moore doesn't like documentaries. That's why he doesn't make them." A documentary that looks to distinguish what's fact, fiction, legend, and otherwise as a camera crew trails Michael Moore as he tours with his film, Fahrenheit 9/11.

Reviews
cineastFGD

I say it upfront, coming from Europe I like Michael Moore, most probably because I share his political ideas. However I'm no die hard fan of his. I watched a couple of his documentaries and found them entertaining. Still, I was never one second in doubt that he bent the truth to fit his narrative in order to make the story more entertaining and to emphasize a certain point. Whoever takes Michael Moore's films literally and sees them as the beacon of truth is a fool. And as such I would describe this filmmaker couple of 'Manufacturing Dissent'. The story strikes me as a film that starts out with two naive and blinded fans who end up butt hurt because they figure out that their huge idol is not as approachable as they thought. These people are two nobody's who stalk a very famous and probably very busy guy and get busted along the way, as most people would get busted if they started running after their famous idol. However, it seems they cannot accept that the mere fact that they decided to make a documentary on Michael Moore and them being Canadians doesn't open all doors to them. At some point they try to take unauthorized footage of one of his speeches and naturally get kicked out. They use this episode to claim that Moore prohibits their right of free speech? Sorry, what? First of all, what does filming have to do with free speech and, secondly, one cannot just walk into an event and film commercial material without seeking authorization first. As the film progresses, the narrative becomes increasingly negative and they start to present themselves as victims shunned and threatened by the tough staff of Michael Moore, who out of some inexplicable reason doesn't want to talk to them, despite of them being Canadians, heaven forbid. Well, what about him being extremely busy at the time - to the point of total exhaustion, as he told many times in later interviews. The film is a long chain of complaints by people who hold a grunge against Moore out of various reasons, as well as footage from people who simply don't like him and his political agenda. Accusations are taken at face value and go totally unchecked, which makes the journalistic value of this documentary questionable and gives it a sensationalist underpinning. Sure, Moore probably has a huge ego, which person working in the movie industry hasn't? Sure, Moore is probably no angel and being as exposed as he is, it's probably no too hard to find some people whose toes he stepped on. But to accuse him of manipulation of the same level as Nazi Germany's propaganda machine, to indicate he hurt the Kerry campaign through his documentaries and support, and thereby enabled Bush's reelection, is outright ridiculous and straps this documentary of the last rest of credibility.

... View More
Desertman84

Manufacturing Dissent:Uncovering Michael Moore is a documentary that was made over the course of two years by Canadians Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine after they viewed Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore's controversial film that attacked the Bush administration and its policies.They set out to explore the politically charged climate in America and find out just how documentary director Michael Moore has evolved from a simple filmmaker into an icon of left-leaning politics.It asserts that filmmaker Michael Moore has used misleading tactics, primarily using on-camera statements by interviewees with personal grievances against Moore as proof. It attempts to expose what the creators say are Moore's misleading tactics and mimics Moore's style of small documentary makers seeking and badgering their target for an interview to receive answers to their charges. This comes across less as an expose of a polarizing public figure than as the realization of a personal and not especially interesting grudge against a once-admired colleague who has moved on to bigger things.It was more of a personal vendetta and propaganda to say the least.It is also bad that co-writers/co-directors Melnyk and Caine don't investigate the way their target does in his own films as their probe isn't deep enough.Finally,although the way the documentary is made is an IMITATION of how Moore does one,unfortunately it was far from being fun,interesting and entertaining.

... View More
dfle3

If you've heard somewhere that the documentary movie maker Michael Moore ("Fahrenheit 9/11", "Bowling for Columbine" etc.) isn't honest about the stuff he presents in his movies as "facts", then this is the documentary for you.Employing the same guerrilla tactics as Moore himself, documentarian Debbie Melnyk pretty much stalks Moore, in trying to get an extended interview with him for her documentary. She says from the outset that she is a fan of his documentaries but, perhaps acting like an unrequited lover, she goes over all the incidents/scandals of Moore's professional life-from his time as the editor of a left-wing magazine (before he tried his hand at making documentaries) to the footage he used out of context in "Fahrenheit 9/11".Melnyk has got good access to people who identify themselves as Moore's friends (or as ex-friends), which gives you a broader insight into his character than Melnyk alone].There is one telling scene in the movie where a critic of Moore says that it was possible for someone to be against certain US foreign policies but yet not be an apologist for certain South American or Central American dictators (which Moore is accused of being). This is the main fault of Melnyk's film, I think. In other words, in the same way as devotees of Moore will lap up his attacks on the right-wing in the US and disregard some of Moore's own 'sins', die-hard right-wingers will watch this documentary and consider it to demolish all of Moore's claims. Manufacturing Dissent seems, in essence, part of the right-wing 'backlash' against Moore, even though Melnyk may have initially intended to do a positive piece on him.There is a funny scene towards the end of the movie where Melnyk acts the infatutated school-girl with Moore despite there being friction between her and Moore over his evasiveness in agreeing to be interviewed by her.For people like myself, I think it is possible to agree with some of the assertions in this film yet not think Moore is total bunk.Many of Melnyk's bleatings are risibly half-baked.

... View More
Don Alex

Im not a blind Michael Moore fan by any stretch, in fact I think "The Big One" is probably one of the worst films of all time, and I think that he is an annoying blowhard. Being a proud independent, I can see the idiots on both sides.But as Im watching this, I noticed a glaringly ridiculous scene (mentioned briefly by someone else in an earlier review). They showed a group of Flint High School girls doing some sort of irritatingly silly amateur schoolie play that mocks "Roger and Me" (the kind that only the mostly blindly adoring of right wing parents would be able to endure in their pompous little brats), and then the teenage girl "writer" of this play is interviewed, and she claims that Moore "fabricated" a news report that shows a female reporter stating that a Nightline report was cancelled because their news van was stolen, even as the scene from the film with her report is being shown over the girl's claims. It is from all visual inspection a real news report. Is she truly trying to say that Moore literally created the report in the film himself, hiring an actress to pose as a reporter and putting a fake station logo on the screen? If so, its funny because I cant seem to find any mention of it anywhere else but on this site, about this film. Did this little girl just make it up and these idiot filmmakers put it in at face value? Doesn't that make them complete hypocrites (like most people who do these kinds of amateurish no-budget "gotcha" documentaries).The female narrator (I assume its a woman named "Debbie Melnyck", who is listed as one of the "writers" and "directors") tries for a parody of Moore's sardonic style, but her lispy, effete elementary school teacher housewifey monotone would be more apt for Romper Room or selling jewelry on QVC. (Maybe the girl who put on the play is her daughter or something.) Sure, Michael Moore is a jerk, but what comes out much more glaringly in this film is the vapidness of young people in the majority of the spineless post-baby boom generations. We're doomed, folks. Face it now and save yourselves the Christmas shock. There's no hope. This documentary is depressingly effective at showing how our nauseatingly effete youth are going to sissy their way into the end times. We're all going out with a whimper, followed by a bang. This film is a good argument in favor of everyone deserving it. Both sides are chock full of fooles. The difference between the swishing grade Z Canadian twits who created this and Michael Moore is, Moore has talent for making films, and they don't. Stay home, Debbie dear, you aren't worthy to speak to Moore for a reason. It's not because he's avoiding you. It's because you are insignificant.This wretched film is showing on Sundance Channel this month, so watch it for FREE by all means, if you must at all (please don't pay people like this to make more films like this). Or better yet, watch a good documentary instead (like "Grey Gardens", which is also playing this month on Sundance).

... View More