Making More of Michael

Of the many raps against Michael Moore, the least supportable has to be hatred of Americans. Yet that canard surfaced again last week in a column by a prominent conservative.

How many of Moore's movies, if any, this expert had seen was not made clear. Many Moore critics proudly declare they've never seen one and never will fatten the fat man's purse by actually finding out for themselves what the talk radio fuss is about.

But they know they speak of the devil, and they crowed in the early hours and days after Nov. 2 that this bulbous Beelzebub, along with his various companion imps that had infested our fighting forces and faith-based families, had been exorcised.

Their icy realization that Moore will get only larger and louder is bringing out the rakes and pitchforks among those to whom his is the bewhiskered face of the Democratic Party.

As echoed in my own reader mail, top-tier conservatives have made a prime post-election target of Moore. Recently, Republican big shots took out a full-page ad in USA Today as a preemptive strike against an Academy Award nomination for "Fahrenheit 9/11." Though the film is the first documentary to be nominated for a People's Choice best-overall award, which is about as mainstream as it gets, a rightwing talk show star warned that an Oscar bid would trigger a "backlash" against Hollywood by middle America.

So where is this middle America, this lunch-pail land of the loyal and the left behind? I suspect Moore's syndicated and televised detractors rarely venture there. I am there by necessity and I deeply appreciate that he is there by choice.

Hate Americans? No one who has open-mindedly watched Moore's three major films would utter such a slur.

In "Fahrenheit 9/11," he took his unblinking camera down to the depths of struggling, screwed-over America, to the seedy strip malls where Marine recruiters trolled for young males without job prospects and to the living room of a family robbed of a son by elective war.

In "Bowling for Columbine," he rode the company bus with a single mom to a crummy night job at a Dick Clark restaurant, then chased down the famous namesake on her behalf.

Grandstanding? Sure. The guy is ham on wry. But who else takes so many of us to the dark places where the spirit of Jacob Riis dwells?

It wasn't even overtly polemical, the Michael Moore scene that's stuck tightest to my memory. It took place in "Roger and Me," his pranksterish take on industrial flight from his native Flint, Mich. A jobless young woman was being evicted, and she was screaming invective at the presiding sheriff as she threw her belongings into garbage bags. She and the sad lawman alike were battling on after the worst defeat a failed economy can inflict: the loss of dignity.

It could have been a Jerry Springer moment -- common people acting ignorant, which we surely can do, as Moore rightly chides us. The difference here was, I didn't want to slap the people; I wanted to slap every General Motors shareholder. That's what Michael Moore does for us, and that is what redeems all the excesses that so bother even some liberals (who actually watch).

He hates exploiters, he hates imperialists, he hates politicians and pundits who wrap their agenda in the flag. But by the evidence of his works, he does not hate Americans. Those who despise him should take a closer look, at his films or in the mirror. Meanwhile, remember: He's loving this.

Carpenter is Star op-ed columnist. Contact him at (317) 444-6172 or via e-mail at dan.carpenter@indystar.com .

Ironically enough, Roger Smith actually deserves a lot of criticism, but the film completely missed the mark.

Smith had to lay off those people to save the company. The company was bleeding money.

It was bleeding money largely because it was making crummy cars few in their right minds wanted to buy.

Smith was right in the middle of a movement that celebrated trying to control costs through automation at the expense of the quality and design of cars. What he wound up with was automation that didn't work, and cars that were too bland and poorly designed to sell. Thus, the layoffs.

Smith deserved criticism for his bad strategy, in other words, but not for the layoffs. Given the company's situation, they were necessary to keep it in business.

D

Actually I have a problem with all awards as a whole...and let's face it this year's crop of films has been let's say "below average". And you are also indeed correct in questioning the importance of receiving such an Oscar.

The satisfaction in knowing your film was widely accepted and also subject for world wide debate which should be enough to fulfill that need to produce/direct a box office sensation. But it's all about taking chances and Gibson did just that. But it's also about Gibson snubbing the Big Guys and their Deep Pockets and taking this project on entirely himself. It was a box office money maker as was Moore's film and I believe you can't really have one up their without the other. Whether you win or lose in regard to the Oscar is not the point...but the process of nomination of all films has shown to hold much intentional bias.

The Battle between: In this corner.......Moore's film Fahrenheit 9-11 and in this corner...... Gibson's The Passion of The Christ would alone be a PR Oscar draw just like the Bush/Kerry race captured the attention of all Americans. Let's get ready to rumbleeeeeeee!!!! ;)
No one can take award ceremonies seriously these days.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.