MonsterPerfect Good idea lost in the noise

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Karl Self This movie tries to deconstruct Michael Moore. I saw it twice to give it a fair chance to get its point across to me, and it actually made me understand and like Michael Moore better.At this point I should tell you my stance towards MM: I consider his first movie Roger & Me a work of genius, but I disliked (sometimes intensely) his later docu-props. For example, I thought that the interview of Charlton Heston in Bowling For Columbine was atrocious, with Moore acting as a leftwing Jerry Springer. So I'm by no means an unabashed acolyte of Moore.The makers of "Manufacturing Dissent" (an allusion to another, but great, Canadian documentary, "Manufacturing Consent") have taken more than a page from Michael Moore's book. The documentary is stylistically an eerie clone of Moore's movies, which begs the question whether imitation isn't the most honest form of flattery. It constantly brings in new points (without ever solving the old ones) and fresh scenes, which makes the movie interesting to watch but difficult to follow. Like Moore, it uses the tactic of "the more mud you throw, the more will stick".On balance, the movie recycles some criticisms of Moore, and fires a barrage of new, but untenable (and often ludicrous) ones. That's simply not good enough.To give one salient example: we see a college thespian claiming that Moore fabricated a scene from Roger & Me, where a satellite van gets stolen by an unemployed auto worker before a live Ted Koppel broadcast from Flint. So how come no-one, for example someone from Nightline, noticed until now? In all likeliness the claim of the fabrication was itself fabricated. The documentary should have investigated this, instead it takes the claim at face value and moves on to fresh accusations. That's propaganda, not journalism.So what's the message? Michael Moore's everyman image is a carefully constructed role -- true to some extent, but really nothing new. He has a number of detractors, who are often pretty unpleasant themselves (such as the snooty film critic who proudly states that he instantly disliked Michael Moore from the moment he walked into the studio until he "waddled on out" -- what an incredibly biased and shallow statement from a professional critic). The makers of the movie purport to have started this movie as fans -- so why do they rely so heavily on the material of his rightwing critics? I got the impression that Moore sees himself as being on a crusade not just against the political right, but also against ivory-tower leftwing intellectuals. He wants to reinstall a street credibility to the political left. With detractors such as Debbie Melnyk of Manufacturing Dissent, I choose to praise Moore rather than to bury him.

Ryan Brigante First of all, I have no allegiance to (nor do I have anything against) Michael Moore. This review is as unbiased as can be. I appreciate his films that I have seen, but I rented Manufacturing Dissent with the intention of seeing a thorough counterargument from the other side. What I got was nothing short of childish.There is not a single logical argument presented in this entire film. An argument goes like this:1) If p, then q. 2) p. 3) Therefore, q.This never happens in this film. The entire film is based upon naive associations and assumptions which anyone over the age of 10 should know not to make. For example: Moore is anti-George Bush, therefore Moore is bad! (This is actually suggested in the film. I am not making this up.) To even take this argument *seriously* (much less accept it), you'd have to actually support George Bush. And unless you entirely support George Bush, then you have absolutely no reason to be offended by such an association to Michael Moore! If this sounds ridiculously obvious, that's because it is. And that's how stupid this film is. Another example: Michael Moore is a bad musician, he's fat and ugly, and here's a creepy picture of him with creepy music playing! (Once again, all of these are actually presented in the film.) This, of course, should be an insult to every human's intelligence on the earth. This is just sad. This is nothing less than an 8-year-old attempt at brainwashing/behavioral conditioning. The day after watching this film, I woke up wondering if it was real. At this moment I am looking at a rented copy of Manufacturing Dissent from Blockbuster on my desk...so unfortunately, it is real. And it is possibly the worst documentary of all time.

dbborroughs Canadian look at Michael Moore and his movies is an interesting view of the man and his image. The film's conclusion is that Moore is more interested in himself than in anything else and he will go to almost any length to protect said image.I have a love hate relationship with Moore. I do appreciate that he gets people fired up but it annoys the hell out of me that he often cooks the books. For example: Moore started with a film called Roger and Me about trying to see Roger Smith but neglected to say that he actually met with Smith twice. The bank gun scene in Bowling for Columbine was set up 30 says in advance so he could walk out of the bank with the gun. His recent Sicko simply stated the obvious about a the broken American health care system. At the same time I like that someone is saying what he is saying. I like that he is challenging the status quo, I just wish he wouldn't call it documentary film making.It was with that love hate attitude I sat down to watch Manufacturing Dissent on the Sundance Channel. I would let the film take me where it wanted to and if I didn't like it I could turn it off in favor of something else. I stayed all the way to the end. Seemingly fair minded the film speaks with a good many people who know or knew Moore and it lets them say their piece about him and his behavior, going all the way back to his high school days. At the same time the filmmakers follow Moore around the country and try to get him to talk to them about a variety of issues (his charitable trust having Halliburton stock for example). The people he speaks with all seem to have the same love hate relationship, they love him, but ultimately what matters to Michael is Michael .One person connected with the awful truth talks about having to stay in a flea bag hotel while Moore stayed in a suite in a ritzy hotel. When the person asked Moore about it he said "You know Midwesterners, they're all about making money". Its a telling comment.Also telling is how Moore reacts to being questioned by the filmmakers who film their entire exchanges with Moore, none are what you could call difficult except that Moore doesn't like their questions and you can watch his demeanor change. It seems Moore doesn't like to be questioned or seen negatively. Film critic David Gilmour shows clips from the interview with Moore when his film Canadian Bacon came out. Gilmour was very candid about critical reaction to the film and you can see Moore's persona change as he seems to want to kill Gilmour (who was taking a bit too much delight in tormenting Moore when his discomfort was revealed). Moore reins himself in but one gets the sense that he was not going to let that happen to him again.(And lest you think its a one off we get an interview with the former head of Film Comment who did an interview with Moore where Moore became surreal when asked about factual problems in Roger and Me.) Strangely most of the people interviewed seemed to like Moore,at least when he is the jovial Moore. They just don't seem to understand this other Michael Moore who is the "rock star" who must have his way.For me its the fairest of the documentaries or pieces I've seen bashing or if not bashing questioning Moore since it's point of view is not purely right wing. The film focuses on Moore but it does get some jabs in at people like O'Reilly and other TV pundits of his bend. It seems to feel that Moore is the only one, outside of Ralph Nader, who he may have betrayed on some level giving voice to the left, but that he's not all that he seems. It also argues that we should (rightly) question what Moore tells us is true since it may not be the gospel truth but rather some approximation altered for effect.I could be wrong, but it seemed to make sense.I liked it if for no other reason then its seemingly reasoned approach requires much thought and no knee jerk reaction.7.5 out of 10.

kenalbertson The film makes an important distinction for those who are still unsure about how to view a "documentary" film. Recently we have seen "mainstream" film makers such as Ron Howard and Clint Eastwood make movies that are based upon actual historical events, but purposely deviate from the truth in order to make a more dramatic movie. Michael Moore has done this in every "documentary" he has ever made. He admits as much, claiming that the words spoken by his subjects are theirs alone, but he is in charge of editing them however he likes. Using this technique, Moore has managed to make films which were more successful than they might have been otherwise. The success he has enjoyed has allowed him to assume the same "fatcat" attitudes which he criticized and parodied in Roger and Me. This is nicely pointed out in this film. One fault with this film is that it starts slow and you wonder if you are in for a very dry and unfocused personal history of Michael Moore. After about 20 minutes, it picks up speed and focus and has a powerful conclusion.