Hunting The Muse

Curt, I couldn't disagree more. Michael Moore can be snide, sarcastic, and manipulative. But he's a filmmaker. That's his job. I think this has a lot more to do with the viewer than the filmmaker. Frankly it sounds like you went into "F9/11" with emotional baggage from the start and that you're blaming him for it.

Moore's encounter with Heston isn't nearly as bad as Heston's bullying a whole community in mourning. "Don't come here? We're already here!" He was rubbing his presence in their faces. That simply doesn't compare with being forced, for once, to answer for his actions.

And this is from someone who's admired his movies since he was a year old. Yes, I remember that far back. Taylor running loose in the Ape city in "Planet of the Apes" was probably the first movie image I ever saw. And Heston's work in "El Cid" has left a lasting, almost legendary impression with me to this day. Over the years, I've cut him all the slack I can and more.

You're attributing motivations and ideas to the filmmaker as if they were objective fact. That's considered mind-reading. If we're going to argue intent vs impression or fact vs interpretation, let's make the distinctions now. There's a difference between an audio/visual cue and a subjective impression. The filmmaker is responsible for the former. The audience has at least half of the responsibility for latter.

This reminds me of the time I watched "Battleship Potemkin" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (the original) on the same night. Totally unconnected? Believe it or not, they are. At the risk of sounding like a crash course in film appreciation, they both owe their power to editing. Eisenstein is so influential that we see his techniques in our entertainment and advertising and most of us don't even know it. "TCM" is no exception. Thousands of people insist it's the bloodiest, most gory flick they'd ever seen. And yet there is no gore. Lots of nasty stuff implied, but you never see the dirty deed. You're shown just enough to get your mind on the right track, then we switch to a more merciful angle. Misdirection. Persistence of vision. The audience fills in the blanks.

Your take? You have to wait your turn. The artist goes first. Until cyberspace and hypertext went online, that's been the rule. No, a movie is not a discourse. It's the beginning of one. And no one gets the last word, really. Not even the artist. Insisting on seeing your take in a completed work is like trying to eat something after you've eaten it (Schroedger's cupcake?). Unless you're a god or a movie studio, you can't undo it. Look at what happened with "Brazil."

And let me acknowledge the obvious. We're trying to quantify the subjective. In other words, catching smoke. But hey, if you're sure that you can see Michael Moore jumping up and down in sadistic glee, if you've got the phantom Zapruder footage of him on the grassy knoll, run the dailies and nail him already.

Hrm. Okay, let's zoom in to this.

Re: emotional baggage. That's a bit rude. The only experience I have with Michael Moore are his last two movies, and I'm reacting to him as the filmmaker he is. Any "emotional baggage" I'd have along those lines would be relevant, wouldn't it? I don't have any kind of private grudge against him. I didn't come in with any expectations of what I wanted him to put or communicate in the film.

Re: Heston. I'm definitely not advocating cutting Heston slack from his former movies. Honestly, I think the only one I've seen with him in it is Planet Of The Apes - the recent one. So they're irrelevant to me.

And, from what I know of his NRA exploits, I definitely agree that it's appropriate to hold him to task. That's actually part of my point - that even given that, I actually sort of felt bad for the guy. I'm sure that wasn't the effect that Moore was going for. And I'm definitely not the only liberal person to have reacted that way. There was a recent very long article about hanging out with Al Gore in Nashville, he said something similar. So anyway, my reaction was there, and existed as part of the film experience, as did similar reactions of many others. So that would imply that Moore's filmmaking wasn't as effective as he intended.

Now, just because I felt bad for the guy doesn't mean I'm not disgusted at what Heston has represented. Emotional responses aren't binary that way.

You're attributing motivations and ideas to the filmmaker as if they were objective fact.

I don't know what you mean here. What motivations and ideas? I'd agree with you that subjective impression - my own - is something for me to take responsibility for. My assumption is that I believe he didn't intend for me to have the reaction I did.

I haven't seen Battleship Potemkin or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I don't think I'd disagree with your points there.

In fact, I'm wondering if you took something differently than I intended. If so, my bad. I'm not saying that I demand my take of Iraq/9-11 to have been presented in the movie. By saying "room for my take", I mean, room for me to feel my response to the film, rather than have it dictated to me. Moore is heavy-handed to the point where it sometimes seems like I'm being told what to feel in response. Again, not the only person to make this point. He got out of the way with the Iraqi woman, which was good. It was more effective that way. Contrast it in your head by imagining him giving a voiceover of, "This woman has had her village destroyed. (woman yells) By soldiers in planes. (woman cries) All they had to do was press a button, from above the clouds. (woman yells). They have no perspective - she lost an UNCLE. FAMILY MEMBERS, none of who were soldiers. These are people, like you and me!" It would have been distracting, and would have made that part of the film less effective. Maybe you disagree? Now, in contrast, imagine the My Pet Goat scenes with no narration rather than the snarky comments Moore was making. I was amazed, watching Bush in those moments, but I felt derailed by Moore's comments. I think it would have been more effective had Moore shut up. Disagree?

Haven't seen Brazil, but it's coming up on my Netflix queue - hopefully a version Gilliam approves of...

Don't have the faintest idea what you are saying in your last paragraph - I'm not trying to suggest that Moore's motivations are sadistic in any sense.

Calling something objective fact is tricky, but I think there are things we can say about Moore's approach that wouldn't meet much argument. One, he's not subtle. Two, many people that are inclined to agree with him have reacted uncomfortably to his lack of subtletly. Me included. My own belief is that I think he could serve his point more with more subtlety; that his underscoring sometimes actually undermines his message.

The other parts of my entry are my theories on why he does it.

The rest of it might be our own philosophical disagreements on creating art. I believe wholeheartedly that the emotional reaction of the audience is very much a part of the artistic process - while the art is being presented. There's no first or second about it. It should be a framework that is given life from the reaction of the audience, an interplay of sorts. I play piano differently for an audience than I do for myself, reacting to what dynamics I pick up. Now, I am not sure if you are saying this, but I can also see the POV of art being something self-contained - purely the intent of the artist, to be presented as a pure expression of the artist's will, to be reacted to, within parameters that the artist expects and intends. I just personally don't like that kind as much. Makes me feel marginalized, just as I did during much of both Moore films I've seen.

Which is why I'd disagree with you that it's a filmmaker's job to be manipulative. I'd say, not necessarily, at least not if we contrast being manipulated by a film with being enlightened by a film. Perhaps you meant "manipulative" in the general sense, though.

Re: emotional baggage. That's a bit rude.

Sorry, I certainly didn't intend it as such. I never thought that term necessarily had negative connotations to it, so I just used it. We all have personal experiences that, for want of a better word, inform our perspectives. That, to me, is emotional baggage. Some of it, we should keep. Some of it weighs us down and we have to leave it behind. All the other words I could think of sounded really bad, so I settled with what I knew. I guess I've gotten too used to using that shorthand while talking with family or friends.

So no, I didn't think you had a prior ax to grind with either Michael Moore or Charlton Heston. I mean, you could if you really wanted, but....

In a weird way, the issue of sympathy reminds me of a couple of things. A journalism teacher once cautioned me about the use of sarcasm in op-ed pieces, pointing out that overdoing it can invoke sympathy for the subject of the piece. The other thing is Nietzsche's Pale Criminal, often compared with Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. Michael Moore obviously has the will of the knife, to risk the disapproval of others and do as he believes. Take that how you will.

I don't know what you mean here. What motivations and ideas?

"...frustration against his viewership, worried that they just won't get it...." That he distrusts his audience to some degree. That Moore is weirdly private about his emotions and is trying to seem dispassionate.

His personal appearances contradict all of those assertions. He cries, he rants, he laughs. He hugs complete strangers. When people call him a hero to his face, he tells them they're the real heroes changing the world. He wears his heart on his sleeve. That's exactly what gets him into hot water.

And I don't see where in any of his films he tries to seem dispassionate. His movies are all satires at heart. Satire always has a distinct point of view. It's already decided what's right, what's wrong, what is stupid, or who is guilty. Michael Moore is making fun of his chosen targets. There's no room for stoicism in his movies.

He didn't narrate the shot of the Iraqi mother in mourning because it didn't need a framework, comedic or otherwise. When he narrates, it's to tell you something--he assumes--you haven't thought of yet. He's a satirist. He concentrates on the comedy, tragedy, and absurdity of his chosen subject.

Don't have the faintest idea what you are saying in your last paragraph - I'm not trying to suggest that Moore's motivations are sadistic in any sense.

Well, you picture him silently shouting, "See? SEE?" during the Lila Lipscomb scenes. The subtext implies either sadism, dwelling on her suffering, or cold-heartedness opportunism, exploiting it for a purpose.

Now, I am not sure if you are saying this, but I can also see the POV of art being something self-contained - purely the intent of the artist....

Exactly what I meant. The nature of the medium dictates. The static nature of pre-cyber art has often lent the artist a unique sense of power and authority to the individual's voice in society. With a socio-political statement, especially an unpopular one, such power can be vital.

I'm talking about manipulation in a much broader sense. You watch a horror flick to be scared. A comedy, to laugh. And yet you're not going through the emotional process completely of your own volition. When you read a novel or watch a movie, then find yourself looking at the world in a way you didn't before, someone had to lead you down that path. You're reacting to someone else's cues. We choose entertainment based on the response we want the artist to invoke in us. The artist is tweaking our perceptions, sometimes catering to our preconceptions, occasionally assaulting them. We give our consent, but it's still manipulation.