Michael Moore raises some interesting points in his "Documentaries(*1)" and there's no question that he gets people to both think and discuss the issues. Look at the number of posts and threads about Michael Moore.
When I first saw BFC I was surprised at the "Facts" he was presenting to the viewer. Much like Kevin Spacey's character in "The Negotiator", I tend to look at one side of the argument then search out and find the OTHER side of the argument. Then decide for myself what REALLY happened. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle.
Naturally, upon my further research, I stumbled across
www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com and noticed that they take the OPPOSITE side of view of Michael Moore films.
The links section includes some very interesting things that I didn't realize.
a)The opening segmant at the bank was SCRIPTED. The bank in question IS a licensed arms dealer, BUT they keep their rifles some 300 miles away and someone opening an account, doesn't immediately recieve their rifle handed to them like portrayed in the movie. They must return to receive it and it is given to them in a BOX.
b)The NRA meeting in Littleton. By LAW, the NRA had to hold that meeting and in fact CANCELLED every other scheduled event because of the tragedy at Columbine High School.
c)The scene in which Charlton Heston raised his hand with a rifle and declared "From my cold dead hands" was in fact from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT speaking engagement.
d)Charlton Heston's appearance in Flint Michigan after Little Kayla's death was 8 MONTHS after her tragic killing. NOT days like the viewer was cleverly tricked into believing.
While there are literally dozens of clarifications as to Michael Moore's deception, those 4 stand out as crucial to him making his point in this movie.
MY point is, as I say, while Michael Moore raises some interesting points, is he so strapped for the facts that he has to mislead the viewing audience with clever editing? There are surely enough facts out there for him to make his movies that he shouldn't need to do this. Maybe, maybe not.
Perhaps he should be looking into why Ralph Nader is accepting donations from the REPUBLICAN party. What does that tell you?
The most disturbing part of Michael Moore's movies is that it seems to hypnotize what would be normally rational, intelligent human beings, into thinking that EVERYTHING that he says is the truth verbatim and anyone that attempts to, or PROVES he is being false and/or misleading, is simply a hater and ignoring the "Truth".
One quick point on the defintion of a documentary that Michael Moore likes to pass his movies off as. In Fahrenheit 9/11 alone, the scene in which he voices over footage of GWB sitting in the classroom and SPECULATES on what GWB is thinking, should have eliminated him from the category of Documentary at Cannes.
*1-Documentary
-A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
-Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.