Have I Been Duped?

Before last night I had only seen two of filmmaker Michael Moore's movies, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko. My basic take on each movie was that there was some interesting information, which appealed to my emotions but was obviously pushed through the lens Mr. Moore uses to view the world. I cautiously took in the information and kind of marked it as "to be looked into later".

Was I mad when Fahrenheit 9/11 depicted President Bush continue to read to the school children as word was coming in of the terrorist attacks? Yeah, I was a bit. Was I mad when the same movie depicted the administration in bed with the oil companies. Yeah, I was a little madder. Was I mad when Sicko described the plight of an injured man who had to choose which fingers to get sewn back on because certain fingers would cost him less than others. Yeah, it irked me. Did it annoy me that ex-Pats in Britain raved about the National Health Service (NHS) compared to the US system of health care. Hell yes, I wanted solutions to these problems!

As I said though, I took in the information and wanted to later on decide for myself on its accuracy. Unfortunately, I have never undertaken this effort, and I have not seen enough newsflow since the viewings of those films to soundly confirm or deny Mr. Moore's views.

The aforementioned films are relatively new though. Mr. Moore's first "big" movie was Roger & Me, a movie about GM's CEO Roger B. Smith closing plants in Moore's hometown of Flint Michigan and the resulting demise of that town. The film was made in 1989. Thus, we have 20 years of 20/20 hindsight to judge the film on. So, neither I nor you have to take the appeal to our emotions sitting down. We can view the film and know the outcome and whether Mr. Moore's assertions meant anything.

My question for the 2outof4 audience is what is the point of Roger & Me and are Mr. Moore's points based on any sound logic or just appeals to one's emotions? Is Mr. Moore trying to take advantage of mine and your naivete (which for this movie is far less today)?

If the plot and point of Roger & Me is to show how it sucks when people lose their jobs and how difficult it can be for them and their town of residence, then Roger & Me makes a stirring point. But the thing is that we all know Mr. Moore is trying to make a larger point. He's trying to say that somehow GM owes these people of Flint and the shuttered plants an existence and financial support. The problem is that Mr. Moore never once explains why that is the case or what exactly GM should have done. It is like he made a movie to appeal to people who could not think for themselves and would just cheer on his clear collectivist agenda for the unemployed GM factory workers.

When I saw the abandoned houses in Roger and Me and the people being evicted from their homes was I sad? Of course I was sad. But did I think that somehow GM owed these people or the town of Flint, Michigan anything? No, I certainly did not. It seems Mr. Moore does not believe in hard work or personal development. One of the last clips of the movie shows a Flint-based lobbyist for GM saying that he does not think that one can expect a corporation to give "cradle to the grave" benefits and survive in a system of free enterprise. Moore expertly flashes on the screen that the lobbyist was fired and the office closed in a couple of weeks, and makes the viewer think that the lobbyist would have rethought his comments, if he had known he was going to be fired. Why would he? He clearly believed that no one was owed anything by corporate America and he likely just moved on.

I do not think the proof that the GM/UAW multi generational experiment in collectivism failed can be any clearer than the possibility that once in bankruptcy GM could have drawn as much as $90 billion from the US Government (and still likely fail). http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/business/global/23auto.html?_r=2&hp In other words, your tax dollars supporting the very entity Mr. Moore suggested should just continue employing high cost labor.

Mr. Moore even goes so far as to disprove his viewpoint that these disposed GM workers deserved jobs by showing that the assembly line workers could not hold jobs at the local Flint Taco Bell. The Taco Bell assembly process was too quick for them and they could not work effectively in that "fast paced" environment. Moore somehow insinuates that Taco Bell line work is below these skilled assembly line workers, and this little experiment shows GM is the monster he makes it out to be. I have a lot more respect for a Taco Bell line worker who is doing his or her best to earn his or her money, than a filmmaker who is trying to make a whiny plea that somehow GM should provide jobs for everyone and keep his hometown relevant!

The film is littered with other examples that blast Mr. Moore's assertions that all Flintonians and former GM plant workers are moribund layabouts and just moping around waiting for GM to give them back their jobs. Moore shows postal workers saying that there had been 82,000 address changes processed. Moore wanted the audience to feel sad because Flint was falling apart. Isn't this exactly what is supposed to happen in a free economy? People move to where they can put their skills to use and get paid the most for their production? Homes were abandoned because hardworking people had to find jobs! Boohoo Mr. Moore. So, Flint was the place GM was founded, Moore seems to want the audience to feel angry that Flint is no longer the place where GM prospers and that GM should make amends. Especially 20 years down the road, I think most Americans would say who cares? If Flint could not keep up, that number of address changes tells me that the former Flintites surely adapted (and got out of town).

Roger & Me ends with some clever monologue by Moore to the effect of the Rich get richer and the Poor get poorer. Maybe the poor wouldn't be poor if they could keep up at Taco Bell. This kind of warped sense of entitlement and complete disregard to basic economic principles renders Mr. Moore's "argument" (i.e. his film) completely meaningless. In the end it is just a whiny plea for the viewer to feel sad for his dilapidated hometown.

My fear now is that what I had taken as somewhat factual accounts of events with heavy doses of Mr. Moore's biases in Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko, were really just pleas to my emotions based on nothing but his collectivist social agenda. Have I been duped!?!

-2outof4