Surprisingly, this film made me feel sorry for Michael Moore.
Yeah, yeah, I get it, I get it--I really do--Moore is a big fat hypocrite, an almost pathological liar who is so blinded by his left-wing dogma that he has little regard for the truth or for playing fair. But I demand “moore” from a movie than proving THAT this is the case: I want to know WHY this is the case.
No, I am NOT condoning the way Moore consistently places “The Cause” over the truth (his ends-justify-the-means mentality) or the thoroughgoing dishonesty of some of his “documentaries” . . . BUT this film made me ponder:
“Why? WHY is Michael Moore like that? WHY does he feel compelled to resort to deceitfulness in his films or when giving speeches or when answering difficult questions? WHY is he so defensive whenever his imperfections are pointed out? WHY is he so thin skinned? WHY can he dish it out but not take it?”
Yes, this film does do a good job of pointing out Moore’s hypocrisy, his dishonesty, his arrogance, etc.--and it does a good job of getting leaders of the Left (and former intimates of Moore) to help make this critique of Moore.
But I think this film is simplistic in answering WHY Moore acts like he does--or, rather, the hypothesis advanced by several of the people interviewed in this film is simplistic. The dominant explanation in this film seems to be that Moore is just another self-promoting huckster who got too big for his already large britches. But while there’s likely some truth to this hypothesis, it seems ultimately rather shallow.
This prompts me to do some glib armchair psychologizing (and “sociologizing”): is Moore so defensive because he was a misfit as a lad (the chubby kid that no one picked to be on their team)? Is he just another Midwesterner who pines for the days when the Midwest was dominant (not just economically but in sports, etc., too), the beneficiary of national trade policy, government subsidies, American military victories, etc.?