Manufacturing Dissent (2007)

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It's 2003. Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk take on Michael Moore after infamous anti-war speech at the Oscars. Debbie Melnyk claims to be a big fan of Moore at the beginning. They go on to debunk many of his assertions in his films as they follow him on his Fahrenheit 9/11 tour in 2004.Debbie Melnyk is trying to steal a page from Michael Moore's playbook but it comes off as being naive and silly. It would be better not to be so simplistic. "I thought he liked Canadians." Honestly, she sounds whiny. The narrative is scattered. Coming from other documentarians, this comes close to being jealousy. The best and possibly the only thing about Michael Moore that is revealed is that he's not a documentarian. That's a good revelation but it fails to make GM saints. They're actually digging too far into story. There is also a clash of personalities but it doesn't make Michael Moore evil. There is obvious bad blood with some of Ralph Nader's people after Moore switched his views on Nader's 2000 campaign. The film is trying to push the idea that the left should be a kumbaya movement and Michael Moore is equivalent to the right wing talk show agitators of the Republicans. Honestly, I don't think Moore would mind.

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.

My curiosity kept me watching this movie on the Sundance channel when I happened upon it. I agree, Moore can be ridiculously melodramatic in his style, but who isn't in regards to the entertainment industry? It includes documentaries, non-fiction. The makers of this, supposed expose, kinda SUCK. It appears they're trying to show that Moore manufactures much of the content in his movies, & they fail miserably. Yes, Moore does make up some crap to get his point across, but that's a standard practice in our wonderful Hollywood, even in documentaries. The points they make in this movie are equal to a high-school student's project, & the grade wouldn't be above a C. Anyone who likes this movie is either a Bush supporter and/or someone who has issues with Michael Moore's character. They're trying to show how Moore manipulates the facts & shapes the story to his own bias. That's scriptwriting 101, "you morons"! As if that has not been done throughout the history of film making, of scriptwriting for theater, of authoring books and articles. Yeah people, talk about how pointed & biased Moore is in his movies, & then go & watch the History Channel & say that it's documentaries & history on religion are based completely on NON-DISPUTABLE FACTS. I would consider you the easiest MARKS for any con-man who 'says' that he believes in 'YOUR' God & 'YOUR' Jesus. By the way, I'm wondering, did I see Ann Coulter in 'YOUR' movie? I also agree with many, that Moore can be a little, to a lot overbearing at times. Michael Moore can be grating, unfair in his treatment of others, hypocritical at times, but will those unpleasant flaws about his character cause you to despise and disregard his productions? How about it if everybody watches everything that's produced as NON-FICTION, with a critical eye. It's like a film student watching the business end of Hollywood productions that are on TV or at the movie theaters. Where's the product placements, which of our emotions is the script trying activate, who are the villains, the scoundrels & do the roles they play work at all into the politics of today. Politics are in every aspect of your life. Look around yourself, the war, the price of gas, the 4th amendment, the cutbacks. If film makers want to make a left-leaning director look bad, they need to do a lot better than this movie does! Just making Moore look like an inconsiderate assh*** & then letting those who represent the completely opposing views have their say, while throwing all the trash they can on Moore's work, causes me to suspect whether these film makers were ever truly fans of Moore. I don't think so & the proof is in the pudding & even Don Quixote would say that it tastes horrible. OK Bush devotees, point at my incorrect use of that aphorism, about the pudding. Or was it incorrect? Look up the word, "aphorism", in your DICTIONARY, & it starts with the letter A. Or are you like GWB? Is the DICTIONARY, a job for someone else? Oh yes, the "you morons" written above is my tribute to Bill O'Riley, which I think is himself talking to himself and his multiple personalities. If only one of them could be intelligent.

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.