Why I Feel I've Been Betrayed By Michael Moore:

I have to start off by saying I was, at one time, a HUGE Michael Moore fan. I'm a liberal thinker: I root for the 'little guy' and I think corporations are big, bad entities that manipulate and oppress the average consumer/worker. (Before you even begin to debate this statement, watch "The Corporation" and "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" and then get back to me).

I use to take great delight in watching Moore's films. I'd cheer him on as he pushed his large body and microphone into the faces of powerful people and demanded some kind of justice for the wrong-done-by 'average joe'. I've probably seen "Roger and Me" ten times. I found Moore's narration in the film humorous, insightful and humanistic. I cared for the GM assembly line workers who lost their jobs in Flint, Michigan just as much as Michael wanted me to, if not 'moore' so.

His second film, "The Big One", had me cheering in my seat. Although this documentary didn't become as renowned as the first, I loved his attack on Corporate America. It was the first of its kind I'd seen and watching him burst into large, cold buildings and calmly asking , with camera by his side, to speak to the man in charge (with the intent of challenging his 'downsizing policies') was priceless to me. I'd laugh and shout "take that, you bastard!" Because this film represented political views I align myself with and the humour brought back fond memories of episodes from Moore's television show, "TV Nation", and it's caped crusader "Crackers"- the corporate crime fighting chicken, I didn't sit and watch it with the skepticism I now embody while watching or reading anything that presents itself as 'news' or 'truth'. Instead, I let Moore's witty voice-overs, entertaining film edits and ballsy moves while combating 'the big, bad world' wash over me. He had me hook, line and sinker. I recommended his movies to everyone and read his book "Downsize This". Even though I didn't always agree with him on everything, I still applauded his overall messages and thought his attempts at stirring things up was admirable. I knew that what he was doing wasn't 'true documentary' but I thought, "hey, if it gets him more main stream attention and a wider audience for his films; all the power to him. The 'little guy' can use all the help he can get".

My love for Michael began to falter after seeing "Bowling for Columbine". (Which is kind of ironic seeing as this is the film that got him huge recognition and an Oscar for "Best Documentary"). I host an Oscar party every year and you'd think I'd be the first person applauding when he won that night, but I wasn't...Doubts and cynicism were setting in and I felt uneasy.

Don't get me wrong. I still agreed with a lot of the issues he addressed in the film: Why do Americans feel the need to bare arms? Why are other countries, like Canada. safer to live in? What is up with Charlton Heston? But his narrative in this film set off some alarms in me.

I found Michael's voice-overs in "Bowling for Columbine" contained an extreme 'emotional' slant. He stopped using humour and facts as his weapons and instead, replaced them with contrived emotional response tactics. I felt manipulated as I listened to sad music and watched Moore gingerly place an 8x10 photo of a dead girl on the steps of the now senile, Heston's house. I thought it was beneath Moore and I was disappointed in him. It reminded me of John Stewart's complaints when he saw footage of 911 being played back over and over on the news with sad music playing in the background. "I'm not an idiot", he stated during one of his shows. "you don't have to play sad music in order for me to know these images should make me feel sad." I felt Moore was doing the same kind of manipulation. I thought that entire scene with Heston was over-the-top, insincere and irritating.

My support for Moore's films continued to diminish after watching "Fahrenheit 911". Once again, Michael's tone of the film was filled with, what I deemed, contrived sentiment. When the camera zoomed in while he comforted a mother who lost her son in the Iraqi war, I wondered if Moore really cared about her or just wanted to get 'the shot'. It seemed to me that 'Michael' now was the star of his documentaries, not 'the cause'.

Moore's voice-over during the scene when Bush was sitting in a classroom after having just been informed of the attack on the World Trade Center made me angry. Obviously, as a 'lefty', I am not a Bush supporter. (The man can't put a sentence together and his laugh is just plain creepy). But why couldn't Moore just film Bush's reactions and non-reactions and let the audience come to their own conclusions? I felt like he was talking down to us now; preaching to his own choir and trying to glorify himself as some kind of 'working-class hero'. I wasn't buying it and I no longer viewed his actions as admirable.

Then I heard Moore only wanted "Fahrenheit 911" considered for "Best Picture" at the Academy Awards and didn't even enter it for "Best Documentary". He had won the "Palm D'or" award at Cannes for the film and wanted Americans to accept it as the most important movie of the year, as well - This was the film that was going to wake Americans up and get Bush out of office. That reeked of ego to me and I think that move really bit him in the ass: "Fahrenheit 911" didn't get nominated for "Best Picture" and George W. got re-elected for another 4 years.

So I was disgruntled with Moore. Where I had once viewed him as a witty, smart, brave activist, I now feared that fame and Hollywood popularity had made him too attached to the sound of his own voice and incapable of even trying to show the other side of the political issues he covered in his films. I realized he wasn't interested in opening up a forum for debate or letting people think for themselves. Just as "Fox News" tells its conservative audience 'how it is', Moore had nominated himself as our liberal preacher. I don't like to blindly follow other people around, so I took Moore off of the pedestal I plopped him on many years ago and, in protest, refused to see his newest film "Sicko".

Then I came across a documentary about Moore called "Manufacturing Dissent" (not to be confused with Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"). This film, made by Canadian filmmakers Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk, really opened my eyes. In it, Melnyk follows Moore around the States trying to get an interview with him. She starts off as a fan of Moore's but as he continues to avoid her, she gets a little ticked off and starts doing some digging around about him and his movies. Some of her findings included:

* Moore is not from Flint, Michigan

* He consistently mixes up the chronological order of events in his films

* Many people from his movies feel like they've been misrepresented by him and some have sued (including an Iraqi war vet)

* He has manipulated scenes (in "Bowling for Columbine", for example, he set up the scene of buying the gun in the bank. The guns are not kept at the bank but in a vault miles away. Moore insisted they bring a gun to the bank so he could walk out immediately with it for that scene).

* He has fabricated stories. - Heston did not go to Flint for a gun rally days after the young girl (8x10 photo) was shot there.(Which is what his interview with Heston was fuelled by).

And the clincher for me...

* While his first film "Roger and Me" showed failed attempts by Moore while trying to get an interview with Roger Smith, (the CEO of GM Motors: The person Moore held accountable for destroying his 'home town', Flint), in actual fact, Michael did meet Roger Smith and interviewed him. This interview was documented and Moore asked a friend to suppress it.

I was disheartened to find out that fame and popularity were not what changed Moore. Instead, he was manipulating his material and fabricating facts from the start. When there is little truth in your documentaries, how can you respect the filmmaker?

I realize Melnyk had her own agenda while filming "Manufacturing Dissent" and she may very well have just been one pissed off lady who really wanted an interview. But, she's from Canada eh? And typically, we're nice and try not to make a fuss unless absolutely necessary. So, in the hopes there can still be some truth found in documentary films, I do give her and her film the benefit of the doubt.

I did eventually rent "Sicko". (My curiosity got the better of me). Once again, I agree with the 'left' view that a country should take care of it's citizens and this includes health care. But as I watched the movie, I wondered if the 'facts' presented by Moore were the facts and if scenes in the film were genuine or set up days in advance. I wondered if Moore really cared about the group of people he was filming, who couldn't receive proper medical attention in the States, or if they were just an excuse for him to get in front of the camera and use a bullhorn while charging around on a boat.

After watching "Sicko", I thought the subject matter was important and I was glad the film was made. But because I am no longer proud to have Michael Moore represent us 'lefties', I wished someone else had made it.