There was a lot of buzz going into SXSW about Manufacturing Dissent, a new documentary by Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine. They are doc filmmakers based in Toronto and the perception of the project, as intimated in John Anderson’s Feb. 25 article, “Michael & Them: Filmmakers Chase Moore,” in the NY Times, was that they are progressives yet the project would somehow expose Moore (as what, I’m not quite clear). The very idea seemed enough to irritate lefties who think that whatever might be bad about Moore, he does more good than harm in film and politics and shouldn’t be a target of progressives. Of course, the righties have been on to Moore for a long time and abhor the fact that he wields so much influence when he fictionalizes items in his films. They have tried unsuccessfully to discredit him by uncovering half-truths and fictional elements of his movies.

My position going into the film is that of a passionate advocate for media literacy: thinking critically when viewing any media; so while I tend toward progressive ideals, I also think that no media message is exempt from critique. What are the modes of production? How does the message influence our collective consciousness? Who is paying for the production? It doesn’t matter whether the media is Fox News or Michael Moore, I see them all as targets for critique.

I don’t think Manufacturing Dissent provides much critique. I’ve never looked at those anti-Moore websites but I have always viewed Moore with skepticism. Like I never believed Bush when he said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I never believed that Moore gave us just the facts or that he wasn’t crafting his raw footage to support his particular point of view. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it doesn’t seem to me that this film actually uncovers any new fabrications by Moore? All of the facts (like he had interviews with Roger Smith for Roger & Me, or that there are completely fictionalized elements in all of his films) have been uncovered elsewhere. Lefties might be surprised at the nature of his fictions, as I was, since we rarely seek out right-wing messages that are created simply to knock us off our blocks, but that doesn’t mean presentation here is news.

So, if the facts that are presented in the film are not newly discovered, what else is there? The title of the film implies plans, schemes, even conspiracy. It sounds like maybe there is a revolution underway, and I expected a thesis about Moore’s grand plan. I got no sense from the film that Melnyk and Caine understood Moore better for having followed him around. The most damming part of the movie is Moore himself and I believe they did expose him in a way. When the filmmakers ask him for interviews at press conferences, he was continually sheepish and would say maybe, but then never granted their requests. When his sister and a group of body guards kick the filmmakers out of a public speaking engagement, it’s clear that Moore is not any less of a thug than the politicians he likes to bash (see An Unreasonable Man when Ralph Nader tries to attend a presidential debate!).

So, if Moore is a thug who travels with body guards and soaks up the limelight, lives in expensive houses and establishes the Traverse City Film Festival so that he can rub elbows with the elite, the thesis of the film might be that he doesn’t live by the ideals he preaches. He has achieved unprecedented success (for a documentary filmmaker) using liberal politics and a character of himself to achieve personally the epitome of what he criticizes. Yet, countering this thought are the subjects of Moore’s films. Who would work to advance a liberal political agenda as a way of making money? It’s counterintuitive but perhaps his genius.

Putting aside the fact that some items in his films have been fictionalized for dramatic effect (because this fact/truth argument will never be resolved), does the message of his movies become less relevant if the filmmaker is only wearing a progressive costume? The decimation of working class economies, gun violence and the current political state of affairs are worthy topics to tackle. It’s a shame that Moore’s films, because of his presence in them and refusal to stick to facts, divides us into pro-Moore and anti-Moore camps rather than helping opposing sides by facilitating discussions about small arms or how to build economies in the absence of major industry, or how to be a more positive force in the world rather than invading other countries for monetary gain.

Manufacturing Dissent doesn’t go beyond simplistic in its examination. The film fails to analyze Moore’s impact (the 2004 election doesn’t show an impact from Fahrenheit 9/11, for instance); it doesn’t postulate about Moore’s messaging beyond the relating of previously known incidents; and it doesn’t examine the relationship of media to our political culture or political dialogue. It is a weak film for not thinking beyond whether they could get an interview with him or not. It fails to help us achieve a greater understanding of the liberal relationship to Moore’s films.

But, the film does make me think more critically about Moore and his relationship to my politics, so for that, I’m glad I saw the film. It will be playing at HotDocs if you missed it at SXSW.