About the Author

author photo

Agnes Varnum is a freelance writer, film programmer and communications manager for the Austin Film Society. She is the primary contributor to doc it out and Tribeca Film Institute's Resources.

See All Posts by This Author

Pierson’s Rant

July 2nd, 2007 • Related Posts • Tags

register to voteLate Friday, I got a note from .com’s editor-in-chief Eugene Hernandez that a First Person letter by John Pierson to Michael Moore was posted. I went straight to it and was a bit puzzled by the nature of it. Pierson was at the SXSW screening of Manufacturing Dissent, as he is from Austin and appears in that film. He has been rather vocal in docs circles about how his students reacted to the “revelation” that might not be the progressive he paints himself to be. But, as the minor ripples caused by Manufacturing Dissent have dissipated, and SiCKO is now out wide this weekend, it seems odd for Pierson, at this late hour, to admonish to “get out of the damn way.” That train has already left the station, hasn’t it?

I asked Eugene why this letter now? What bug is in Pierson’s britches? He let me know that there was an article in the LA Times that might have caused some bristling, and sure enough, there are several articles but I’d bet that it was “Michael Moore’s finances in robust health” that prompted Pierson’s ire:

While some filmmakers’ wealth can make their films seem elitist, argues that his moviemaking and financial accomplishments actually have allowed him to remain even more focused on the real world. “What it should do to me is remind me every single day that I have an even greater responsibility to do good with the success that I have been blessed with,” says. “I need to make sure that I am able to make the next film with the money that I have made on this film.”

If you’ve seen Manufacturing Dissent or any of the other film’s that debunk ’s myth, this will probably generate a big eye roll and Hmpf. But even within the same article, says that after watching , people came up to him and asked what could they do to change the healthcare situation. His response:

Moments after sitting on Leno’s “Tonight Show” couch, mingled with the production crew, several of whom shared their healthcare horror stories and asked what they could do to improve the nation’s healthcare system. says he had not been prepared for that kind of reaction. He knew that nearly everybody had their own horrible insurance tales — he received 25,000 e-mails when he solicited such stories — but he didn’t expect that “” would encourage so much activism. “Certainly, the No. 1 question I get asked is, ‘What can I do?’ ” says. “I am not prepared for that. Because I am not leading a movement to revolutionize the healthcare system in America. I am making a movie. I have spent a year and a half making this film, and this is my contribution.”

What an asshole. Sorry, I know that this and my prior feminism post both have foul language but I can’t think of a better way of saying it. Outreach around films has reached a high art in this country, largely owing to the need for philanthropic contributions to fund documentary production–from big films like An Inconvenient Truth and Robert Greenwald and MoveOn.Org’s campaigns such as Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price to every film that appears on PBS’s P.O.V. series, there are so many models for putting tools for action into the hands of viewers, would have to have his head in the sand for the last 10 years to proclaim seriously that he had no idea people would want to know what they could do or that he couldn’t figure out a way to create an action campaign around the film.

Just more evidence that he is as phony and as hypocritical as they come. Too bad, because I agree with the general consensus that this film is accessible to all Americans. But the real purpose of it is to line ’s and the Weinstein brothers pockets, not to change healthcare. My suggestion? VOTE! Quit griping about not knowing enough and get your booty to the polls on election day. nor any movie can save us from our own inaction.

There Are 5 Responses So Far. »

  1. Pingback by John Pierson Takes on Michael Moore - Movie reviews - Spout on 2 July 2007:

    [...] as Agnes Varnum points out, why would Pierson suddenly feel the need to order Moore to “get out of the way”? And considering [...]

  2. Comment by Francis on 2 July 2007:

    I spent some time the past few years involved in health care activism, especially in support of a single-payer system, so I’m particularly interested in seeing the film. That said, I’ve always had the sense that Moore’s films are more about being the class clown — as in “look at how smart and funny I am” — than any deep conviction to the issues portrayed. The quote above certainly seems to bear that out.

  3. Comment by Rob on 3 July 2007:

    You say that the, “Real purpose of it is to line Moore’s and the Weinstein brothers pockets, not to change healthcare.” Well, I understand you deep cynicism towards the Weinstein brothers I don’t understand how you can make that comment, without rhyme, reason, or evidence as it applies to Mr. Moore. People who who make movies (which I am sure you aware, is an expensive art form), do so with the hope that there will people to watch them when they’re completed. And the more people who their movie, the better.

    Most filmmakers don’t toil away, spending years of their lives on a project with the hope that it gets into one or two theaters. Most would desire to have their films on the most amount of screens imaginable. If a distributor believes a film has commercial potential that is what dictates that number of prints made and subsequently the number of theaters where it will be projected. The filmmaker as well as the producers, distributors et all, make more money if the film is on greater amount of screens as long as a greater amount of patrons purchase tickets to the movie. And what’s wrong with that?

    It seems to be that the indie film crowd is still stuck in the “denying the realities of commerce” mode of thinking that often belies their amateurish mindset. If something makes a lot of money that doesn’t mean that has less valus as a piece of work. Similarly, your comment that the reason why Moore is making this movie is to line his pockets with money is ridiculous and illogical. Michael Moore’s net worth prior to “9/11″, was well over 20 million. Why would he need to continue to go through the motions if his motivation was dictated by greed. It just doesn’t make sense. He doesn’t need the money. But if he makes a lot of money from these movies, so be it. He’s worked hard and earned it. Market forces did not contribute to the success of his films, public caprice did. So if you think he’s doing it for the money and you have a problem with that, then why did you pay to see the movie yourself?

  4. Comment by agnes on 3 July 2007:

    Rob – If you work for any of the companies associated with the making or distribution of the SiCKO, I’d suggest that before you make more comments like this, meant to discredit bloggers commenting about the film, that you should at least read the About page of their site so you know a bit about who you are writing to and what their particular bend might be. Individual posts contain some shorthand to our way of thinking.

    If you had looked, you would have seen that I spent several years working at the Center for Social Media at American University. In my work there, we did a significant amount of work discovering and highlighting the strategies that filmmakers use to seed social change using films. There are a number of strategies and in my post, I mentioned some passing examples of films that have had some measure of success in this arena. Not only have other filmmakers blazed this trail, but for filmmakers who do not wish to get bogged down in that kind of work, there are organizations that will pick up the outreach baton and run with it on behalf of the project (Outreach Extension, Active Voice).

    What does an outreach campaign require? Additional funding beyond production and P&A. You can call me names like “amateurish” and perhaps you are right, but I never said anywhere on this blog that filmmakers need to work for free, or should. There is, however, a difference between getting paid a salary and reaping multi-millions. Since I know more than a handful of filmmakers who care about the issues they make films about, I can say unequivocally that there are many who look for and secure additional funding for outreach, create partnerships with issue-oriented nonprofits and philanthropy, some even disguise their marketing as outreach and manage to sell a few more copies of their work for their efforts (Robert Greenwald is a great example of this, and he makes more than most doc filmmakers I know).

    My point here is that if a filmmaker cares about an issue, and in the case of Moore, will be making more than most people in the world will ever see in their lifetimes, including many of the subjects in SiCKO, he’d reinvest some of that capital to fund (insert outreach effort here) or go out and secure additional funding. So, either he has morons working for him (which I doubt since I know many people who do and have worked for him), or making change is not a top priority in the creation and distribution of this film. But, please don’t expect me to believe that he never thought of it.

    I’d also add that my post assumes that you’ve seen Manufacturing Dissent. I happen to know enough people who have dealt with Moore over the years to feel comfortable that the stripes that Moore reveals unwittingly in that film are accurate. His unwillingness to support other filmmakers, his paranoid view of any transparency and his hypocrisy (all of which are revealed to some degree in that film) all give weight to my argument that universal healthcare is not really his first priority in making SiCKO.

  5. Comment by Chris on 3 July 2007:

    That Michael Moore wouldn’t have a “what you can do to help” kind of apparatus or website or whatever ready upon the release of his film doesn’t surprise me — it’s not like there was much of one for Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11 either. The only apparatus he had in place was dedicated to fighting off the piles of critiques and criticisms that came with the release of those films, his “war room,” as it were. Perhaps he was too busy setting up the war room this time to think about what would happen if people (other than the choir) actually listened to him.

    I, for one, have never considered Michael Moore to be a documentarian. A film essayist, an op-ed filmmaker, yes, but not a documentarian. Putting him in the same category as the great social documentarians has never even crossed my mind, so it didn’t even occur to me to think of a lack of an outreach campaign. Then again, even Rush Limbaugh can take a moment to tell his acolytes to bug their representatives, so… He does have his “Health Care Proposal” and a series of Links and Resources on his website, but if he’s really claiming to spur people to action, he should be taking the opportunity to lead the charge beyond just links.