Ever since his movie The Big One, I’ve had serious problems with Michael Moore’s approach and ego. In writing about Bowling for Columbine, I said that “The Big One made me feel like all the troubles of the world weren’t quite as important as Michael Moore being famous in his own odd way.” This article/essay/interview, prompted by the filmmaker’s Fahrenheit 9/11 at Cannes, will confirm most people’s worst fears about Moore, particularly the fairly obvious contradiction of a very wealthy person pretending to be a man of the people. He’s glib and dismisses criticisms without ever addressing them.
One could argue that the faults of a filmmaker as a human being aren’t relevant in discussing a movie, but Michael Moore is so front-and-center and self-righteous in his work that the claim falls down. The article doesn’t go quite this far, but it seems clear to me that the rift between Moore’s elitist behavior and his populism greatly undermines his credibility as a political filmmaker. The problem isn’t that he’s partisan, but that he’s a hypocrite.
