Talk:Roger & Me

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Misc

I'm not really sure that the current article as it is really conforms to a neutral point of view, particularly the second paragraph; would this be considered too subjective or is this OK? -- DrewT2

It is a description of the film and the film is clearly not from a neutral viewpoint, therefore I think it is okay. The description seems neutral to me and attempting to moderate the claims or portrayals in the film would end up sounding fairly strangled. -- Anon

Can anyone provide examples of which scenes are staged? The critique mentions this without a case... I think it's a pretty inflammatory statement without backup. -- Goatasaur

Added some specific backup for claim of staged scenes. /LK


In "Defining Documentary Film", Michael Weinberger reaches the conclusion that Roger and Me is not a documentary by his standards. Among his many criticisms is the following about staged scenes ([1]):
I must also call into question two scenes, one which I suspect is re-created the other which is wholly created. When Moore laments his experience in San Francisco, he relates his inability to find a simple cup of coffee. The audience is presented with a waitress who nervously lists the multitude of coffee options available while looking directly into the camera (as if we the audience were making an inquiry). While it is possible that a hidden camera simply happened to catch this moment, it seems much more likely that this woman is performing for us. I would similarly call into question the scene in which the woman who raises rabbits kills and then guts an animal for the camera. This woman is clearly performing this disturbing act for the camera's benefit. In my opinion, these scenes are beyond the realm of documentary film.
That's silly. Obviously the waitress does on a daily basis list the coffee options for people with poor eyesight or poor reading ability, or just to show off, anyone who's been in a Starbucks has seen that done - the nervousness is probably wondering if she's getting her boss in trouble and will suffer for it. And the 'bunny lady' clearly was killing and gutting the rabbits she was selling 'for meat not pets'. So these are recreations of actual and legitimate events that occur on a daily basis in the real world, which is a fair documentary move. Else how could the History Channel do *anything*?
Moore's fans approve of staged scenes (Laura Abraham, ([2]):
When watching a Michael Moore film some of the scenes are staged or edited in such a way to make his points have a stronger appeal, or just more theatrical in nature for the audience. [...] He may edit or stage events for the benefit of a more entertaining viewing but this does not detract from the general feeling that this man actually gives a shit about our country and the hard working people who live here.

FWIW, Michael Weinberger's claims are bullshit. ^_^ The claims are incorrect and irrelevant anyway, an attempt to discredit Moore without discussing it intelligently. Documentary often contains scenes of people speaking directly to the camera (e.g. in Errol Morris' films, in social "need to know" films; even in personal films and in observational films like Grey Gardens, universally accepted as a documentary but not one without its own attackers--none of whom take the untenable position Weinberger does, all of whom choose to focus on ethics instead. Let's focus on ethics here, in re: Moore. I like the film; I agree it's a documentary; I agree also that it's deceptive and manipulative. Koyaanis Qatsi

Laura Abraham's claims are equally unconvincing. He gives a shit--so what? His fans do too--also, so what? That doesn't get us anywhere in discussing specific points. Koyaanis Qatsi

Yeah, I was wondering about that, Koy - If Joe Shuck writes a crit that is of such lower quality than a work - or states "this is not a documentary because it doesnt meet x" - then what are people to make of it? Its true. Moore wouldnt bother to answer criticism of this low level... Still perhaps documentary is not the right word and it might be better reserved for Frontline kind of stuff.... - Moore's work represents a merging of documentary and narrative reporting that defies nominal categorization... -Stevert

Well, no. Look, the term "documentary" itself is widely contested--Maysles, Pennebaker, Burns, Moore, Kopple, Morris, et al. all have wildly different ideas of what is and is not documentary, and what is acceptable in documentary, and even Sinofsky disagrees with Maysles on some things after working with him for years. Furthermore, Nanook of the North is almost completely staged, beginning to end; they weren't in risk of dying at the film's end; they built a special igloo missing a side so Flaherty would have enough light to meter a shot. Moore staged some scenes. does that make it not a documentary? Only if Flaherty, the "father of documentary" was really the father of something else entirely--co-father of the fiction film with Griffith, maybe. Does the staging violate viewer/film-maker trust? Yes. Let's talk about that, unless you mean to supersede all of those canonical documentary directors listed above and say "this is documentary; this is not"? That's not an action I would encourage.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi


The sentence about there not being any alternatives to closing the plants misses an important fact that I think is what Moore would suggest -- lowering the salaries of Smith and other executives to allow the company to keep running without firing anyone. Doesn't he mention somewhere in the film how much Smith makes? Umpteen million or whatever? Tuf-Kat

I don't remember. It sounds like a criticism he would make. I don't expect to have time to see the film again soon, though, so if you do and he does, please add it.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 02:21 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Is this no longer true after Bowling for Columbine? Tuf-Kat

The film proved to be the most successful documentary in American history in its theatrical run and enjoyed wide critical acclaim.

Moved here:

College media courses use Roger and Me as an example of deceptive and dishonest journalism. On the other hand, college film courses have used this film as a prime example of the documentary form.

Yeah, so they cancel each other out, or what? Can we have specific examples/citations, please? --Eloquence 23:08 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturing Dissent, the Roger Smith "interview"

There a strange double standard in the latest criticism. Moore [held] a lengthy question-and-answer exchange with Roger Smith during a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting. ... The AP reported that "Moore also reportedly interviewed Smith on-camera in January 1988 at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York. ... Moore himself refused to be interviewed or to speak to the filmmakers of Manufacturing Dissent, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine. Applying the same level of criticism users deem acceptable for Michael Moore, consider this:

Tucker Carlson: Did he speak to you?

Debbie Melnyk: Well, we talked to him [Moore] at various events. I went up to him at a Paul Wellstone Memorial Award in Flint and at one of the premieres of "Fahrenheit 911," where I told him I wanted to speak to him. And he did talk to me at the Flint Memorial Award, but he still didn't do a sit-down interview, which is what we wanted. [3]

Indeed, Moore tried repeatedly to arrange for "a sit-down interview" with Roger Smith, but Smith flatly refused to grant him one. Instead Moore had to use the same ambush tactics that Debbie Melnyk used. The only difference is that Moore left these two ambush scenes on the cutting room floor, presumably because he felt Smith was not reasonably responsive. So who is being dishonest here? smb1971 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the other interview, at the Waldorf Astoria was a sitdown.--Geekish 05:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
On what basis? The Associated Press sentence is ambiguous. It needs to be firmly established. Thanks. smb1971 16:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Roger Smith confrontation clearly occurred before Michael Moore decided to make Roger & Me. He used guerrilla tactics to ambush his subject at a General Motors shareholders conference. Moore was not a shareholder and should not have been present in the hall. In addition, Moore did not even record the incident. It was actually captured on film by another GM worker. A Christian conservative auto worker by the name of Michael Westfall appeared in, and served as a consultant for, Manufacturing Dissent. [4] This individual has been badmouthing Moore for years (on his personal homepage, on FreeRepublic.com, [www.freerepublic.com/~conservativeautowork/in-forum] [www.freerepublic.com/~carolgr/in-forum] and elsewhere). "Michael Moore was my guest at GM stockholders meetings before his Roger movie", recently he wrote. [5] So was it deceitful of Moore not to include something that happened before he commenced filming? At the very least, the order of events need to be made clear. smb 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "interviews"

I have made a few edits to the criticism section:

  1. removed the word "lengthy" as an adjective describing the events at the shareholders meeting, since it's a matter of opinion (I've heard it was about five minutes long, which can either be short or lengthy, depending on your point of view).
  2. removed the reference for the claim that Moore did not film the meeting himself and that it was from before production started for the movie, because the cited reference doesn't say anything about that (it does point out that Moore was a guest of somebody else, but doesn't explicitly mention who filmed it or when). Another reference can probably be found for this, and I'll keep looking.
  3. added a bit about the Waldorf Astoria "interview" which I've read elsewhere was really just similar to the shareholder meeting, with Moore asking Smith some questions at some sort of GM auto show taking place at the hotel. I added a reference for the event itself (AP story #D8NQB9600 if anyone wants to track down archival copies) and am looking for more details on what kind of "interview" this was, because I suspect it's not what most people would consider to be an interview. --Sapphic 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
On point 2. Mike Westfall is the chap who got Michael Moore into the GM shareholders' meeting, where Moore apparently ambushed Smith. In the deleted reference he himself remarks that this happened before his Roger & Me movie: "Michael Moore was my guest at GM stockholders meetings before his Roger movie." Moore has also recently spoken out about this incident, maintaining that it occurred before he turned his hand to filmmaking. Is this a better reference? Michael Moore has harsh words for critics
On point 3. This second claim seems to be based on hearsay. No evidence is forthcoming. As Moore says, if he did manage to secure an interview with Roger Smith during filming, then suppress the video, why didn't General Motors reveal this to the media, thereby discrediting his work? Moore's response definitely needs to be acknowledged. smb 22:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the quote "Michael Moore was my guest at GM stockholders meetings before his Roger movie" that wasn't how I interpreted that statement, but I can see how it could be taken the way you seem to be taking it. I thought it meant that Michael Moore wasn't welcome as his guest after the movie was released. In any event, the new reference seems much better and less ambiguous.
As for point 3, I completely agree that Moore's response should be featured, and am glad you did so (I was trying to track down a good reference). As for it being hearsay.. isn't that all we're actually allowed to state, anyway? :) "According to so-and-so.." and such? Anyway, good work expanding this section. Do you have any idea where the AP got that information about the Waldorf "interview" since their wording ("reportedly") implies that they're repeating another source? --Sapphic 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just found a quote from Smith in an LA Times article from 1990 (I paid the $4 for Lexis-Nexis A la Carte, remind me to submit that on my next Wikipedia expense report) where he denies ever staying at the Waldorf Astoria hotel, which casts some doubt on the AP statement. I'll go ahead and add that (with reference). --Sapphic 21:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I did some minor checking into this story but policy prevents me from reproducing the correspondence. That would indeed be considered original research. I am reliably informed that this incident took place several months before Moore committed himself to making his first film. The information comes from two sources close to the controversy, and from both ends of the political spectrum. In production, Roger Smith was unreceptive and declined repeated requests to be interviewed. Moore obtained the original footage of his earlier encounter and for a time considered including it in his movie, before rejecting the idea. Moore, in a style now familiar, decided to ambush his subject instead. The accusation that this meeting took place during production is not new, and I am aware that Moore has rejected the charge before, many years ago. I unfortunately no longer have free access to LexisNexis, have spent almost all of my money on booze, and am not prepared to pay! What you did is above and beyond the call of duty. Well done. :) smb 02:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I have no idea who first made the allegation that Moore interviewed Smith at the Waldorf, but I understand the charge is repeated in Manufacturing Dissent. smb 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criticism section isn't representative

This film has been extremely controversial, and has a nearly 20-year literature of debate over its merits and failings. Our "Criticism" section, though, strangely starts by discussing a 2007 film that criticizes Moore, Manufacturing Dissent, rather than by discussing, say, the criticisms that were published in journals when Roger & Me first came out, and the lengthy debate that has taken place in the years since. I'm not an expert enough on this debate to summarize it, but someone who is should fix up this section, and make it more representative of the debate over the film, including especially the debate that's taken place in peer-reviewed film journals. --Delirium 07:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not particularly leftist (I also cut out a lot of "criticism" of Black Hawk Down), but the criticism section reads like forum post on the topic. The edits reflect that as well. It's a debate on the movie in criticism section, and the section isn't going uphill.Monkeyman334 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the criticism section (as is) is a joke. Look at the way it is written. I think a *rewrite* is the only way to salvage it. What does everyone else think?Monkeyman334 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Your objection is too vague. Please be specific. I'm restoring the criticism. smb 00:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not have the time to rewrite/edit the criticism section myself, but here's a source that summarizes the debate quite well: B.J. Bullert, Public Television. Politics and the Battle Over Documentary Film (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997), chapter 7 "Roger & Me and Heartbeat", p. 146-182, esp. p. 153-171. In the Notes section (p. 219-224 in the book) you find of course many other sources, mostly film reviews and original research, that might be useful, too. 85.177.240.195 12:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)