Michael Moore may do an documentary on the fight for gay marriage.

Good or bad idea?

I think it is a good way to get people talking about it again, but he's more of a propogandist than a documentarian, and I think there are others who could do a more balanced documentary. Still, given his fame, it could really only help gay marriage (that is long overdue)

Moore is a silly person who has squandered whatever cred he earned with Roger & Me. It's probably too late to earn that cred back, even if he does do a relatively straight treatment of the gay marriage issue.

Then again, perhaps Moore is one of the few filmmakers bold enough to tackle the issue head-on, instead of addressing it obliquely as with The Mormon Proposition.

Pun intended?

I hate Michael Moore. He is an lying authoritarian-minded creep.

Pun no doubt subconsciously intended.

Well I for one like Moore and am glad he's tackling this subject.

Its a double negative for me. I don't like Moore's work and am completely disinterested in the subject of gay marriage. Not sure what the general interest in this subject is, but since most documentaries aren't blockbusters anyway, I have a feeling one on gay marriage might get a pretty high viewership for the category.

Really? Just like he helped anti-gun zealots and socialized medicine?

Moore is a hack filmmaker that uses footage manipulation and outright lies to deliver his message. Oddly enough neither his detractors or supporters care about that very much. His detractors care more about his politics and his supporters will brush aside his ego and pathological lies because they like his politics.

Moore can do nothing to aide gay marriage. Not at all.

Documentaries aren't journalism.

I’d watch a documentary about gay marriage. I probably wouldn’t watch it if it was done by Moore though.

It's also worth noting that Moore's politics are quite literally authoritarian. He aspires for a Chavez-style leftist dictatorship in America.

Well I have seen Bowling for Colombine (I own the DVD plus extras of course) Fahrenheit 9/11 in the movie theater and Sicko on rent DVD. I also read Moore's book: Stupid White Men (original edition in English).
I guess I have a good enough idea about the man.

I agree 100% gay marriage is NOT a topic to be made into a documentary/propagandist movie by Michael Moore, who has a wacky humor and uses obviously fake (or semi-fake) interwievs and stunts - and "bending the rules" (I won't say outright lying, but perhaps he is lying). So Moore is a great comedian, but I cannot take anything he shows, does or says at face value. His informations are simply unreliable.
Gay marriage is a sensitive issue and should be treated thoughtfully and with respect. If we want to see jokes about it, from any kind of angle, any episode from Family Guy will do.

People bag on Moore's tactics, but his work is essentially just the logical extreme of the tactics used by any popular documentarian. Supersize Me, Waiting For Superman, etc.--they gain mileage by disproportionately presenting the evidence in favor of their own position and either under- or misrepresenting the opposing position. He takes it further and makes only perfunctory efforts to mask it.

The main charge I'd level against Moore is that his argument is never complete, and his persuasiveness depends mainly on his audience not knowing that fact. But that goes for the whole crowd, not just him.

Moore is the most unabashed, unashamed celebrity clown of the liberal left--a Bizarro version of Glenn Beck. It's this, not the actual quality of his films, that earns him the bulk of his negative publicity.

It is true that many other documentaries present the evidence that supports their case and sometimes don't do enough to present the other side (though neither of the films you cite are very bad offenders on that front, I'd say). Documentary filmmaking is essentially an audiovisual op-ed. The difference is that Moore outright distorts and misleads--he's not merely sticking to presenting the facts that he likes, he is distorting the truth and actively deceiving people.

Is it wrong to say that I like Michael Moore? As a foreigner I could care less about his politics. I also know his films grossly exaggerate facts. I just watch them as "Docu-dramas" and forget all the rest. And you know what? He makes relatively entertaining pictures. I may not always agree with the content, but I like the way it's presented, even if he's lying.

It's definitely not wrong, I like him too, sure he does tend to misrepresent the truth but IMO that dosen't make his documentaries any less compelling or interesting, one things for sure, i'll gladly watch Moore's films over Waiting For Superman ANY day!

1. There's a difference? 2. You are being significantly generous to the non-Moore documentaries.

There certainly is a difference. In any argument people select certain facts to present and do not include everything. That is fundamentally different than outright lying. If someone selectively presents facts in a paper, they'll get some points off. If someone flat out misleads and lies, they fail.

Ouch - Serious misunderstanding here

A documentary is a point of view about some subject that is real. I am not aware that the veracity has to be proven before filming. Michael Moore tackles subjects from his perspective and makes entertaining movies

That's good?

I have a real interest in this topic as I passionately believe in gay rights and their civil right to marry and enjoy the rights that I enjoyed despite what churches may think.

Rob

I agree with your first point. I'm not sure I follow the second one. In order for someone to deserve to be heard, they must meet a few standards, one of which is that they do not intentionally grossly misrepresent and outright lie about details they present. Would you have a conversation with an individual who, when you ask what the weather is outside, replies "80 degrees" when it's in fact 45, or who told you that the bananas are brown when they're yellow? I'd probably stop talking to that person. Sociolonguistically, a basic level of truth-telling is necessary. Filmmaking-wise, we should adopt the same standard.

I don't have a problem with the line of thinking used be either of you gents. However, I'd ask you what the point of Moore's documentaries are? While there are no rules saying docs have to be accurate or have to be journalism, Moore does pass his movies off as an accurate representation of the facts. Frequently, they are not. I don't think he has any obligation to stick to the facts by making a documentary, but when he makes one that he presents as 100% factual, he takes on that obligation. It isn't like he's making F For Fake and exploring an abstract concept. He's making movies designed to sway people over to his side of whatever debate is at hand. They are straightforward films designed to sway opinions based on the presentation of facts. To say it's ok for him to outright lie is ridiculous. I'm not saying to boycott the guy or anything, but I don't understand finding him entertaining when he's basically trying to fool the audience by presenting fiction as truth. For the life of me, I don't understand why the man is taken seriously.