Film, News & Commentary, Screen

‘Trumpland’ and Michael Moore’s intellectual dishonesty

| |

Three months ago Michael Moore predicted the end of the world. Specifically, the election of Donald Trump. “I lived in Michigan. And let me tell you,” the veteran firebrand said, “it’s gonna be the Brexit strategy.”

Now the filmmaker, who looks increasingly like a middle-aged Eric Cartman crossed with Garth from Wayne’s World, has launched a surprise ad hoc documentary campaigning for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Michael Moore in Trumpland, released on iTunes, is a one-man show (with a few pre-recorded interstitial segments) filmed in a theatre in front of a live audience. It’s a little like Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, though the portly provocateur’s yak fest is more like politically-themed stand-up than a keynote presentation.

With giant photographs of a young Clinton adorning the wall behind him, Moore says he wants to make Trump supporters feel welcome. Then zing! he announces – cut to camera B – the Mexicans are upstairs. So too are the Muslims. A drone is deployed to watch them.

Moore then declares, again with faux earnestness, he wants to meet Trump voters halfway. Put your hand up if you don’t agree with gay marriage, he says. A couple of people put their hands up. Zing! “So don’t get gay married.” Surprise surprise, people aren’t that keen to keep putting their hands up.

The filmmaker pretends the Trumpland evening (weird title given Trump barely gets a mention) is going to be an empathetic, non-degrading affair. Of course that is not true. There is a one-note humour that washes through all of this. The joke is that if you support Trump, you are an idiot. And possibly a bigot.

The golden rule drilled into the heads of aspiring magicians is that it’s OK to fool people, but it’s not OK to make people feel like fools. Moore’s logic swings in a different direction. If he perceives you to be an idiot, you deserve to be made to look like one.

There’s an obvious issue with this approach, and it’s usually called “preaching to the converted”. In Moore’s perhaps those words need to change: “turning people into a punch line for the converted”.

Trumpland comes with a sense everybody – including Michael Moore – is getting burned.

If a person he interacts with does not support gay marriage, Moore would prefer to deliver a zinger (in front of as large an audience as possible) than listen to why. It’s nothing if not a fight-fire-with-fire approach. And like some of the filmmaker’s other work, Trumpland comes with a sense everybody – including Michael Moore – is getting burned.

You could argue Moore is part of the problem when it comes to rough-and-tumble political debate. In the eyes of Trump supporters, he’s just another artsy-fartsy lefty who thinks he’s better than them. And this is a guy who’s never once come home from a long, hard, honest day’s work.

These are not my views, but you can see how Moore might bring them out. He draws his version of pitchforks; the opposing side draws theirs. The reason Bowling for Columbine is his best film is in part because it never surrenders a genuine moral high ground, even when the director blatantly cherry picks information.

He’s not able to pull that off in Trumpland. Moore gets up to respond to comments from the audience, stand up style, about any objections they have of Clinton. When he passionately rebukes all of them, it’s as if the man’s opinions are up for grabs depending on the political situation at hand. I don’t recall a single criticism made of Clinton. And this is from a guy who says he actually voted for Bernie Sanders.

Whatever you think of his style, Moore sees the forest for the trees. He’s copped and thrown enough shit over the years to have reason to feel cynical. Perhaps he thinks if he says anything negative about Clinton, conservative media with report that and only that. Perhaps he thinks the Democrats simply need to win this election and doesn’t want to over complicate the message.

Given most of us can actually, feasibly imagine the end of the world with Donald Trump as US President, it’s hard to completely discredit this logic. But if that means-justify-ends rationale sets a pattern for how to construct arguments about important issues, and that pattern is maintained over a course of decades, you can cross the line into something much worse than simply not telling the whole truth: intellectual dishonesty.

Nobody can say exactly where that line is, but Moore probably crossed it a long time ago. Perhaps his fire-with-fire approach will help America, persuading swinging voters and disenfranchised Sanders supporters to back Clinton and therefore, worthwhile in the scheme of things. Documentary ethics can be tricky at the best of times. More so when Armageddon is on the mind.

9 responses to “‘Trumpland’ and Michael Moore’s intellectual dishonesty

  1. Why are there two references in the first three paragraphs to how Moore looks, and specifically to his weight?

    I can’t stand Moore or Trump. I’ve disliked Moore since he first started writing for Mother Jones, long before Roger & Me.

    But my dislike has absolutely nothing to do with his looks and I wish people would stop criticising the physical appearance of people they disagree with.

    It’s, dare I say it, a Trump-like way to act.

    1. Yes, I remember his Mother Jones writing. The column was called I Rivet Head (from memory) and it was about working the line at a car factory in Flint Michigan. So, he has done “real” work in his life. I agree, criticise the work, not the guy.

  2. I’m interested in your comment about how Moore ‘blatantly cherry picks information’ in Bowling for Columbine. I was unaware that it was skewed as strongly as you suggest – can you give some instances of his ‘cherry picking’ in that film?

  3. If I had the choice between sending Moore or Trump on a one way rocket to the sun in order to improve the standard of discourse in the world, it’d be farenheit 5700 for Moore.

  4. I am writing from the UK where, in five hours time, the BBC will broadcast the programme “Moore in Trumpland”. So, I am deliberately writing before seeing the programme. Reason: from what Buckmaster is saying, Moore employs all of his career-acquired techniques, including satire, truthful insult as well as bias, to debunk what he himself sees as a dire threat to civilization – Donald Trump becoming the President of the USA! Of course, if being a supporter of a liberal democracy – Australian style – Buckmaster still believes in Marquis of Queensbery rules for the all-things-goes-in-the-ring fight that Trump has fought, then OK, but…

  5. Let me correct my previous comment. It was the commercial station, Channel 4, which broadcast the “Moore in Trumpland”. Apparently, according to one of the BBC’s political commentators, Andrew Neil, there was too much use of the “F” word for the BBC’s taste! Having now watched the programme, the language used seems to me to have been appropriately descriptive for the nature of Moore’s critique of Trump and the content of Trump’s campaign – and, yes, Moore revealed his obvious affection for Hillary Clinton. There is so much right-wing bias on both British and Australian TV programmes, not to mention both nations’ newspapers, that a little of Moore’s personal bias will not go amiss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *