Michael Moore
Sinned against
Jul 8th 2004
From The Economist print edition
An attack on the maker of Fahrenheit 9/11
MICHAEL MOORE is a controversial phenomenon who has made a name for himself by opposing big business and the political establishment in America. His new film, “Fahrenheit 9/11”, has recently broken box-office records for a documentary. But Mr Moore's reach sometimes exceeds his grasp, and he often seems to be a disagreeable employer and colleague. Many on the left, who might have been expected to constitute his natural base of support, have written persuasive critiques of his work.
Criticism from the right, of which this book is one example, has been generally less astute. “Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man” is edited (and the bulk of it is written) by a pair of Moore-obsessed bloggers. David Hardy set up a website called mooreexposed.com, while Jason Clarke founded moorelies.com. The book is the sort of crackpot melange that can work online—as in the drudgereport.com—but set in dignified print it too often looks just plain daft. At one point, for example, the authors liken Mr Moore to Hitler, and at another to Sayyid Qutb, an ideological theoretician of the Muslim Brotherhood, an extremist group founded in Egypt in the 1920s.
Of the 18 repetitive essays that make up the book, five were written by outside contributors, seemingly chosen at random. Of these, one is a review of “Bowling for Columbine”, a previous Moore film, taken from an Australian newspaper. It ends on the intellectual high note, “Go to hell, Mikey!” This level of argument is hardly the sort of thing to sway anyone who does not already share the authors' maniacal dislike of Mr Moore. Indeed, their loathing leads them not only to ad hominem attacks but also to exaggerate Mr Moore's influence. After all, his audience is no bigger than those of his demagogic counterparts on the right, such as Rush Limbaugh.
Only one of the essays, “America's Left Surrenders Itself to the Giant Sulk” by Andrew Sullivan, a former editor-in-chief of New Republic magazine, rises to a level of cogency sufficient to raise legitimate questions about Mr Moore's methodology and style. The short essay, taken from the Times, is a bit of journalistic ephemera, but at least it does not resort to fatuous popular psychology, as the book's authors do, although it does make the cheap charge that Mr Moore is “anti-American”.
It is possible to take issue with Mr Moore's work without chauvinistic jibes and xenophobic rhetoric. This book unwittingly apes the filmmaker's over-the-top style. Its heavy-handed and self-congratulatory manner utterly defeats its purpose.
