Title: Manufacturing Dissent
Release: 2007
Genre: Documentary
Run Time: 97 Minutes
Publisher: Liberation Entertainment
Rating: 70%
Few filmmakers can claim to have a greater impact on American political culture than Michael Moore. His initial release, Roger & Me, revolutionized the modern documentary by casting the filmmaker as truth-seeking protagonist. Moore’s relentless pursuit of then GM CEO Roger Smith about his company’s decision to move manufacturing jobs to Mexico (and thus decimating the economy of Flint, Michigan) provided the perfect mix of comedy and social commentary. Moore’s quirky yet infectious approach would be further refined in several subsequent documentaries, including Bowling for Columbine and the anti-war Fahrenheit 9/11.
Michael Moore took his role as left-wing agitator to the extreme, creating a cottage industry for counter documentaries that question his political intentions, dishonest editing of footage and truthfulness of his factual claims. Most of these films, among them Fahrenhype 9/11, Celsius 41.11 and Michael Moore Hates America, are also American and decidedly right wing in nature. However one documentary stands alone in the group. It is Canadian both in origin and presentation, created by Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine (previously known for their work on Citizen Black). While not counter-partisan, their film raised as many or more disturbing questions about the intentions of Michael Moore as its more fervent brethren.
Manufacturing Dissent is a Michael Moore style documentary, only casting Melnyk as the truth-seeking protagonist and Moore as the evasive object of interest. Along her ill-fated journey, Melnyk interviews a plethora of Moore’s current and former friends. Most are in the former category and portray Moore as an egomaniac not so concerned with finding justice for the little guy as he is with making money and a name for himself. The interviewees pull few punches in their assessment of the award-winning filmmaker:
- A former writer for the publication Rock n Roll confidential alleges a young publisher Michael Moore used some articles for his own local paper without paying the proper royalties. Moore is also accused of not paying his staff
- The infamous Mother Jones controversy is covered in moderate detail, with former employees of the magazine describing Moore as a tyrant who demoralized his employees and sanitized the image of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas – a revolutionary group often seen as too extreme even for the American anti-Reagan left.
- Producers and others involved with Roger & Me allege timeline manipulations, staged events and most startlingly that Michael Moore actually received two interviews with Roger Smith (both ended up on the cutting room floor, so to boost the dramatic effect of GM’s depravity)
- In stark contradiction to the anti-war sentiment contained the documentary Fahrenheit 911, Moore’s private foundation was discovered to have owned and sold stocks in defense contractors that profited from the Iraq invasion – most notably Honeywell and Halliburton (the latter being publicly associated with none other than George W. Bush’s VP, Dick Cheney)
The intended and well-demonstrated irony in Manufacturing Dissent is that Michael Moore reacts very badly when confronted with Michael Moore style gotcha journalism – much worse than, say, Roger Smith. The unintended irony of the film is that it can be discounted for the same reason as most of Moore’s documentaries. On several occasions, Melnyk swoops in on Moore during public appearances, demanding his undivided attention to tough questions even though other cameras are rolling, before getting silenced by Moore’s omnipresent security. Very seldom do targets put on the spot in this manner answer gracefully and thoughtfully, suggesting that the viewer is not getting both sides of the story.
More importantly, Melnyk misses the opportunity to explain in detail how Michael Moore actually manufactures dissent. For instance, it’s not enough to chase around the CEO of GM and indirectly present his supposed evasion as a reason to rebel against GM’s decision to move manufacturing jobs to Mexico – the economic incentives for moving jobs to Mexico (despite immediate relocation/retraining costs and reputation risk) must also be explored. What role did American unions and labour costs play? Is Mexico exploiting its own people to secure manufacturing jobs? Is GM merely a symptom of a much larger problem concerning US trade with third world countries? In terms of shaping opinion, it could be argued that ignoring the economic mechanics behind unpopular decisions like relocating GM jobs is just as critical as superimposing distraught civilians over clips of aloof political figures. Unfortunately, Manufacturing Dissent ignores these possibilities in favour of merely trying to make Moore sweat the same way he enjoys making other sweat.
Manufacturing Dissent is vindictive, somewhat disjointed and plays more like a lengthy episode of W5 than a documentary film. Conversely, it excels at probing the intentions of the man behind the Michael Moore myth without coming off as a right wing hit job, occupying that rare space in the documentary spectrum where politicized figures can be dissected without necessarily making a political statement. Given the cultural prominence of Moore’s films and the dogmatic zeal of his supporters, Manufacturing Dissent becomes nearly essential in understanding what drives this polarizing cultural icon.
Parker’s analogy summarizes the film’s premise: Barack Obama, like all U.S. presidents since JFK, is little more than an attractive empty suit who was promoted by the political “elites” to quell public anger over the direction of the Bush administration. The president’s role is largely ceremonial to pacify the masses while the real power is held by international bankers and non-elected bodies like the Federal Reserve and the mysterious Bildeberg Group. These non-elected bodies aim to consolidate their world power by precipitating a crisis (e.g. the recent failure of the banking system tied to sub-prime mortgages) that will coax the people into submitting more of their civil liberties to centralized powers in exchange for (perceived) security.
Perhaps most shockingly, the film alleges that Obama will in due time fall on his sword and take responsibility for the social upheaval resulting from this agenda. This virtual abdication will pave the way for the next Republican “saviour” who will court the American people as a renegade against socialism, all while perpetuating the agenda dictated by the “elites”.
The second phase of the movie features a long interview with John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”. Perkins outlines the role and evolution of the so-called economic hitman – a private or public sector agent who corrupts foreign leaders and economies to enable cheap access to national resources. Foreign leaders who do not comply with agents of the corrupting nation (typically from the West) are typically assassinated and replaced with a more “business-friendly” regime. Perkins cites the Iranian coup of 1953 and subsequent installation of the Shah as the first true economic hit while citing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Panamanian president Omar Torrijos Herrera (who signed the bill transferring the Panama Canal from American control) as examples of leaders who refused to be corrupted and were subsequently killed.
Focus returns to the monetary system, citing its inherent corruption as the primary reason why societies similar to that outlined by the Venus Project aren’t possible. After once again maligning the banking system as the root of all human woe, Zeitgeist Addendum offers a surprisingly practical list of what the average person can do to exploit the current financial chaos for social transformation. Among the suggested measures are divestment from America’s three largest banks, boycotting mainstream media sources in favour of independent news sources, avoiding military service (extra focus was placed on the effect of post-traumatic stress disorder on Gulf war veterans) and removing from the energy grid.
Zeigeist Addendum’s core message is somewhat contradictory. Firstly, the narrator suggests divesting from the three largest banks as a form of protest, but wouldn’t reinvesting those funds in alternative firms perpetuate the same fractional reserve system? All banks in a nation hold deposits with the same central bank – that’s why it’s a CENTRAL bank.
Off the Chain is a graphic hour-long documentary detailing the origin and evolution of both the dog breeds collectively referred to as “Pit Bull Terriers” and their human admirers. The film begins with a historical overview of the use of bulldogs for bull baiting, a popular form of British entertainment during the 18th and 19th centuries. Once England banned the practice, dog vs. dog fights were arranged and Bulldogs were subsequently bred with Terrier breeds to produce the Pit Bull family.
Fortunately, Off the Chain moves beyond the carnage to explore the fascination with and motivation for dog fighting. Most people correctly identify the macho aspect of Pit Bull ownership – having the baddest dog on the block can be good for street cred. However, money seems to be a greater motivator for dedicated breeders – American dog fighting events take place in remote or secluded areas, charging entries fees between $20 and $50. Owners have waged upwards of $500,000 on a single match (which can be as short as 5 minutes) while tournament-winning dogs can provide further revenue through breeding. Dog fighting is a billion dollar, worldwide industry with a mild level of social acceptance in Mexico, Japan and Italy. The latter nation’s matches can take place in an arena with a seated audience dressed as though they were attending an opera.
Recent Comments