Details
The movie and its poster are patterned after Moore's film Roger & Me, during which Moore attempts to chase down Roger Bonham Smith for an interview. In this case, Wilson seeks an interview with Moore. Wilson also adopts other aspects of Moore's style in his efforts at satirizing Moore. For instance, Wilson interviews a mix of Americans across the country and well-known figures like conservatives Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz and Andrew Breitbart, liberal Albert Maysles and fellow libertarians such as Penn Jillette and Tim Slagle. Wilson revisits some of Moore's shooting locations and subjects from Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine, and attempts to discredit many aspects of Moore's films.
Wilson's main criticism is that Moore misrepresents the truth by (1) staging events and (2) deftly cutting sequences to distort the truth. As an example of (1), Michael Wilson offers the scene in Bowling for Columbine where Michael Moore gets a gun on opening a bank account. An interview with the bank employees suggests that Michael Moore had arranged for the gun to be delivered to the bank ahead of time so he could walk outside with it immediately after opening the bank account. As an example of (2), Michael Wilson offers the scenes in Bowling for Columbine of NRA president Charlton Heston speaking. The scenes are cut together from different speeches; however, in the film they may be construed to be from one speech given shortly after the Columbine shooting at a meeting in Denver.
Read more about this topic: Michael Moore Hates America
Famous quotes containing the word details:
“Then he told the news media
the strange details of his death
and they hammered him up in the marketplace
and sold him and sold him and sold him.
My death the same.”
—Anne Sexton (1928–1974)
“If my sons are to become the kind of men our daughters would be pleased to live among, attention to domestic details is critical. The hostilities that arise over housework...are crushing the daughters of my generation....Change takes time, but men’s continued obliviousness to home responsibilities is causing women everywhere to expire of trivialities.”
—Mary Kay Blakely (20th century)
“There was a time when the average reader read a novel simply for the moral he could get out of it, and however naïve that may have been, it was a good deal less naïve than some of the limited objectives he has now. Today novels are considered to be entirely concerned with the social or economic or psychological forces that they will by necessity exhibit, or with those details of daily life that are for the good novelist only means to some deeper end.”
—Flannery O’Connor (1925–1964)