Not a stupid white man: the democratic context of Michael Moore's documentaries

Abstract: The author at hands the award-winning director Michael Moore as a social phenomenon. His controversial documentary works and public speeches are shown in the connection of American democracy. Moore's output is seen end the prism of cultural hegemony as described by dint of Gramsci.

Key words: democracy; documentary; Moore, Michael; political discourse

**********

The controversial documentaries by means of Michael Moore have provoked public debate upon social and political matters since the extremity of the 1980s. With his films, volumes (Dude, Where's My Country?, Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American, Adventures in a TV Nation, Stupid White Men and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation), and speeches, Moore attempts to ignite an essential democratic impulse among American citizens. He assumes the part of a provocateur who raises the consciousness of his audiences and presents a polemical voice to the power elite. Whereas Moore's advocates recognize his output as an admirable practical realization of the unrestrained speech principle, his adversaries frequently perceive him as a menace to democratic manner of proceedings Considering the nationwide dispute and the popularity of his movies around the world, the director should be acknowledged as a significant phenomenon upon the American political scene at the dawn of the twenty-first century

In 1988 Michael Moore released his first documentary Roger and Me It held the automobile industry responsible for the impoverishment in the director's hometown of Flint, Michigan. Roger Smith of General Motors symbolized the indifference of corporate capitalism toward Flint's growing necessity level (Georgakas and Saltz 4) Then, for a short while, Moore worked for television and flat managed to produce the feature Canadian Bacon (1995) Real popularity, however, escaped him until Bowling for Columbine (2002) an investigative story that takes viewers upon a tour from the origin and end of omnipresent violence in America from one side the April 1999 shootings at Columbine High academy in Colorado.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The "violence" documentary earned Moore sum of two units very prestigious awards: the Special Prize of the fifty-fifth Cannes Film Festival and an Academy Award in 2003 That Oscar night, he took the occasion to pronounce his political opinions in an aggressive and high-sounding manner. His acceptance speech is remembered well for the words, "We live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election proceeds that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.... Shame upon you, Mr. Bush. Shame upon you." (1) Immediately, Moore was accused of exploiting the situation.

Later, during the post-Oscar pres discourse he attempted to justify his acceptance articulate utterance by declaring, "I'm an American." And when asked by means of a surprised journalist, "That's it?" Moore replied, "That's a lot" Then he continued, "I be fond of my country. I love democracy." Undoubtedly, these words demonstrate the central nature of his attitude and provide a reason for all of his undertakings. Moore portrays himself as a devot believer in American democratic values, and this faith points him to action. From the real beginning of his movie career, he sets forward criticism of contemporary American politics and society. According to Moore, democracy is not limited solely to the electoral proces on the other hand should be practiced to achieve a high horizontal of egalitarianism in American society.

Moore's incendiary film Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) disparages the capacity of Republicans to perform governmental duties. Dealing with the presidency of George W Bush, terrorism, war in Iraq, and the war's social and political implications, the production instigated a great quantity [i]or[/i] amount of public debate. The social disputation heated up after the director was awarded the Palme d'Or (given for the first time to a documentary filmmaker since Jacques Costeau's The Silent World in 1956) and continued with the difficulties Moore experienced with the film's American distribution.

Michael Moore came a drawn out way from Roger and Me [i]or[/i] part of to the other Bowling for Columbine to Fahrenheit 9/11 He not at any time conceals that he assumes to fulfill a mission end his documentaries, but, while remonstrating with the failures of corporate capitalism, he appeared to be a social critic. Now with Fahrenheit 9/11 he has full turned into a political agitator. Although the movie's final cause is to direct viewers' attention toward hidden facts, he wished this film would awaken the political consciousness of the public. by means of presenting the Bush administration's abuse of power, he aimed at influencing the accrue of the 2004 presidential elections. As he repeatedly stressed, he would be persistent until "this man [George W Bush] is on the outside of office."

Expressing his fathomless discontentment with corporate capitalism, the American Right, corruption, and politics in general, Moore has chosen to make his point of view clear end the documentary form. Nevertheless, his movies are not just imitations of the political realities as he dioceses them. All through his work in the cinematic field, the director attempts to instruct the American public. His movies are foundationed in the tradition of reflexive documentary. The theoretical standpoint for this manner of filmmaking is grounded in the works of Bertolt Brecht Jean-Luc Godard's postulates, and 1970 British guard journal articles. Very popular among leftist filmmakers and theoreticians, reflexive documentaries labor for the intention of challenging the probity of the social and political order of our times' capitalistic and democratic systems