More on Moore

Is the label "documentary" appropriate for this openly activist movie? Of course it is, unless you cling to some idealized notion of "objective" film that bit the dust at least as far back as 1922, when director Robert Flaherty passed off re-created settings and events as factual footage to enhance the realism of his generally true "Nanook of the North."

Finally, some sense about this whole "Moore doesn't do objective documentaries" nonsense. Nobody does objective work. Whenever a screenwriter or director gets to work, they bring their own agenda to the creative process. The same thing occurs in academic writing. When I sit down to work on a project, I bring all my attitudes and beliefs to the table. The difference between me and many other scholars is that I'll openly admit my biases. The same goes for Moore. I've never heard him make a case for objectivity--he leaves that to the "fair and balanced" Fox News Network. If you don't like his approach on documentaries, don't see his work. Those who criticize Moore's work aren't being objective either; cricis also come to the table with all their biases in tow.

Our world is one in which absolute truths and objectivity are remnants of Enlightenment thought. We negotiate that which is right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust. Depending on our own attitudes and beliefs--attitudes and beliefs that come into being through our interactions with family, friends, co-workers, religion, popular culture, etc.--we support or oppose particular social conventions/behaviors, institutions (marriage and religion, for example), public policies, and the like. Moore's film is both a result of this collaborative constitution of social knowledge and a part of an on-going cultural dialogue. Moore's film articulates his own view and sparks the rest of us to refine and voice ours.

I'm hoping to see Farenheit 9/11 later this afternoon. I'm sure I'll have something more to say.