Desertman84 Manufacturing Dissent:Uncovering Michael Moore is a documentary that was made over the course of two years by Canadians Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine after they viewed Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore's controversial film that attacked the Bush administration and its policies.They set out to explore the politically charged climate in America and find out just how documentary director Michael Moore has evolved from a simple filmmaker into an icon of left-leaning politics.It asserts that filmmaker Michael Moore has used misleading tactics, primarily using on-camera statements by interviewees with personal grievances against Moore as proof. It attempts to expose what the creators say are Moore's misleading tactics and mimics Moore's style of small documentary makers seeking and badgering their target for an interview to receive answers to their charges. This comes across less as an expose of a polarizing public figure than as the realization of a personal and not especially interesting grudge against a once-admired colleague who has moved on to bigger things.It was more of a personal vendetta and propaganda to say the least.It is also bad that co-writers/co-directors Melnyk and Caine don't investigate the way their target does in his own films as their probe isn't deep enough.Finally,although the way the documentary is made is an IMITATION of how Moore does one,unfortunately it was far from being fun,interesting and entertaining.

MartinHafer The makers of MANUFACTURING DISSENT say that they began this documentary as fans of Michael Moore. Whether or not this is really true isn't really important. What IS important is that they bring up many issues concerning Michael Moore that he and his supporters simply won't honestly address. The biggest problem (and it's almost always ignored by the press) is that he makes so-called "documentaries"--yet in order to make his points, be often misrepresents and distorts the truth again and again. And, in essence, they aren't true documentaries, but are more like propaganda pieces because of the lies and fabrications. Now there's nothing wrong with making a propaganda piece--but don't call it a documentary or refuse to acknowledge the distortions. This IS Moore's m.o., though ironically, he himself refuses to discuss or explain his films unless it's to a friendly audience that doesn't in any way question his methods. The makers of this film try, again and again in vain, to talk with him just to ask some questions concerning his films. This is especially reasonable considering that Moore himself made a name for himself by ambushing people for his films--and here they won't let people with any questions come close to him....period. So a man who is "of the people" and a "champion of free speech" is, ironically, only interested in this when it comes to others, not himself.As to how well this documentary was made, it seemed pretty honest and straight forward. It tended to interview people on all ends of the political spectrum and even many of his supporters on the left acknowledged the way he plays fast and loose with the truth in his films or in his public comments. Some felt that the ends justified the means while others seemed angry at Moore for being more interested in self-aggrandizement than the issues he publicly champions. I know that there will be many who think the entire film is evil but the bottom line is that it asks good questions AND isn't just a one-sided piece. There were many different opinions concerning the man that were in the film. What's not to like about that?!

wmtyson This is a technically well executed film. Unlike the other attacks on Moore, this one is not so obvious. It contains very few facts, mostly relying on unverified report of people who have had dealings (and differences) with Moore. They mostly provide interpretations or opinions. Their claims and recall are questionable, but are never questioned, instead they are presumed to be true, and presented as such. The scene with the film critic is especially pathetic, but very illustrative. First he attempts to ambush Moore, when this fails he provides a very strained psychobabble interpretation of the interchange to explain away Moore's posture of being reasonable. Apparently, being nice to someone who is testing you is evidence of some deep psychological troubles (Christians take note). The implication at the end of the film that Moore was the cause of Kerry's defeat in 2004 is blatantly ridiculous, ignoring the complexity of this election and the many factors that led to the loss (like Kerry himself not responding to the swift-boaters). The filmmakers give away their bias and their true agenda. The scene at the end with Moore hugging the filmmaker was priceless. He may have known what he was dealing with. He is not stupid.

Don Alex Im not a blind Michael Moore fan by any stretch, in fact I think "The Big One" is probably one of the worst films of all time, and I think that he is an annoying blowhard. Being a proud independent, I can see the idiots on both sides.But as Im watching this, I noticed a glaringly ridiculous scene (mentioned briefly by someone else in an earlier review). They showed a group of Flint High School girls doing some sort of irritatingly silly amateur schoolie play that mocks "Roger and Me" (the kind that only the mostly blindly adoring of right wing parents would be able to endure in their pompous little brats), and then the teenage girl "writer" of this play is interviewed, and she claims that Moore "fabricated" a news report that shows a female reporter stating that a Nightline report was cancelled because their news van was stolen, even as the scene from the film with her report is being shown over the girl's claims. It is from all visual inspection a real news report. Is she truly trying to say that Moore literally created the report in the film himself, hiring an actress to pose as a reporter and putting a fake station logo on the screen? If so, its funny because I cant seem to find any mention of it anywhere else but on this site, about this film. Did this little girl just make it up and these idiot filmmakers put it in at face value? Doesn't that make them complete hypocrites (like most people who do these kinds of amateurish no-budget "gotcha" documentaries).The female narrator (I assume its a woman named "Debbie Melnyck", who is listed as one of the "writers" and "directors") tries for a parody of Moore's sardonic style, but her lispy, effete elementary school teacher housewifey monotone would be more apt for Romper Room or selling jewelry on QVC. (Maybe the girl who put on the play is her daughter or something.) Sure, Michael Moore is a jerk, but what comes out much more glaringly in this film is the vapidness of young people in the majority of the spineless post-baby boom generations. We're doomed, folks. Face it now and save yourselves the Christmas shock. There's no hope. This documentary is depressingly effective at showing how our nauseatingly effete youth are going to sissy their way into the end times. We're all going out with a whimper, followed by a bang. This film is a good argument in favor of everyone deserving it. Both sides are chock full of fooles. The difference between the swishing grade Z Canadian twits who created this and Michael Moore is, Moore has talent for making films, and they don't. Stay home, Debbie dear, you aren't worthy to speak to Moore for a reason. It's not because he's avoiding you. It's because you are insignificant.This wretched film is showing on Sundance Channel this month, so watch it for FREE by all means, if you must at all (please don't pay people like this to make more films like this). Or better yet, watch a good documentary instead (like "Grey Gardens", which is also playing this month on Sundance).