thor-teague Other than the fact that his presentation of himself as the "Average Guy on the Street" is a little questionable and VERY staged, Roger & Me has a major, major problem if Moore wants it to be taken as a factual documentary. The chronology of the events has been changed.The concept of cause-and-effect is crucial to Roger & Me. One of the defining criteria of a documentary film is the absence of obviously fictional elements. Don't create events, dialog, costumes--and don't manipulate chronology. But that's exactly what he did. When Flint started hemorrhaging jobs, the city did not just stand by and do nothing, they tried to recreate the economy by building the Water Street pavilion, the hotel, and autoworld, attempting to raise tourism money. In the movie, the reverend comes to town for $20k to pray away unemployment, Reagan shows up and his advice is basically to move (wearing a UAW jacket--totally inappropriate for him). Now when Moore comes back to Flint, it's 1986 when the BIG layoffs are happening. It's been intermittent up to this point.In the film these events are presented as a response to the massive layoffs that began in 1986, but Reagan actually came in 1980, the evangelist in 1982, and the tourism plan was in 1985. This is a huge problem for the film and basically disqualifies it as a real documentary because these visits/plans were not a result of the BIG layoffs.These are well-documented, look around a bit, see what you can find. The hotel and Autoworld also went bankrupt before or early on in the layoff cycle, even though they are presented very late in the film.Along the vein of the chronology problem, notice that Moore wants to bring Roger Smith to Flint to see the devastation. The film explains that GM, the richest corporation in the world, closed 11 North American plants. Work went to Mexico. With increased profits, money goes to shareholders. They then invest in high tech weaponry. Before this, they were the most profitable corporation in the history of mankind, but this decision is made to increase the profit margin further (needlessly, the film asserts).So here's my point about that paragraph. They spend 28 seconds on these highly important facts. Now notice that they spend about 5-10 minutes on Miss America, and another 5 or so minutes on the crazy rabbit lady, simply because people will get a kick out of that stuff. That's also a big part of what I'm talking about. How can you discuss complex global economics in 28 seconds? Left out are the facts that there was a significant recession at the time, lots of unemployment, and lots of people buying imports which were cheaper and more efficient with the gas crisis. In order for plants to close, contracts had to be dissolved and the UAW played a huge role in this. This is pertinent information that people need to know if they are to be educated on this subject. Yet Michael Moore is harder on Miss America than on the UAW. He displays some condescension and ambush journalism tactics like with the wealthy old ladies at the golf course.You see, I'm not saying he's lying, I'm saying he's twisting and distorting. The whole thing is just an entertaining film designed to fill theater seats. It's not pure documentary.And like I said, Michael Moore is not just an average blue-collar "one-of-the-guys" type of guy, he's a media giant (admittedly this was not AS true in 1989, but he was still big). Putting on the baseball cap and jeans, not lighting anything, and walking in the front door of GM to try to get an interview with Roger Smith is totally absurd. They were very conscious decisions and very trite ways to get some entertaining footage.Even if you can somehow dismiss those problems with Roger & Me, I have one that's a lot harder to deal with. This film was made on bad faith. He wants to present himself as the intrepid "Joe Plainfolks" going on a noble quest to bring Smith to Flint and force him to own up to the consequences of his decision. This goal was abandoned in favor of making a comedy. Whatever the serious, human, and compelling issues motivated Roger & Me were thrown out the window in favor of making a series of SNL skits.Apparently Roger & Me is not meant to be seen as pure documentary, but as advocacy and partisan journalism, it's just that it's not marketed that way. Sadly, and this is coming from someone who mostly agrees with Moore's opinions, I have to call 'BS' on this film.

Michael Neumann When General Motors chairman Roger Smith closed the factory doors in the once prosperous auto capitol of Flint, Michigan, the subsequent citywide depression prompted filmmaker Michael Moore onto a personal quest to confront the GM executive with the consequences of his corporate greed. The result is an irreverent but sobering report that works better as a satire than a documentary, mocking the rich and defending the poor with an almost savage disregard for objectivity.Moore is neither an impartial observer nor a polite critic of Reaganomics, and his guerrilla-tactic documentary is, without apology, a totally biased dissection of the American Dream gone sour. On its surface the film is a record of the director's comic odyssey in pursuit of Smith, who Moore holds personally responsible for transforming his hometown from a proud capitol of industry into what Money Magazine later called the worst city in the USA. But of course Moore himself is as much the subject here as his elusive quarry, and he sets himself up as a champion of the common worker while sometimes poking fun at the same people he should be defending.It's easy to see how the director maintains a straight face, but he doesn't demand the same from his audience. And while his film isn't exactly a comedy, all the ironies and absurdities found in the clash between optimistic civic fantasy and harsh economic reality still provide a hilarious (if morbid) portrait of America in the 1980s. It's too bad that Moore isn't above getting laughs from cheap shots at Conservative mouthpieces like Pat Boone and Bob Eubanks (foolishly sharing ugly AIDS jokes on camera), none of whom are responsible for the Flint City economic chaos.Self-serving humor aside, there's more than enough truth here to shake the confidence of even the most stalwart Republican, with some absurd (almost surrealistic) juxtapositions of rich and poor, contrasting the pipe dreams of civic recovery (Pat Boone recommends a more positive attitude) with the economic nightmare of layoffs and evictions.In retrospect, Moore's need to make a crowd-pleasing movie may have spoiled his aim to hold Smith in any way accountable for his corporate negligence, and the facetious tone and black-comic digressions don't do his progressive agenda any favors. On top of which the director's self-serving publicity (for example his unlikely claim that the project was financed by an ongoing bingo game) has the unfortunate side effect of distracting attention away from the issues, to sell his own blue-collar credentials.

pk-2 The best documentary i have viewed. This is a powerful indictment of American Corporate greed and the results to the blue collar worker. Who pay the price by loosing there job with the only trade they knew how to do since joining the workforce. Yes, like the one user mentioned, Govt. has something to do with the way companies function with there laws, tax's, and tariffs. But you can't tell me that these rich companies with allot of political power in Govt. Can't just stand up and say, No. Your hurting our company with these laws. But why would they care. All Ceo's and upper management have there golden parachutes. You can say what you want about all of Moore's movies, but if they were really so full of crap like so many believe, Where are all the lawsuits. There's none, because for the most part he's telling the truth. People who hate Moore are the same, Well off Middle and or Upper class, with no worries. You won't find too many poor people or people who lost there only job they know how to do, calling Moore a fraud and bum. Because they know the truth of what greed does. The Gordon Gecko's of the world still exist. And thats a damn shame.

gbx06 I am not a fan of Moore's documentary, Bowling for ... was for me a quite interesting exercise not only proposed a more intense pace for the film but also posited a new position, I found Fahrenheit exaggerated and overstated; I found Sicko simply Moore.But the summary of all the opinions that are generated in me after seeing his "movies" are summarized in Roger and me. Undoubtedly the first Moore's documentary is truly a jewel within the genre. His research, this capability that has to unite and launch facts and conclusions, made his film becomes a product that, while it is far from the origins of the theory of a documentary, it is a good example of make a blockbuster dress of documentary.I don't want to talk much about information management in the film because it seems to me risky to talk about a subject that I'm not know, but what is certain is that the way he presents the facts is more objective and less influenced, although it is the most close to its field staff, perhaps Moore sought to have a more solid principles which results in a documentary well documented and well structured.While the subject does not have the significance of their ensuing years if it is the perfect example which set the pace for what will become every of his works. Roger and me did well in all aspects, not ask more, is a good documentary from a social theme with personal impact, Moore is not intended to save the world or make it a better place, that is working for each one... There is the reflection; Who dares to say that this did not happen? It is not the way to kill rabbits?