Thursday, July 5, 2007
UPDATED: John Pierson comments on Michael Moore and Sicko
Work more, spin less, says Moore's Roger & Me associate.
Updated 06:24 p.m., July 5, 2007
Email
|
Print
|
Tell us your story
|
Comments (19)
|
In this "open letter" posted to indieWire, UT Austin instructor and producer/author John Pierson (labeled "The Guru of Independent Film" in his IMDB bio) offers some words of advice to Sicko filmmaker Michael Moore. Those words are - in a nutshell - quit defending your infallibility and let the ("beautifully made") movie speak for itself.
Pierson literally wrote the book on the emerging indie film scene with his 1996 publication Spike, Mike, Slackers & Dykes; he worked as producer's representative (i.e., "promoter") for Mr. Moore and expedited the $3 million sale of Roger & Me to Warner Bros. He now teaches production courses at UT Austin's Department of Radio-Television-Film.
The letter, according to Pierson, came about as the result of "a classroom full of angry and disheartened college students" who were disappointed to hear about Moore's apparent "cover-up" of interviews he (Moore) actually conducted with Roger Smith (then GM CEO) in the course of working on Roger & Me; a key premise of the film is that Moore never had a chance to interview Smith.
What brought this up? Pierson's classroom screening of a "working version" of the Canadian-made documentary about Moore, Manufacturing Dissent.
Pierson's letter mentions an "attack flyer" (directed at him) that appeared on the UT Austin campus during the SXSW Film Festival - at about the time he and his class were exploring issues raised by Manufacturing Dissent. No details about the "attack flyer" are provided, but Pierson turned the controversy stirred up by the mysterious piece to his own promotional purposes - just as Moore might have done, as Pierson puts it.
Not to be missed: the heartfelt (and extremely polarized) comments posted beneath the article/letter itself, including one by Manufacturing Dissent filmmaker Rick Caine which opens: "What if the guy who is the most widely viewed and most popular documentary filmmaker in history also turns out to be one of the biggest bullshitters?" Thought-provoking stuff.
Copy of the "attack flyer" mentioned in Pierson's open letter. (Bottom of letter appears cut-off, just as does the original.)
UPDATE: In response to my request, John Pierson kindly forwarded a .pdf of the "attack flyer," which I quote here verbatim:
JOHN PIERSON DOESN'T TEACH.
HE ATTACKS. *
Why is John Pierson using his personal vendetta against Michael Moore to get us, unpaid students, to promote his personal agenda? We did not come to college for this. Michael Moore refused to fund Pierson's film, REEL PARADISE, a self-indulgent look at Pierson. Now Pierson is now using his students as an unpaid army to publicize MANUFACTURED DISSENT, an unadulterated attack on Michael Moore, a "film" which Pierson launched himself.
* The following is excerpted from an interview by Peter Sanchez on 213Net
PETER SANCHEZ: I noticed on the website that Michael Moore seemed to have a rather flippant response to your request for funding initially.
JOHN PIERSON: He was the only one who said no. But he was the first person that I asked.
(END FLYER TEXT)
In his attached comments, Pierson explains that the "guru of independent film" label - which he says he likes because it makes him laugh - originated from a piece in Variety in the mid-90's, and he had nothing to do with it.
See more stories in:
Find...
Today
Saturday Tastings in the Wine and Beer Department Little Joey just LOVES the Saturday wine tastings at Central Market - he particularly likes the blind tastings, when he can sneak a snort while Mommie's not looking. (Great nose!) More info
Latest comments
- Clay213 on Dallas should rename Ross Avenue for Cesar Chavez: I have to say, you are really REACHING if you have to go for the ‘think of the children’ route in re...
- ROBTAHN on Favoriting contest: Fiery Food Challenge Awards Dinner at ZestFest: Teresa - Thanks for the update....
- Bill Betzen on Dallas should rename Ross Avenue for Cesar Chavez: I have read through these 87 posts above several times. The only postings found that speak of someth...
- Joel Woiton on Plano mega-graffiti artist tops Britain's Cerne Abbas giant for phallic rudeness: I didn’t do it, but wish I did. I’m sure the PISD is careful about not offending any aerial tourists...
Latest reviews
- dmacfar139 on AllGood Cafe: Definitely must add redundancy to the raves already posted here. Tried it this morning for the first...
- dmacfar139 on Ali Baba (Richardson): This place gets a good weekday lunch crowd. Nice mix of folks, working and not. The buffet at these ...
- newseagles on Ali Baba (Richardson): The Sunday buffet is a bargain and features some of the best Middle Eastern food in the metro area. ...
Things you can't miss
- DFW viewers prefer Republican VP candidate to McCain
- Arlington woman finds Virgin Mary image on a rotting grape
- Dallas-based Fox journalist detained (briefly) by police at Republican National Convention site
- Deal: Cindi's has rotating daily specials featuring bargain-priced blue plates and sandwich combos
Latest stories
- Turtle Island Quartet to make a 'Trane stop at UT Dallas on September 20
- Prosecution of Uptown Dallas burglars could be hampered by warrant oopsy-daisy
- Grand Prairie AirHogs 4, Sioux Falls Canaries 5
- Dallas Zoo's Jenny the gorilla euthanized
- Texas Attorney General's review request in Charles Hood case dismissed
Comments
WhitneyTM Anonymous
I saw SiCKO and nothing resembling bullsh*t came to mind. Funny how people have so much time to worry about discrediting Moore and so little to dedicate to questioning/improving the health care situation in our country (among other things). But then I haven't seen the U.S. acting on a decent set of priorities in a LONG time. Like 6 and a half years.
1 year, 2 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
John Meyer Staff
Whitney - my understanding of Rick Caine's bullsh*t comment is that he's applying it more to Moore's earlier work. Presumably he (Caine) had not even seen SiCKO prior to making Manufacturing Dissent.
Note the update to the article, just attached.
1 year, 2 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Scott Miller Verified
One question- why are commenters using an asterisk instead of a vowel to quote a word published in the article? Isn't this the internets where people can speak freely without the same kind of lame restrictions you'd find in a BELO publication? Or is it a personal thing? I mean, we all know what word you're dancing around here.
1 year, 2 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Mike Orren Staff
Scott, we have a profanity filter on comments. We've found that it at least slows people down in terms of falling back on cursing as opposed to expressing themselves. We do occasionally discuss removing it, but we walk a fine line between discourse and anarchy.
1 year, 2 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
DC Anonymous
It's an exquisite scheme that some insurers have put together.
Oh yeah, and sh!ttakes.
1 year, 2 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Rawlins Gilliland Verified
I thought "sh!ttakes" were mushrooms from Japan. Where in Teresa Gubbins when I need her?
1 year, 2 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Mike Orren Staff
Roger Rapoport sends the following comment:
It's good to see John Pierson speaking out n Michael Moore's future. John was the producer's rep who discovered, among others, Spike Lee, the Blair Witch Project, Kevin Smith (Slackers) and of course sold Moore's Roger & Me to Warner Brothers for $3 million. One of the longest sections in my new biography Citizen Moore: The Making of an American Iconoclast (RDR Books), looks at Pierson's critical role in Mike's success. He's a fascinating guy and his role in bringing Moore's film to the big time is a great store. For more information on Michael's future you can also check out this article that ran today in the London Independent: http://arts.independent.co.uk/film/fe...
1 year, 2 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
J_Mortimer Anonymous
"I saw SiCKO and nothing resembling bullsh*t came to mind."
If you really believe all that crap about Cuba in the film then someone can sell you ocean front property in Nebraska.
Also, you'll find the claims about other countries like Canada, and France are exaggerated.
Moore would be more credible if he would allow dissenting views in his films. He doesn't and as a result he is often just takes up the tactics that he seems to condemn.
J
1 year, 2 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Kathryn E. Palagonia Staff
J_Mortimer: I am with you on the Cuba part. It did seem just slightly overplayed and fake. I'm sorry, but you can't take a boat to Cuba and outside of Guantanamo and have nothing happen to you. There was a reason it wasn't shown.
But, I can understand not allowing dissenting views. If you allow those views, you are weakening your argument. Moore is very good about building his view/argument and presenting it piece by piece. You wonder why he started with the emotional stories, moved to Canada, then Great Britain, then France, and finally Cuba. If he started with Cuba it would look even more fake. He doesn't care if he lost a few people at the Cuba part, he brought them far enough.
Being the daughter of a former attorney, I know how to build an argument. You have to or you'll never convince anyone.
1 year, 1 month ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
J_Mortimer Anonymous
On the contrary, allowance of dissenting views strengthens an argument; its does not detract from it. Showing that a viewpoint stands up to counter argument is much better and more convincing than not hearing those counter arguments. That alternatives fail, makes the original proposition all that more believable.
I don't think Moore is "very good" about building arguments at all. In fact, he's poor at it and I don't think Moore is actually trying to build arguments. He might rope in people who are already converted and he might rope in more who are easily converted. That's a hallmark of building convincing propaganda and not necessarily of good argumentation.
You say "Being the daughter of a former attorney, I know how to build an argument." If its true, then your parents taught you that part of being attorney, to a great extent, is not the production of arguments in the strictest sense. What they do is produce sets of propositions which convince people of certain positions. That's called propaganda. That activity is distinct from argument although it happens to be the case oftentimes that the best argument is sometimes the best propaganda.
Moore produces propaganda. He rarely argues.
J
1 year, 1 month ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Alan Cohen Staff
I'm unclear J_Mortimer, what exactly is your definition for a sound argument and what is your definition for propaganda. I just want to understand the distinction you are trying to make.
1 year, 1 month ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
J_Mortimer Anonymous
Alan,
propaganda - "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause".
argument - "A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others" or "A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood".
I didn't use the term "sound argument." Soundness would typically be a companion to validity. A VALID argument is one where the conclusion follows as true from the premises if, hypothetically, the premises are true. A SOUND one is one where the premises are, in fact, thought to be true.
J
1 year, 1 month ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Alan Cohen Staff
The reason I was asking for your definition of propaganda is that I have no problem with someone using ideas and facts to further their cause. I think propaganda takes on a negative connotation when UNFOUNDED allegations are used to further an argument. Whats unfortunate, is I most commonly hear the word propaganda used by people to discredit organizations or individuals that take they disagree with in lieu of giving substantive examples for why their position on an issue is more reasonable.
While I certainly would agree that Sicko is a position piece, I think it is a lazy argument to negatively refer to it as "propaganda" and not support that claim with specific examples. In fact, I would argue that any statement referring to something negatively as propaganda without supporting that claim with any specific examples or evidence is an intrinsically hypocritical statement.
1 year, 1 month ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
J_Mortimer Anonymous
Who referred to it negatively by calling it propaganda? Surely not I. I simply issued a qualitative distinction between the two.
If you think for a second that I introduce the distinction between propaganda and argument merely to make pejorative attacks then you clearly haven't understood the distinction being made. The purpose of propaganda is to convince; it is not to establish truth.
Making a distinction that Moore does not usually engage in substantive argument and giving reasons why that is so is hardly "lazy." Nor does it mean that I disagree with his ultimate positions. In many cases I do, but mere agreement with a conclusion is no excuse for believing in things for the wrong reasons or as is more often the case with Moore: insufficient reasons. In other words, mere agreement is no reason to be taken in by sloppy so called "thinking" and be wowed by film making.
The question here, Alan, is to ask how it is that we come to believe that certain things are true about states of affairs in the world? Divine inspiration? opinion? Because Michael Moore said it? science? Its in the Bible? How?
I would suggest that propaganda, strictly speaking, does not, in any reliable sense, help us establish what is true about the world. Argument, strictly speaking, CAN do that. Coherently formed sets of propositions where those propositions are believable and wherein a further proposition whose truth value may be hitherto unknown can be constructed such that the truth value is believed with near certainty or with relative degrees of probability can yield us things that are true about the world.
J
1 year, 1 month ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
DC Anonymous
I am waiting for J-M's 'course of reasoning' series.
1 year, 1 month ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Kathryn E. Palagonia Staff
When you used the word "propaganda" a negative connotation was perceived, and by more than just Alan. And just because these facts that Moore uses are swayed to one side does not in any way make it propaganda, it is an argument. It is a logical argument that Moore makes. As I said above with taking you in emotionally, and then stringing it through. That is logical not only the building of the argument, but also in the facts that he uses. Now of course, the further along, the fuzzier the facts get, but that is a documentary for you.
1 year, 1 month ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Billusa99 Anonymous
I've observed in life that most people that get called out for throwing the "propoganda" word then spend a lot of time backtracking on why they didn't really mean propoganda in the classical sense, only to be observed by those calling them out on it to still be seen as defending their propoganda. Read that last sentence twice and I'm sure you can see it upthread from J_M.
And, having lived a good deal of my life in Canada, in no way could anything in Sicko be remotely called propoganda.
1 year, 1 month ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
DC Anonymous
Propaganda, propaganda everywhere...
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfai...
1 year, 1 month ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
J_Mortimer Anonymous
Bill,
For both propaganda and argument I quoted a dictionary. I was hardly "backtracking."
Further, I offered, rather clearly, that propaganda and argument were NOT mutually exclusive. To quote myself, "That activity is distinct from argument although it happens to be the case oftentimes that the best argument is sometimes the best propaganda."
You further state, "And, having lived a good deal of my life in Canada, in no way could anything in Sicko be remotely called propaganda." That you lived in Canada has nothing whatsoever to do whether or not Moore's film is propaganda or swiss cheese. That is a non-sequitar. Propaganda does not mean "false." Moore's purpose is more to present "ideas, facts, or allegations ... deliberately to further one's cause" than it is to create a "course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood."
Even Moore, responding to criticism, excuses himself from offering "equal time" by stating that he doesn't have to do that because insurance companies and other parties already have equal time through other sources. That statement and other Moore statements indicate to me he is interested in the activity of convincing people of his position and not providing a complete and coherent set of statements to which a conclusion or conclusions could/can be drawn.
Now people may view that distinction as negative, or they may view the very act of pointing out the distinction as some attempt at negative criticism but that's up to them. I am more concerned with getting to the fundamental nature of what people are doing.
J
1 year, 1 month ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Post a comment
(Requires free PegasusNews.com account.)