The reel deal: Michael Moore, political documentary and the discourse of celebrity

Abstract

While Michael Moore has been credited with transforming the look and feel of the contemporary documentary film, perhaps his most indelible effect has been upon the popular image of the contemporary documentarian. From his debut as a jovial, anti-corporate rabble-rouser in 1989, to his infamous Oscar speech in 2003, to his public attempt to sway the 2004 presidential election, Moore has transformed the role of documentarian from ‘fly-on-the-wall’ observer to highly visible celebrity; but while this celebrity-status has won Moore a large, loyal audience, it has also undermined his legitimacy as a ‘working-class’ filmmaker and political analyst. This essay analyses three ways in which popular discursive understandings of ‘celebrity’ have worked to undermine Moore's political goals: by re-framing Moore's structural critique of the economic system within narratives of individual success; by transforming his image from working-class activist into that of audacious celebrity provocateur; and by re‐articulating his working-class background as a hypocritical ‘pose’. Taking Moore as a case study, this essay seeks to illustrate the tensions that exist between the progressive goals of political documentary and the ideological contours of contemporary celebrity discourse.

Keywords:

• celebrity
• Michael Moore
• class
• discourse
• ideology
• liberal elite

Notes

1. It is important to note here that while my analysis draws from a wide array of media texts, the bulk of the analysis focuses upon articles, reviews and editorials gleaned from the popular press. By ‘popular press’, I refer to mainstream newspapers such as the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle and periodicals such as Time and Entertainment Weekly, as well as mainstream television news sources such as CNN and NBC's Nightline. In so doing, I follow the work of scholars such as E. Deidre Pribram (2002, p. 142), who has argued that mainstream journalists represent ‘a second tier of interpretation’ that mediates between the intentions of film industry personnel and a particular film's audience. As such, while journalists obviously can never determine how any particular viewer will react to a film, ‘their role may help forge culturally negotiated interpretations of any given text; they may participate in the consolidation process of what come to be widely accepted readings’ (p. 142). I deploy a similar perspective in my analysis of the construction of Moore's celebrity image. For more examples of the role journalists play in the production and circulation of cultural discourses regarding films and film celebrities, see: Cooper, and Pease, 2008; Projansky, 2007; Projansky, and Ono, 2003; Smith, 1993 (p. xvi); Staiger, 1993, 1992 (pp. 178–195); and Allen, and Gomery (pp. 91–104).

2. Indeed, it is worth noting that Moore's very first film, Roger & Me, began with a tongue-in-cheek segment depicting his own childhood and early career exploits as a muckraking journalist. As such, from the very beginning, Moore's films have always been as much about constructing his own star persona as about the political causes for which he advocates.

3. Indeed, at the time that Moore's series debuted, Bravo was first in drawing professional/managerial adults, people with college degrees, and people making $75,000 or more (Clark, 2000).

4. Indeed, as Su Holmes (2005, p. 16) has made clear, this cynical attitude towards celebrity culture has spawned an entire industry based upon an obsessive fascination with celebrity images and the ‘real’ people behind them. As such, it has only increased fan-interest in stars and the celebrity culture of which they are a part.

5. As Moore pointed out, Disney owns media outlets that support outspoken political conservatives, such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson, but has never evinced a similar reluctance to distribute their politically inflected material (Thompson, 2004).

6. Even the most cursory look at Fahrenheit’s box-office reveals that the film was doing more than simply preaching to the converted; as of this writing it remains the most successful documentary film of all time. See: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm

7. In fact, in their study of the political blogosphere during the 2004 election, Adamic and Glance (2005, pp. 12–13) found that (excluding Bush and Kerry) Michael Moore was the fifth most-cited political figure on the 40 most popular political weblogs, behind only Dick Cheney, Dan Rather, John Edwards and Bill Clinton – and as mentioned, the vast majority of these mentions were on conservative sites. Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that Moore became an important, if not central, facet in the Right's rhetorical strategy during the 2004 election.