Talk:Roger & Me

Misc
Who deleted the link to the online museum? it has original content, such as scans from papers Moore published just before Roger & Me, as well as the entire sequel available for download. stop deleting the link to this. we worked hard to bring that site to the public. Flintmi (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that the current article as it is really conforms to a neutral point of view, particularly the second paragraph; would this be considered too subjective or is this OK? -- DrewT2

It is a description of the film and the film is clearly not from a neutral viewpoint, therefore I think it is okay. The description seems neutral to me and attempting to moderate the claims or portrayals in the film would end up sounding fairly strangled. -- Anon

Can anyone provide examples of which scenes are staged? The critique mentions this without a case... I think it's a pretty inflammatory statement without backup. -- Goatasaur

Added some specific backup for claim of staged scenes. /LK


 * In "Defining Documentary Film", Michael Weinberger reaches the conclusion that Roger and Me is not a documentary by his standards. Among his many criticisms is the following about staged scenes :
 * I must also call into question two scenes, one which I suspect is re-created the other which is wholly created. When Moore laments his experience in San Francisco, he relates his inability to find a simple cup of coffee. The audience is presented with a waitress who nervously lists the multitude of coffee options available while looking directly into the camera (as if we the audience were making an inquiry). While it is possible that a hidden camera simply happened to catch this moment, it seems much more likely that this woman is performing for us. I would similarly call into question the scene in which the woman who raises rabbits kills and then guts an animal for the camera. This woman is clearly performing this disturbing act for the camera's benefit. In my opinion, these scenes are beyond the realm of documentary film.
 * That's silly. Obviously the waitress does on a daily basis list the coffee options for people with poor eyesight or poor reading ability, or just to show off, anyone who's been in a Starbucks has seen that done - the nervousness is probably wondering if she's getting her boss in trouble and will suffer for it.  And the 'bunny lady' clearly was killing and gutting the rabbits she was selling 'for meat not pets'.  So these are recreations of actual and legitimate events that occur on a daily basis in the real world, which is a fair documentary move.  Else how could the History Channel do *anything*?


 * Moore's fans approve of staged scenes (Laura Abraham, :
 * When watching a Michael Moore film some of the scenes are staged or edited in such a way to make his points have a stronger appeal, or just more theatrical in nature for the audience. [...] He may edit or stage events for the benefit of a more entertaining viewing but this does not detract from the general feeling that this man actually gives a shit about our country and the hard working people who live here.

FWIW, Michael Weinberger's claims are bullshit. ^_^ The claims are incorrect and irrelevant anyway, an attempt to discredit Moore without discussing it intelligently. Documentary often contains scenes of people speaking directly to the camera (e.g. in Errol Morris' films, in social "need to know" films; even in personal films and in observational films like Grey Gardens, universally accepted as a documentary but not one without its own attackers--none of whom take the untenable position Weinberger does, all of whom choose to focus on ethics instead. Let's focus on ethics here, in re: Moore.  I like the film; I agree it's a documentary; I agree also that it's deceptive and manipulative.  Koyaanis Qatsi

Laura Abraham's claims are equally unconvincing. He gives a shit--so what? His fans do too--also, so what? That doesn't get us anywhere in discussing specific points. Koyaanis Qatsi

Yeah, I was wondering about that, Koy - If Joe Shuck writes a crit that is of such lower quality than a work - or states "this is not a documentary because it doesnt meet x" - then what are people to make of it? Its true. Moore wouldnt bother to answer criticism of this low level... Still perhaps documentary is not the right word and it might be better reserved for Frontline kind of stuff.... - Moore's work represents a merging of documentary and narrative reporting that defies nominal categorization... -Stevert


 * Well, no. Look, the term "documentary" itself is widely contested--Maysles, Pennebaker, Burns, Moore, Kopple, Morris, et al. all have wildly different ideas of what is and is not documentary, and what is acceptable in documentary, and even Sinofsky disagrees with Maysles on some things after working with him for years.  Furthermore, Nanook of the North is almost completely staged, beginning to end; they weren't in risk of dying at the film's end; they built a special igloo missing a side so Flaherty would have enough light to meter a shot.  Moore staged some scenes.  does that make it not a documentary?  Only if Flaherty, the "father of documentary" was really the father of something else entirely--co-father of the fiction film with Griffith, maybe.  Does the staging violate viewer/film-maker trust?  Yes.  Let's talk about that, unless you mean to supersede all of those canonical documentary directors listed above and say "this is documentary; this is not"?  That's not an action I would encourage.  :-)  Koyaanis Qatsi

The sentence about there not being any alternatives to closing the plants misses an important fact that I think is what Moore would suggest -- lowering the salaries of Smith and other executives to allow the company to keep running without firing anyone. Doesn't he mention somewhere in the film how much Smith makes? Umpteen million or whatever? Tuf-Kat


 * I don't remember. It sounds like a criticism he would make.  I don't expect to have time to see the film again soon, though, so if you do and he does, please add it.  :-)  Koyaanis Qatsi 02:21 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Is this no longer true after Bowling for Columbine? Tuf-Kat
 * The film proved to be the most successful documentary in American history in its theatrical run and enjoyed wide critical acclaim.

Moved here:


 * College media courses use Roger and Me as an example of deceptive and dishonest journalism. On the other hand, college film courses have used this film as a prime example of the documentary form.

Yeah, so they cancel each other out, or what? Can we have specific examples/citations, please? --Eloquence 23:08 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Manufacturing Dissent, the Roger Smith "interview"
There a strange double standard in the latest criticism. Moore [held] a lengthy question-and-answer exchange with Roger Smith during a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting. ... The AP reported that "Moore also reportedly interviewed Smith on-camera in January 1988 at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York. ... Moore himself refused to be interviewed or to speak to the filmmakers of Manufacturing Dissent, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine. Applying the same level of criticism users deem acceptable for Michael Moore, consider this:

Tucker Carlson: Did he speak to you?

Debbie Melnyk: Well, we talked to him [Moore] at various events. I went up to him at a Paul Wellstone Memorial Award in Flint and at one of the premieres of "Fahrenheit 911," where I told him I wanted to speak to him. And he did talk to me at the Flint Memorial Award, but he still didn't do a sit-down interview, which is what we wanted. 

Indeed, Moore tried repeatedly to arrange for "a sit-down interview" with Roger Smith, but Smith flatly refused to grant him one. Instead Moore had to use the same ambush tactics that Debbie Melnyk used. The only difference is that Moore left these two ambush scenes on the cutting room floor, presumably because he felt Smith was not reasonably responsive. So who is being dishonest here? smb1971 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the other interview, at the Waldorf Astoria was a sitdown.--Geekish 05:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On what basis? The Associated Press sentence is ambiguous. It needs to be firmly established. Thanks. smb1971 16:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Roger Smith confrontation clearly occurred before Michael Moore decided to make Roger & Me. He used guerrilla tactics to ambush his subject at a General Motors shareholders conference. Moore was not a shareholder and should not have been present in the hall. In addition, Moore did not even record the incident. It was actually captured on film by another GM worker. A Christian conservative auto worker by the name of Michael Westfall appeared in, and served as a consultant for, Manufacturing Dissent. This individual has been badmouthing Moore for years (on his personal homepage, on FreeRepublic.com, [www.freerepublic.com/~conservativeautowork/in-forum] [www.freerepublic.com/~carolgr/in-forum] and elsewhere). "Michael Moore was my guest at GM stockholders meetings before his Roger movie", recently he wrote. So was it deceitful of Moore not to include something that happened before he commenced filming? At the very least, the order of events need to be made clear. smb 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"interviews"
I have made a few edits to the criticism section:
 * 1) removed the word "lengthy" as an adjective describing the events at the shareholders meeting, since it's a matter of opinion (I've heard it was about five minutes long, which can either be short or lengthy, depending on your point of view).
 * 2) removed the reference for the claim that Moore did not film the meeting himself and that it was from before production started for the movie, because the cited reference doesn't say anything about that (it does point out that Moore was a guest of somebody else, but doesn't explicitly mention who filmed it or when).  Another reference can probably be found for this, and I'll keep looking.
 * 3) added a bit about the Waldorf Astoria "interview" which I've read elsewhere was really just similar to the shareholder meeting, with Moore asking Smith some questions at some sort of GM auto show taking place at the hotel.  I added a reference for the event itself (AP story #D8NQB9600 if anyone wants to track down archival copies) and am looking for more details on what kind of "interview" this was, because I suspect it's not what most people would consider to be an interview. --Sapphic 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On point 2. Mike Westfall is the chap who got Michael Moore into the GM shareholders' meeting, where Moore apparently ambushed Smith. In the deleted reference he himself remarks that this happened before his Roger & Me movie: "Michael Moore was my guest at GM stockholders meetings before his Roger movie." Moore has also recently spoken out about this incident, maintaining that it occurred before he turned his hand to filmmaking. Is this a better reference? Michael Moore has harsh words for critics


 * On point 3. This second claim seems to be based on hearsay. No evidence is forthcoming. As Moore says, if he did manage to secure an interview with Roger Smith during filming, then suppress the video, why didn't General Motors reveal this to the media, thereby discrediting his work? Moore's response definitely needs to be acknowledged. smb 22:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the quote "Michael Moore was my guest at GM stockholders meetings before his Roger movie" that wasn't how I interpreted that statement, but I can see how it could be taken the way you seem to be taking it. I thought it meant that Michael Moore wasn't welcome as his guest after the movie was released.  In any event, the new reference seems much better and less ambiguous.
 * As for point 3, I completely agree that Moore's response should be featured, and am glad you did so (I was trying to track down a good reference). As for it being hearsay.. isn't that all we're actually allowed to state, anyway? :)  "According to so-and-so.." and such?  Anyway, good work expanding this section.  Do you have any idea where the AP got that information about the Waldorf "interview" since their wording ("reportedly") implies that they're repeating another source?  --Sapphic 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just found a quote from Smith in an LA Times article from 1990 (I paid the $4 for Lexis-Nexis A la Carte, remind me to submit that on my next Wikipedia expense report) where he denies ever staying at the Waldorf Astoria hotel, which casts some doubt on the AP statement. I'll go ahead and add that (with reference).  --Sapphic 21:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did some minor checking into this story but policy prevents me from reproducing the correspondence. That would indeed be considered original research. I am reliably informed that this incident took place several months before Moore committed himself to making his first film. The information comes from two sources close to the controversy, and from both ends of the political spectrum. In production, Roger Smith was unreceptive and declined repeated requests to be interviewed. Moore obtained the original footage of his earlier encounter and for a time considered including it in his movie, before rejecting the idea. Moore, in a style now familiar, decided to ambush his subject instead. The accusation that this meeting took place during production is not new, and I am aware that Moore has rejected the charge before, many years ago. I unfortunately no longer have free access to LexisNexis, have spent almost all of my money on booze, and am not prepared to pay! What you did is above and beyond the call of duty. Well done. :) smb 02:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I have no idea who first made the allegation that Moore interviewed Smith at the Waldorf, but I understand the charge is repeated in Manufacturing Dissent. smb 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

criticism section isn't representative
This film has been extremely controversial, and has a nearly 20-year literature of debate over its merits and failings. Our "Criticism" section, though, strangely starts by discussing a 2007 film that criticizes Moore, Manufacturing Dissent, rather than by discussing, say, the criticisms that were published in journals when Roger & Me first came out, and the lengthy debate that has taken place in the years since. I'm not an expert enough on this debate to summarize it, but someone who is should fix up this section, and make it more representative of the debate over the film, including especially the debate that's taken place in peer-reviewed film journals. --Delirium 07:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm not particularly leftist (I also cut out a lot of "criticism" of Black Hawk Down), but the criticism section reads like forum post on the topic. The edits reflect that as well. It's a debate on the movie in criticism section, and the section isn't going uphill.Monkeyman334 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, the criticism section (as is) is a joke. Look at the way it is written. I think a *rewrite* is the only way to salvage it. What does everyone else think?Monkeyman334 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your objection is too vague. Please be specific. I'm restoring the criticism. smb 00:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not have the time to rewrite/edit the criticism section myself, but here's a source that summarizes the debate quite well: B.J. Bullert, Public Television. Politics and the Battle Over Documentary Film (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997), chapter 7 "Roger & Me and Heartbeat", p. 146-182, esp. p. 153-171. In the Notes section (p. 219-224 in the book) you find of course many other sources, mostly film reviews and original research, that might be useful, too. 85.177.240.195 12:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes and other critics got it wrong here too.  While I feel for the workers displaced by closing the auto plant, it misses the point that there is a business decision to be made.  Granted, it appeared political in the movie, but it was a no-win scenario - workers would lose jobs because the biz was not competitive, not by anything that Moore made a case of.   That holds today.  Nothing would have changed whether the film was issued or not.  Executives knew that. even if they did not let that be apparent in the film.  Moore did nothing but put pressure on a hard decision.   Exec's made the right decision.   --71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies
''Some of the film's critics charge that a number of statements and scenes in Roger & Me are misleading. For example, Moore describes a visit by Ronald Reagan to Flint without mentioning that it took place when Reagan was campaigning for president in 1980 rather than during his presidency. Though this fact may seem unimportant, omitting it allows Moore to create the impression that the lay-offs and economic trials of Flint took place during his three-year search for GM Chief Executive Officer Roger Smith rather than over the course of the decade.'' ''Moore responds to comments regarding this sort of historical inaccuracy by saying that he did not set out to produce an episode of Nova (the PBS documentary series), and that had he done so, the film certainly would not have gained the audience that Roger & Me is currently enjoying. Nonetheless, Moore could easily have described the Reagan visit as it actually took place without losing any of the black humor of the scene. Omissions of this kind are significant because they leave Moore and his film open to easy criticism from those who would like to dismiss the political and economic messages of the film. ''

''Roger Smith is portrayed in the film as a callous corporate leader who preferred robots over American workers. The GM Chairman is blamed for the rising rates of suicide, spousal abuse, alcoholism and violent crime in Flint. The documentary launched Michael Moore’s career and he closed the film by saying “The rich are just getting richer.” We now know the truth. The “rich” General Motors was struggling to survive.'' ''The official website of “Roger and Me” claims the layoffs in Flint were not necessary: “Since 1983 car sales have steadily risen and GM has posted record profits of nearly $19 billion. So why lay off all of these people?” In another interview Moore says “GM is cutting costs so they can make more money. It’s not that they’re hurting. This isn’t Chrysler. This isn’t U.S. Steel, which lost a billion dollars in one year. This is General Motors.”'' ''What Moore did not realize and Smith knew all too well is that GM was hurting badly. When Moore was asked by “Newsday” if GM should keep open unprofitable factories he responded, “They are profitable! They want to be more profitable! They’re greedy! You will never hear them utter the words “enough is enough.” They’ll close down all the factories in this country if they believe that they’re going to make more money in Mexico and Taiwan.”''

''When I first saw the film, it struck me as the most impressively articulated response to the Reagan era I'd seen. Since then it has come out that Moore has -- either intentionally or through lack of skill -- fuzzied the chronology of events, creating the impression that the plant closings and layoffs took place all at once, around 1986 and '87, instead of over a period of more than a decade. In other instances too, Moore may have fallen short of factual accuracy. ''

''"Are the critics of this movie seeing a documentary for the first time?" she asked. "Can't they tell by the tone what the movie is doing? Moore is a satirist. He's making an emotional point. The movie isn't supposed to be an objective review of the facts, and few people would see it that way."''

These sources are appropriate for the reception section, and further more I've been able to back these up with a corporate case study on General Motors in the 1980s under Roger Smith's chairmanship (Robert A.G. Monks, Nell Minow, Corporate Governance, 4th Edition (John Wiley & Sons, 2007)"GM Corporate Governance Case Study"). This goes a long way towards making this article more neutral, don't throw around the WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:RS recklessly. GoldDragon (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And as I said several weeks ago, This is your original research, tied to a book (that nowhere mentions the film) and a WordPress blog. Please familiarise yourself with WP:OR and WP:RS. Also learn to attribute criticisms to the people who make them. You cannot simply re-insert the same material after these problems have been pointed out to you. Wikispan (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That isn't OR, these come from film reviews of Roger & Me. Therefore, you don't have grounds to remove this material. GoldDragon (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The first link points to a personal web page with broken links and missing graphics. The reviewer himself does not say the film is "filled with well-documented factual errors" but instead some unnamed critics "charge that a number of statements and scenes in Roger & Me are misleading". The second link points to a personal blog. Both of these sources are poor quality. The third link is brazen editorializing on your part. The fourth points to a book that nowhere mentions then name Michael Moore nor Roger & Me. Please take the necessary time to read and understand Wikipedia guidelines. Wikispan (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the CBS article and how colleagues, Robert Stempel (Smith's successor as GM chairman) and Gerald Meyers (chairman of American Motors), described Roger Smith's reaction to the documentary:

''Most people, though, remember Smith from the 1989 documentary by Michael Moore, which explored how GM's plant closings and layoffs had affected his hometown of Flint. The film chronicles Moore's fruitless attempts to interview Smith about the devastation in Flint, although magazine articles and documentaries have alleged that Smith granted interviews to Moore prior to the film's release. Moore has acknowledged a five-minute exchange with Smith about a company tax abatement during the public comment portion of a 1987 shareholders' meeting, but said that was before he started working on the movie. Smith often faced questions about the documentary, which contained interviews of people who said they lost their homes after GM plant closures. One woman said she had to start killing rabbits for food after GM shut down the plants, eliminating 30,000 jobs in the city of 150,000. "I haven't seen it," Smith told reporters shortly after the film was released. "I'm not much for sick humor, and I don't like things that take advantage of poor people." Robert Stempel, who succeeded Smith as GM chairman and CEO, said Smith never was bothered by the movie. "Those things, when you're a CEO, you learn to roll with the punches," Stempel said Friday. "You can't let yourself get bruised by that sort of thing. You have to rise above it, and he certainly did." But Gerald Meyers, a former chairman of American Motors Corp. who knew Smith, said Smith thought "Roger & Me" was a smear job. "I don't think he ever got over it," Meyers said. Stempel, who served as president under Smith, said Smith foresaw Japanese imports rising in the U.S. and fuel efficiency becoming a major issue. He set up Saturn and led the shift of many GM cars from rear-wheel-drive to more efficient front-wheel-drive vehicles. "He wanted to try to stem the tide if he could," Stempel said of the Japanese. "He put a lot of effort into some small-car activities and other things and certainly promoted the widespread use of front wheel drive in GM." Despite the efforts, GM's U.S. market share dropped from around 45 percent when Smith took GM's top job to just over 36 percent when he left. The company's market share currently is about 24 percent. Meyers said Saturn never reached expectations, failing to attract buyers of Toyota Camrys and Honda Accords. During his tenure, Smith led GM to grow its global business, and he had to deal with tough U.S. environmental and safety standards, the company said. He also saw that GM, with separate marketing, engineering, design and some manufacturing operations for each of its brands, needed to be consolidated to better compete with global automakers, said Gus Buenz, a spokesman for Oldsmobile under Smith. "He was ready to take risks and make changes he felt were necessary to compete with what was coming from our foreign competition," Buenz said. "That mind-set, I think, is very much within GM today." The consolidation, though, brought job losses, and Flint was among the hardest-hit areas. GM under Smith made sure laid-off workers kept benefits for a time to help them transition into other jobs, said Al Warren, who was vice president for industrial relations during Smith's tenure.''GoldDragon (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This edit has identical problems to the material removed above. "A critic noted that the movie is filled with well-documented factual errors". The reference provided, a film review by Stuart Gold, does not support this. Gold says the film has been criticised, but he provides only a single example (relating to chronological order, an existing criticism our article already covers). The second reference points to a WordPress blog. "These in the industry who defended Smith against Roger & Me criticism note that he realized that..." The whole thing is poorly articulated, lacks attribution and neutral tone. — ThePowerofX 23:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit warring
I've reverted recent edits by User:GoldDragon. because they did not meet our standards. Here's why:


 * Change of upper class to middle/upper class needs to be discussed on talk. At first glance, those words should simply be removed to avoid any dispute, rather than continuing to edit war the change.
 * Removed as "more affluent" is sufficient. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Date linking and disambiguation addition do not appear to be standard or necessary.
 * Supported by guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reception section should not be removed per MOS:FILM and Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, but modfications may be necessary per those guidelines.
 * Restored per guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Issues related to the "criticism" section, particularly the use of sources like Multinational_Monitor, CBS, Corporate Governance (2004), Variety and Debbie Melnyk to make a case against Moore and the film, leaves the article unbalanced and makes the case for POV and undue weight. Again, MOS:FILM covers this briefly, but the removal of the positive reception section and placement of the so-called "criticism" section, was in fact, a violation of NPOV. This is not how we write articles.  There is certainly room for a little bit of both, not one or the other.
 * Removed disputed content. Room for compromise is possible depending on discussion. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be willing to work with both editors on this talk page, but the edit warring needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your effort, Viriditas. Criticism is easy; there is plenty of it. The only requirement, as always, is that we use good quality sources and summarise accurately what they say. There also needs to be some kind of acknowledgement from GD, otherwise the same thing may happen again in the near future. Wikispan (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roger & Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113204513/http://roger-and-me.com/ to http://www.roger-and-me.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Spam link in reception section
Link 16 points to a spam site Cjcorliss (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)