Roger And Me Analysis

Michael Moore has been a well-known name in the field of documentaries since his documentary filmmaking debut of Roger & Me (1989). Using a mix of modes and elements of documentary film, he has created many outspoken films that aim to hammer in his ideals to the audience. However, this has many times created the opposite effect of what Moore desires, and many of his critics argue his tactics have discredited him as a filmmaker. This essay will be focusing on two of Moore’s films in particular: a larger focus on Roger & Me (1989) and then the inclusion of Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004). These films both created an impact on the issues they were concerned with, whether it be in a positive or negative light, due to the different modes of documentary that Moore pulls from in his films, tactics that Moore uses as a filmmaker and level of persuasion that comes out of these. Moore’s films cannot just be tied down to one or even two modes of documentary film, as described by Bill Nichols. According to Matthew Bernstein, Moore pulls from mainly the expository and the interactive modes of documentary in his film Roger & Me (6), through an attempt to “escape documentary film entirely” – something that Bernstein does not believe he is able to achieve (15). Moore seemingly pulls from

In conclusion, Michael Moore has become a canonical filmmaker in terms of documentaries that are able to get their message across in a persuasive way. Through the hybrid of documentary modes he uses for his films and the various elements of documentary film, Moore is able to create an impact on the issues he is concerned with in Roger & Me and Fahrenheit 9/11, whether the impact is big or small, negative or positive. All in all, whether or not the correct message was received by the viewer, he has still been able to persuade them of something, or at least consider an issue from a different viewpoint – even if he was not able to actually talk to Roger or cause Bush to lose the 2004 Presidential