Michael Moore's "Roger and Me"

The following was written on my English Composition message board. The semester is coming to a close and, to finish it all off, our professor had us watch the documentary "Roger and Me." We were then to comment about the film on the message board. My comments concerning the movie are as follows:

****

Wow… I guess this movie really invoked some strong feelings in me… I didn’t intend for this to become so lengthy… oh well…


Okay, so if you have been following along, you can probably guess my response to the movie, “Roger and Me.” However, you might be surprised by my thoughts in this case. However, I do need to point out these two details before I get to all that (and- if blatant, “controversial,” political/social comments make you squeamish- then look away for a second):

• The points that I am about to make about “Roger and Me” not withstanding, Michael Moore (along with many other prominent, mostly liberal, President-bashing figures) has blood of American soldiers on his hands. Not that I am blind to the faults of other political leaders and the like, but I have a very specific opinion as to why people like Michael Moore are increasing the likelihood of American soldiers being harmed. That, though, is an entirely different post.

• Also, I have a sort of twisted, convoluted connection to another of Moore’s “documentaries,” “Fahrenheit 9/11.” To make a long story short, I have seen first-hand how “brilliant” Moore’s editing skills can be. If you are that interested in the connection, I guess you can ask me about it some time…

Those things aside, I felt that this was a pretty moving documentary. I mostly want to commend Moore for not following the tried and true card that I expected him to pull out: the race issue. I don’t know why, but every documentary with the intentions of “Roger and Me” always seems to boil down to an issue of race at some point. This documentary did the opposite and showed an event where all races and ethnicities were equal in their struggle. Furthermore, Moore did a very good job of illustrating the rise and decline of Flint, Michigan. He also did a stellar job of showing just how “out of whack” the ‘haves’ are in their understanding of the ‘have-nots.’

This reaction wouldn’t be characteristic of me if I didn’t point out a glaring fault, however: The spokesman for GM (the one that was continuously interviewed and, at the conclusion, was said to have been laid off) was right in his assessment that the situation with GM in Flint was simply a reflection of a capitalistic nation that depends on the health of its corporations to remain strong. A simple economics class (or just a keen sense of logic) will tell you that things like this have to occur to keep the corporations in profit, which- in turn- keeps the USA running. That’s an important aspect of what our free-market economy has developed into. (In case you are failing to understand, consider this: the more money that GM makes, the cheaper that they can sell cars. Theoretically, therefore, Americans need to earn less because their small amount of income has more buying power. If GM makes no money, then they have to jack up the price of cars. Therefore, Americans need to make more money but if the corporations that are hiring them aren’t making a profit they can’t meet these new salary demands). This aside, the point is this: the devastation associated with changes in particular market trends is a part of the capitalistic country that you and I call home. There are choices and, from what I heard, living under communistic rule is a much less comfortable haul…