It's 2003. Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk take on Michael Moore after infamous anti-war speech at the Oscars. Debbie Melnyk claims to be a big fan of Moore at the beginning. They go on to debunk many of his assertions in his films as they follow him on his Fahrenheit 9/11 tour in 2004.Debbie Melnyk is trying to steal a page from Michael Moore's playbook but it comes off as being naive and silly. It would be better not to be so simplistic. "I thought he liked Canadians." Honestly, she sounds whiny. The narrative is scattered. Coming from other documentarians, this comes close to being jealousy. The best and possibly the only thing about Michael Moore that is revealed is that he's not a documentarian. That's a good revelation but it fails to make GM saints. They're actually digging too far into story. There is also a clash of personalities but it doesn't make Michael Moore evil. There is obvious bad blood with some of Ralph Nader's people after Moore switched his views on Nader's 2000 campaign. The film is trying to push the idea that the left should be a kumbaya movement and Michael Moore is equivalent to the right wing talk show agitators of the Republicans. Honestly, I don't think Moore would mind.

Some plot spoilers ahead.This movie may seem like an anti-Michael Moore screed, but in reality it was a lot more balanced on the issue than I had originally anticipated. I was actually surprised that the filmmakers were able to interview people who worked with Michael Moore, or those who supported the movies he had done. To be fair, this movie was biased towards an anti-Moore bent, but on the whole the criticism was not vicious.It was amusing to see the filmmakers use the same tactics that Moore used in his movies against him, such as using fake credentials to get into an event, or shoving a microphone in a celebrity's face, in this case Moore himself. To his credit, Moore seemed very gracious and respectful towards the filmmakers, unlike the secretaries and company representatives who rebuffed Moore in "Roger and Me."As with Moore's own films, one must be wary of the claims those being interviewed made against Moore, such as the assertion that Moore *did* interview Roger Smith, or that Moore's charity was tied up with some big-name defense companies. Moore has just as much right to deny these claims as anyone who is accused by Moore of doing something suspicious. I recommend doing your own research before you swallow some of the claims presented in "Manufacturing Dissent"; though, to be be fair, those being interviewed, or some anti-Moore book, make the claims against Moore, rather than the filmmakers themselves. The "Donahue" footage, though, seems credible.Some of the best stuff is in the deleted scenes of the DVD, such as the parody of the cartoon from "Bowling for Columbine", which had the same ultra-cheap computer-animated style and fast-paced dialogue and narration. I also liked the discussion of Flint's affinity for "Coney Island Hot Dogs."I recommend this movie as a counterpoint to Michael Moore's bold so-called "documentaries", but be careful with regards to some the claims made by the filmmakers here.

If you've heard somewhere that the documentary movie maker Michael Moore ("Fahrenheit 9/11", "Bowling for Columbine" etc.) isn't honest about the stuff he presents in his movies as "facts", then this is the documentary for you.Employing the same guerrilla tactics as Moore himself, documentarian Debbie Melnyk pretty much stalks Moore, in trying to get an extended interview with him for her documentary. She says from the outset that she is a fan of his documentaries but, perhaps acting like an unrequited lover, she goes over all the incidents/scandals of Moore's professional life-from his time as the editor of a left-wing magazine (before he tried his hand at making documentaries) to the footage he used out of context in "Fahrenheit 9/11".Melnyk has got good access to people who identify themselves as Moore's friends (or as ex-friends), which gives you a broader insight into his character than Melnyk alone].There is one telling scene in the movie where a critic of Moore says that it was possible for someone to be against certain US foreign policies but yet not be an apologist for certain South American or Central American dictators (which Moore is accused of being). This is the main fault of Melnyk's film, I think. In other words, in the same way as devotees of Moore will lap up his attacks on the right-wing in the US and disregard some of Moore's own 'sins', die-hard right-wingers will watch this documentary and consider it to demolish all of Moore's claims. Manufacturing Dissent seems, in essence, part of the right-wing 'backlash' against Moore, even though Melnyk may have initially intended to do a positive piece on him.There is a funny scene towards the end of the movie where Melnyk acts the infatutated school-girl with Moore despite there being friction between her and Moore over his evasiveness in agreeing to be interviewed by her.For people like myself, I think it is possible to agree with some of the assertions in this film yet not think Moore is total bunk.Many of Melnyk's bleatings are risibly half-baked.

Though I'm aware of the various liberties Michael Moore takes with his films, I never really gave it much careful thought. Mainly because I like Michael Moore and I agree with many of the arguments he makes. The film portrays Moore as a manipulative performance filmmaker who is quite egoistical and doesn't allow for much dissent against his own views when ever he organizes an event or make a speech. The film portrays him as a man who doesn't practice what he preaches, particularly when Moore's various security guards and media handlers refuse to allow the filmmakers film Michael Moore events and speeches. It demostrates that by careful editing, Michael Moore can manipulate events to fit his version of what happens and is a master of pulling stunts on camera to prove his point.The film isn't a shrill diatribe about how Moore's ideas will lead to America's ruin. Instead it's a thoughtful film that asks people to be more media savy by setting Moore as an example. The fact that it's a Canadian production probably removes the filmmaker from the distracting American liberal and republican "issues" concerning Moore. Instead, we focus on the veracity of what Moore presents to us and the ethics of the way he manipulates the documentary genre. How Moore's appeal is not based on what he says but the entertainment value of how he presents his point of view.After watching this film, I'm more cautious about Michael Moore, to always be mindful about what he presents and not always accept it as is. But even at that, I still like Michael Moore. He's a talented man who seems to have his heart in the right place when he makes his films and I don't think he's as egoistical as the film suggests he is.