Right off the bat I’ll tell you that I’m pretty liberal and I voted with the Green Party in 2008. I like to listen to all sides of an issue, and I have also been a fan of Michael Moore and his films over the past several years. But recently some information has been come to light that has me questioning Mr. Moore’s motivations and I feel compelled to write about it given its relevance to this blog.
I learned from a reliable source that Michael Moore has managed to squash (for lack of a better word) the premier of a film that is critical of both his movies and his film making tactics. The movie, Shooting Michael Moore, was scheduled to open at Carmike’s Horizon Cinemas in Traverse City, Michigan, earlier this month - right in Moore’s back yard - but was abruptly cancelled. The movie is the brainchild of Kevin Leffler, a school mate of Moore’s. It is directed, narrated and financed - in large part - by Leffler. It has run in both Detroit and Miami without incident. According to Leffler, there’s no reason for the movie to be pulled other than the fact that the Oscar-winning Moore has let it be known that he did not want the movie to run.
If this is the case, it appears that Michael Moore doesn’t like to be on the other side of the bright lights but, for better or worse, that is sometimes where one ends up when living life in the public eye. The question is whether or not one has the right to suppress information the public has a right to learn.
A call to violence?
Leading the charge against Leffler’s film in Traverse City is Jeff Gibbs, who worked with Moore on both Fahrenheit 911 and Bowling for Columbine. Gibbs says the title of the Leffler movie, Shooting Michael Moore, is a “thinly veiled call to violence” against Moore. Leffler insists, however, that the title simply refers to “shooting with a camera.” He even volunteered to change the title of the film to Exposing Michael Moore if it meant he could have his film shown, but to no avail. A spokesman for Carmike stated that he did not know why the chain had pulled the movie, lending credence to Leffler’s claim that it was pulled because Moore wanted it pulled. Says Leffler, “The fact that Michael Moore has the power to pressure a national theater chain to pull a movie critical of him is sad. All sides of an issue should be aired.”
This accusation that the title of the film is a call to violence against Michael Moore simply doesn’t ring true. 
Leffler points out that there is absolutely no call for violence against Moore in the film. Herein lies one of the hypocrisies of being Michael Moore: Moore himself can be said to be encouraging violence in his own book, Downsize This. In a chapter titled “How to Conduct the Rodney King Commemorative Riot,” Moore encourages blacks and Hispanics to riot again to mark the fifth anniversary of the Rodney King beating. In fact, he tells them not to burn down their own neighborhoods but rather to follow La Cienega directly into the neighborhoods of the wealthy and riot there.
No stranger to controversy
Michael Moore has been no stranger to controversy over the years. Opponents have called his films deceptive and inaccurate. He has also been accused of deceptive editing, staging or scripting of scenes, or altering the original intent of comments made during the making of his films.
If Mr. Leffler’s film is more of the same, then Michael Moore should be familiar with the drill. There is no shortage of anti-Michael Moore sites on the Internet. If someone had attempted to squash the premiere of Fahrenheit 911, Bowling for Columbine, or Sicko, Michael Moore would be the first in line to scream ‘conspiracy’ and invoke his First Amendment rights.
It’s time for Michael Moore to step aside and let the film run in the interest of protecting everyone’s First Amendment rights.