Roger's Review of 'Roger and Me'

Yes, I’ve sat down and watched the first part of Mikey Moore’s Trilogy, and first off I must say how much I enjoyed the home movie of his childhood. He says that Flint’s gone to the dogs (more accurately, the rats) but all I can say is there must have been a helluva lot less to eat when Mickey was a young 'un. Positively svelte he looked in his shorts. And there was I thinking that his “working class” folks wouldn’t have been able to afford a cine camera. How wrong I was! How remiss of me to forget the one great lesson of his canon, that America has gotten poorer and poorer since he was a babe, while he has gotten richer.

Where to begin with my review (I even went back and fast forwarded through the DVD again to jot down some of the stand-out scenes and dialogue)? Well, we have the usual mix of grainy urban black/redneck underbelly (the type who spray paint 'Assholes Drive Imports’ on bridges) and toff-bashing - this time a polo game, the Annual Flint Great Gatsby Garden Party, the Golden Girls playing a mean game of golf, and the exclusive Detroit Athletics Club with a receptionist who bugs the hell out of me because he’s a dead ringer for someone else, and I can’t think who. We get Botoxed celebrities well past their sell-by date (Pat Boone wearing that jumper he always wears - Ooh, how I had the hots for Debbie when she sang at the Oscars in 1978 - she could light my light any time and some bloke - permatanned like Pat - who told the most hideous jokes and compered a TV game show). We get a rather scary looking woman who skins rabbits alive and wants to become a vet, and even Miss Michigan steps off her float to show off her teeth and practise answering stupid questions from fat white men. (And it works, as she is crowned Miss America 1988 just two weeks later.) And of course your avaricious two-faced televangelist who the dastardly Mayor of Flint pays 20 grand to tell a packed hockey stadium (must have been during the lockout as there wasn’t a puck in sight) that ‘you can turn your hurt into a halo’. Personally, I’d want to turn it into something a little more practical if I had been retrenched, but there you go. Your average cross-section of folk in middle America, I guess, none of whom seem bothered in the least by having a large fellow who is rather slow on the uptake (even the rabbit woman, who’s clearly not a graduate of U.M., looks bemused when he asks her if the sign on her yard ‘Rabbits – pets or meat’ means that she sells rabbits as pets) barge into their life with a camera crew.

Mick contrasts in his customary nuanced manner the beliefs of the toffs in fancy dress negotiating human statues on their manicured lawn (‘the unemployed should get up in the morning and do something’ - pretty solid advice when you think about it) and the Golden Golfing Girls (‘a lot of them are lazy’) with the attitoods of the punks on skid row, that skid row from which Michael managed to escape because he had a camera and a donation from Ed Asner. While Moore mocks the successful, he doesn’t need to mock the bums. They do his job for him, as he trails behind them with his mike. Thus we have the fellow who looks as if he was Christopher Walker’s stunt double on The Deer Hunter showing off his knowledge of the names and order of the days of the week together with his plasma-donation needle wounds, Deputy Fred (who looks like he failed the audition for The Stylistics down the road in Deetroit) who left the GM plant (that’s General Motors for any furriners) to evict people from their homes because it he had got into a rut on the assembly line after 15 years, Tom Kay, GM lobbyist, who after years of defending GM boss Roger Smith (or is it Brown?) - ‘the corporation does what it has to do to remain competitive in the economic climate’ blah blah - is rewarded for his loyalty by being ‘laid off’, as Mickey triumphantly tells us in his best subtitled know-it-all manner as the credits are rolling. (Yes, he intercuts the credits with ‘latest news’ type snippets of hot-press information, all telling us that the major players have either been ‘laid off’, or have contracted AIDS, or have died an agonising death being forced to watch Mick’s home movies on endless loops.) This is Moore at his Sophoclean best.

And so this modern morality tale draws to an end after 90 minutes of unrelenting film. But I have left the best till last. For reasons best known to the great man himself, we are treated to a scene where Amway meets Color Me Beautiful. Janet, previously ‘the founder and host of Flint’s feminist radio show’ (sadly we didn’t get to hear a clip of her in dungarees expounding on penile patriarchal hegemony or doing the Vagina Monologues), has discovered the kabbalah of color and has found a willing audience in a group of comely 30-something denizens of Flint, who occupy the previously unexplored middle-ground between the rednecks and the toffs. ‘If you have a dream, and you go after your dream, you can do it’, she says, and you don’t really know if she’s memorised the script or is making interdiscursive allusions to Martin Luther King and Abba. Whatever, her audience is rapt in attention, even the black woman, who Janet has told is a ‘winter’, along with all the other blacks, Jews and Italians. (No, I’m not - you can’t make this stuff up. You should know - it’s your country.) You’ve probably run ahead of me and guessed that you can also be a spring, a summer or an autumn, and you’d be absolutely right. Unfortunately, Janet must have been chanelling the wrong guru, because the poor girl has been misdiagnosed as an autumn when she is actually a spring. Still, she has plenty of the can-do spirit advocated by the Golden Golfing Girls, the Mayor, the televangelist, Pat Boone, the game show host, Roger, and Miss America, and any harm done is nothing that a swift change of clothing can’t fix. As the man on 20k a sermon puts it, ‘Tough times don’t last, but tough people do’. And how Moore lasts. After watching his movie, I think I know why. He may have made a Manhattan transfer, but there’s no danger that the master documentarian is ever going to forget his Flinty roots.

Come on, you guys. Give a guy a break! It took me nigh on 4 hours to prepare this magnificent piece, and all I get is the silent treatment.

That’s the problem, it’s too long!

Got a Cliff Notes version handy? :wink:

I swear I read the whole thing, but I have no comment, as I haven’t seen the movie.

But I read it… I swear! And it is too long, I only managed to comprehend 1/2 of it at 2 AM. :stuck_out_tongue:

The problem, roger, is that there is no appropriate response to your OP that does not belong in the BBQ Pit.

Excellent point, BG. I’ll ask a mod to move it. Let’s hear what people really think.

In the meantime, snippets of a couple of other not exactly glowing reviews of/reflections on the film by those on the left themselves (one of them, by Pauline Kael, erstwhile film critic of The New Yorker, contemporaneous with the film’s original release in 1989 - which is always significant - the other from 1997, upon the release of Moore’s book Downsize This!).

Pauline Kael’s review appears not to be posted on the Net, but these extracts give the flavour of it:

  • At least she laughed. Of his Big 3, only *Fahrenheit 9/11 * has had that effect on me.

** Tell it, lady!

Extracts from the review by New York City freelancer Daniel Radosh:

Well, it seems to me that it should be possible to have a discussion about the “art and entertainment” without sinking into politics and the Pit, but I guess that’s not possible in a country divided against itself.

So, in line with roger’s request, I’m moving this.

It’s impossible to respond to. It’s not a review.

Your first paragraph is a fat joke.

Your second paragraph has so many parentheses and dashes that it is impossible to follow, but seems to be a description of some of the filming.

Then, you start going off on “Mick” and “toffs” and bring up Ed Asner and Christopher Walker (whoever that is), all the while keeping the dashes (and you use so many dashes - not to mention parentheses (these things surrounding this phrase are parantheses) - that the entire flow of the thing is impossible to read) and parantheses that I just give up after two seconds.

I don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about, much less how to respond to it.

If I had to guess, it seems like another convoluted insult of Michael Moore. I’m sure someone will come along to beat that dead horse since this is the Pit, and that seems to be your intent. But your “review” got exactly as much attention as it deserved in the Cafe Society.

I have the vague notion that the OP didn’t particularly like Roger and Me, but otherwise I can’t make heads or tails of it.

I think that was the point. Because it’s incomprehensible, it can’t be argued with.

I enjoyed your review in an listen-to-the-drunken-Englishman sort of way.

Incoherent but amusing.

I read your OP in the other forum, roger, and was expecting a full-fledged, viscious attack upon you by Moore’s supporters here (those who remain such, that is, after the way Moore’s screed apparently backfired last November). However, your keen intelligence, incisive powers of observation and unquestionable verbosity have rendered them virtually speechless.

I felt like I was trapped in one of those conversations with someone who wants to tell you every scene of a movie she just saw, even though you keep telling her “yeah, I saw that flick.”

I thought *Roger and Me * was far better than Bowling for Columbine, which just went all wacky with tangents and left me rather bored. I didn’t completely agree with either side, but I couldn’t believe what an ass Mike was making of himself at the end. I’m sorry you want a story but when someone tells you to get off their property, get the fuck off their property.

I dunno, roger thornhill’s review seemed to be all about the appearances and looks of the people instead of the content.

Well, first of all, your review isn’t exactly “timely” in that you are reviewing a 16 year old movie. Second, your reviewing style is a little too stream-of-consciousness and inside for me.

You start out your review remarking how skinny Michael Moore (who you inexplicably keep referring to as Mikey or Mick in what I can only guess is a lame and failed attempt at humor) appeared in his younger days. What this has to do with the movie itself is anyone’s guess, but you get to take a shot at his current portly state, and for that I commend you. The fact that he is sloppy fat is certainly a rich vein from which to mine insults for the man, and he has nobody to blame but himself. But for a movie review? It’s extraneous.

You question his parents’ ability to own a movie camera. I was raised in southern West Virginia by a coal miner and his stay at home wife. And we could afford a Super 8 camera. My point? They aren’t that expensive. While this does give you a good opportunity to take a jab at “Mikey” and his message of gloom and doom regarding America’s (in general) and Flint’s (in specific) stumbling economy, the comparison is a weak one.

Now your review really begins, but first you go too far “inside” and tell us how you did the review. Does it matter? My vote is no. Moving on, you begin one of the most incoherent run-on sentences to ever grace this board. It starts out with your noting of the “usual” (as compared to what exactly?) juxtaposition of the poor and the rich. Here I must comment on your use of the term “toff”. I’ll admit I had to look it up. I commend you on your vocabulary, but I personally found the term distracting. At any rate, the merits of your vocabulary does not excuse the poor sentence construction extant (know what that means? it means existing) in the remainder of your sentence (and let’s face it, your entire review). You then feel it necessary to tell us that the receptionist of the Detroit Athletics club looks like someone you know, but you don’t know who exactly. This is unsurprising, because you later fail to recognize Bob Eubanks of the Newlywed Game. Next, you regale us with how you once had a crush on Debbie Boone. Again – what this has to do with the price of tea in China is anyone’s guess, but you seem unwilling or unable to self-edit and turn what should theoretically be a straightforward movie review into open mic night at the local Laugh Factory. Not to say that all of your jokes are without merit. I chuckled at Pat Boone and Bob Eubanks being described as “permatanned” and “well past their sell-by dates”.

You continue your stream-of-consciousness by mentioning the pets or meat lady and Miss Michigan in the same sentence. While both of these women are in the movie and are interviewed by “Mick”, the similarity stops there. You then casually mention a televangelist without giving us any significant context. Are you just writing down what you are seeing on the screen, or are you putting any thought in reviewing the film itself? Perhaps you should consider writing summaries for TV Guide if this is the limit of your talent. Kudos, though, for again mocking Moore’s waddling into these peoples’ existences, cameras (and no doubt body odor and arrogant attitude) in tow.

We now enter my favorite portion of your review. Flashes of brilliance are evident, but they are regrettably few and far between. Superb skewering of Moore’s one-sided and biased (as opposed to nuanced, what fun irony) documentary style. I also laughed at your reasoning of how Moore escaped poverty through a donation from an iconic Hollywood liberal. You then go into some decent humor on the parade of “victims” Moore trots out before the camera. Unfortunately, this section is also littered with intentional misspellings (attitoods, Deetroit, furriners) that are more distracting than amusing. It ends strongly with you again mocking Moore’s self-righteous tone, even invading the credits to give last minute updates on the “stars” of his film.

Here I must mention the most puzzling aspect of your review. The raison d’etre and eventual “payoff” of this film is Michael Moore’s actual attempts and success/failure to gain an audience with Roger Smith of GM. Yet you make no mention of this at all. It’s omission from your review is glaring.

Your review ends with a focus on the lady diagnosing others as different seasons. While her inclusion in the movie is certainly questionable, her focus in your review is arguably more questionable. While you do get off some good lines (and hey, you get to use your favorite word ‘toff’ again!) it doesn’t really advance the review itself. Your closing review of Moore himself is a little cutesy for me (‘Manhattan transfer’ and ‘Flinty roots’ were as corny as Kellogg’s corn flakes).

No doubt you enjoyed writing this review. However, I didn’t enjoy reading it. That being said, I did enjoy writing this review of your review. Maybe a little too much.

PP, I am deeply honoured that you bestowed one of your sparse posts on my little review. I wouldn’t have dared hope for a critique of my reviewing and writing skills in a Pit thread devoted to Mikey. It has indeed been a lucky day for me - or would have been if I actually believed in luck. I have also so far won $35 on the horses, and there is one race left to run.

rt, you are welcome. Good “luck” in all of your future endeavors. And keep writing your reviews. This one actually grew on me!

Your wish, my command. Here’s one I did of Roger and Me before I’d actually seen it. You see, I do have what it takes to be a film reviewer.

Brilliant! You really do possess the chops to be a successful film reviewer. Seriously!

I’d go on, but I’m a sparse poster, and three posts a day is my limit.