Moore: Critics who can't challenge facts conspire against me (Feature)

By Peter Mayer Sep 9, 2009, 4:08 GMT

Venice, Italy - At one point during a news conference with Michael Moore at the Venice Film Festival, it was alleged that in some countries, distributors of his latest film were charging journalists hefty fees for the privilege of interviewing him.

The US director, whose assault on corporate greed Capitalism: A Love Story, has made waves since its first screening at the festival, offered a poignant response.

In mock anger, he first queried how it could be possible that in one case, 'only' 1,000 euros (1,433 dollars) had been requested from a reporter.

Then, turning serious, he stressed he was not aware of such demands, and pledged action would be taken against offending distributors - the countries mentioned at the news conference were Brazil and Norway.

Judging by the public response in Venice - long lines of moviegoers cueing up to watch the film, rapturous applause even before the credits began rolling at the end - Capitalism: A Love Story is poised to make millions of dollars at the international box office.

As such, it would continue a pattern set by Moore's other patently anti-establishment films - Bowling for Columbine, where he examined US gun-culture, Fahrenheit 9/11, a critical look at the Bush administration's 'war on terrorism' and Sicko, where he laid bare the shortcomings of the US health system.

And as before, Moore, told a small group of reporters in a separate interview session in Venice, he expects the 'mainstream media' and their corporate paymasters will try to discredit him in the eyes of people whose rights he stands up for by stressing how lucrative it is for him to be making such films.

The strategy involves 'planting the seed of doubt,' with newspaper readers and television viewers, Moore said.

'They'll say things like: Oh but he lives in a big house,' he added.

'There's a conspiracy among business, among those in power, to go after me and my work and to manipulate you (journalists) into saying certain things,' Moore stressed.

Another tactic is for critics to refer to 'dubious facts,' supposedly contained in his work.

'Every fact in my movie is true. I so thoroughly do the research ... not only because I believe it's the right thing to do,' Moore said, but because he would also run the risk of legal action if he didn't.

In Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore seems set to have made a host of new 'enemies,' while renewing animosities with some old ones.

In the film he covers the bankruptcy of General Motors - 20 years after the car company was the critical subject of his film Roger and Me.

Other topics include the impact on families who become the victims of US home foreclosures, corrupt practices involving a privatized juvenile detention centre, and companies which, by taking out life insurance policies on employees, seemingly stand to benefit in the event that those employees experience premature death.

Almost half of the two-hour long movie is dedicated to recent global financial meltdown, starting with the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers and including the bailout of companies such as insurance giant American International Group (AIG).

As in his previous films, Moore takes on a principal role in-person, and is seen attempting to enter the AIG building to 'make a citizens arrest' of the board of directors.

In the film Moore also approaches Wall Street executives and brokers to ask them for an explanation on how derivatives work. He is mostly ignored, while one man shouts out to him: 'Stop making movies!'

A more sinister campaign against him, the 55-year-old director said in Venice, involves threats, the nature of which Moore said 'I don't discuss in public,' and which has forced him to obtain round-the-clock protection.

'I wish the other side would engage in the issues go after me as fiercely as possible on the politics ... on the things that I raise,' he said, lamenting that many US chat-shows will not invite him unless there's someone 'from the other side' present.

'They can't get anybody from the other side to go on' because what they stand for is 'indefensible,' he said.