Note to conservatives: it isn’t hypocritical for Michael Moore to sue someone

Guy Adams

 Note to conservatives: it isn’t hypocritical for Michael Moore to sue someone

I’ve no great affection for Michael Moore, thanks to an unfortunate run-in a couple of years back, but it’s hard not to be baffled at the level of abuse he faced last night when it emerged that he’s suing fellow salad dodger Harvey Weinstein over profits from the 2004 documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

The lawsuit, filed in LA Superior court, can be read in full here. In a nutshell, Moore (left) claims he was underpaid roughly $2.7m in back-end profits from the film thanks to come creative accounting from Weinstein, who distributed it. Harvey vehemently disputes this. The matter will now be argued over by lattorneys, and either settled or thrashed-out (at further vast expense) in court.

So it goes, in the snake-pit that is Hollywood. But judging from the outpouring of anti-Moore bile on comment boards of entertainment websites such as Deadline Hollywood, which covered the story here, the rotund film-maker is guilty of awful hypocrisy by calling in lawyers in the first place.

Critics – using pharases like “big fat hypocrite liberal,” “tiresome bore” and “crap spewing socialist” – argue, in forthright terms, that Moore forfeited any right to sue anyone, ever, by making documentaries that espouse a left-wing point of view.

This is, to put it mildly, is balls. For starters, Moore’s critique of capitalism, particularly in his most recent film Capitalism: a Love Story is not that it exists per se, but that it exists in an unbridled form which allows innocent people to be exploited. Since Moore feels here (rightly or wrongly) that he is an innocent person who has been exploited, he is perfectly entitled to seek redress.

Critics have blown further smoke with the claim that, by going after Weinstein, Moore is somehow greedily betraying his long-cultivated image as socialistic “man of the people.” That argument is also baloney: in the battle with Weinstein, Moore is the little guy. His opponent is the big beast.

Arguably, if Moore feels that he’s been diddled, then it would have be more hypocritical of him NOT to go after the person responsible than to do what he’s done. But hey-ho. Whatever you think of the man, it’s a fascinating lawsuit, which he’s perfectly entitled to bring. And I look forward to seeing it jazz up the Hollywood news pages for many weeks and months to come.

Tagged in: , ,
  • Simon_99

    The basis of his films are that he turns up at a company with a camera crew in an attempt to force his way in front of people who usually would try to avoid him, in order to ask them questions. Janet Street Porter tried to employ the same tactics to speak to Moore and challenge him about some of his claims; he threatened legal action if they even stepped onto his property, and refused to talk to her. Hypocrite.

  • CurtOntheRadio

    Go Mikey!

    It’s impossible for a socialist to properly escape the charge of hypocrisy under capitalism? But if the rules are the rules, shouldn’t socialists be entitled to them too?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if he gives it away should he win, anyway. And no, we don’t have to hear about it.

  • David Lienard

    And the fact that the Independent has blocked any posts on the Julian Assange farce says even more!!! 11th February

  • David Lienard

    your criticisms of Moore’s videos are trivial, they have no bearing on the films validity. What he demonstrates is a logical expose of US hypocrisy, every one of Moore’s points stand up to examination, the reason why his films are so successful is simply because they are truthful!!!

Property search
Browse by area

Latest from Independent journalists on Twitter