Morgan Spurlock Vs. Michael Moore

Morgan Spurlock


Michael Moore

Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore are both famous for making documentaries about social issues.

Moore's best known work includes Fahrenheit 9/11 (about the Bush Administration's exploitation of 9/11) and Sicko (about the medical industry).

Spurlock is best known for Super Size Me (he eats nothing but McDonalds for 30 days).

Judging by these documentaries, what can we tell about the personal character of these men? (We can tell a lot about the quality of a person's heart by the way they get things done.)

It would seem that Spurlock is driven by better motivations than Moore. Spurlock's goal is to address public well-being while Moore is little more than a sensationalist. Spurlock draws attention to the issue at hand while Moore draws attention to himself. Spurlock inspires people to think for themselves while Moore wants more people to think like him.

This matters because the genuine character of these men will affect their viewers. Spurlock has a healthier outlook on life, therefore his work promotes a similarly healthy outlook. Michael Moore's message is tainted by his own frustrations and bitterness, so he can't help but promote bitterness in the people that follow him.


Anonymous said...

Yeah never really got into Moores movies, while good and makes you think he just seems as bad as Bush and the other political people especially with the movie Farienhype which details just how slightly spinning the truth makes it seem worse than it really is.

Anonymous said...

While I cannot claim to know either men personally, Moore has always struck me as somebody who is more cerebral in his outlook contrasted with Spurlock (and I admit, I have only seen one film he's been in) who seems to be in it for the gimmick. Moore is certainly bitter (a not entirely unfounded sentiment) but I would hardly describe him as sensationalist. Sensationalism is what you find in British tabloid journalism. Moore pokes a big stick into agendas that, agree with him or not, are far reaching in society, and shakes things up.

Spurlocks outlook, which is most certainly less caustic than Moore's, is perhaps more of the "common man" approach than the bludgeoning style we see in Bowling For Columbine and Sicko. I watched Sicko, and wrote my review here:
I do agree with most of your comments, although I feel that Moore is generally mistreated by those in the mass media. Both Spurlock and Moore have interesting things to say, and its certainly refreshing that neither of them use the same style to bring it to us.

Pope said...

I, for the most part, do not specifically disagree with your assessment of these two documentary filmmakers. I would say that Moore's best pictures were actually his earlier ones, especially Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine. In my opinion, Moore not only shows more compassion and understanding in those two films than his more recent ones, but he was also a more talented filmmaker back then. If you have seen those two I would highly recommend them.

And Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days television series is awesome too (though for "starred" him like Super Size Me did). I recommend it also.

Michael Hickerson said...

Spurlock seems a bit more objective than Moore does. Or maybe it's just me.

Papi Sorrelis said...

Your sensationalist view of Moore is SPOT on! Like the previous poster stated. Michael Moore's early work Roger and Me and BFC were his best pieces. but BFC was where he took liberties with a medium to make HIS point. documentary film is about information collected and shown to subscribe an opinion from the viewer, not the filmmaker.

However entertaining both of these mens films are. I appreciate and admire Spurlock's approach much better. Like Spurlock says, "I'm trying to make my information go down like cotton candy even though it has the intent of spinach"