Moore, Mimesis and Documented Truth

Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man reads as ugly as its title sounds. Between repeating the same points about Michael Moore's duplicity - yes, he did wrong by his writers, by his subjects, by the notion of truth, but developing an argument is, like, a thing - authors Hardy and Clarke betray their obvious frustration at his success. Sure, the book was written before Moore lost his credibility, so their resentment at Moore's hypocrisy had currency back then. 

But being spiteful about his weight and wealth does get in the way of their thesis that Moore's documentaries are dishonest. Judicious editing, and reconstructions of events, allow Moore to play loose with the facts. His general arguments, that 'Merica is bad, okay, and that individual acts of violence are expressions of wider cultural values, are supported by half-truths and melodramatic posturing. In particular, the manipulation of chronology, and a conversation with Charlton Heston are called out again and again.

Moore defends his slap-dash approach by pointing out that he makes entertaining, popular film. To bring in Aristotle, he is not making history, but poetry, which is more about the universal than the particular. In other words, so what if the facts are mangled? There is a bigger picture.

It's the same problem that verbatim theatre has: the use of real life

people and events lends an aura of authenticity to the work, but then makes inaccuracies less forgivable. Poetry, as Aristotle explained, is better than history because it does not rely on specifics, tending towards broader ideals. 

For Aristole, mimesis was the thing. Roughly translated as imitation, it is the process whereby nature becomes art. Poetry has particular aesthetics and epistemologies (got it in!). The problem with Moore is that he fakes historical aesthetics. 

He's pretty much like most journalists, then. Hardly fair to pick on just him. Is it because he's fat?

The Four Qualities of the Critic

Okay, let me play fair.

Ultimately, this is all a justification of my life as a critic. There is no absolute distinction between reviewer and critic. And there are no rules about who can be a critic. If someone wants to call themselves a critic, or get a job reviewing, my rambles are only relevant if they care what I think. Fortunately, that doesn't matter.

It's a matter of pride, and turf war. I try to keep the idea of the critic clean so that I can claim some kind of status, and stop other writers wandering onto my patch. Keeping actors out of criticism is a selfish occupation. 

That isn't to say that makers writing about theatre is bad, just that it needs to be put in context. 

Having said all of that, I am going to tell you what I think a critic is - and when I have failed to be one. Then I am going to divide the critic into three categories (sorry, I'll probably be doing that stupid thing where I pretend to have summoned Aristotle back from the dead, again).

Chapter One: The Primary Qualities of a Critic

Of these. there are four. They may be said to be technical and emotional in nature. 

The Technical Qualities

Mr Dusc did this

An advanced literacy may be said to be the most essential of all skills possessed by the critic. Putting together a sentence in a manner coherent and charming, understanding the length of a paragraph for maximum readability: these are the foundation of all writing. 

Knowledge of context is a further necessity, although this is the least of all qualities. Being able to recognise the difference between a scripted play and a devised choreography is helpful. It enables authority and trust, and leaves not the author open to accusations of not knowing what they are watching.








The Emotional Qualities
Generosity is at the heart of a critical process: the generosity that

does not single out individuals and blame them for the failure of a work, recognising that all art is a collaboration. Generosity knows that it is subjectivity, and that what is seen is a function of the way it is seen. No artist makes bad work on purpose, and the bravery of artistic effort is to be respected. And generosity tries to understand what the piece is trying to achieve, and begin the critique from this understanding.

Yet honesty stands between generosity and lack of critique: the critic says what they see and what they feel (not what they wished for, or what might makes things 'better'). This is the only authority that the critic can claim: that they said what they felt - even if they have to apologise for it later. Like I have had to, on many occasions.

The Overlap Between Journalism and Criticism

The reanimated philosopher ran a finger over the parchment, flaking skin and dripping blood on its rumpled surface. His left eye-ball slipped slightly from the socket as he swivelled to face his tormentor.

"What the hell are these circles supposed to represent? All the elegance has gone out of psychic cartography," he moaned.

"It is a Venn Diagram representing the overlap of criticism, journalism and reviewing," I replied. "It reveals that the three disciplines are not exclusive domains."

"You might as well draw any three placements of the circles, make 'em concentric, air bubbles in a body of water, three parallel lines that intersect. If we're making shit up..."

"I wouldn't have sacrificed a goat to you if I'd known you wouldn't help."

"Drawing nice pictures and pretending that they map reality isn't my business," Aristotle snarled. "That is the stock in trade of the charlatan Plato. Big statements and no evidence."

"He's busy working as Russell Brand's ghost-writer." I snapped. "I wanted to continue my thoughts on the difference between critics and reviewers."

"That's bloody simple, sunshine. A reviewer reviews: they look at an event, and comment on it. A critic uses a broader frame of reference, maybe context, maybe some half-baked idea he stole from the pocket of a corpse."

"Isn't it a question of naming activity, rather than ascribing functions to already established categories?"

"Along with most of your readership, I have no idea what that means. Hang on, is this a dialogue?"

"I thought it was the best dramatic format to engage you..."

"Dialogues are Platonic. Send me back to hell, right now."

"Nay, thou shalt stay within thy circle and enumerate for me the qualities and nature of the critic."