Sarah Barmak ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

>Yes, it's clear that Moore does not wish to pretend that his viewpoint is
>the objective truth, and therefore the only truth---but this is not
>epistemic hesitation, it's manipulation of the facts, plain and simple
> . . .
>Moore never shows only "his version", though---he is always in the realm
>of nonfiction. But we must remember that fiction is not the only thing
>structured by ideology.

Documentary is not just "structured" by ideology/rhetoric: every
documentary style _is_ a visual rhetoric.

Manipulation at the level of visual rhetoric is indeed something different
from epistemic hesitation: Moore, however, uses both.  The "bad faith"
manipulation of footage of Heston etc. is something Moore learned from
Emile de Antonio and the political compilation film: the creative
application of montage towards archival footage (whether you shot it
recently or someone else did years ago) can create powerful associations
or "false" narratives in support of rhetorical ends.

Although Moore is one of the most aggressive and assertive "new
documentarists" out there, there is a vein of epistemic hesitation that
runs through his work: this comes less at the micro-level of challenging
the indexical status or historicity of images as the basis for knowledge,
and more at the macro-level of resisting the impulse to draw firm
conclusions from the course of his critical investigation.

In the case of Bowling for Columbine, Moore attempts to track down the
evidence he needs to explain why Americans are so inclined to murder each
other with firearms.  As opposed to picking a "best" argument and focusing
on the evidence that supports it, Moore instead demonstrates that the
evidence does not conclusively support _any_ of the prevailing assumptions
about gun control & gun mortality in America.  The hesitancy in this case
comes in the form of an admission that the current state of our knowledge
on matters of cause/effect is inconclusive, inviting the viewer to reflect
and attempt to incorporate what has been "documented" with knowledge based
on their own experience.

Roger and Me does the same thing: to the question of who is responsible for
the plight of the American worker, and what can we do about it Moore
effectively answers with the Beach Boys' "Wouldn't it be nice ..."

Depending on your ideological stripe you can damn this "hesitant" posture
as a failure to incite collectivist action, or view it as a gesture
of "honesty" tempering Moore's obvious partisanship.
For my part, I am grateful to Moore for at least asking the tough
questions, even if not all of us get the answers we would like.