Moore, And Me

I haven't written much about WikiLeaks or Julian Assange - love the name! - mostly because I don't think all that much needs to be said. WikiLeaks - much like Wikipedia - seems interesting, in theory, but in practice is kind of messy and scattershot. And Assange, while provocative and bright, seems a little too convinced of his own importance in the larger scheme of things.

That's a lot of the reasons why, while I try to follow the issues, I tend to think of Assange's legal struggles as background noise to other, more crucial news of the day. The charges of sexual assault that Assange faces in Sweden are hard to assess, and would benefit from law enforcement and judicial types doing, well, what is supposed to be their jobs: gathering evidence, making a case, seeing it through to a result.

Conspiracy theories abound regarding why Assange faces charges, why he was finally arrested in England with an eye towards extradition to Sweden, with some potential for American mischief in seizing  Assange or trumping up a case which would bring him to the states. It's all very movie espionage and derring-do, but the roiling about a potential American arrest for Assange, and passionate arguing defending him as some sort of brave renegade for justice just seems overblown... and more crucially, loses sight of the actual charges Assange actually faces for sexual assault.

I still wouldn't take this up, but December saw the Assange matter bubble into a blog and Twitter controversy when, after his arrest in England, a number of prominent Assange defenders, including Michael Moore, began assembling funds for Assange to make bail and be released until his extradition trial in London. Those defenders, including Moore, worked assiduously to call Assange's legal issues harassment and a sort of political persecution to try and silence Assange (with a dollop of "he'll be dragged to America on false pretenses" for good measure). Much was done to minimize or ridicule the sexual assault charges Assange faced in Sweden, raising questions about the women making the accusations and the strengths of their charges.

A few weeks ago Moore made an appearance on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show and reiterated that the charges against Assange were probably nothing, and Olbermann agreed. And that, for many feminists, was the last straw. One blogger, Sady Doyle, took to Twitter with the "hashtag" (a way to group related Tweets from different users) of #MooreandMe, a play on Moore's first major film "Roger and Me" in which he tried to chase down the CEO of GM to ask about lost jobs in Michigan as GM closed plants. Doyle, similarly, was trying to get Moore to respond to feminist concerns that rape allegations were being dismissed or ignored as sexual assault charges often are, out of "concern" for the "rights" of the man being charged.

Like many feminists, I was impressed and supportive of #MooreandMe, and was slightly embarrassed to admit that, without being conclusive, I had found some sympathy with suggestions that Assange was facing something of a trumped up case. One of the most heartening effects of #mooreandme was to get some responsible journalism going about actually investigating the charges against Assange, and a disturbing pattern of behavior on his part with a number of women.

The other effect of #mooreandme - also heartening - was that, shortly after initiating the tag, a flustered Keith Olbermann shut down his Twitter account, and promptly stopped discussing the matter of Assange. Olbermann was, in part, dismayed by assertions that he didn't take rape seriously. Olbermann then went on an extended Christmas break. We will see where this goes when he returns.

Moore, for his part, was silent in the face of much of the #mooreand me barrage... until a few days later, when he appeared in Rachel Maddow's program and, under fairly direct questioning, acknowledged that yes, the rape charges needed to be taken seriously, and Assange should have to face investigators and courts, if necessary, to evaluate the claims. And the Moore returned to his argument that Assange was doing terribly important work, and his main concern was efforts to silence Assange and WikiLeaks.

Many feminists, including Doyle, were very satisfied with Moore's remarks and moved by the fact that their own actions had caused someone like Moore to address, forthrightly, concerns about rape allegations being taken seriously.

Me... I'm left with some doubts about the whole controversy, and the impression that Moore's appearance on Maddow resolved anything.

And one thing that keeps nagging at me... who cares what Michael Moore thinks, anyway?

As more than a few people pointed out, the reason there's a controversy at all is because of, well, Moore himself: Moore's assertions about the lack of a case in Sweden against Assange were his own slapdash conclusions and his own assumptions about the "importance" of Assange and the nature of WikiLeaks. All of which, really, is itself a lesson in how the - bear with me - white male patriarchy perpetuates itself. Powerful white men, defending other powerful white men and seeing what, well, powerful white men do as having value and being important.

Moore's whole career, really, is built on his own construction of monuments to his self-importance: he has transformed the documentary film form, in no small measure, by making himself the story, and his "documents" the real stories of his own journey, more than revelations about anyone or anything else. Earnest, often angry, frequently sarcastic and dismissive of those with whom he disagrees, I've long that the curious thing about Moore's success is not his own interest in it, but everyone else's. Why, really, did the liberal left agree, ever, that Moore was somehow expert enough, or capable enough, to represent the views of their (or our) side?

The problem with #mooreandme, really, is that doing these actions only solidify Moore's hold on a kind of fame and self importance that helps perpetuate others like Julian Assange. The world waits breathlessly to hear what Michael Moore says about Assange because, well, that's what's important, right? Right?

I am reminded of the most ardent feminist separatists I read (and met) in college, women who used "womyn" and "wommin" to separate themselves more surely from the patriarchy, who asked, seriously, why women needed men for anything, especially confirmation of their value or their equality. And as a man... I agreed. Even now, in those conversations among women coworkers and friends, usually about some bum doing one of my women friends wrong, when they say something to the effect of "men, who needs them?" and then turn to me and go "oh, you know... not you," I tend to respond "nope, me too. Who needs men?"

Ultimately, I don't care what Michael Moore thinks about Julian Assange, as a person, a potential rapist, or an internet phenomenon; I don't look to celebrities to confirm my ideas or opinions; I don't admire celebrities who agree with me more than those who don't. I prefer to think that my respect for a celebrated artist or performer has to do with the work they do, and its quality. We are, in this culture of America, to enamored of giving celebrities too much power, too much influence, over our lives, and the issues of the day. Jon Stewart says Washington needs to be nicer... and he must be right, because he's famous. Right?

All of which is a reminder to me that as much as I've always had those vague dreams we all have about wanting to be famous... I don't actually want to be the person who feels that the only way to share my views is to do a chat show interview so the masses will hear my deep thoughts, whether it's my poilitical views, my diet secrets, or my endorsement of dime store toilet water or the latest wonder drug. I don't want to be Michael Moore... and just about as strongly, I wish Michael Moore weren't quite so Michael Moore, either.

Comments

[jinb]

You had me...until you got to your last paragraph.

I don't actually want to be the person who feels that the only way to share my views is to do a chat show interview so the masses will hear my deep thoughts, whether it's my poilitical views, my diet secrets, or my endorsement of dime store toilet water or the latest wonder drug.

Isn't a blog really akin to all of the above?

I think you're right to question our reliance on celebrity opinions but don't have enough knowledge to question said celebrities' motives.

As for Olbermann, he seems to take breaks quite a bit when the heat is turned on him...pretty sure he melted down and vanished for a few years during Lewinsky.