Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
> On 6/28/07, Chuck <chuck at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> > Jerry Monaco wrote:
> >
> > > And what is your point? Who are you pretending to be when you write like
> > > this?
> >
> > I'm not pretending to be anybody other than an over-educated, penniless
> > anarchist living in the Midwest.
> >
> > Chuck
>
> I still don't get your point.
>
> When you say "At least with Sicko, Moore is covering the middle class
> and not slumming around trying to pretend he is a working person." I
> mean the only reason I am asking for an explanation is because I don't
> get your point. So I suppose there is implied criticism, like when
> Denby says that Moore is a "bully," but a person that only "bullies"
> people who are much more powerful than he is I don't think fits the
> definition. You say he usually pretends to be a working person. As
> far as I can see Moore's persona has not changed since the 1980s when
> he used to live in Flint.
As an independent movie producer, one would say he is a small capitalist. But that says nothing about his films. If he pretends, it is not to be working-class but to be a supporter of the working-class. He may have, probably does have, a pretty foggy definition of class (but so do many on this list (including Chuck), but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the films either. I presume by "middle class" Chuck meand that huge sector of the working class who brush their teeth everyday and sometimes speak fluently. That is, according to Chuck himself, the film is a powerful expression of the _needs_ of the working class (the whole working class -- something like 85-90% of the population), and if it expresses working-class needs, then it is irrelevant what Moore does or does not pretend to be or what class he himself belongs to.
Carrol