Take that, Mr. David Denby

My friend, and KPBX colleague, Robert Glatzer has a letter to the editor published in the July 12 issue of The New Yorker . In it, he criticizes the magazine’s movie reviewer David Denby for remarks he made in his review of Michael Moore’s documentary polemic “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Unfortunately – or fortunately, as sometimes is the case – The New Yorker edits its letters. And that’s what happened to Glatzer. I thought it was only right that the entire letter get published somewhere. And so here it is:

“In his review of Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ David Denby says that ‘… the great documentary filmmakers at least make an attempt, however inadequate, compromised, or hopeless, to arrive at a manysided understanding of some complex situation. Michael Moore is not that kind of filmmaker, nor does he want to be.’ Apparently Mr. Moore is to be excluded from the pantheon. Unfortunately for Mr. Denby’s argument, though, he uses as his examples Marcel Ophuls , presumably for ‘The Sorrow and the Pity’; Frederick Wiseman , presumably for any of his films, but we can use ‘Welfare’ as an example; and Andrew Jarecki , specifically for ‘Capturing the Friedmans.’

“Ophuls’ great documentary consisted almost entirely of interviews with French collaborators with the Nazis and with those in the Resistance who fought them. It did not, and did not intend to, ‘arrive at a many-sided understanding of some complex situation.’ What would have been the ‘complex situation?’ If ever the question of right and justice had a simple answer it was given by the words of those interviewed in the film.

“Wiseman’s ‘Welfare,’ similarly, allowed both welfare applicants and welfare bureaucrats to reveal themselves for the camera. Without editorial commentary it indicted a broken system. Did it examine the ‘complex situation?’ No. It didn’t deal with underfunding, sociological issues, or any of the complexities Mr. Denby postulates. And Jarecki’s film deals with the ambiguities of conflicting statements about crimes and their aftermath within one family. It does not presume even ‘to make an attempt,’ in Denby’s words, to ‘arrive’ anywhere.

“Whether or not Moore is a ‘great’ documentary filmmaker is beside the point here. He has laid out a case – not THE case but A case – against Bush, and it is very powerfully stated. He has supported it with evidence, which may easily be contradicted if false or misleading. Denby may have wished for another film, or another filmmaker, but he should have reviewed ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ on its merits.”