Abstract
Michael Moore’s Roger and Me (1989) was a highly acclaimed
documentary film when it was released in theaters nearly sixteen years ago.
Though scholars have examined the film through a number of critical lenses, none
have looked at it using Ernest Bormann’s Fantasy Theme Analysis (FTA). FTA
is a lens well-suited to examining the dramatic, story-like qualities of the film,
and it illuminates Moore’s rhetorical focus on heroes and villains in ways that no
other study has done. Throughout the film, it becomes clear that Moore is the
kind of rhetor who constructs heroic and villainous personae in the process of
creating a dramatizing message. In effect, he sets the stage for the chaining out of
a specific fantasy regarding GM plant closings in Flint, Michigan during the
1980s. Previous studies acknowledge that Roger and Me is part of the
documentary genre, and this essay adds to the academic discourse surrounding the
film because it demonstrates that documentary filmmakers may also focus on
persona as a primary rhetorical strategy. FTA provides another lens through
which to analyze Roger and Me and documentary films in general, and examine
how they function as forms of persuasive rhetorical discourse.
3
Table of Contents
I. Abstract…………………………………………………………………3
II. Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………...5-15
III. Chapter Two: Heroes in Roger and Me………………………………..16-33
IV. Chapter Three: Villains in Roger and Me……………………………...34-52
V. Chapter Four: Conclusion………………………………………………53-66
VI. References……………………………………………………………...67-69
4
Chapter One: Introduction
Michael Moore’s film Roger and Me (1989) is perhaps one of the most
popular and controversial documentaries of its time. The film tackles the
devastating socioeconomic impact of General Motors (GM) automotive factory
closings in Moore’s hometown of Flint, Michigan during the 1980s. Throughout
the film, Moore’s camera focuses on how members of the working class, GM
management, and the elite class respond to the plant shutdowns. Before the film’s
debut in Flint, Michigan, Moore stated, “‘We wanted to make this film … with
the hopes that not only Flint, but the rest of the country would be concerned about
the growing gap between rich and poor these days”’ (cited in Eisenstein, 1990, p.
9).
The most intriguing aspect of Roger and Me was its ability to produce in
audiences a widespread negative reaction to GM. According to Edsforth (1991),
“Never before had a documentary film so completely critical of corporate
America received the combination of national publicity and critical honors that
Moore’s film garnered” (p. 1145). Prior to the film’s opening, one journalist
wrote, “For three months, ‘Roger & Me’ has been the talk of the movie world.
Critics at film festivals in Colorado, Toronto and New York have heaped praise
on its creator, Michael Moore …” (White, 1989, p. B4). Roger and Me received
more popular acclaim than is typical for a documentary, and it was touted as one
of the best films of 1989 (Sterritt, 1990a; Sterritt, 1990b). When the movie opened
in Flint, Michigan, the response was overwhelmingly positive as viewers
“applauded the film [while] some gave it a standing ovation” (White, 1989, p.
5
B4). The film’s popularity spurred psychologists Bateman, Sakano, and Fujita
(1992) to examine its impact on American as well as Japanese audiences. They
predicted that, “people who had seen the film [would] express more cynical
(negative) attitudes toward Roger Smith and General Motors than … people who
had not viewed the film” (p. 769). The results of the study indicated that
American and Japanese audiences alike came to view GM, and American
businesses in general, in a negative light after watching the film (Bateman,
Sakano, and Fujita, 1992). This commentary provides support for the idea that
Roger and Me is a worthy article of examination even sixteen years after it was
released in movie theaters.
In the years since its theatrical debut, Roger and Me has received
considerable attention from film critics and scholars. In a 1989 interview with
Moore, Harlan Jacobson criticizes the filmmaker for what he believes to be the
purposeful altering of the order of events in the film and for painting an inaccurate
picture of the context surrounding the plant closings. Others, while questioning
the film’s ethics, have touted Roger and Me as an insensitive “satirical” piece,
claiming that Moore uses the unemployed in the film as comedic targets (Cohan
& Crowdus, 1990). Miles Orvell (1994-1995) looks at the film’s place in the
documentary genre and argues that “Roger and Me eschews the tradition of
observational documentary and opts instead for a more complex rhetoric …” (p.
10). Matthew Bernstein (1994) examines the film specifically as a documentary.
Using Bill Nichols’ framework for documentary “modes,” he argues that Roger
and Me makes use of the “conventions of expository and interactive
6
documentaries” (p. 3). Paula Rabinowitz (1999) critiques Roger and Me from a
feminist standpoint, and she describes how the film deals with social class warfare
through “gendered discourses of sentimentality” (p. 47). Carl Plantinga (1992)
claims that Roger and Me is a form of “ironic history,” (p. 512) that it uses
“strategies borrowed from canonical narratives,” and “draws on mythical story
structures,” whereby Moore becomes an ironic hero on a “quest” to help the city
of Flint (p. 514). He uses the terms “hero” and “villain” in his analysis, but like
many other critics, he describes Moore as a singular hero on a “quest for justice,”
who seeks out the villain, GM chair Roger Smith, on behalf of the unemployed in
Flint (p. 514). His critique borrows from the theories of Hayden White, Joseph
Campbell’s conceptualization of the mythical hero, and Vladimir Propp’s
discussion of individuals who assist the hero in his “quest” (p. 514-515).
Though each of the previous studies provide important commentary about
the film’s value in terms of its place in the documentary genre and in the realm of
cinema as a whole, none shed light on the dramatistic rhetorical techniques that
Moore so clearly employs, especially in terms of his unique development of
heroic and villainous personae. Told through the eyes of Moore, Roger and Me
becomes a dramatizing message which makes it an appropriate subject to examine
through Ernest Bormann’s theoretical lens of Fantasy Theme Analysis (FTA).
FTA is a lens well-suited to examining the dramatic, story-like aspects of the film,
and this essay adds to the academic discourse surrounding Roger and Me because
it illuminates Moore’s rhetorical focus on heroes and villains in ways that no
other study has done. Clearly, Michael Moore is the kind of rhetor who
7
constructs heroic and villainous personae, which work together to illuminate the
overriding dramatic fantasy: members of the working class are heroic survivors
who act appropriately in response to the GM plant closings while villainous
members of GM management and the elite class sit idly by and watch the city of
Flint collapse.
FTA provides an appropriate lens to examine why viewers responded so
negatively to GM and Flint’s corporate and wealthy elite after viewing the film.
This theory allows for a better understanding of viewers’ tendency to participate
in a fantasy when they can identify with the personae portrayed in the messages.
More importantly, FTA allows the critic to undertake a close analysis of Moore’s
unique development and characterizations of the working class and GM
management and elite personas. According to Bormann (1982a), “the acting out
of … events by personae in fantasy themes provides explanation and meaning for
those who share the fantasies” (p. 300, footnote 46). He quotes Robert Frost to
further explain a fundamental assumption of FTA: “‘People can never figure
things out for themselves: they have to see them acted out by actors’” (cited in
Bormann, 1982a, p. 300, footnote 46). In this sense, when audience members can
identify with the personae portrayed in the film, they may come to envision their
motivations as indicative of social reality.
Ernest Bormann’s (1972) definitive article, “Fantasy and Rhetorical
Vision: The Rhetorical Criticism of Social Reality” paved the way for the
development of FTA as a critical lens through which to examine the dramatic
qualities of rhetorical discourse. FTA allows the critic to examine how small
8
groups and large audiences may react to the story-like qualities (i.e. dramatic
fantasies) that are embedded in the discourse of political speeches, television
news programs, and films. When the messages are compelling enough, they may
cause a reaction in audience members who then come to identify with the
messages and become “caught up” in the drama. This leads to the chaining out of
fantasy themes, or the sharing of stories, among audience members. Bormann
(1972) maintains that a dramatizing message may chain out beyond the small
group setting and that these dramatizations
are worked into public speeches and into mass media and, in turn, spread
out across larger publics, serve to sustain the members’ sense of
community, to impel them strongly to action … and to provide them with
a social reality filled with heroes, villains, emotions, and attitudes. (p. 398)
Various scholars have utilized FTA as a critical lens through which to analyze
presidential campaigns (Bormann, 1973), media coverage of political events
(Cragan & Shields, 1977; Bormann, Koester, & Bennett, 1978; Bormann, 1982b),
television programming (Brown, 1976), interpersonal relationships in popular
magazines (Kidd, 1975), and messages in popular fictional films (Thomsen,
1993). FTA has proven to be a useful descriptive analysis when applied to a wide
range of communication contexts, but no critic has applied this theory to Moore’s
film, and no study has yet to analyze the documentary film using FTA as its
primary critical lens. FTA allows for a new examination of the unique
characteristics of Moore’s film and documentaries in general, and it can be argued
that documentary filmmakers may focus on persona as a primary rhetorical
strategy.
9
A dramatizing message is defined as, “one that contains one or more of the
following: a pun or other wordplay, a double entendre, a figure of speech, an
analogy, an anecdote, allegory, fable, or narrative” (Bormann, 1985a, p. 4).
According to Bormann (1985a), the primary component of a dramatizing message
“is a narrative or story about real or fictitious people in a dramatic situation or
setting other than the here-and-now communication of the group” (p. 4). Roger
and Me fits the mold of a dramatizing message because it is Moore’s reaction to,
and attempt to make sense of, real events that occurred in Flint, Michigan during
the 1980s. Throughout the film, Moore describes how GM plant closings affect
not only those who lose their jobs, but how these events impact the Flint
community as a whole.
According to Kidd (1998), fantasy is “a term for our perceptual frames.
The stories we tell may be fictional; they may also deal with factual matter, the
dramatization of a genuine event. In every case, however, we deal with
interpretations, how individuals see their world and cast it into dramatic form”
(“Fantasy Theme Analysis”). Roger and Me is “the dramatization of a genuine
event.” It is Moore’s conceptualization of a series of events in Flint, Michigan
that are “cast … into [the] dramatic form,” of a film, and the messages embedded
within may come to be shared by members of a viewing audience. Moore
combines first person narrative discourse with powerful visual images and
interviews with Flint residents to create a detailed picture of Flint, Michigan
during a specific time in history.
10
Bormann (1985a) explains that fantasy can be described in terms of a need
to construct a unique and compelling message in order to fulfill “a psychological
or rhetorical need” (p. 5). The messages in the film combine to create a “dramatic
fantasy” because Moore is a storyteller recalling the events from his own
perspective. The film represents Moore’s chance to sound off with a distinct
interpretation of GM’s impact on his hometown. GM’s announcement, via CEO
Roger Smith, of plans to close numerous automotive plants and eliminate
thousands of working class jobs represent what Andrews (1983) calls “the
rhetorical imperative.” This includes “the events that [make] it possible or
necessary for a speaker to address an audience at all” (p. 18). In other words, the
reality of the GM plant closings and subsequent job eliminations in Flint are what
spurred Moore to make the film in the first place. Moore is a rhetor who wants a
particular viewing audience to realize the importance of these events. Consider
his comment in a 1989 article in the Wall Street Journal: “‘Roger and Me strikes
a nerve … A lot of people know something isn’t right. As for fairness [the film
presents] one side. It’s my side’” (cited in White, 1989, p. B4).
Throughout the film, Moore’s construction of heroic and villainous
personae combine to create a larger, more significant message regarding the GM
situation in Flint. Heroes and villains are a central aspect of the dramatizing
message, and the inclusion of these types of characters provides insight into the
“theme” of the film and the type of audience that the rhetor is addressing. In his
fantasy theme analysis of teachers portrayed in Hollywood films, Thomsen (1993)
explains, “Frequently, characters are portrayed as heroes and villains and placed
11
in some form of confrontation to symbolize the message or theme of the text” (p.
75). In The Force of Fantasy: Restoring the American Dream, Bormann (1985a)
states the following:
When people dramatize an event, they must select certain characters to be
the focus of the story and present them in a favorable light while selecting
others to be portrayed in a more negative fashion. Without protagonists
(heroes) and antagonists (villains) there is little drama. (pp. 9-10)
Bormann’s discussion of heroes and villains is important, because it highlights the
rhetor’s ability to develop unique characterizations and exaggerate differences
between those that he supports or criticizes. FTA allows for the examination of
binary oppositions as they connect to the rhetor’s construction of personae. One
of Moore’s primary strategies throughout the film is to create a dichotomy
between members of the working class and members of GM management and the
elite class.
The complex nature of the dramatic fantasy can be illuminated through an
examination of the rhetor’s unique development of characters. When studying a
dramatizing message Bormann (1972) suggests that the critic ask the following
questions: “How concrete and detailed are the characterizations? [What are the]
Motives attributed? … What values are inherent in the praiseworthy characters?”
(p. 401). These questions are relevant to an analysis of Moore’s film because he
creates binaries in order to make a distinction between the heroes and villains, and
to help the audience realize the heart of the economic crisis in Flint. Moore
valorizes the exploits of the working class community while denouncing the
tactics of both GM management and members of the elite class. In effect, the
audience is expected to recognize that the working class and elite classes are
12
markedly different and situated at distinct ends of the survival spectrum. When
GM closes many of its factory doors, members of the working class are motivated
to employ every means possible in order to survive while members of the elite
power structure denounce working class struggles and attend lavish parties.
Members of the working class community are constructed as heroes
throughout the film, and Moore places their concerns at the forefront of his
message. These are the people who are negatively affected by the plant closings;
they have the most to lose, yet they refuse to allow these events to crush their will
to survive. These individuals are heroes, but not in the way that one might think.
They are survivors rather than saviors. For example, Moore speaks with a woman
whose husband, once employed by GM, is deceased. Her primary source of
income is a social security check, which does not provide her with the means to
support her family. In order to supplement her meager income she sells rabbits as
“pets or meat,” and slaughters them to feed her own needy family (Moore, 1989).
In this sense, she is an example of a hero, albeit an atypical one, because she is
doing everything in her power to survive, despite tremendous odds.
Moore’s conversations and interviews with members of the working class
are examples of what Andrews (1983) calls “testimony,” or “supporting material”
(p. 53). These people are experts on the subject of unemployment and economic
devastation at the hands of GM. Andrews (1983) explains that “testimony by a
relevant expert enhances the logical quality of the conclusions reached by the
speaker. It may also serve to promote audience confidence in the speaker by
allying him or her with recognized authority” (p. 54). This presentation of
13
testimony is important because it sheds light on how “understandable and
believable,” in terms of audience perspective, the overall message really is
(Andrews, 1983, p. 53).
In contrast to the heroes, villains are personified in members of GM
management and in members of the wealthy class. Moore maintains that these
two groups of individuals disregard the disastrous impact of the GM plant
closings. They have little to lose and much to gain (economically) because they
do not possess jobs in the working class sector. Their opinions of GM’s actions
and its influence on Flint represent a striking contrast to the responses of the
working class. Members of GM management are constructed as villains because
they do not seem to care that the plants have closed, nor do they seem concerned
about the human consequences that invariably result from the plant shutdowns.
One example is Moore’s conversation with GM lobbyist Tom Kaye, who claims
that plant shutdowns and layoffs are a necessary evil, that GM must do what it has
to do in order to remain competitive in the auto industry (Moore, 1989). In
Moore’s eyes Kaye is a villain because he does not care to act on behalf of the
city or its working class residents; his commentary reveals no sympathy or regard
for the plight of the working class.
Responses on behalf of wealthy residents in Flint also reveal why they are
constructed as villains. The elite describe Flint as a wonderful place to live, and
they maintain that the unemployed are lazy and “need to get their own motors
going” (Moore, 1989, scene 7). By portraying members of the elite class in
scenes of leisure, Moore is building an important binary. Though the elite suggest
14
that working class citizens are lazy, their comments are contradictory because
they actually appear more visually passive than any of the working class
individuals portrayed in the film.
In commentary following the film, Moore (2003) refers to a group of
wealthy elderly women on a golf outing and makes the comment, “While Rome
burned, they golfed” (“Commentary by Michael Moore”). Though this statement
may seem lighthearted and comic at first glance, under the surface it becomes the
defining metaphor for members of GM management and the elite class throughout
the entirety of the film. In essence, the binaries that Moore develops are
inherently connected to this metaphor, which alludes to the overriding dramatic
fantasy: active members of the heroic working class recognize the economic and
social devastation that the GM plant closings will invariably bring. In effect, they
do everything they can to survive while the passive villains sit idly by and watch
the city fall to pieces.
The following chapters contain an in-depth analysis of members of the
working class, GM management, and the elite class and how they are constructed
as either heroes or villains. The conclusion demonstrates how FTA illuminates
Moore’s use of rhetorical strategies, and how these strategies combine to create a
distinctive rhetorical message. Roger and Me is really Moore’s attempt to dispel
myths about working class complacency and to demonstrate that during times of
crisis, it is the people with the power, those in control of the system, who sit
passively and watch the community disintegrate.
15
Chapter Two: Heroes in Roger and Me
Over the years, rhetorical critics have discovered that speakers focus on
heroic and villainous personae as a means to construct salient messages that will
compel their audiences to think or act in some way. In his fantasy theme analysis
of “The Eagleton Affair,” Bormann (1973) describes how speakers may construct
a social reality by denouncing the exploits of their opponents while valorizing the
qualities of those they support. Throughout Roger and Me, it becomes clear that
Moore’s rhetoric focuses on persona: he identifies the heroic qualities of working
class citizens while demonstrating the villainous characteristics of representatives
of GM management and Flint’s wealthy class. As a rhetor, Moore must construct
his message to appeal to an audience that will become caught up in his
dramatization, identify with the heroes, be critical of the villains, and ultimately
come to share his point of view. Moore’s rhetorical focus on heroes and villains
serves to illuminate the defining metaphor for the entire film - “While Rome
burned, they golfed.” He provides detailed characterizations and images of each
persona to make his points more salient. This chapter focuses on Moore’s
construction of heroes in the working class community in the film.
In Roger and Me, Moore (1989) creates a narrative account depicting real
events that occurred in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. He expresses concern
about the impact of GM plant closings on his friends and on the community as a
whole. Bormann (1980) explains that when a rhetor reconstructs certain events,
he or she develops a narrative structure for these events thereby demonstrating
how and why the events unfold. “The narrative form implies or attributes
16
motivations to the personae and may provide an explanation based on lawfulness
or the will of a supreme being rather than on chance or accident” (Bormann, 1980,
p. 190). Throughout the film, Moore continuously cites the GM plant closings and
layoffs as the primary contributor to working class hardships. Viewers are led to
believe that the plant closings, which contribute to economic devastation,
motivate certain working class individuals to seek out alternative means of
subsistence. Moore implies that these individuals ‘smell the smoke’; they
recognize that Flint’s economic structure is crumbling, and they act decisively in
response. Bormann’s (1980) description of how speakers reconstruct events and
formulate narrative accounts holds true for Moore’s representation of events in
Flint, Michigan. As the director and narrator of Roger and Me, Moore describes
his own perceptions of General Motors’ plant closings and how they impact the
town.
I got the idea to make this movie one day when Roger Smith came on
television in Flint and announced that he was laying off another thirty
thousand people, ten thousand of which would be in Flint. I just thought
well, the hell with this, I’ve got [to] do something about it and I thought
… why don’t I make a movie … (Moore, 2003, “Commentary by Michael
Moore”)
Moore’s previous comments demonstrate his concern for the jobs that are lost and
the inevitable impact this will have on the working class community. As a rhetor
retelling a series of events from his own perspective, Moore’s ideas must appear
plausible, and he must present them in a vivid and imaginative way. A primary
aspect of his rhetorical strategy is to dramatize heroic aspects of the working class
persona. Throughout the film, Moore confronts a dynamic group of working class
individuals who employ distinct methods of survival in reaction to the GM plant
17
closings. Moore’s conversations and interviews with working class citizens
provide the viewer with firsthand testimony about the negative impact of plant
closings in Flint. In this sense, former GM employees and working class citizens
become resident experts or authorities on life in Flint during the 1980s. They
recognize the impending crisis and act accordingly.
Bormann (1972) explains that a rhetor’s goal is to influence an audience,
“to get a fantasy to chain out,” and in the process of doing this he or she may
construct certain individuals as heroes “by attributing praiseworthy motivation”
(p. 407). Indeed, this is what Moore does when constructing the working class
persona in the film. He portrays the most salient images of survival among
members of the working class community. As a result, the working class persona
portrayed throughout the film is dynamic and resourceful, and it becomes clear
that these individuals are motivated by an inherent need to survive, something that
Moore commends.
According to Bormann (1983), it is inevitable that a rhetor’s bias will
come out in the final product, because they are demonstrating their own
understanding of events, the way they remember the events, and ultimately the
way they want an audience to remember the events. “When [speakers] attribute
motives to the people in the story, they further slant and organize, and interpret”
(Bormann, 1983, p. 436). This is essentially what Moore does with working class
interviews and commentary. He focuses on specific aspects of the working class
persona as part of his rhetorical strategy in order to provide first-hand testimony
from real people about the negative effects of GM plant closings, and also to
18
demonstrate that working class individuals are heroes who refuse to give up hope
in spite of their constant struggles.
Heroic characters are a salient aspect of the dramatizing message, and a
rhetor may develop heroes in order to convey the primary theme of his or her
message. In Roger and Me, Moore constructs heroic characters in the working
class because they connect to his theme of survival amidst economic devastation.
The term hero is connected with persona, which is defined in terms of the way a
“character” appears in the narrative, or how the individual is portrayed (Bormann,
1973, footnote 2). In this sense, heroic qualities may or may not be an aspect of
an individual’s persona depending on how the rhetor describes the individual
throughout the narrative. Kidd (1998) claims that all narratives must include a
“central character” who is often defined as a hero, and who must have a primary
purpose or “goal” in the dramatizing message. She explains that heroic characters
must be constructed in such a way as to invoke sympathy in audience members
(“Fantasy Theme Analysis”).
A hero is often thought of as a person who will save the day, someone
who will correct societal wrongs, but interpretations are not always accurate. Kidd
(1998) addresses the ambiguity of the hero’s role and explains that heroic
characters in a narrative do not always act in stereotypically “heroic” ways
(“Fantasy Theme Analysis”). Rather than highlighting a single hero, there are a
number of heroic characters portrayed in Roger and Me. Moore focuses on
certain individuals who represent his notion of the working class persona in Flint.
They struggle with personal devastation, job loss, and economic decline, but
19
continue to endure. They are representative of people in society who perform
heroic feats on a daily basis, the single mothers who work two minimum wage
jobs to support their children; they are the individuals who may never be
recognized as heroes, but Moore demonstrates that they do in fact exist.
Interviews with the “rabbit woman,” Deputy Fred Ross, Janet the Amway
representative, and former GM employees who accept jobs at a local prison
demonstrate the testimony of a group of survivors, and provide the viewer with a
first-hand look at the dire state of affairs in Flint, Michigan during the 1980s. In
highlighting the “rabbit woman” persona, Moore demonstrates the extreme
measures a person is spurred to take in order to survive. Through the Deputy
Ross persona, Moore allows the viewer to step into Ross’s shoes and observe the
heroic qualities of a man who must evict his neighbors in order to survive. The
Janet and prison guard personas provide important commentary about the idea
that working class citizens refuse to give up, even when it means settling for less
than satisfactory means of employment.
Moore presents interviews and commentary from working class personae,
and in doing so he conveys the theme of survival amidst economic devastation.
Faced with difficult circumstances, they do everything in their power to make
ends meet, even if that means settling for unconventional means of subsistence.
According to Edsforth (1991), some of Moore’s encounters with the formerly
employed “reveal a Darwinian struggle for survival” (p. 1146). Nowhere is this
more evident than in Moore’s conversations with a woman who advertises rabbits
as “pets or meat.” Scholars have addressed this woman’s role in the film, and
20
their critiques vary, but most describe her as tragic, or claim that Moore is poking
fun at her ignorance (Cohan & Crowdus, 1990; Harkness, 1990). According to
Orvell (1994-1995), the “rabbit woman” is the subject of Moore’s “ridicule.”
She, among others, “is simply given enough rope to hang [herself] with” and
Orvell does not sympathize with her in the least (pp. 15-16). These criticisms
imply that the “rabbit woman” is one dimensional, and they do not account for the
dynamic aspects of her character or her motivations. FTA allows the critic to
examine the “rabbit woman” in a different light and to illuminate her motivations
as they are part of Moore’s dramatic fantasy.
The “rabbit woman” is clearly an example of a heroic persona or
sympathetic character in the film. Moore initially approaches her at her rundown
home where she keeps caged rabbits in the backyard. She explains that she sells
the rabbits as an extra source of income because her social security check does not
provide enough money to make ends meet. The woman describes her “rabbit
business” in a methodical way: it is a normal, everyday practice. When Moore
approaches her, she simply says, “Yeah. You want pets or meat? … They’re
already dressed and cleaned” (Moore, 1989, scene 18). Here, it becomes evident
that she is motivated by an inherent need to survive. In commentary following
the film, Moore explains that the woman’s husband had worked for GM, but that
he died suddenly. As a result, she is forced to rely on government assistance to
put food on the table (Moore, 2003, “Commentary by Michael Moore”).
Moore claims that he initially confronted the woman because he wanted to
see how she was able to get by during trying times. His later comments, “That’s a
21
tough thing to do when you’re raising kids,” reveal his respect for this woman
(Moore, 2003, “Commentary by Michael Moore”). Moore revisits the “rabbit
woman” during a later scene in the film, where it is discovered that her rabbit
business has been deemed unfit by the local health authority. In order to meet
health regulations, she is now required to construct a sanitary facility for housing
and slaughtering her rabbits (Moore, 1989, scene 26). In this sense, the woman’s
attempts to survive are thwarted by a higher authority, something that she has no
control over; her attempt to sustain her family is ultimately deemed unfit by
societal standards and expectations. Perhaps it is difficult to accept this woman as
a hero because she does not fit society’s definition of normal, but Moore is using
the “rabbit woman” persona to explain that the norm does not apply given the
circumstances in Flint during that time. In this sense, “the rabbit woman’s”
motivations are “praiseworthy” because she refuses to back down in the face of an
economic crisis.
Later in the same scene, the camera focuses on the woman as she
bludgeons a rabbit with a metal pipe. Though this action may appear crude or
violent, it is implied that the woman does not have a choice. She then
demonstrates the primitive method in which she skins and butchers the rabbit.
The ease with which she does this suggests that it has become a commonplace
routine, and that it does not bother her because it is necessary. As she skins the
rabbit, she explains, “I was brought up to learn to survive …” (Moore, 1989,
scene 26). This statement is powerful because it verifies her actions and
demonstrates her resilient nature. Moore follows the woman’s statement with the
22
question, “Do you think it’s hard to survive in Flint these days?” She responds,
“Yes … People just ain’t got the money like they used to anymore [and] can’t be
buying things … that’s why I said my rabbit meat usually went” (scene 26). The
woman’s comments reveal that her business is dying not only because the health
inspector shut it down, but because the town is dying as well. The “rabbit
woman” persona contributes to one of Moore’s primary themes: during times of
crisis the righteous people, the true survivors, act in any way that they can, and it
becomes part of the age-old cliché, ‘when the going gets tough, the tough get
going.’
Moore’s question about survival in Flint is a clever move from the
woman’s comment about her own attempts to survive. He includes this woman
because she is an exceptional example of the negative effects of GM plant
closings. Moore provides the viewer with scenes where she is depicted as a
survivor, as a kind of working class hero. This is what Moore chooses to focus on
in order to convey one aspect of the dynamic working class persona. The “rabbit
woman” is an atypical example of a hero because she is not a savior. Instead, she
is a true survivor, the product of a society that leaves her to fend for herself in a
time of crisis. This idea becomes evident in Moore’s commentary following the
film:
What really struck me, and still strikes me about this scene to this day is
that you’ve got … a third world situation here, where you’ve got
somebody living off these rabbits …In the hometown of the world’s
richest corporation … we’ve got this bunny slaughter going on in order to
try and make ends meet. (Moore, 2003, “Commentary by Michael
Moore”)
23
Moore’s comments verify why he includes this woman in the film, and he
suggests that it is inherently wrong for people to be struggling to survive when
GM is one of the most profitable industries on the planet. He validates the “rabbit
woman’s” testimony as an important part of the dramatic fantasy. Moore
connects the “rabbit woman’s” struggles to GM’s actions, and in doing so he adds
to the theme of his film. He focuses on this woman’s persona as an extreme
example in order to explain how GM plant closings affect the working class.
It is interesting to note that Moore’s portrayal of this woman has been
criticized as distasteful, as “grotesque rather than human” (Harkness, 1990, p.
131). This criticism probably stems from his decision to include the “rabbit
slaughtering” scene. This would seem “grotesque” to those who do not
understand what it means to scrape by, but Moore implies that this woman has no
choice. Moore claims that he went back and forth with himself over whether or
not to include the scene, but in the end he decided to include it because it was
indicative of reality. “In the end this is what happens … welcome to the third
world inside the hometown of General Motors” (Moore, 2003, “Commentary by
Michael Moore”). In this sense, it seems that Moore wants the viewer to identify
with the “rabbit woman,” to recognize the extreme measures she must take as a
result of GM’s actions.
Moore presents other working class personae in the film whose attempts to
survive demonstrate their heroic qualities. In a number of scenes, Moore’s
camera focuses on the sheriff’s deputy, Fred Ross, as he evicts people who cannot
afford to pay their rent. Like his working class counterparts, Deputy Ross does
24
everything that he can to sustain himself in a declining economic climate. Cohan
acknowledges Ross as a survivor and kind of “odd folk hero” in the film (cited in
Cohan & Crowdus, 1990, “Reflections on Roger and Me”). The first scene in
which the viewer becomes acquainted with Ross demonstrates the difficult nature
of his position. He arrives at a person’s home and proceeds to use a pair of pliers
in order to break into the house and evict the tenant. Ross describes the way he
deals with the tenants he is forced to evict. “I treat a person the way I would like
to be treated … I explain to them that I gotta job to do [and] the court issued the
order, not me” (Moore, 1989, scene 8). Ross’s comment may seem like a copout, but it is important to recognize that he too is a product of the capitalistic
economic system, and his position allows him to witness the human tragedy that
results from the GM plant closings. In this sense, Ross is not in state of denial.
He goes on to say, “Out here I put out some good people. You have a lot of
people in this town paying [eight to nine hundred] dollars a month [in rent and]
that’s a lot of money to try to pay on unemployment …” (scene 8). FTA brings
the dynamic qualities of the Ross persona to the surface, and like the “rabbit
woman,” he is not simply a flat, robotic character. He recognizes the
misalignment in an economic system that expects people to pay high rent prices
when there are no well-paying jobs available.
Ross’s commentary reveals concern for those who are losing their jobs (“I
put out some good people”) and who cannot afford to pay rent. At the same time,
Ross’s role is somewhat contradictory. In order to support himself, he must
remove working class residents from their own homes, forcing them to start over
25
again. He is placed in an awkward position because he is a survivor who in some
ways contributes to the struggles of his working class counterparts. He
acknowledges their suffering, but continues to carry out evictions. In spite of this,
Ross implies that he receives his orders from a higher power (“the court issued the
order, not me”) and he must carry out these orders in order to ensure his own
continued existence. Though he is placed in a difficult situation, he has no other
choice if he wishes to keep his job. In effect, Ross becomes a kind of middle man
who has the ability to observe and comment on the declining state of Flint’s
economy. At one point, Moore accompanies Ross as he attempts to evict an
African-American woman who is struggling to pay rent and support her children.
Following their encounter with this woman, Ross explains that she will ultimately
be evicted. He provides insight into the fact that she has a new husband who will
probably not be able to provide for the family or help pay the rent. Ross states, “I
can’t imagine anyone getting married to someone as poor as you. It gets kinda
rough … I always tell women you can be poor by yourself. You don’t need any
help, and she just got some help being poor” (Moore, 1989, scene 12).
Ross’s comments demonstrate concern for his working class counterparts.
Like the “rabbit woman,” Ross provides a first-hand perspective on the difficulty
of getting by during a time of economic chaos. On another level, however, one
aspect of Ross’s persona that sets him apart from the “rabbit woman” is the fact
that he is a direct observer of the suffering of others and represents another kind
of authority on the negative impact of GM plant closings. Ross’s heroic qualities
stem from the concern and human compassion evident in his comments and the
26
way he deals with the people he evicts. Here we must consider Harkness’s (1990)
statement that he is perhaps the most “sympathetic” individual portrayed in the
film (p. 131). Ross explains, “I’ve put out some of my best friends, nothing
personal you know. They know me [and] they know what I do. If they’re lucky
enough to draw me, at least they’ve got somebody they can talk to” (Moore, 1989,
scene 22). The Ross persona brings another aspect of Moore’s dramatic fantasy
to the surface, that there is something wrong with a system that forces an
individual to evict his friends and neighbors in order to survive. Moore’s use of
the Ross persona becomes a rhetorical strategy to highlight the severity of the
socioeconomic situation in Flint. This is important because, as Bormann (1985a)
explains, audiences are more likely to become caught up in the dramatic fantasy
when they see the essence of chaotic and confusing societal events acted out by a
character with whom they can identify.
In commentary following the film, Moore refers to Ross as “a kind of
street philosopher” (Moore, 2003, “Commentary by Michael Moore”). Ross
provides insight into what the working class should not do if they want to make
ends meet. He can only hope that they realize this because he too is a survivor,
not a savior. He does not have the means to pull these people out of difficult
economic situations because he is also forced to survive on a working class wage.
Ross is one aspect of the dynamic working class persona who serves to
demonstrate the theme of Moore’s film. Moore aims to convince viewers of
Ross’s heroic qualities by allowing them to step into Ross’s shoes and
demonstrate that Ross understands the human tragedy and economic chaos that
27
stem from the plant closings. This is evident in Ross’s commentary regarding the
GM plant closings in Flint. “If things go down, if they close up [more] plants
here, this town’s gonna be a rough place” (Moore, 1989, scene 9). Here viewers
are led to believe that GM plant closings lead to job loss, which leads to economic
decline, and ultimately prevents working class individuals from sustaining their
once comfortable lifestyles. The Ross persona is testimony to this theme. He has
an important place in the film because he deals directly with the people who
suffer the most.
Moore implies that Ross holds one of the few secure jobs left in Flint and
he must continue to evict his working class counterparts because he has no other
option. Ross may also be considered heroic because he acknowledges his own
mortal flaws. His comments verify this: “You think I like this; I got other things I
could be doing; it’s a job; somebody[’s] gotta do it” (Moore, 1989, scene 25).
Ross is not completely situated at the heroic end of the survival spectrum, but
Moore suggests that he is getting there. Based on his position, he acknowledges
that something is amiss in Flint, which is precisely what members of GM
management and the elite classes are reluctant to admit.
In subsequent scenes, Moore’s camera focuses on working class
individuals whose attempts to maintain job security after GM layoffs demonstrate
their heroic qualities. In one scene, the viewer is introduced to Janet, a former
feminist radio host, as she gives a presentation to a group of women, describing
her experience selling Amway products. As the camera focuses on Janet, Moore
claims that she turned to Amway as an extra source of income. “Although her
28
husband was still working at GM, she had seen many of her friends laid off and
didn’t want to take any chances” (Moore, 1989, scene 16). The Janet persona
serves an important rhetorical function in terms of illuminating another aspect of
Moore’s dramatic fantasy. In commentary following the film, Moore explains, “I
filmed so many stories of these people who were trying to come up with …
second jobs because they knew the end was near, and that there were more and
more jobs that were [going to be] lost and … they were trying to come up with
different things to do to make money” (Moore, 2003, “Commentary by Michael
Moore”). In this sense, Moore implies that the real heroes take on extra jobs or
responsibilities in response to the impending economic crisis. They work with
what they have and remain optimistic in the face of devastating circumstances.
Janet becomes a heroic persona because she takes it upon herself to ensure that
her family will be able to make ends meet if her husband loses his job at GM. In
a sense, she is taking out a much needed insurance policy and making selfless
sacrifices to preserve her family.
Moore’s camera focuses on Janet as she conducts a “color analysis” on
another woman. She appears to be overly enthusiastic about her new position as
an Amway product distributor and explains, “I get a small commission on every
account” (Moore, 1989, scene 16). She remains positive, even when considering
the fact that the meager commission she earns working for Amway does not
match the effort she puts into it. Like the “rabbit woman” her effort and ingenuity
are only minimally rewarded, if at all. Though Janet’s family will probably not be
29
able to rely solely on her Amway commission, she remains optimistic and refuses
to give up.
Despite Janet’s worthy and human attempts at survival, some scholars
misinterpret her place in the film, and reject her role as a viable working class
hero. For instance, Plantinga (1992) describes Janet’s role in the film as useless,
claiming that she adds nothing to Moore’s “quest” for knowledge (p. 516).
Again, critiques like this fail to account for the dynamic qualities of Janet’s
character, something that FTA really illuminates. Like her working class
counterparts, the Janet persona is an important part of the dramatic fantasy
because she presents crucial testimony about what it means to make sacrifices
during trying times, adding to Moore’s theme of survival amidst economic
devastation. Through the Janet persona it is implied that employment at GM is
unstable, and as a result working class individuals often have to resort to
superficial means of subsistence. Her input should not be disregarded as
worthless. Janet is heroic in that she does all that she can with the resources
available to her, and Moore presents her as true survivor in a time of economic
uncertainty.
In later scenes, Moore provides the viewer with examples of former auto
workers who accept positions at Flint’s new prison after losing their jobs at GM.
At this point the viewer must recognize the sarcasm in Moore’s tone. He does not
seem to be criticizing the individuals who accept the prison guard positions;
instead, he criticizes the idea that these jobs can fill the economic void left by
30
GM, that skilled workers must accept essentially demeaning positions. In
commentary following the film, Moore explains,
This is very sad here … these are guys who … used to have a job at
General Motors and now they’re prison guards, and of course the people
in the jail are a lot of people who also used to have jobs in Flint and hit
hard times, and unfortunately turned to crime. (Moore, 2003,
“Commentary by Michael Moore”)
Moore’s comments demonstrate sympathy for these displaced members of the
working class. They serve an important rhetorical function because, similar to
Ross, they are enmeshed in the human tragedy that stems from the plant closings.
In the film, Moore provides testimony from some of the former auto workers who
accept work as prison guards.
The prison guards are placed in an awkward position because they are
often forced to watch over former friends and co-workers who have become
prison inmates. One man explains, “It’s kinda sad if you see somebody that you
know or had done something with on the outside … but I guess you get over it”
(Moore, 1989, scene 20). Another man states, “Money’s not an object right now;
if I can improve myself morally, money will come later. It’s almost half of what I
was making at General Motors, but I like the work a lot better” (scene 20). This
guard’s comments are more optimistic than they should be for someone in his
position. It seems as though he is trying to convince himself (“money will come
later”; “I like the work a lot better”) that the positive aspects of his new position
outweigh the negative. As the man speaks, commotion and the voices of angry
prisoners are heard in the background, something that the prison guards probably
deal with on a daily basis. The prison guards are heroic because they attempt to
31
maintain a positive outlook even after witnessing their former friends turn to
crime. They accept cuts in pay, if only to maintain a living wage and survive in a
declining economic climate.
The prison guards’ goals are human and realistic, something that a
viewing audience should be able to identify with. Like the Ross persona, they
make individual sacrifices and must accept deplorable working conditions if they
wish to achieve their goal for survival. Despite the fact that GM has left them
high and dry, they refuse to give up. In this sense, these men must be
acknowledged as heroes for their willingness to accept this kind of employment
and their continued attempt to make an honest living. Like the Janet persona, they
remain optimistic in spite of difficult circumstances. Their comments provide
important testimony for the idea that working class individuals, once employed by
GM, are doing everything they can to survive, no matter what the circumstances.
At this point it is important to reconsider the decisions Moore made while
reconstructing events in a narrative format. He chooses certain working class
personae to portray the theme of survival amidst economic devastation, and in
doing so he provides a subjective representation of these individuals and their
respective actions. According to Bormann (1983), all rhetors invariably present
biased interpretations of the individuals they describe throughout the discourse,
and as a result they “[begin] to shape and organize experiences” (pp. 435-436). It
is important to consider why Moore chooses to include various scenes with the
“rabbit woman,” Deputy Ross, Janet, and the prison guards. As Kidd (1998)
explains, “a story must have a central persona, a sympathetic character for the
32
audience to identify with,” someone that audience members applaud and look up
to (“Fantasy Theme Analysis”). In this sense, rhetors must be able demonstrate
the “human traits” in the characters they portray, and verify why they are
“sympathetic,” in order to affect a viewing audience (“Fantasy Theme Analysis”).
If GM’s actions are wrong, then the audience can see the direct results of this
wrongdoing in members of the working class. Moore’s use of human characters
to demonstrate the idea that GM’s actions were unwarranted is an important
rhetorical strategy. FTA really brings forth a distinct understanding of the
working class role in adding to Moore’s fantasy about the GM plant closings in
Flint. Members of the working class exude the central values embodied in
Moore’s fantasy, that during times of economic chaos community members
should be active rather than passive. Their testimony serves to make the message
more believable and to demonstrate that survival is a realistic, human goal.
33
Chapter Three: Villains in Roger and Me
Throughout the film, Moore constructs villainous personae in members of
GM management and the elite class in order to demonstrate how they disregard
working class struggles and do nothing in response to the plant closings. The
working class testimony is telling, but in a sense it is not enough. Just as a rhetor
constructs heroic characters that the audience may identify with, he or she must
also present villainous characters “who thwart the protagonist’s efforts to achieve
laudable goals [and] evoke in the sympathetic participant unpleasant emotional
responses and dislike” (Bormann, 1985b, p. 130). In other words, in order for an
audience to become caught up in the dramatizing message, or for a fantasy to
chain out, the rhetor must paint a distinct picture of the differences between the
heroic and villainous personae in order to verify why the heroes’ goals and
motivations are more valiant. By placing members of GM management and the
elite in contexts where they appear passive and ambivalent, a direct contrast to the
working class, Moore provides reason for the viewer to despise them. When the
city of Flint becomes a crumbling dynasty, Moore implies that its wealthy citizens
watch it “burn” from afar. They hide away in their castles and separate
themselves from the tragedy of the situation. This chapter describes Moore’s
construction of villainous personae in Roger and Me.
In the film, the working class heroes’ testimony provides crucial evidence
for the fact that they are doing everything they can to sustain themselves in a
declining economic climate. At the same time, viewers need understand how the
villains are contributing to the heroes’ plight and how that combines to create the
34
drama. Kidd (1998) explains that if an audience is to identify with the heroes, the
narrative must include one or more villainous or “negative” personae who are
“out to stop the central character[s] from accomplishing [their] goal” (“Fantasy
Theme Analysis”). Just as the term hero can be misconstrued, the notion of
villain can also be misleading because those who oppose or stand in the way of
the heroes’ goals are not always “villainous,” or bound and determined to
purposefully harm the heroes (Kidd, 1998, “Fantasy Theme Analysis”). Members
of GM management and the elite class are not villains in the sense that they are
‘out to get’ the working class, or that they directly create their suffering; they are
villains in the sense that they fail to acknowledge the working class struggle to
survive, they do not act, and they do not seem to consider how GM has
contributed to Flint’s economic decline.
Moore presents specific examples of GM management and elite class
personas in order to portray them as villains and to demonstrate how they stand in
the way of working class goals. Again, it is important to reiterate Bormann’s
(1983) comment that a rhetor’s interpretation of people and events is inherently
biased. He explains, “when [rhetors] attribute motives to people in the story, they
further slant, organize, and interpret” (p. 436). Unlike Moore’s rhetorical
construction of a dynamic working class persona, the wealthy and elite personas
are portrayed as static individuals who provide hollow responses to questions
about the plant closings. Part of Moore’s rhetorical strategy with the villains is to
present them in contexts where they are honest and express precisely how they
feel about the economic situation in Flint. Moore interviews them in settings of
35
leisure, at parties and golf outings, where they appear passive and aloof, a direct
contrast to their working class counterparts. In these contexts, the elite
demonstrate their opinions about the GM plant closings and about members of the
working class specifically.
Comments from GM management representatives like the Tom Kaye
persona demonstrate his villainous nature because he supports GM’s actions and
offers unrealistic solutions to Flint’s economic woes. Interviews with wealthy
Flint residents at The Great Gatsby party demonstrate that villains exist among the
elite because they do not seem to acknowledge Flint’s economic crisis, and
because they suggest that unemployed working class individuals are lazy. Moore
interviews elderly women at a Flint golf club to demonstrate that villains can be
found in unlikely places. Like the wealthy elite at the Great Gatsby party, these
women provide inaccurate commentary about the unemployed and make
erroneous assumptions about working class complacency. These individuals are
examples of villains because they do not seem to acknowledge or sympathize with
members of the working class or even offer ways to help them. In this sense, they
add to the working class struggle to survive. Moore portrays them as villains to
demonstrate how difficult it will be, aside from lack of employment opportunities,
for the working class to attain or sustain a comfortable lifestyle. Without
acknowledgement of their circumstances, they will remain stuck in a vicious cycle
always struggling to make ends meet.
Members of GM management and the elite class in the film are
constructed as villains because they blame the people rather than the economic
36
system. They fail to consider possible flaws in GM policies and actions and seem
to believe that members of the working class themselves are entirely at fault for
their dispositions. They assume that the working class can automatically change
their circumstances if they “just get up and do something.” It is easy for the
villains to rationalize because they are operating from a different worldview.
Included in Moore’s dramatic fantasy is the notion that members of GM
management and the elite class are villains because they fail to acknowledge that
members of the working class are in fact survivors. Their comments demonstrate
their naivety, and they make assumptions about the working class without any
evidence to back their claims. This is part of Moore’s rhetorical strategy, and he
does not have to say anything directly to the viewer because their individual
comments and overall demeanor indict them.
Previous scholars have acknowledged how Moore’s interviews with GM
officials and the elite class demonstrate their disregard for working class
struggles. According to Edsforth (1991), “[In the film] we … recognize the pitiful
ignorance of the rich who choose not to know the social reality that surrounds
them” (p. 1146). Bernstein (1994) explains that “[Moore] shows the debilitating
effects of rampant corporate greed in the 1980s in part by demonstrating through
interviews … the callousness of the haves toward the have-nots” (p. 10). Others
have argued that Moore’s interviews with these individuals are manipulative and
tactless. According to Crowdus,
the city’s wealthy, smug, self satisfied elite make for easy targets. They’re
often captured in inherently ridiculous settings … so their fatuous
comments and silly behavior seem even more reprehensi[b]le than they
ordinarily would. When they’re not providing enough self-incriminating
37
comments [,] Moore helps them along by asking leading questions …
(cited in Cohan & Crowdus, 1990, “Reflections on Roger and Me”)
Rabinowitz (1999) claims that “Moore fails to get close to the real boss, Roger
Smith, so he goes for the cheap shot, the vacuous country club wives of Chevy’s
middle managers who declare Flint a wonderful city and wonder why everyone is
complaining” (pp. 49-50). According to Kael (1990), whose film review
appeared in the New Yorker, Moore’s interviews with members of upper class
society in Flint make them look like fools. She states, “He asks them broad
questions about the high rate of unemployment and the soaring crime rate, and
their responses make them look like phonies or stupes …” (p. 91).
The previous criticisms provide important explanations of the seemingly
vicious nature of individuals that make up the corporate and wealthy elite classes,
but they do not account for detailed examinations of the characters and their
motivations. FTA allows the critic to move past a surface analysis of members of
GM management and the elite class and recognize how they add to Moore’s
rhetorical message. As Bormann explains (1985a), drama does not exist unless
the rhetor can demonstrate the marked differences between the heroes and villains
and describe how they are in opposition to one another. By placing the elite in
these contexts, Moore is developing an important rhetorical binary which allows
the audience to visualize the glamour and sloth that characterizes these
individuals. In Moore’s dramatic fantasy, the elite seem to live careless lifestyles
in their castles outside the city while the working class, surrounded by human
tragedy, break their backs to make ends meet. Moore’s interviews with members
of GM management and the elite class are an important aspect of the film, and he
38
must make them look like passive “phonies” in order for the working class
perspective to stand out. Without their input, the viewer would not have a clear
picture of why members of the working class are constructed as heroes.
Rather than focusing on a singular villain, Moore goes beyond how GM
affected the working class in Flint and criticizes the individuals who supported
GM’s actions and who neglected the reality of the economic problem, or who
failed to acknowledge the working class struggle to survive. Moore is developing
a fantasy where these factors contribute to the demise of the working class in
Flint. When the people who possess the power and the ability to make changes
are not willing to acknowledge working class struggles, the working class is
further marginalized.
At various points throughout the film, Moore confronts GM representative
Tom Kaye, whose comments imply that the company’s decision to close
automotive factories and eliminate jobs in Flint is necessary and valid. In one
particular scene, Moore approaches Kaye in his office, questioning him about
GM’s decision to close plants and eliminate thousands of working class jobs. In
his narrative commentary Moore explains, “There were those who had a different
opinion in Flint, like Tom Kaye, a spokesman and lobbyist for General Motors”
(Moore, 1989, scene 4). Kaye is pictured sitting back in his office chair when he
states, “I’m sure [GM CEO] Roger Smith has a social conscience as strong as
anybody in the country. Because the guy is an automobile executive does not
make him inhuman … He has as much concern about these people as you do, or
as I do. And nobody likes to see anybody laid off or put in a hardship situation”
39
(scene 4). Kaye’s statements seem to disregard the working class situation in
Flint and the economic difficulties that many individuals have experienced as a
result of GM plant closings. His comment, “And nobody likes to see anybody
laid off or put in a hardship situation,” is disingenuous. As Moore has implied
through working class testimony, the GM plant closings and layoffs have placed a
number of individuals in “hardship” situations. Moore suggests that Kaye is in
some way contributing to the working class struggle to survive by supporting
GM’s decisions to close automotive plants and eliminate jobs.
In the same scene, Moore questions Kaye about the necessity of GM plant
closings and subsequent layoffs in Flint. In response, Kaye claims that “General
Motors wouldn’t be doing anybody any service if it goes bankrupt. It has to do
what it has to do in order to stay competitive in today’s economic climate”
(Moore, 1989, scene 4). Moore then asks Kaye if he believes that every GM
employment option in Flint will be eliminated. Kaye responds without hesitation:
“It could feasibly happen” (scene 4). In the process of defending GM, Kaye
seems to disregard the human sacrifices at the heart of the corporation’s decisions.
His reasoning is solely profit based and he supports GM’s actions without any
hesitation. Kaye’s comments appear to stem from a capitalistic worldview
(“General Motors wouldn’t be doing anyone any service if it goes bankrupt”)
where corporate practices value profit over people, and he does not really provide
any detailed examples explaining why the layoffs and plant closings are
necessary. Moore focuses on Kaye as an example of a villain because he defends
GM’s actions and cannot justify why people must lose their jobs and take cuts in
40
pay in order for GM to thrive. Kaye’s commentary is rationalized and
generalized, “[GM] has to do what it has to do in order to stay competitive,” and
Moore implies that his reasoning is flawed. He is a villain because he thinks only
in terms of GM’s financial and economic stability, not those individuals that the
plant closings and layoffs affect. Kaye does not recognize the struggle that the
layoffs will inevitably create, and what will ultimately happen to people like the
“rabbit woman,” Janet, and the former GM employees turned prison guards.
In commentary following the film, Moore provides additional insight into
his interview with Kaye. In a somewhat sarcastic tone he states,
You know what I love about this guy? He’s just so honest. [paraphrasing
Kaye’s commentary] They have to do what they have to do. I mean that is
so right on, that’s exactly what they think. This guy is just … I don’t care
whatever … How often do we get that kind of honesty anymore? (Moore,
2003, “Commentary by Michael Moore”)
It is possible to argue that one of Moore’s strategies with regard to the villains is
to present them in situations where they say exactly what they think about the
economic situation in Flint, thus demonstrating their negative qualities. Kaye is
honest, as Moore implies, but he does not seem to offer any genuine sympathy or
regard for members of the working class at all. His brutal honesty about the
necessity of GM’s actions is in fact part of the reason Moore constructs him as a
villainous persona.
In a later scene, Kaye attempts to provide possible solutions to Flint’s
economic disaster and to the members of the working class. He suggests to
Moore that it may be possible for Flint to revive itself with an industry that
manufactures a product such as the lint roller. Moore’s subsequent response to
41
Kaye’s suggestion makes clear how ridiculous the idea seems. He seems
flabbergasted, asking, “lint rollers? That’s the solution to an auto industry, a giant
auto industry that had its birthplace here in Flint, Michigan, and lint rollers are
[going to] pull us out of this depression?” (Moore, 1989, scene 17). Moore’s
response adds to another important aspect of the dramatic fantasy that he is
developing. On the surface, the villains seem to care about the plight of the city
and the displaced members of the working class, but beyond the surface level they
do not care, and the Kaye persona is testimony to this. His suggestions are
shallow and do not provide any real solutions that will aid in the recovery of
Flint’s social and economic demise.
In the same scene, Kaye explains “There’s still as much opportunity [in
Flint] as there was when Billy Durant started the motor company down here on
Water Street, maybe more opportunity” (Moore, 1989, scene 17). When Moore
questions Kaye again, asking him if he really believes what he just said, Kaye
responds in kind, “Yes, I do. Absolutely” (scene 17). His response does not
match the fantasy that Moore is developing in regard to the working class, and
Moore implies that Kaye’s commentary should be disregarded. Previous
examples of working class testimony serve to contradict Kaye’s statement that
there are still many viable employment opportunities in Flint. Though working
class individuals, like the prison guards for example, may find new jobs, these
jobs cannot replace those that GM eliminated, especially in terms of economic
security. Moore implies that Kaye’s suggestions do not make any sense,
42
especially in a city where the large majority of working class residents can barely
afford to make ends meet.
In various scenes throughout the film, Moore talks with members of
Flint’s wealthy elite community, individuals who do not seem to consider the
negative socioeconomic effects brought on by the GM plant closings. At one
point, Moore and his camera crew are allowed entry into a theme party (“The
Great Gatsby Party”) at the home of an upper level GM employee. Moore’s
comment, “Meanwhile the more fortunate in Flint were holding their annual Great
Gatsby party at the home of one of GM’s founding families,” places the wealthy
class in a context where the viewer sees that their motivations are markedly
different than those of the working class (Moore, 1989, scene 7).
Moore initially approaches a small group of people and inquires, “What’s
it like here in Flint these days?” A tuxedo clad man responds, “Things are tough
here for the people who are laid off, but there are still people working and I don’t
think it’s as bad as people may believe” (Moore, 1989, scene 7). This man’s
comment represents a striking contrast to a specific aspect of the fantasy that
Moore is developing, that Flint is in fact decaying. Although people are still
working, as he suggests, it is important to consider Deputy Ross and the prison
guards who do hold stable jobs, but at the same time they are confronted with
difficult working conditions as they must deal directly with the human tragedy
that stems from the plant closings. This man does not seem to consider the
difficult nature of finding viable, well-paying jobs outside of GM, which is part of
the reason he is a villain. His statements are inaccurate because he does not have
43
any real evidence to suggest that members of the working class are not struggling
to survive. His observation, “things are tough for the people who are laid off,”
does not really indicate that he understands how “tough” the working class
situation is, because he has not lived or experienced things that working class
individuals must deal with on a daily basis.
This man’s comments separate him from the Kaye persona on one level
because he does not even attempt to offer surface solutions to the economic
problems in Flint; in fact, he does not seem to acknowledge that any problems
really exist. Perhaps if he went to visit the “rabbit woman” or shadowed Deputy
Ross on his rounds he would begin to understand the plight of the working class.
In this sense, Moore suggests to the viewer that the elite make inaccurate or
uninformed comments when they do not truly understand the circumstances of the
people they are describing. Another aspect of the dramatic fantasy is that the elite
do not give due credit to the working class survivors. This is one aspect of their
villainous nature. Their comments are based on what they assume about the
working class, not on their actual experiences with these individuals.
In the same scene, Moore approaches another man at the party who is
dressed up for the affair. Moore asks, “So what advice do you have for those who
are having a rough go of it?” The man responds, “Get up in the morning and go
do something. Start yourself. Get your own motor going. There [are] things to do
out there” (Moore, 1989, scene 7). The man looks toward the camera with an air
that suggests his advice is obvious. His comments imply that the unemployed
lack the necessary ambition and drive to seek out alternative methods of
44
employment. This man represents another example of a villainous persona
because he also fails to understand or acknowledge the working class situation in
Flint. As Moore suggests, simply because someone possesses a job, it does not
mean they are not “having a rough go of it.” The elite man’s previous comments
stem from the assumption that a person who has a job will be comfortable and not
have to struggle to survive. As demonstrated in the working class testimony, this
is not the case. Here it is important to re-consider Deputy Ross, Janet, and the
prison guards. Each of these individuals is employed in some form, but the
conditions of their respective positions are less than satisfactory, and they often
have to convince themselves that the rewards of their work outweigh the costs.
The wealthy man is a villain on another level because he incorrectly assumes that
members of the working class are lazy (“Start yourself. Get your own motor
going”), and that they should be faulted even when they are struggling to make
ends meet. He places the blame directly on the people that have the least control,
and because he does not have access to or acknowledge their efforts to survive,
his statements are inaccurate.
During the same scene, Moore approaches another group at the party,
including the man he initially spoke with. One woman comments, “I don’t think
it’s very fair to just pick on the very negative things and just publicize them, and
not pick up any of the really good aspects about Flint” (Moore, 1989, scene 7).
Moore responds to the woman and asks, “What are some really good aspects of
Flint?” (scene 7). Another man takes over, pointing out his perception of the
positives in the Flint community. “The ballet, hockey, it’s a great place to live”
45
(scene 7). The elite’s comments verify why Moore constructs them as villains.
Moore urges the viewer to understand that the negative aspects of Flint’s dying
economy are more apparent than members of the elite class are willing to admit,
that unlike the working class they do not ‘smell the smoke.’ By claiming that
Flint is a “great place to live,” the tuxedo clad man fails to consider that the
members of the working class do not have access to the so-called “great things”
(ballet, hockey) that he describes. In addition, his comment contradicts what
members of the working class are confronted with on a daily basis. By including
this commentary, Moore develops another aspect of the dramatic fantasy, that the
villainous elite stand around passively, congratulating themselves on their own
wonderful lifestyles, while the city is crumbling around them. He implores the
viewer to question how Flint can really be a great place to live when a woman is
forced to support herself by selling rabbits as “pets or meat.” In contrast to the
elite responses, audiences are compelled to question the seemingly positive
qualities of a city where a sheriff’s deputy must evict his neighbors and
acquaintances in order to make a living wage, and where former GM employees
must watch over former friends and co-workers in their new roles as prison
guards.
Moore’s commentary following the film provides valuable insight into his
interviews with members of the elite class. Here, viewers are given a behind-thescenes look at his thoughts about the individuals he presents in the film. At one
point, he describes his conversations with people at the Great Gatsby party.
It’s always better just to let them talk … to let them, in their own words,
say what they want to say. You’ll see throughout this film that I don’t
46
spend a lot of time talking to people who agree with me. There [are] no
interviews with … union leaders or political activists. I think you learn a
lot more letting the other side talk, letting the people that are in charge, in
control, who’ve got some money, let them just have their say. I think it
illustrates things a lot better than me just going on with my own polemic.
(Moore, 2003, “Commentary by Michael Moore”)
Moore’s commentary is significant because he discusses the relevance of his
interviews with members of the elite class. Part of his statement (“I think you
learn a lot more letting the other side talk”) is especially pertinent given the
amount of time he focuses on villainous personae in the film. By providing a
close critical look at the villains in settings where they are open and honest,
Moore provides the viewer with more reason to despise their disregard for the
working class. Moore’s comment that the discourse of the elite class and people
who are in control of the system “illustrates things a lot better,” is important. In
this sense, viewers are allowed to focus on the elite’s comments and behavior
rather than basing their conclusions only on Moore’s individual observations in
the narrative. It becomes clear that persona is an important aspect of Moore’s
rhetorical strategy because it allows the viewer to make judgments of the
individuals that he portrays in the film, and decide whether they agree that
members of the working class are heroes whose lives are in some way held in
check by the villains who control the system.
In a subsequent scene in the film, Moore implies that villains may exist in
unlikely places. This is demonstrated in his interviews with a group of elderly
women on a golf outing. The idea that these seemingly pleasant women represent
examples of villains would seem absurd at first glance. However, Moore
interviews the women in a setting where they demonstrate their feelings about the
47
unemployed and members of the working class in Flint. Like the individuals at
the Great Gatsby party, they are portrayed in a leisurely setting and their
comments verify their status as villains. A woman dressed in pink golfing attire
refers to the plight of the unemployed in Flint. She explains, “I mean you don’t
know the answer. I feel sorry for people, but you can’t help them. I mean you
have such a good welfare program, so they just don’t want to work. I don’t think
so; I really don’t know” (Moore, 1989, scene 21). The woman indicates that
people cannot be helped, that the reason people remain unemployed is because the
welfare program is so beneficial, and that it leads to complacency on the part of
many former working class citizens in Flint. The previous testimony of working
class citizens serves to contradict this woman’s comments. Here, viewers may
reconsider the “rabbit woman” who is forced to rely on another form of
government assistance (social security), and who cannot survive on this income
alone, which is why she has the rabbit business. The elderly woman’s previous
statement, “I don’t think so; I really don’t know,” implies that she does not have
the first hand experience or authority to ground her statements because she has
not identified what working class life is like by actually stepping into their shoes.
In the same scene, another woman exclaims, “I think everybody should try
to … find another job or do something else in training or something” (Moore,
1989, scene 21). Moore responds, “You think a lot of people are just being lazy?”
She states, “I think some of them. A lot of them, they take the easy way out”
(scene 21). This woman demonstrates an idea that the man at the Great Gatsby
party alluded to, that working class citizens lack the motivation and effort to find
48
work and support themselves. In spite of this, the notion that members of the
working class “take the easy way out,” does not seem to make sense given the
salience of working class testimony, which demonstrates that they do everything
they can to survive despite economic hardship. Here, it is important to reconsider
examples of previous testimony from Janet and the prison guards. Based on their
comments and actions, Moore implies that they do not “take the easy way out.”
They make sacrifices, take cuts in pay, and accept demeaning positions in order to
support themselves and their families. The golfing women’s comments do not
make sense, which connects to another significant aspect of the dramatic fantasy.
The villains have not had to live the working class lifestyle; they have never had
to make sacrifices to survive, yet they continue to judge.
During the same scene, another elderly woman explains why she and her
friends enjoy living in Flint and why she thinks it is a wonderful place to live.
“All four of us have always lived in Flint and gone to school here and we just love
it so” (Moore, 1989, scene 21). Moore responds to this comment, asking “What
do you love about it?” She explains, “I personally love our friends, you know,
and we like our club, and we like … the stores, and you know what’s left of
them” (scene 21). The last part of this woman’s statement, “and we like … the
stores, and you know what’s left of them” is followed by nervous laughter. She
seems to be on the verge of acknowledging the economic devastation that has hit
the Flint community; however, she continues to be optimistic in spite of this. At
this point, it becomes apparent that not even the elite are immune to the effects of
the GM plant closings, but at the same time they refuse to acknowledge this fact.
49
Similar to the individuals at the Great Gatsby party, these women applaud Flint
for places of material consumption (clubs, stores) that the working class does not
have access to.
In commentary following the film, Moore refers to his conversations with
the golfing women and makes the statement, “While Rome burned they golfed”
(Moore, 2003, “Commentary by Michael Moore”). This statement really
epitomizes the passive nature of members of GM management and the elite class
in the film and verifies why they are constructed as villains. Everything connects
back to this statement including the elite’s ill-conceived notions of working class
complacency and their failure to admit the reality of Flint’s dying economy.
Following this, Moore comments, “It seems that all the times you see the rich here
it’s always sunny and bright; it wasn’t planned that way. That’s when the rich
come out of the house, you know, when it’s nice out” (Moore, 2003,
“Commentary by Michael Moore”). This comment is crucial in terms of Moore’s
development of rhetorical binaries between the working class and the wealthy
elite. The elite do not have to struggle with the dark aspects of survival, and they
cannot see the human tragedy that stems from the plant closings because they
refuse to leave the safety of their homes on the “sunny” side of town. Another
aspect of the dramatic fantasy is Moore’s suggestion that the elite live in their
own world and have access to a number of luxuries while the working class
struggles to make ends meet.
Moore claims that he interviewed the elderly women in a setting where
they were “very relaxed,” and where he and his camera crew could approach them
50
in a “non-threatening” way. He explains that this worked well because the
women were up front and honest regarding their feelings about the working class
situation in Flint (Moore, 2003, “Commentary by Michael Moore”). It can be
argued that this is the kind of “honesty” that Moore wanted the viewer to have
access to. Moore’s focus on villainous personae is clever, because he is not
directly telling the viewer what to think about members of the elite class by
coming right out and saying it; instead, he presents the viewer with vivid
examples of elite personas who express their honest opinions about the state of
affairs in Flint and about members of the working class in general. In this sense,
he allows members of the elite class to demonstrate their villainous nature through
their own discourse. This allows a viewing audience to come to a conclusion
about GM’s affect on Flint and how members of the elite class contributed to this
devastation through their narrow worldviews, support of GM’s actions, and
incorrect assumptions about the working class.
Just as Moore constructs members of the working class as heroic
survivors, part of his strategy is to construct the Tom Kaye persona, a
representative of GM management, and the elite personas as villains. According
to Kidd (1998), an audience may identify with the heroes and align themselves
with their goals and values, but “in the same sense they feel antipathy toward the
negative character” (“Fantasy Theme Analysis”). Moore provides viewers with
evidence, in the form of interviews and commentary, to persuade them that GM
representatives and members of the elite class are “negative characters.” He
achieves this goal through interviews with Tom Kaye and elite class
51
representatives which demonstrate their complete misreading of working class
struggles. As a rhetor, Moore’s goal is to convince the viewer that these
individuals are villains by demonstrating that their commentary is false because
they cannot support their claims about the working class. Moore suggests that
their only support stems from their own perceptions of the working class, and this
is not enough. They do not have experience with citizens in the working class
sector and therefore cannot understand what it means to struggle on a daily basis,
to accept less than satisfactory working positions in order to put food on the table.
The Tom Kaye persona and elite personas are villains not only because of their
inaccurate statements, but also because they do not seem willing to understand the
reality of the working class situation in Flint.
The viewer is able to sympathize with members of the working class, and
is therefore more convinced of their heroic status when they realize that the
people with power, those who control the resources, do not acknowledge them
and are not willing to help. In this sense, Moore constructs a fantasy where
villainous members of GM management and the elite class represent a kind of
wall standing in the way of heroic working class individuals who want to survive
in Flint and ultimately sustain comfortable lifestyles.
52
Chapter 4: Conclusion
Throughout the course of Roger and Me, it becomes apparent that Moore
focuses on persona as his primary rhetorical strategy in order to construct a
dramatic fantasy that highlights the plight of working class individuals, and to
convince a viewing audience that these individuals are heroic survivors in spite of
the underlying opposition they face in villainous members of GM management
and the elite class. According to Bormann (1972), “a person who tries to get a
fantasy to chain out often uses the technique of attributing motives to characters
in a dream. A speaker can characterize a hero by attributing praiseworthy
motivation, or create a bad image by suggesting unsavory motives” (p. 407).
When rhetors construct personae, they provide a realistic means through which
audiences may become caught up in the dramatizing message and essentially
come to share the fantasy, or the rhetor’s interpretation of reality.
Bormann (1985a) explains the significance of contextualizing societal
issues in the form of personae.
Because people have difficulty thinking things through and need to have
them acted out, the public can most easily understand the issues that
disturb society when speakers portray them by placing symbolic personae
in dramatic action in which they contend with other symbolic personae
symbolizing other positions. (p. 9)
Based on Bormann’s (1985a) assertion, audiences are more likely to grasp the
immediacy of societal issues if a rhetor places these events in a context that
includes personae who represent certain themes or aspects of the situation. This is
precisely the strategy that Moore employs throughout Roger and Me. In the
process of constructing a fantasy, Moore explains the impact of GM plant
53
closings through various members of the Flint community, which connect back to
the defining metaphor for the entire film, “While Rome burned, they golfed.” As
a result, the audience is able to identify with the seemingly human or valiant
qualities of the personae that represent heroes and resent the immoral or inhuman
qualities of those personae that are constructed as villains.
Moore’s focus on heroes and villains in the film is an important strategy,
and it assists the critic in coming to a conclusion about the kind of audience he
was trying to address. A detailed look at the main components of the dramatizing
message can provide insight into how these components work together to affect a
viewing audience so that they become “caught up” in Moore’s dramatization of
events in Flint, Michigan during the 1980s. The fantasy would have to chain out
in an audience who could identify and sympathize with the heroes Moore
constructs in the working class, specifically the “rabbit woman,” Deputy Ross,
Janet, and the prison guards as examples of working class survivor-heroes. At the
same time, an audience would have to buy into the idea that the Tom Kaye
persona, a representative of GM management, and the elite personas represent
villains who stand in the way of the noble goals of the working class.
Moore constructs a message where members of the working class are
heroes because their motivations stem from positive qualities (active, hardworking) and where members of GM management and the elite class are villains
because their motivations stem from negative qualities (passive, selfish,
unsympathetic). According to Kidd (1998), “How the audience should feel about
each of the characters … is indicated by the viewpoint of the story and the degree
54
to which the characters are presented as sympathetic or admirable” (“Fantasy
Theme Analysis”). In this sense, the salience of the dramatizing message is based
on the rhetor’s construction of personae, and whether or not he or she is
successful in convincing a viewing audience to identify with the heroes, begrudge
the villains, and ultimately see these individuals in the same light as the rhetor
originally saw them.
A rhetor may be compelled to construct a message about events that he or
she deems important, but the message will have no firm holding unless people in
an external audience come to identify with it. The message cannot simply serve a
personal function for the speaker, and in order to have an impact it must be
constructed in a way that is audience centered. The speaker can be compelled, but
this is not enough, which is something that FTA scholars point out. Bormann,
Cragan, and Shields (1994) highlight the centrality of the audience in an FTA
analysis. They explain, “The scholar using fantasy theme analysis begins with the
symbolic convergence theory and demonstrates how the messages under study
relate to the consciousness of various communities that comprise the audience for
the messages” (p. 275). In this sense, it is important to recognize how the heroic
and villainous personae presented in Moore’s film may potentially connect to an
audience’s awareness of socioeconomic issues.
Moore’s interviews with members of GM management and the elite class
demonstrate their separation from the working class, their refusal to acknowledge
the working class struggle to survive, and their unwillingness to act on behalf of
the Flint community. In contrast, Moore presents members of the working class
55
in contexts where they actively demonstrate their responses to the GM plant
closings. The working class persona is dynamic, and each individual serves a
rhetorical function in that they contribute to the fantasy that Flint is dying and that
GM is to blame. More importantly, during a crisis like this, Moore implies that
the righteous individuals will act in any way they can to survive. The elite are
portrayed in situations where leisurely, party-like activities seem to be their
primary motivation, and where they make erroneous assumptions about the
working class and Flint as a whole. When the city begins to decay, it is the
working class citizens who do all that they can to survive while the ignorant elite
can only stand by and play golf or drink champagne. In this sense, Moore’s focus
on heroes and villains throughout the film is part of a more significant rhetorical
strategy, which is to prevent GM management and elite fantasies of the working
class, and Flint in general, from chaining out among members of a viewing
audience.
Andrews (1983) describes various factors that compel an individual to
speak out on an issue. He explains, “People speak in order to solve problems, to
gain adherents, to rouse interest and sympathy, or to compel to action because
there is something going on in the world around them that is in need of
modification or is threatened and must be defended” (p. 18). Based on Moore’s
portrayal of heroic and villainous personae in Roger and Me, it is plausible to
argue that he made this film in order to “rouse interest and sympathy,” to
persuade a viewing audience to understand the specific plight of working class
individuals, but beyond that to pique audience interest into this devastating
56
economic phenomenon, and to instill in them a kind of sympathy and regard for
the heroic working class individuals he portrays. Moore’s depiction of personae
allows audiences to come to an understanding of the contradictory nature of
working class life in a declining industrial city like Flint, Michigan. He compels
the viewer to realize that working class individuals may work hard and do all that
they can to survive, but they will never receive due credit from those that control
the system.
Perhaps Moore was working to change society’s perception of working
class individuals and demonstrate that they make every effort to sustain
themselves and their families even in the direst of circumstances. At the same
time, he had to present a picture of those individuals who contributed to the plight
of the working class and who failed to acknowledge their struggle. Though
Moore presents working class individuals in a light where they are hardworking
survivors, GM management representatives like the Tom Kaye persona refuse to
acknowledge that GM has made it more difficult for them to sustain comfortable
lifestyles, and members of the elite class continuously downplay or disregard their
efforts. Moore suggests to the viewer that these individuals disregard the harsh
realities of working class life because they are separate from these realities, and
they do not seem to care. Moore arguably wanted people who viewed the film to
be compelled by the working class struggle to survive and see these individuals as
examples, as representatives of the working class persona not only in Flint,
Michigan, but all over the United States. It can also be argued that Moore wanted
a viewing audience to see that the mentality of corporate and elite personas that he
57
presents in the film is equally pervasive in similar individuals across the United
States.
Moore explains that instances of survival, like those presented in the film,
are a common occurrence, but that the media decides to focus its attention on the
more fortunate individuals in society. “The thing about ‘objective journalism’ is a
myth … The camera rarely follows the person taking the turkey home, to see the
person living with plastic on the windows and using the stove as a furnace” (cited
in Sterritt, 1990a, p. 11). In commentary following the film, Moore elaborates on
this point. “At this time a lot of these things … you wouldn’t turn on the nightly
news and see something like this … Families lives being destroyed, people being
thrown out on the street, that’s never the news is it?” (Moore, 2003, “Commentary
by Michael Moore”). This comment is important in terms of the kind of
awareness Moore wanted to create regarding socioeconomic problems in
America. Orvell (1994-1995) explains, “[Moore’s] subject is power – its
arrogance and stupidity – and his examples make the film as much an indictment
of American society in general as a study of Flint’s particular problems” (p. 16).
Perhaps Moore’s focus on GM management and elite personas in the film is part
of a larger message, where he is trying to communicate the idea that when the
people in society who possess wealth and power fail to regard or acknowledge
working class citizens, these citizens are then further marginalized and forced to
rely on various forms of employment that do not meet their everyday needs.
We live in a day and age where more and more working class positions are
being eliminated, and where the individuals in power often fail to acknowledge
58
the plight of working class citizens. Moore is essentially trying to explain that
when those in power disregard flaws in the economic system they blame the
people rather than the circumstances that led to the hardship in the first place, and
it becomes a problem for working class citizens, especially in terms of sustaining
comfortable lifestyles. Additional critics argue that Roger and Me was Moore’s
effort to raise concern about economic issues and the struggles of working class
individuals. Bateman, Sakano, and Fujita (1992) claim that, “The film was the
medium used by the producer, Michael Moore, to shape public opinion toward
General Motors, its leadership, corporate America, and the plight of U.S.
workers” (p. 768). Perhaps this film was meant to address communities all over
the United States, in order to alert them to the fact that working class jobs are
expendable and that when they confront economic hardship, corporate
representatives and their wealthy supporters will not step in to assist the working
class in any way.
Individuals who recognize the heroic qualities of working class
individuals and their struggle to survive would be more likely to identify with
Moore’s message. In this case, if audience members value hard work and
perseverance, if they sympathize with the heroic working class survivors and
begrudge the villainous members of GM management and the elite class, then
they will become caught up in Moore’s dramatization. According to Bormann
(1985a),
The power of symbolic convergence theory stems from the human
tendency to try to understand events in terms of people with certain
personality traits and motivations, people who make decisions, take
actions, and cause things to happen. We can understand a person making
59
plans in order to achieve goals and succeeding or failing to do so because
we often interpret our own behavior in that way in our personal fantasies.
(p. 9)
As Bormann explains, people are more likely to become caught up in a
dramatizing message when they can look to the individuals involved in the drama.
They may then come to an understanding of social and economic problems, like
those presented in Roger and Me, by looking to the personas constructed in the
dramatizing message. Moore constructs personae that allow members of an
external viewing audience to consider how they would act in a similar situation if
they were presented with similar circumstances. If Moore is persuasive enough
in his development of persona and convinces members of a viewing audience that
working class citizens are heroes and that GM management and elite class
representatives are villains, then he has succeeded in getting a fantasy to chain
out. Bormann (1985b) explains, “When members of a mass media audience share
a fantasy they jointly experience the same emotions, develop common heroes and
villains, celebrate certain actions as laudable, and interpret some aspect of their
common experience in some way” (p. 131). In this sense, a rhetor’s construction
of personae has the potential to affect how audience members conceive of social
reality.
When considering Roger and Me as an appropriate subject for rhetorical
analysis, its place in the documentary film genre must also be acknowledged.
According to Cohan & Crowdus (1990), “Whatever one thinks of Michael Moore
or his film, there is no question that Roger & Me is an important – maybe even a
landmark – documentary in terms of enormous popular appeal” (“Reflections on
60
Roger and Me”). Documentary scholar Bill Nichols (2001) describes the
documentary:
Documentary engages with the world by representing it [by] offer[ing] us
a likeness or depiction of the world that bears a recognizable familiarity.
Through the capacity of film, and audiotape, to record situations and
events with considerable fidelity, we see in documentaries people, places,
and things we might also see for ourselves outside the cinema. (pp. 2-3)
Roger and Me meets the standard documentary guidelines as they are defined by
Nichols (2001) because Moore is evidently filming and documenting the lives of
real people who were affected by the GM plant closings in Flint during the 1980s.
When reconsidering the academic discourse surrounding this film that describes it
specifically as a documentary (i.e., Bernstein, 1994; Orvell, 1994-1995) it is
possible to come to the conclusion that the film is part of this genre.
Nichols (2001) also explains the documentary filmmaker’s role as speaker
and potential creator of social knowledge. “The voice of documentary is most
often the voice of oratory. It is the voice of a filmmaker setting out to take a
position regarding an aspect of the historical world and to convince us of its
merits” (p. 49). This is precisely what Moore is doing throughout the course of
his film. He is attempting to convince the audience that GM’s impact on Flint is a
noteworthy issue and that his perceptions of this impact are accurate. Beyond
this, Moore becomes the kind of documentary filmmaker who focuses on heroic
and villainous personae to convince the audience of the merits of his message. He
depicts the personae involved in the drama in ways that do the best job of
demonstrating the economic disaster that affected Flint during that time. In effect,
61
audiences come to an understanding of these events and the individuals that are
affected based on how they are presented in the film itself.
As the term persona is defined by Bormann (1982b), the individual that
the rhetor portrays or describes in the dramatizing message “may or may not be
similar to the individual that people experience in direct social interaction” (p.
135, footnote 6). Even if rhetors aim to represent reality, the way they present
certain individuals is colored by their own perceptions and decisions in the
process of constructing the message. This, in turn, affects how audiences
perceive the individuals that are portrayed. In this sense, documentary
filmmakers always consciously describe the persona and not the actual person,
because they are presenting an audience with a depiction of events and the
individuals involved in those events that stem from their own perspective.
Nichols (2001) explains,
The degree to which people’s behavior and personality changes during the
making of a film can introduce an element of fiction into the documentary
process … Self-consciousness and modifications in behavior can become
a form of misrepresentation or distortion … but they also document the
ways in which the act of filmmaking alters the reality it set out to
represent. (p. 6)
Based on Nichols’ explanation, it is reasonable to conclude that the sense of
reality as it is portrayed in documentaries is continuously altered by the
filmmaker, something that is ultimately unavoidable.
In his fantasy theme analysis of the hostage release and the Reagan
inaugural, Bormann (1982b) provides a possible link to other mass media contexts
in which an application of fantasy theme analysis is appropriate. Throughout his
analysis, Bormann makes a good case for the fact that television news is a
62
powerful form of media, and he asserts that viewing audiences may become
caught up in the dramatizations that television news sparks. He explains,
Television is a major source of social knowledge and the rhetorical critical
study of such knowledge can make a large contribution to the
understanding of communication in a mass media society. If fantasy
theme analysis can be applied to such messages it will appreciably enlarge
the scope of the method and make possible the application of findings
from studies of rhetorical fantasies in other contexts to them. (p. 145)
The final part of Bormann’s statement is significant. Although the two are very
different in terms of time constraints and audience expectations, documentary
films are similar to television news in that each form of media aims to represent
reality in some way. Because Moore’s film is a non-fiction account of actual
events, it parallels television news in that it was distributed to a mass audience
with the potential to affect a large number of viewers. As society becomes more
reliant upon the media for messages about human nature, actions, and the reasons
behind these actions, audiences must be able to analyze and subsequently
understand the messages that are sent and how they affect external viewing
audiences. No current study of the documentary film has included the FTA
perspective; therefore, this analysis offers the possibility of considering a new
lens through which to view documentary films in order to understand how this
form of media connects to audience consciousness and how it functions as a
vehicle for social knowledge.
It is important to recognize how documentaries may contribute to an
audience’s perception of social reality, and more specifically how the construction
of persona in documentary film may connect to an audience’s understanding of
various individuals and their roles in society. Nichols (2001) explains that
63
documentaries, a kind of non-fiction film, aim to represent the social world as it
is.
[Documentaries] make the stuff of social reality visible and audible in a
distinctive way, according to the acts of selection and arrangement carried
out by a filmmaker … These films also convey truths if we decide they do.
We must assess their claims and assertions, their perspectives and
arguments in relation to the world as we know it and decide whether they
are worthy of our belief. (pp. 1-2)
Because audiences have different expectations for documentaries and may
perceive them as a more accurate representation of reality, the documentary is
another powerful medium which may spark the chaining of fantasies in an
engaged viewing audience. Film itself is a potent medium for conveying
messages that may compel audiences to think or act in some way, and
“communication scholars have suggested that the media play a role in shaping the
social reality of media users” (Thomsen, 1993, p. 74). In this sense, documentary,
a specific component of the mass media, has the potential to shape the social
reality of those individuals who make up the viewing audiences.
It is plausible to argue that Roger and Me is a part of the media
phenomenon which may stimulate a viewing audience’s perceptions of social
reality, and even more so because it aims to represent reality. Moore’s
construction of heroes and villains is important and may spur audience members
to relate to these personae and realize that these individuals are actually
representations of people that they may come in contact with in their own daily
lives. His focus on personae allows audiences to come to an understanding of the
inherently valiant (heroic) or immoral (villainous) qualities of the individuals he
portrays. The “rabbit woman,” Deputy Ross, Janet, and prison guard personas are
64
examples of individuals that may exist in today’s society. In the film, he presents
the viewer with a few significant examples of these individuals, relating them to
the larger societal picture, so that members of a viewing audience may come to an
understanding of events that they might otherwise ignore.
According to Thomsen (1993), “In some cases, the media may simply
reinforce existing beliefs and in other cases may serve as a catalyst to strengthen
gradually the myths that symbolically shape the constructed word of media users”
(p. 74). In this sense, for some audience members, Moore’s film may provide
additional support for the notion that working class individuals are heroic
survivors and that various corporate and elite individuals are villains. It is
possible to argue that documentary plays an important role in shaping audience
beliefs about heroic working class individuals and their villainous counterparts,
and that how viewers come to sympathize with or despise these individuals is
shaped by media representations of them.
In order for a film to really compel viewers it must be done in a creative
and convincing way, and the filmmaker plays a vital role here. Moore’s focus on
heroic and villainous personae is convincing enough for a viewing audience to
believe that working class citizens are hardworking survivors who take
appropriate action during times of economic crisis, and that members of the elite
power structure are passive villains who disregard working class struggles. FTA
provides another lens through which to view the documentary film, especially in
terms of working toward an understanding of how the filmmaker’s focus on
persona may connect to an audience’s understanding of what constitutes social
65
reality. Moore’s documentary is one such example of a powerful component of
the mass media that is growing increasingly popular by the day. It is reasonable
to conclude that FTA allows the critic to examine the documentary film from a
different angle and consider how it functions as a form of mediated discourse.
This project provides a small, but significant look at how documentary
filmmakers like Michael Moore represent the kinds of rhetors that may focus on
persona as a part of their rhetorical strategies in order to influence audiences and
add to the discourse surrounding socioeconomic issues in America.
66
References
Andrews, J. (1983). The Practice of Rhetorical Criticism. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Co.
Bateman, T.S., Sakano, T., & Fujita, M. (1992). Roger, me, and my attitude:
Film propaganda and cynicism toward corporate leadership. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 77, 768-771.
Bernstein, M. (1994). Roger and Me: Documentaphobia and mixed modes.
Journal of Film and Video, 46, 3-20.
Bormann, E. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism
of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 396-407.
Bormann, E.G. (1973). The Eagleton affair: A fantasy theme analysis.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 143-159.
Bormann, E. (1980). Communication Theory. Salem, Wisconsin: Sheffield
Publishing Company.
Bormann, E. (1982a). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: Ten years later.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 288-305.
Bormann, E. (1982b). A fantasy theme analysis of the television coverage of
the hostage release and the Reagan inaugural. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 68, 133-145.
Bormann, E. (1983). Rhetoric as a way of knowing: Ernest Bormann and
fantasy theme analysis. In J. Golden, G. Berquist, & W. Coleman (Eds.),
The Rhetoric of Western Thought (3rd ed.). (pp. 431-439). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Bormann, E. (1985a). The force of fantasy: Restoring the American dream.
Southern Illinois University Press.
Bormann, E. (1985b). Symbolic convergence theory: A communication
formulation. Journal of Communication, 35, 128-138.
Bormann, E.G., Cragan, J.F., & Shields, D.C. (1994). In defense of symbolic
convergence theory: A look at the theory and its criticisms after two
decades. Communication Theory, 4, 259-294.
67
Bormann, E.G., Koester, J., & Bennett, J. (1978). Political cartoons and
salient rhetorical fantasies: An empirical analysis of the ’76 presidential
campaign. Communication Monographs, 45, 317-329.
Brown, W.R. (1976). The prime-time television environment and emerging
rhetorical visions. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62, 389-399.
Cohan, C., & Crowdus, G. (1990). Reflections on Roger & Me, Michael
Moore, and his critics. Cineaste, 17, 25-30. Retrieved June 3, 2004, from
Academic Search Elite database.
Cragan, J., & Shields, D. (1977). Foreign policy communication dramas:
How mediated rhetoric played in Peoria in campaign ’76. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 63, 274-289.
Edsforth, R. (1991). Roger & Me. The American Historical Review, 96, 1145
1147. Retrieved July 28, 2004, from JSTOR database.
Eisenstein, P.A. (1990, January 10). Flint deals with General Motors layoffs:
‘Roger and Me’. Christian Science Monitor, 9.
Harkness, J. (1990). Roger and me. Sight and Sound, 59, 130-131.
Jacobson, H. (1989). Michael & me. Film Comment, 25, 16-26.
Kael, P. (1990, January 8). The current cinema: melodrama/cartoon/mess.
The New Yorker, 65, 90-93.
Kidd, V. (1975). Happily ever after and other relationship styles: Advice on
interpersonal relations in popular magazines, 1951-1973. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 61, 31-39.
Kidd, V. (1998). Fantasy theme analysis. Retrieved April 30, 2004, from
California State University, Sacramento, Department of Communication
Studies Web Site: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/k/kiddv/FTA_reading.html
Moore, M. (Writer/Producer/Director). (1989). Roger and Me [Motion picture
DVD]. (Available from Warner Home Video Inc., 4000 Warner Blvd.,
Burbank, CA 91522)
68
Moore, M. (2003). Commentary by Michael Moore. [Special Features]. In M.
Moore (Writer/Producer/Director) Roger and Me [Motion Picture DVD].
(Available from Warner Home Video Inc., 4000 Warner Blvd., Burbank,
CA 91522)
Nichols, B. (2001). Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Orvell, M. (1994-1995). Documentary film and the power of interrogation:
American Dream and Roger and Me. Film Quarterly, 48, 10-19.
Plantinga, C. (1992). Roger and history and irony and me. Michigan
Academician, 24, 511-520.
Rabinowitz, P. (1999). Sentimental contracts: Dreams and documents of
American labor. In D. Waldman & J. Walker (Eds.), Feminism and
Documentary (pp. 43-63). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sterritt, D. (1990a, January 16). A documentary grabs attention. Christian
Science Monitor, 11.
Sterritt, D. (1990b, January 24). Our critic chooses the 10 best movies of a
lackluster year – 1989. Christian Science Monitor, 11.
Thomsen, S. (1993). Hollywood and the great teacher myth: A fantasy theme
analysis. Studies in Popular Culture, 16, 73-85.
White, J.B. (1989, December 21). Movie that attacks GM, Roger Smith opens
in Flint, Mich., to rave reviews. Wall Street Journal, B4.
69