Lunch with Michael Moore

A Financial Times reporter dines with the filmmaker:

Like much of Moore's work, the book takes liberties with traditional definitions of non-fiction. Roger & Me may have shocked traditional documentary makers by making no claim to objectivity but Moore says that made it "authentic". Critics have used his success to challenge his authenticity, however. The Washington Times, for example, has called him a hypocritical "jet-setting millionaire", "a fraud" brought up in a "bourgeois" suburb and "a traitor", driven by "hatred of America".

Those are all very good descriptions of him, but personally I find Christopher Hitchens' comments (published on the same website) to be the closest to accuracy: of the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, he wrote that to describe the film "as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious."