Founded in 1998, MoveOn didn't rise to national prominence
until the 2004 election, when it aggressively campaigned for John Kerry, raising millions of dollars and running
anti-Bush ads in venues ranging from newspapers and billboards to television and the web. The group's story and history
struck documentarian Marc Levin - who, seeing as how his Slam
won major prizes at Cannes and Sundance in 1998, might just know what he's talking about - as interesting enough to
drive a film. With the help of funds raised by MoveOn, Levin is currently shooting the creatively named MoveOn: The Movie, which he hopes to have ready for festival screenings in the fall of 2007. Though Levin has idealistic goals for his movie ("The key for me is that you've got to make this an evergreen, not a propaganda piece."), it seems almost impossible that a project funded and produced by MoveOn organizers could have a hope of being anything but propaganda. Is this unsettling to anyone else, or is it typical for the organizations/individuals being portrayed to contribute funding to documentaries? I mean, we all mock the pro-Wal-Mart documentary because the company paid for it - how will Levin be able to convince the public that his film is different?
1. I have to agree. Politically, I usually agree with Moveon, but if they're funding this doc, I also think it will be seen as propaganda.
Posted at 2:28PM on Mar 1st 2006 by Josh Boelter