Planet of the Humans: Point/Counterpoint

Editor's Note: As might be expected from a shockumentary artist like Michael Moore, his latest outing,  Planet of the Humans, packs a great deal of provocative, at times haunting, and vital information along with debatable truths. This is inevitable considering that Moore, despite the rabble-rouser posture, is essentially a liberal, a man who apparently sees no insurmountable contradiction in supporting frauds like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders while yearning for the kind of change that can deliver the planet from capitalist oppression.  We could go to some length on this topic alone, the self-delusions of liberals and their long tail of failures and betrayals, but that is not the object of this post, which is only meant to serve as a platform for a point/counterpoint between Moore's (and his collaborator Jeff Gibbs) positions on contemporary environmentalism and critics who have found the documentary wanting in precision, possibly integrity, scientific rigor, and ultimately misguided in its overall purpose. (Personally, I found the film flawed, often exasperatingly so, given its important focus, "greenwashing"—the corporate infiltration and evisceration of the environmental movement with apparent collaboration from within—and the stunted way, the glaring missed opportunities marring the film's narrative. Maybe the topic is too big for just one documentary. Maybe Moore and Gibbs should have considered a miniseries.). Still, this is not my counterpoint to Moore's film, but the responses of other critics.  Are they being too harsh? Are they misguided? What say you? Watch carefully and opine.—PG