Michael Moore and the evils of free enterprise

[XemaSab]

Michael Moore's ostensible subject has always been his fury at the injustices wrought against hardworking American citizens. And it's possible that, in his early days as a filmmaker, that was his true motivation. But 20 years after "Roger & Me," "Capitalism: A Love Story" proves that Michael Moore's greatest subject is himself. This is a love story, all right, but it has less to do with the flaws of capitalism than it does with Moore's unwavering fondness for the sound of his own voice, and for what he perceives as his own vast cleverness.

As with all Michael Moore's films, that's not to say he doesn't have a point, buried in there somewhere amid all the Silly Putty-stretched facts and cartoony music. It's possible to agree with Moore in theory and still find his tactics sloppy and ineffective (though his zombie-like followers don't like to allow for the existence of any potential gray areas, maybe because gray areas tend to demand actual thought). In the 2007 "Sicko," he highlighted some very real, and very dangerous, problems with the U.S. healthcare system. In the 2004 "Fahrenheit 9/11," he asserted that our then-president was bad for America, and that the Iraq war was wrong. If you're reading this right now, it's 99 percent likely that you agree, as I do, with Moore's basic take on those subjects.


The problem with Moore's approach is that he reveals these injustices as if he's just discovered them himself. Similarly, "Capitalism: A Love Story" will be revelatory and helpful to those Rip Van Winkles who slept through the fall of 2008 and the early part of 2009, who didn't realize that hardworking American people are being pushed out of their homes in record numbers as a direct result of corporate greed. It's not Moore's core beliefs that are grating: It's his consistently wide-eyed approach, his presupposition that you need to adopt an aura of innocence in order to be outraged. In Michael Moore's world, to be enlightened and outraged makes you one of the elite -- better to be an underinformed Everyman, so he can spoon-feed the facts to you and therefore reinforce his own reason for existing.

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2009/09/23/capitalism_a_love_story/

[Joe Chi Minh]

1. Love your sense of priorities. You'll go far.

[gratuitous]

2. Awww, isn't that cute?

It's like Stephanie Zacharek, the writer of this review, just woke up from a 20-year nap and realized that large swaths of our nation's population are routinely misled, misinformed and misdirected by our popular media. Moore's documentary style is to put his points into context, and usually from a personal perspective. Oh noes! He also uses specific images, talk and music to convey what he want to say!

Ms. Zacharek doesn't have a whole lot of specific points to make about the documentary (she singles out the AIG citizen's arrest stunt, but little else), preferring instead to bitch about Moore's style, which is unarguably personal. She elides over the footage of Moore's interviews with the victims of capitalism, but the fact that these people are given a full opportunity to express themselves seems to bewilder Ms. Zacharek. Why isn't Jim Cramer or Chris Wallace given a chance to interrupt these newly homeless to tell them that it's their own fault?

Dreck masquerading poorly at artistic criticism.

[and-justice-for-all]

3. I like Moore and I applaud his efforts...nt

[booley]

4. So let me get this straight

The problem isn't that Moore doesn't have a point.

It's not that Moore is wrong.

It's not that what he says is untrue.

The problem is Moore makes movies about these things, taking all these things "everybody knows" and puts them into one discrete package so they can digested all at once into a coherent form.

MY GAWDS, HOW AWFUL!

And you know what? That encyclopedia is pretty pretentious and elitist too. We should ban brittanica until it can prove it does not have any common knowledge.

:silly:

Seriously, Moore is making an argument. Providing rhetorical evidence and theatrics to back up your case is hardly unreasonable.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

5. "The problem with Moore's approach is that he reveals these injustices

as if he's just discovered them himself."

Wow, that sounds like a very effective and ingenious storytellng style to me. I don't care why Michael Moore makes films, even if it is to "reinforce his own reason for existing". To me, that's irrelevant when it comes to judging the importance of his films. What matters to me are the points he makes and how he makes them. His films never fail to move me, whether it's the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq or a lady who was dumped from a hospital out on the street in skid row. Moore never fails to engage the viewer's emotions, while telling the factual story.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Hehe. the NY Times' review wasn't much more affectionate...

Gotta love Moore, but he's NOT a documentarian-- he's still a comic, no matter how seriously he tries to take himself.

There's only one side to the story, and it's whatever side he decides to tell. That makes him a propagandist, not a teacher, and whether otr not I agree with his propagnada is irrelevant, it's still propaganda.

[omega minimo]

7. Those who can, do. Those who can't, snipe.

:thumbsdown: