We've done a couple of Michael Moore related episodes. I wasn't a part of the first one we did but I was involved with the one we shot on Fahrenheit 911. Michael Moore is definitely a litmus test for people. You can pretty much size up where a person is coming from based on whether they are a Moore hater or lover and both seem to occupy an extreme divide. There is a middle, however. Those who may appreciate Moore as a filmmaker but have issues with how he approaches documentary film making in general. And I fall into that camp.
Just for the record I am not a Republican but I can be described as fiscally conservative. I am also anything but deeply religious. I have a Jewish last name, was raised a Catholic but am firmly agnostic. I believe in human rights, am against the death penalty, big on Green issues but not stupid enough to get all out preachy about that sort of thing because I know that I will invariably be called out as a hypocrite on something (I think greenhouse emissions are bad but I love BBQ, which I indulge in frequently, and yet smokers apparently contribute to said emissions). I am also pro-abortion and pro-gun control. I also try to keep myself as informed as humanly possible. So I try not to have a knee jerk response against some things liberal and not go too ballistic on some things conservative. Because I am painfully aware that guilt is to be shared by all sides of the table on almost any issue. I have been accused of being "centrist," which may be true. But I see myself more as a "pragmatist" than anything else.
And I vote Democrat.
So there you go, my political anatomy in a nutshell. I generally find myself perplexed with Michael Moore because I really, really want to root for him. I firmly believe he fights for the good side. But I always walk away feeling cheated somehow. His propensity for manipulation and agit-prop is legendary so I don't think I need to go there. As is his being selective of the "facts." Probably the most frustrating issue I've had with Moore is how unnecessary this approach has seemed to me. It almost feels like he never trusts his arguments well enough that he has to spice something up, skew things a bit, so it fits more appropriately into what he's trying to say. And I don't think his attempts at pulling stunts are all that funny. They're awkward. Done at the expense of people on camera who are in no position of authority to do what he wants them to do.
As a filmmaker, I think he can be absolutely stunning. While I may disagree with his presentation of "facts" in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, I cannot disagree that it is a brilliantly made film. Might be his best film, actually, no matter what issue you take with his politics or general presentation of things. And while I was frustrated with how he didn't present the other side of the coin -- the cons in socialized health care (because they do exist) -- I thought SICKO was a very moving thesis on the need for affordable health care in both the way it was visually and verbally presented. I also felt that with SICKO, Moore was somewhat maturing as a documentarian. Allowing the facts to speak for themselves this time. Instead of forcing us to see/hear what he wanted us to see/hear.
So I entered CAPITALISM hoping for the best. Hoping that Moore stepped it up a notch from his previous film. What I walked away with were unique criticisms this time, issues that were different from what I've had in the past. Did I like the film? I did. But I didn't love it. Someone told me recently it was the best movie of the year but I can't see how they could think that. While I'd encourage everyone to see CAPITALISM, I would forewarn those who have already been in the know, have followed the press, etc, that there may be one or two things that will surprise you but almost everything else has been firmly documented and exposed elsewhere. In fact, there is nothing in this film that hasn't already been presented on PBS' FRONTLINE or THE DAILY SHOW but in more concise, educational, well researched and cutting ways. I actually sat through the film thinking "if Jon Stewart made this, not only would it be kick ass, but it would be funnier than hell."
However, there are two things that resonated. One segment involves the revelation that corporations take out death insurance policies for their employees. So if an employee dies, the corp. can earn an additional $1.5 million while the employee's loved ones suffer and endure hospital and funeral costs. Absolutely gut wrenching. And the Citigroup memo revealing that 1% of the American population are wealthy enough to call themselves the new "plutocracy." But they should fear the other 99% because they have voting rights. Equally disturbing.
CAPITALISM is a good movie. Just not a great movie. It's strangely tame for Michael Moore. Even the pranks... maybe he's too well known now because they've lost their bite. His targets act as if they're a part of the joke so it's harmless. At the same time, I give props to this more gentle nature because it no longer seems like Moore is trying to provide a joke at the expense of the people involved. And I'm still not sure why Wallace Shawn is a talking head in this film. And while I really feel for the family that were evicted from their farm home, I couldn't help but think that sometime after Moore shot that sequence, they took their guns and joined a Tea Party rally which would kind of defeat the purpose of their plight.
The one really positive thing I can say about CAPITALISM is that there may have been only one eyeball rolling moment for me. And what I mean by that is the reaction I've had to moments in past Moore films where I think "there he goes again! Putting himself front and center, positioning himself as the savior as well as the antagonist." He has this tendency to be egocentric which results in taking me out out of his movies. While not so bad in CAPITALISM, the one eye rolling scene involved Moore talking about how priests inspired him to want to be a priest in life -- not because of their flowing robes or cushy lifestyles but because THEY SACRIFICE, FEED THE POOR, WALK IN PROTEST MARCHES IN FAVOR OF CIVIL RIGHTS. Yes, Michael. You're a saint and a matyr. It's that "look at me, I'm Michael Moore and I'm indulging in self aggrandizing bullshit again" that gets on my nerves.
I have one more criticism, actually. And this may be the only reason I think Capitalism is a good film but not a GREAT one.
I applaud Moore for being bi-partisan in his criticism. No stone is left unturned and all parties get their due. However, he curiously treats President Obama with kid gloves. Yes, it's hard to pigeon hole a guy who's only been in office for one year. But if this were Bush, would Moore afford that same generosity? I doubt it. I would've liked to have seen some sort of coda, even if it went something like this: "Obama, I love you. But the ball's in your court now. These douchbags are now in your administration AND you supported the bailouts. The people of America proved they have a voice when they voted for you. So you better not let them down."
You see, Moore titles his film CAPITALISM but he doesn't present an alternative. I mean of course there are issues with capitalism in general. But socialist countries are facing the same problems as well (part of the economic collapse was due in large part to Lloyds Of London in the UK. And France and Italy are always having scandals involving the greedy corruption of their governments. And then there's Japan's sitch for the past ten years) so it might have been more interesting to take on GREED as a larger subject rather than stick it to one philosophy. Because then he falls into the trap of having to present a solution... and what would that be? Socialism? Like I said, plenty of socialist countries are dealing with their own fiscally related corruption scandals. Communism? Well... do you really want that?
But if he just kept to the subject of greed in general, I think it would've rung home the truth that we are individually responsible for pre-empting the corruption of ALL governments. Everyone should be held accountable.
No comments:
Post a Comment