September 30, 2009
The timing is right. The entire world is struggling to find its way out of a recession. Middle America is pissed off and broke. U.S. unemployment is soaring and the economic meltdown continues. So along comes the provocateur filmmaker who has spent the last 20 years raging against the machine, and he’s aiming at a big, big target—the very economic system that his country is based on.
Michael Moore’s new documentary “Capitalism: A Love Story” may be a bit scattershot and it may employ many familiar tricks, but it’s nothing if not a challenging and personal movie from one of the most polarizing figures in politics today.
He calls himself a populist, but sometimes you have to wonder. Why—you may ask—didn’t Moore go for a smaller, less controversial prey? With President Obama being called a “socialist” at every turn and that word being villainized the way it is in the mainstream media right now, why didn’t he use his ample storytelling and heartstring-tugging skills to rally film audiences around a less contentious idea?
Well, if you think about it, Moore has always shot for the moon. “Bowling for Columbine” was not a documentary about gun control—it questioned the fascination our country has with guns and asks what that leads to. “Fahrenheit 9/11” didn’t only try to bring down a sitting President—it highlighted a culture of fear. “Sicko” didn’t just find flaws in the American health care system—it challenged viewers to re-examine what it means to be a citizen and have your country protect you.
Moore has always gone for the big picture; always tried to re-frame the argument. And to some extent, the buttons he pushes get people to talk. Many of the issues brought up in his movies have gradually seeped into the collective consciousness. Will the thesis of this movie do the same thing? Only time will tell.
His argument this time is simple. Capitalism is broken. Not only does it not work, but it’s immoral, anti-Democratic, and anti-American. From the start, he goes for the throat. He shows an old film of life in ancient Rome and while the dated voice-over talks about the fall of the Roman Empire, he cuts in images of modern America. There he goes alienating people again. His trademark sledgehammer style is certainly off-putting at times, but after watching the rest of the movie, it’s hard not to see the similarities.
The movie plays like a bookend to 1989’s “Roger and Me,” where he documented the decimation of his blue-collar hometown of Flint, Mich. after the closing of a GM plant. Things have only gotten worse since then. Moore is focusing his anger on the growing divide between the rich and the poor in America, as he again follows families that are being evicted from their homes.
He highlights “dead peasant” policies, an ugly life insurance practice that gives employers huge payouts when their workers die, while nothing goes to the family. He uncovers politicians who were given special refinancing deals by the same company that was capitalizing on sub-prime mortgage deals. He traces prominent banking executives who were appointed to Presidential cabinets and traces them back again to the private sector as they maneuver to increase their already obnoxious wealth at the expense of others.
This kind of rampant greed has stampeded out of control for quite some time, Moore says, and he traces its roots back to the Reagan administration’s heady de-regulation days. As big business got in bed with more politicians, the government opened the floodgates on the ways that corporations could make money exponentially and make sure that it was not against the law.
This is a subject Moore is quite passionate about. By tracing his family’s roots back to an embattled worker’s strike in the 1930s and conversing with his father about the work ethic and pride that employees at the GM plant were instilled with back in the 70s, Moore really does spotlight how things have changed since then. He recalls a time when capitalism held the promise that everyone, if they worked hard enough, might someday share in some of the wealth. Juxtaposed with the cynical climate of today and the staggering statistic that the richest one percent of the country makes more than the other 99 percent combined, it’s easy to be nostalgic.
I like that Moore takes historical perspectives to remind everyone that what you think our country is now may not resemble what it was in the past. On a trip to Washington, D.C. this August, I again visited the Lincoln Memorial and it was striking to read the thoughtful, philosophical prose of a President who today seems a hundred times more liberal and progressive than I remembered.
So in the movie when a sickly Franklin Roosevelt appeared in a 1944 address to call for a “second bill of rights,” I was reminded of the courage it takes to stand up for “big picture” ideals that may not be popular at the time. When Jimmy Carter appeared with an altogether harsher tone in a TV address that condemned the greed and materialism that he saw in our society, I thought the same thing.
I’m still not quite sure what Wallace Shawn (“The Princess Bride”) was doing in the picture as a talking head and I’ve seen enough of Moore’s stunts (such as putting yellow crime scene tape around banks and asking for the bailout money back) on the previews. On the other hand, so much of the information in the movie is so depressing that these moments were fairly welcome just for their lighthearted tone.
Connecting the dots between all this fascinating and frustrating material isn’t easy, and sometimes it seems like a 360-degree turn. Moore is on solid ground, however, towards the end of the film when he spotlights one factory in Chicago that fought back after told they were being fired and subsequently not paid for hours already worked. The single most inspiring moment in the movie comes during these events, and it’s good timing; it’s a call to arms.
Love or hate his tone and his methods, Moore is a gifted filmmaker who isn’t afraid to say exactly what he feels. He loves his country and—in his words—he’s not leaving. If he rubs you the wrong way sometimes, then we are in the same boat. But his idealism and refusal to back down to injustices he perceives are inspiring. But it’s not from him that I derive my greatest hope. For all the awful mistreatment of people in “Capitalism: A Love Story,” it’s hard not to be somewhat optimistic when you see what everyday people are capable of when they rally together.
Footnote: FDR’s 1944 speech called for the “right” to “adequate medical care,” “a useful and remunerative job,” “a decent home,” “a good education,” “adequate food and clothing and recreation,” and “the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.”
Footnote 2: There is no such thing as objective cinema. Every shot, angle, voice-over, piece of music has a point of view and is subjective. Every documentary you’ve ever seen has a bias.
Footnote 3: Propaganda is not inherently “bad.” It all depends on your perspective. Moore joins a talented propagandist club already populated by WWII-era geniuses like German documenatrian Leni Riefenstahl (”Triumph of the Will”) and beloved American filmmaker Frank Capra (”Why We Fight”).
"Capitalism..." is opening locally in Kansas City. Check fandango.com for showtimes.
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
justin66046 (anonymous) says...
"Footnote 3: Propaganda is not inherently “bad.” It all depends on your perspective. Moore joins a talented propagandist club already populated by WWII-era geniuses like German documenatrian Leni Riefenstahl (”Triumph of the Will”) and beloved American filmmaker Frank Capra (”Why We Fight”)."
I'm quite certain, Eric, Riefenstahl's "WWII-era genius" is the worst thing I've ever read in defending the moral ambiguity of propaganda, since she is partly responsible for the popularity, and the subsequent rise, of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism in Germany, his Nazi Party, and the murder and thievery of Europe that remains one of the worst war crimes of the 20th century.
This makes your "review" inherently ironic, since propaganda serves to obfuscate the truth for an agenda, and provoke specifically those incapable of a free inquiry of facts -- such as the type of Lawrence filmmaker who sees no "bad" in laughing at the Mexican stereotypes propagated by Jared Hess with Pedro and Nacho Libre; Hess, who's hack religion contains the belief of that certain colors work and some others don't.
I'd now like to ask your Gannett editor and yourself if propaganda is inherently bad if it's aimed at the oblivious?
Justin Martinez
September 30, 2009 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tribalzendancer (Tim Hjersted) says...
Good review for a middle of the road conservative/quasi-liberal town. I got the feeling that the "Moore annoys me too but he makes some good points here.." statements were placed there simply to appease the range of partisan ideologues that love to shout down anything that has been branded an idea of "the others" - liberals, progressives, what have you.
I see journalists all the time walking on egg shells, tip-toeing around subjects with restrained moderation so as to not upset the far right. But I suppose it's a good tactic if it's a means to an end. They probably realize an ideologue will immediately stop reading or close their mind if they smell too much liberalism afoot in thems rightings. I suppose the "reserved praise" is a good way to break down some of the ridiculous left-right prejudices so that people can come to agree on some common sense.
I for one would be glad to see people drop the phony fronts and partisan regurgitation and actually judge an idea on its own merits, regardless of which "side" has staked a claim to it.
J Krishnamurti makes this point better than I can:
When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”
- Freedom from the Known, pp.51-52
September 30, 2009 at 9:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tribalzendancer (Tim Hjersted) says...
Ahem, appease the "rage."
September 30, 2009 at 9:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Eric_Melin (Eric Melin) says...
justin-
That attack on Jared Hess was just weird and completely off topic.
As far as Riefenstahl goes, you're missing the point. Have you ever seen "Triumph"? The only "facts" in the movie are that there is a madman up at the podium during an enormous rally that is beautifully shot and edited. Yes, that only adds to the supposed majestic quality of the Hitler image, and that's why it was propaganda. Capra used racist propaganda techniques to make the Japanese seem like a faceless, evil horde to make US citizens want to join up and fight. Moore is also a propagandist, and a very effective filmmaker. Whether you agree with any of these points of view or not, none of these films are objective. Neither is Ken Burns. Point made.
BTW, the World Company is locally owned. This website and newspaper have no connection to Gannett.
tribal-
"Moore annoys me too but he makes some good points here.." True. And it's not there to appease anybody. I think the review is pretty self-explanatory. I judged it on its own merits. It's a little scattershot, but it's also quite an emotional experience in many ways.
October 1, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tribalzendancer (Tim Hjersted) says...
To be honest, my comment is directed at news media in general more than this article in particular. Regardless of whether your concessions were genuine (as you've said, they are), it just seemed to illustrate the kind of tone one needs to take if your goal were to get anyone who identifies strongly with the "right" to be open to any ideas that are labeled "liberal."
To me, Moore's views are pretty moderate. And the fact that so many people would disagree with me on that just highlights how insane (and polarized) our culture has gotten.
October 1, 2009 at 9:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
"To me, Moore's views are pretty moderate. And the fact that so many people would disagree with me on that just highlights how insane (and polarized) our culture has gotten."
Or, my friend of the zen-like tribal dancing, that fact may indicate how insane YOU has gotten.
There's a world of potential in the mining of misfortune for profit. Michael Moore's approach is not so much original as it is effective.
October 2, 2009 at 4:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
Let me re-phrase. Absent the benefits Capitalism, this film would never have been made.
October 2, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
of
October 2, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tribalzendancer (Tim Hjersted) says...
Oh DotDot, I would love for you to say all the things you do under your real name, rather than from behind the veneer of your virtual persona.
October 3, 2009 at 11:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
Love? Lord above! Now you're trying to put me in love.
It's alright, now, because I say this same shit all day long, eye to eye, face to face under my real name. Ask half this town.
You are either equating practical google juice management with cowardice, or you are suggesting that I would somehow live in fear of fatass Michael Moore for calling him on his hypocrisy. Either way, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I never figured you'd be against freedom of speech.
October 4, 2009 at 1:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
Tim,
It has just occured to me that you may have been offended by this:
"Or, my friend of the zen-like tribal dancing, that fact may indicate how insane YOU has gotten."
I my quest for brevity, the underlying (brilliant) intent of a comment comes off as a snarky insult. Aaahh, me. Sorry.
What I MEANT was: My core belief is that we are ALL culpable of the current fucked up state of affairs. That includes you as well as me. If the culture looks insane then maybe you are. Kind of a lighthearted distillation of the concept.
I love you, man.
October 4, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tribalzendancer (Tim Hjersted) says...
Much appreciated. :)
October 4, 2009 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )