Michael Moore Depresses Another Viewer With SiCKO, A Worthwhile Documentary (We Wish Wasn't)!

The Good: Generally well-presented, Funny, Heartwrenching, Good DVD bonuses
The Bad: Doesn't nail a few key arguments he begins
The Basics: SiCKO takes on the dismal state of the United States insurance system by simply exploring it and contrasting it with nations that have universal health care.


It's no secret to those who read my reviews that I generally like Michael Moore and his cinematic works. Fahrenheit 9/11 remains possibly the best documentary I have ever seen on film. The truth is, I feel like a bad liberal; I did not go see his follow-up, SiCKO when it was out in the theaters. To be fair to my bleeding heart, it did not come within twenty miles of the backwoods where I live, but I could have made more of an effort to get out and find where it was playing. So, when it appeared on DVD, I did rush out to pick it up and give it a pretty thorough spin.

Wow. Dang.

With SiCKO, Moore takes on the United States system of health care, with insurance companies being motivated by profit instead of care. His objective is achieved most effectively by simply presenting other models of health care, universal health care, in Great Britain, France, Canada and Cuba. Moore simply presents the other systems, with little commentary, and allows the disparities in care speak for themselves.

SiCKO is not about the uninsured, which is perhaps the most deceptively harsh aspect of the film. Opening the film with two people who had to pay out of pocket for medical procedures like reattaching fingers and seeing doctors, Moore quickly dispenses with the uninsured in the United States the same way the government does; he declares he is not going to deal with them. This makes his argument incredibly effective as all of the cases that follow are people who have insurance and ought to - one thinks - be covered for their ailments and conditions.

Over the course of two hours, Moore documents the pathetic state of health care in the United States by illustrating how people in the United States who are insured are kept from receiving health care. He interviews people who had insurance who were denied payments, like a woman who was in a car accident and was taken, unconscious, from the site of the accident to the hospital in an ambulance whose ride was not covered by the insurance company because it was not preapproved. He interviews people from the industry who know how things work because they are the executors of the will of the insurance companies; screeners who keep people from getting insurance and investigators whose sole job it is to comb through records of those who have claims paid out to find ways to get the money back or to knock those insured people off their plans.

Perhaps the most damning moment in the film is also the most subtle. In a clip from a Congressional hearing on health care, a medical professional admits that when she denied care and that resulted in a death, she was promoted and never held accountable. What is even more damning about the clip than her testimony is this; the seats are not filled on the panel. No reviewer I've read has noted that at a major Congressional inquiry of health care in the United States where a medical worker admits their promotions were based on denying claims and killing a patient the Congressional panel couldn't even be bothered to show up with its full attendance! The clip clearly illustrates the apathy of Congressional members or the way they were bought off in a way that the rest of the film does not.

It's astonishing and heartbreaking.

The rest of the film simply illustrates working models of universal health care systems and the level of care that patients receive in them as well as the type of compensation doctors receive. Moore simply debunks all of the rumors surrounding universal health care and the nations that have it by showing what works about them. I recall feeling some outrage recently when I read Ralph Reed's book Politically Incorrect: The Emerging Faith Factor In American Politics (reviewed here!) when he proudly wrote about the Christian Coalition exerting its influence to squash the efforts to create universal health care in the United States. Watching SiCKO is enough to make me want to go kick him in the shins (and I'm a pacifist!); hearing the stories of death, agony and disfigurement of Americans is terrible when one considers that something - even a system that initially fails - is better than nothing. As someone who was swept aside by Moore and the government (I'm entirely uninsured, so there's my bias, I suppose) watching a film like SiCKO is depressing beyond reason.

But the thing is, it's not as depressing as it ought to be. Michael Moore, who the conservative elements want to decry as a rabble-rouser and the ultimate evil, pulls his punches severely in SiCKO. Moore opens the door to the profits of health care companies by flashing the salaries of many of the CEOs of health insurance companies on screen, but he doesn't nail it home. He does not illustrate overall profits of the health insurance companies or the accumulated wealth of the CEOs. Moreover, he fails to tie such concepts to the concepts he does illustrate, like how much the health care industry donates to the campaigns of U.S. Congresspeople. So, for example, Moore fails to explore the idea that the billions of dollars made by the insurance companies and the millions of dollars they pay their CEOs and pay into campaigns for electing officials obscure the real numbers; the salaries and campaign contributions are expenses which are taken out of the profits; which means that the cash value of the industry is vastly higher than it initially appears.

So, while SiCKO might create a healthy outrage in the United States about the dismal state of our healthcare and the insurance industry, the film could easily have been more inflammatory and still been as informative and truthful. The other serious problem with the film is that Moore opens the door to arguments that he does not follow up on. The most notable of these is how the nations that have universal health care pay for it. When exploring France, Moore quips that they pay for the health care because the country is "drowning in taxes," which is the mantra used by the elements in the U.S. government to keep the nation from developing our own health care plan. The problem is, Moore does not debunk that; he makes the comment, but does not illustrate what the tax burden is. So, he presents a doctor living in London (for example) who makes approximately $200,000 a year, but he does not get into what kind of taxes he pays.

In some ways, I suppose, the argument may not need to be made. Moore observes through his interviewees that Great Britain, following World War II instituted universal health care because if there was money to kill people, there ought to be money to save them. And that's one of the moments that works amazingly well in the film.

As well as potentially outraging viewers, SiCKO is bound to enlighten and entertain viewers. When Moore packs up Americans to go to Cuba to try to get health care at Guantanamo Bay, the film cuts to a message about Homeland Security not allowing them to show how they actually got to Cuba. It's actually a very funny cutaway and it comes at a point in the film when it seems like the movie will be oppressively serious, without any flavor. Indeed, it comes at a moment shortly after the September 11 attacks are mentioned and I groaned, fearing the film would take an irrelevant turn as Bowling For Columbine did when it referenced the attacks. Instead, Moore rightly mixes humor and the simple exposure that those who are revered one moment are silently set aside at another. Today's heroes are tomorrow's line item budget veto. And Moore illustrates that he thinks that is wrong and quietly debunks the entire idea that the U.S. cannot afford universal health care by illustrating that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay receive it.

Indeed, this is another area Moore simply does not explore. Health care is not treated as a matter of national security; the military treats detainees, but no similar program exists for the general populace. If it seems I am spending so much time on what Moore neglects, it is because the film is a very effective documentary. It documents. It documents the state of insurance companies and the alternatives in universal health care. And it does that remarkably well and with little postulating and less commentary. Moore lets the facts speak for themselves.

SiCKO on DVD has some interesting featurettes, most notably the ones that focus on actions taken as a result of the film. Moore travels to Washington, D.C. with some of the people featured in the film to help lobby for H.R. 676, a bill that would provide universal health care in the United States. The featurettes are interesting and offer only a little bit of repetition for what is already in the film, utilizing the medium well.

The only question now is, will it be effective? If you haven't seen it, it's time to. And it is time to act, before another life is lost because it was more profitable than saving it.

For other documentaries by Michael Moore, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Capitalism: A Love Story
Fahrenheit 9/11
Bowling For Columbine
The Big One
Roger & Me

8/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Big One: Michael Moore's Understated Documentary That Is Anything But.

The Good: Funny, Entertaining, Moments of heartbreaking realism
The Bad: Lacks substance, cohesion, ultimate point, No (real) DVD bonus features
The Basics: When Michael Moore presents a documentary of one of his book tours, it lacks the cohesion of his other films and leaves the reviewer wanting more.


As those who read my many, many reviews will know, I am generally a fan of the films of Michael Moore. Indeed, I have enjoyed several of his books as well. And while I was not blown over by Bowling For Columbine I have found his films to be worth the time and (emotional) energy to watch. So, when it came time for me to sit down and watch the last film of his that I had not yet seen, I was eager. After all, I did not know a thing about The Big One when I sat down to view it on DVD; I was excited.

I wish I had saved that excitement for another time!

This documentary is almost the most literal form of documentary, it simply documents. Unlike other Moore films that have a clear goal, objective and/or thesis, The Big One is a rambling capture of the experience of following Michael Moore through a book tour. Moore is sent on a book tour from Random House and in the process uncovers corporate liars and greed.

Following the release of his book Downsize This: Random Threats From An Unarmed American, Michael Moore’s publishing company sends Moore on a book tour throughout the United States of America. In Moore’s working-class hero style, Moore travels to the places in the United States that had been left behind in the mid-1990s, middle America. There he finds workers struggling, being laid off and fired by companies that are showing record profits. Frustrated, he tries to confront the head of various companies in those cities and towns he is at in order to find out why protecting workers is not a priority for them.

The problem with the film is this: the back of the DVD package focuses the film in a way the movie never actually manages to achieve a point. According to the packaging, The Big One is about Michael Moore traveling through the Midwest and Central United States attempting to find a CEO, any CEO from a Fortune 500 company who will answer the questions: “If Fortune 500 companies are posting record-setting profits, why do they continue laying off thousands of workers?” Sounds like a decent movie, right? The problem with that is, that’s not what the movie actually is about.

Instead, this is a sprawling movie in which Moore chronicles his book tour, which incidentally happens to take him near enough to corporate headquarters’ and factories for major American businesses that coincidentally have massive layoffs right around the time of Moore’s visit! As a result, Moore will –for example – be driving around Chicago when he comes to the Leaf candy plant where he is planning to deliver a novelty check to the CEO of the company for putting workers out of work in a city he visited earlier. While on the grounds, Moore learns that Hershey has just announced that it bought Leaf and Moore tries to get back into the building. Things like that – companies being old, plants being closed, etc. – seem to happen frequently around Moore as he travels on his book tour, giving him great access to disgruntled workers.

The problem is, the story Moore is documenting never takes real focus. Moore does not pursue CEOs to ask them a single, unifying question. Instead, he annoys lackeys and assistants who work for the CEOs and he never quite nails them down to a decent answer because, in truth, they are not in a position to respond. There is one exception and that is with the CEO of Nike, who was cited specifically in “Downsize This!” and who invites Moore to meet him via a radio show Moore is appearing on to promote his book tour.

That is the most disturbing and direct interview in The Big One as the audience watches as the head of Nike flatly denies that using 14 year-old Indonesian labor is wrong. Moore is at his most biting when he begs the head of Nike for jobs for Flint, Michigan and tries to prove to the executive that Americans want to work (which he is unsuccessful in arguing, sadly!). But this is the most informative the film gets because he is the only person who actually has the authority to change the company represented in the movie and Moore’s efforts are a dismal failure.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am VERY much on the side of the working class. I am one of the few people on the site to gladly read and review The Communist Manifesto (reviewed here!) and when I was in politics, I was appealing to the poor (important note: if you want to be elected in the United States, you can’t campaign to the poor – they have no money to donate to keep your campaign afloat!). So my problems with The Big One do not stem from disliking the working-class folk who would benefit from Moore’s interventions and efforts, but rather from the movie’s lack of focus on that.

No, the problem with the movie is its general lack of focus. Instead of having a clear purpose and theme, the film rambles as Moore rambles around the country on his book tour. Far more than a social statement or a probe into working conditions, this is a film about Michael Moore. Those who liked, for example Fahrenheit 9/11 because it was about a case, an argument, with Moore simply narrating and walking the viewer through the evidence will likely be disappointed by The Big One, which is much more about Moore.

But, as a fan of Moore, I enjoyed much of the film. Moore captures himself doing his schtick quite well. He is funny, engaging and watching The Big One makes me wish I knew about him and his works when I was in high school and could have gone to one of his readings. The Big One presents Moore as almost a stand-up comic in his appearances and he is quite funny (which I knew from watching TV NationThe Big One includes a sub-plot about a Border’s Book Store unionizing (very undeveloped in the documentary) and another one about the 1996 Presidential Election which completely fails to tie the corporate greed from the rest of the film into the influence peddling in politics. Sure, it allows the movie to open strong with Moore’s story about the checks he wrote to the four major campaigns, but it ends up as a loose end.

Similarly, the side note on Steve Forbes is hilarious, but it doesn’t go anywhere. The result is the film ends up being Moore telling stories from his book, more explicitly illustrating some of the problems Downsize This! explores and just rambling without ending up as anything greater. It is a bunch of parts that do not add up to a significant sum. And frankly, as a fan of many of Moore’s works, I expect better from him.

As a side note, Moore is accused of being liberal as a result of The Big One, which I think is overstating it. He is certainly anti-capitalist (yea Michael!), but he represents very strong working-class values and the concept that has been around from the late 1800s that the Populists tried to use, namely the idea of responsibility with wealth. In that regard, The Big One is a big success; too bad the movie did not pound that point more!

For other documentaries by Michael Moore, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Capitalism: A Love Story
Fahrenheit 9/11
Bowling For Columbine
Roger & Me

4/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Michael Moore Phones In A Documentary: Bowling For Columbine

The Good: Some valid points to be made
The Bad: Moore fails to make them as well as he could
The Basics: In a surprisingly emotional documentary, Michael Moore explores the issue of gun violence with little zest and less solutions.


Despite not having seen Sicko yet, I'm a fan of Michael Moore's documentaries. I loved his short-lived show TV Nation (why isn't that on DVD yet?!), was moved by the magnificent Fahrenheit 9/11 (reviewed here!) and even thought the points made in Roger & Me were well made and well-executed. So, when I sat down to watch Bowling For Columbine on DVD, I expected to be informed, entertained and intrigued. By the end of the two hour documentary, I felt none of those things.

Following the killings at Columbine High School, Michael Moore goes on a journey to find out what happened and explore the role firearms play in the American experience. He explores the culture of the United States that forced adults on welfare into the workforce into jobs that often involve hours of travel, the effect that has on the American family and the tragedies that occasionally result from a lack of supervision when children get into parent's firearms. He explores the role of the NRA in fighting any form of gun control and he takes a victim of a gun crime to the K-Mart corporate office to try to return the bullets still lodged within the youth.

The most positive aspect of the film Bowling For Columbine is that latter bit. By pushing the corporate office with their return policy, Moore and the student affect a real change; K-Mart alters their corporate policy on ammunition sales. As an advocate for responsible gun ownership and reasonable gun control, I see this as a positive effect of the film.

The film also does an effective job of breaking the links between violent crimes and the usual scapegoats. Moore sits down with Marilyn Manson, who was blamed by pundits as one of the causes of the Columbine shootings. Moore effectively diffuses any sense that the linkage between Manson and the shootings is anything substantial.

But Bowling For Columbine falls drastically short of doing anything but preaching to the choir. While hunting down Roger Smith in Roger & Me worked well, harassing Charlton Heston about a little girl's murder seemed more obnoxious than anything. Heston's section near the very end of the film is interesting and when Moore does not get his desired response from the actor, Heston ends the interview and walks off. Moore simply leaves the photograph of the dead girl at Heston's house and it plays poorly; it's sentimentalism that is getting in the way of Moore's valid points and arguments.

Sadly, this documentary is also the highest in emotionalism and least authoritarian in the voice of reason or factualism. Moore too often plays for the emotional reaction from the audience (i.e. hunting down Dick Clark) as opposed to appealing to a rational sense of logic. Completely absent from the argument is the idea that most gun owners cling to; that gun ownership is more a matter of freedom and keeping the government at a distance than actually owning a firearm. In short, it's more the principle than the actual act.

But Bowling For Columbine is also absent any real and effective solutions. The question has always been; if the NRA is what's truly holding up responsible gun control (like keeping semiautomatic weapons or assault rifles off the streets or out of the gun shops), why doesn't every gun control activist simply join the NRA, vote in a President who will fight for that? It's not like the NRA is some secret society, so whoever is leading it is somewhat malleable based on the needs and desires of the constituents. Moore is a member of the NRA, why doesn't he use his documentary to launch a campaign for NRA President? It seems obvious; get all those moms from Rosie O'Donnell's "Million Mom March" to register for the NRA and vote Moore president, bam! You've got a gun control advocate sitting on the largest gun lobby money in the country.

Bowling For Columbine also neglects far too many of the personal responsibility arguments associated with gun control. The vast majority of guns in the United States are not used for crime and the vast majority of guns involved in crimes are not the ones legally purchased. Sure, it's funny to see Michael Moore head up to Canada and walk into people's house's because they don't lock their doors in suburban Toronto, but it does not honestly explore the gun culture or the issue of gun crime in the United States.

And yes, it is alarming to see the statistics of gun violence in the United States and it is certainly worthy of the time and attention of a documentary, especially of the caliber that Moore has proven he can do. The problem with Bowling For Columbine is that the points are not well made, it does not adequately explore the illegal gun trade in the United States and it does not offer genuine solutions to the problem. More than anything, Bowling For Columbine stirs up the waters on the issue and leaves the viewer in the murk.

On DVD there were few bonuses, mostly extended scenes and it did not add anything sufficient to the film. No, this is one where Michael Moore takes a swing and misses. Fortunately, it's a rarity for him.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
Lost In La Mancha
Roger & Me
Why We Fight


5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

The Prices Of Capitalism Explored By A Man And His Microphone: Roger & Me

The Good: Poignant, Funny, Well-Conceived, Well-Executed
The Bad: Not enough DVD features, Ultimately pointless
The Basics: When Flint, Michigan is devastated by GM's virtual withdrawal, Michael Moore goes on a quest for accountability from CEO Roger Smith.


Before Michael Moore cheesed off a bunch of red states by speaking truth to power and creating an argument linking the Neocon agenda, election fraud, influence peddling, outright lies and abuses of power with the Bush Administration and the Iraq War with Fahrenheit 9/11 (reviewed here!), he was a working class hero documenting the downfall of Flint, Michigan and General Motors under CEO Roger Smith. Perhaps the most amusing aspect of the shift away from Michael Moore by the working-class base (he did, after all, make a film suggesting gun control might be important after the Columbine incident) is that the values voters most offended by the allegations of Fahrenheit 9/11 tend to be the ones most hurt by corporate greed as illustrated in Roger & Me.

Roger & Me is a simple documentary wherein GM's massive layoffs of its plant in Flint, Michigan result in devastation to the local economy and thousands of unemployed workers are left desperate. Michael Moore, a resident of Flint, is deeply upset by the collapse of the local economy and the shady attempts to revitalize the locale after the withdrawal of GM. Distraught that American jobs have been outsourced, Moore does all he can to hold CEO Roger Smith accountable. The only way Moore knows to do that is to hunt down Smith and attempt to confront him with direct questions about his actions.

Roger & Me is the ultimate vendetta in search of an apology in all of american cinema. Moore wants an explanation for the people of Flint, Michigan. He wants to raise awareness about the human cost of outsourcing and the lives it destroys. And at the end of the day, Moore seems to want an apology from Smith. Even that will make the film worthwhile.

Michael Moore becomes a dogged investigator, first establishing the causalities needed to make his quest seem reasonable. The first half of Roger & Me chronicles the rise and fall of General Motors in Flint, Michigan. It explores the lives of the citizens of Flint who are forced to do such things as sell rabbits for meat (and by extension other citizens there are gamely consuming them), evict citizens from their homes on Christmas Eve, and leave the area in search of greener pastures.

The latter half of the film then sets to dogging Smith and Moore is relentless in trying to acquire his human target. He is seeking an element of corporate responsibility that the stockholder nor the courts will ever hold Smith to because GM did not lose money and despite the results of the layoffs, Smith did not commit any crimes by shuddering the Flint plant.

What works well in Roger & Me is that the heartbreaking scenes of the human cost of high capitalism are tempered by the ironic and insanely human quest for accountability. In that way, Moore becomes a Quixotic working-class hero fighting against the Reagan era of blind greed. His sense of reason and desire for a very human measure of responsibility becomes noble when the viewer is confronted with the primitive regression an American city undergoes when the mainstream life support is cut. Granted, Americans could stand to know more about where their food comes from (and it can even be done in entertaining ways, as with Fast Food Nation), but outside the fraction of the population that still lives on family farms and kills their own food there, Americans are people who go to the store, the freezer or the restaurant for their food. It's a convenience of modern life to not have to slay your own animals for meat and watching such things as the rabbit being skinned on camera is eye opening for the way people who were once a backbone of conventional America are tossed to the proverbial wolves when capitalism wrecks them in favor of the free market.

In Stupid White Men (reviewed here!), Moore notes that far more people take umbrage with the rabbit being skinned for food on screen than the sight of a young black man gunned down in the streets and I understand where his concern for that comes from. However, the bulk of citizens in the United States have watched television programs where the murder of human beings (usually through gun violence) is commonplace. Indeed, the whole network news notion of "If it bleeds, it leads" is based on the idea that violence captivates. It is entertaining. If you don't want to see people shooting one another on television, you can turn it off; if you want to eat meat and you see where it comes from, it's something that sticks with you. Seeing people whose former fortunes allowed them to simply go to the refrigerator for food resorting to skinning their rabbits for meat is ultimately dehumanizing. It is that dehumanization that Moore rails against. It is that catastrophic failure of the American Ideal in favor of Capitalist vision that Moore seeks to expose in Roger & Me.

And it's almost entirely successful.

Where Roger & Me fails is in its imbalance between factual documentary-making and the attempt to be entertaining. Moore starts off with a keen wit and a load of fact and soon the balance of the film is entirely documentary, loaded with statistics, facts and concepts designed to win the viewer over to his argument about the folly of capitalism. But then when he starts his quest to truly nail Roger Smith to the wall with ballsy questions and the demand that the CEO take accountability to gutting an American city, he pursues it with an eagerness and style that is too close to sensationalism. It's hard for the viewer to reconcile both halves of the movie as part of the same whole.

On DVD, the film looks great (poor quality bits have more to do with the original film's origins than the transfer), but there are few extras to make this an essential DVD. There is a commentary track, but it is not terribly illuminating. There is also the theatrical preview which is fine. I guess I wanted more from the movie and the DVD.

But it's certainly worthwhile in its own right and Moore makes a good argument and (for the most part) he makes it well.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
Why We Fight
This Film Is Not Yet Rated
The Fog Of War

6.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Capitalism: A Love Story Is Good, But A Sadly Average Michael Moore Documentary!

The Good: Packed with information, A good fundamental argument, Generally well-presented
The Bad: Shotgun approach arguing, Doesn't nail the points home.
The Basics: Michael Moore's latest documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story is well-researched, but lacks some of the punch of his other works.


Every now and then, I encounter a film where I sit, enjoy it and I know that the American population just isn't getting it. Movies like Blood Diamond and V For Vendetta had great points, presented them well and still, the Revolution did not come. Citizens did not stop buying diamonds, even after seeing the atrocious conditions with which the diamond trade thrives and we did not overthrow the capitalist institutions and bloated anti-democratic government machines that keep us in our place. I, at least, feel like I have a little room to gripe about this: seeing Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 (reviewed here!) was the last impetus I needed to try to work for change myself; I ran for the U.S. Congress (woefully unsuccessfully for six months, but I ran!). With his latest documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore falls sadly quite far away from his prior persuasive abilities.

And before any lame attempts to discredit my review come from the idea that I am either against Michael Moore or in favor of the "party line" on Capitalism, I've been a pretty avid Michael Moore fan since Fahrenheit 9/11 and one of my earliest reviews was evaluating The Communist Manifesto (here!). I've long railed against capitalism (largely because I get crushed by it and am unable to follow my real passions because I'm too busy paying bills) and I've often agreed with Michael Moore (and Karl Marx's) interpretations of history. The problem is, Capitalism: A Love Story is far less focused than Moore's other works. As a result, it becomes much more difficult to be swayed by his convincing points. Sadly, Moore misses some real opportunities to expose the real "villains" in his documentary. Even so, Capitalism: A Love Story is packed with information, graphic illustrations of the heavyhandedness of the capitalist institutions and anecdotes about the way United States capitalism has become bloated.

After splicing together an old documentary on the fall of Rome with current trends in the United States, Michael Moore treats viewers to witness an eviction of a family due to foreclosure on their home. Returning to 1950s propaganda films, Moore illustrates how ingrained capitalism was in the United States's collective unconscious while illustrating that the 1950s offered the greatest period of growth and stability for the middle class due to socialist influences, like the unions. Moore then picks his target: Ronald Reagan. Following on Jimmy Carter's attempt to warn the American people about the dangers of unbridled capitalism, Reagan rides into Washington, D.C. with deregulation on his mind. Pressured by advisors who have the greatest stake in making more profit, Reagan helped to bust unions and deregulate financial, real estate and manufacturing industries to gut the financial strength of the United States. After a series of alarming and convincing graphs, Moore effectively illustrates that Reagan's deregulation was the turning point for the U.S. economy and the arguable cause of many of the woes that followed.

What follows is an exploration of capitalism as a possible sin, with Moore getting several religious leaders from various churches to explain why Jesus would likely have resisted or rejected many capitalist institutions. As well, Moore profiles a sit down strike in Chicago, explores the concept of derivatives (absolutely hilarious, when it's not being scary!) and illustrates that the post-World War II nations the U.S. rebuilt followed more socialist models and as a result, are thriving today. Capitalism: A Love Story closes with FDR's proposed second Bill Of Rights which would offer U.S. citizens greater economic freedom and Moore arguing that it is time to enact this.

Here is the fundamental problem with Capitalism: A Love Story. Moore concludes that he's not going to live with crushing forces of capitalism anymore and he is not up for leaving, so he exhorts us to be part of the change. But he does not offer any real, recognizable, or actionable plans to do that. V For Vendetta, for example, provided a problem and a remedy: arrive here on X date and we will rally to stop our oppressors! Moore, who has been part of organizing political events and tours, could have easily capped the film off with "Converge on [Washington, Wall Street, etc.] with me on November 1 and let's make sure these fugitives from social justice do not get away!" Instead, he simply makes an argument and then says "I'm not going to stand for it, join me." Well, if I learned anything from my political career it was first you have to have an audience. But after that, you have to have an actionable message. Moore, alas, does not with this documentary.

As well, Moore misses a few important opportunities. After exposing a company's memo on how the economic elite run the nation (a biting document following on the heels of revelations of dead peasant insurance policies being taken out on unsuspecting workers!), Moore reveals that the 1% economic elite is most terrified of the common citizens because of our voting power. Yes, if we execute our democratic powers - Moore argues - we may topple the regime. Unfortunately, here Capitalism: A Love Story misses its opportunity to make one of the best points it might make, which is that the U.S. Government has turned over manufacture of voting machines to private companies (having tested the new ones New York State is using at my local library two weekends ago and seeing NONE of the ballots getting counted by the actual machine, I am now absolutely terrified about our democracy!). Moore correctly evaluates the problems and the one potential action he advises is now in danger of being corrupted by the influences he has eloquently exposed throughout the rest of the film! That he neglects this vital argument is more than simply problematic, it is sloppy.

That said, Capitalism: A Love Story is remarkably informative. For example, Moore explores some of the recent terminology in American finances, like derivatives. He illustrates a complex formula for a derivative and he tries to get two experts to describe just what they are. Neither one gets it on their first pass and neither one can put them into concrete terms. While the film includes ridiculous bits of idiocy (like people who cannot seem to fathom what "dead peasants" means) the attempted explanation of derivatives is shocking for how convoluted the idea and execution are. Moore does an exceptional job of exposing the means with which U.S. citizens are kept down.

As well, fans of Michael Moore's other works will appreciate Moore's on-screen antics, like his attempt to cordon off Wall Street buildings with crime scene tape and his attempts to make citizen arrests on various CEOs. But more than that - Moore has little personality within the film, once again letting the facts speak for themselves - Moore is quite well-informed on the nature of the institutions he is attacking and he openly exposes those who place capitalism above true democracy. The result is interesting and well-argued. And it appears, the sole reason this is rated "R" is that the word "fuck" is used three times.

What it is not is great cinema. If Moore had offered a time and place for congregation and rebellion, that would be one thing. As it is, it is quite safe to wait until this comes out on DVD. I write that as one who is writing because that is what I want to do with my life. I've already rejected the corporate machines. But if you haven't, perhaps it is time to get to a theater!

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
Religulous
The Cream Will Rise
Babies

6/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Fall Off The Fence Into Action With Fahrenheit 9/11

The Good: Well developed, Thoughtfully presented, Excellent footage and message, Remarkably little bias
The Bad: Could have used more punch/was not effective
The Basics: With a remarkable use of archived footage and documents, Michael Moore exposes the conspiracy to get the U.S. to attack Iraq in Fahrenheit 9/11.


[As I start moving my documentary reviews into my blog now that my Best Picture Project is once again over, I am starting with my favorite. This review was originally written the first weekend the film was released and I have kept the text unchanged because, like the documentary itself, the review captures the time and place exceptionally well. Enjoy!]

A lot of people mistakenly compare Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore and it is an inapt analogy to compare the two, not because of their political differences, but because of what and how they present it. I know this because, in the course of researching various things over the years, I have turned on Limbaugh's program to listen to it. Know thy enemy, that sort of thing. On Limbaugh's program, he falls into the cheap debating tricks and mistakes known to anyone with a decent education as logical fallacies. He attacks individuals making debates, instead of focusing on the issues (ad hominem), he implies anyone who is disagrees with him is stupid (snob appeal) and he calls his adversaries childish names like "Spend-o-crat" and "femi-nazis" (just plain annoying and immature). Michael Moore does none of those things and his latest outing, Fahrenheit 9/11 goes a huge way toward showing how decent an argument Moore may make.

Unlike Limbaugh and his loudmouthed assertions and accusations, Moore presents Fahrenheit 9/11 with remarkably little of his own narrative voice, relying instead on the voices of experts in the fields of government, interrogation, military living and psychology, to make his arguments for him. Indeed, most of the damning evidence that is presented in this movie comes from the mouths of the individuals Moore is implicating. They repeatedly (often) make his points through the things they say and the video footage of what they are doing.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sweeping documentary that explores the downfall of the United States of America over the past four years. It illustrates how Al Gore conceded the 2000 election and stepped aside instead of fighting to the death when a single news organization made a decision about how the election was decided. The movie illustrates the ineptness of George W. Bush in his first months in office, his expansive leisure time and then the attacks that came on September 11, 2001. Following some of the movie's most engrossing and emotive scenes (many of which are simply the sounds of the September 11, 2001 attacks), the movie takes a good deal of time illustrating the links between George W. Bush and his cronies in Big Business. The latter half of Fahrenheit 9/11 shows how the U.S. became engrossed in a war in Iraq, how the public was deceived and the effect it has had on the soldiers in Iraq and the citizens of both Iraq and the United States.

I have a tendency to agree with Roger Ebert on a great many film-related things. He lambasted White Chicks and I found myself made ill by the previews alone for the movie. This morning on the radio, Ebert was praising Fahrenheit 9/11, but noting that it is likely to have less impact than Moore would wish by the fact that it is preaching to the choir. I believe he is right. The people who need most to see this movie are likely not to (yet still lambaste Moore for making it) if they are steadfast Conservatives or unlikely to if they are simply politically on the fence. Both groups should watch this documentary and here is why:

Conservatives should watch Fahrenheit 9/11 because it will allow them to (at worst, if they approach it with a closed mind) adequately argue against the points Moore makes in the movie. At worst, a Conservative should watch this movie to see what their educated adversaries are saying and develop an educated and insightful response to it. Unfortunately, the only conservative response I have thus heard is "Michael Moore is a Big, Fat, Stupid White Man" (ad hominem again, on many levels). Intelligent Conservatives - and you're out there letting people with more hot air and less education and articulation speak for you - can use Fahrenheit 9/11 to voice an educated Conservative debate in the attempt to debunk what is made clear in this movie.

At best, Conservatives and those in the political center or on the fence as where to vote in November, can come away with the message that George W. Bush is not the leader of the masses in the United States, nor should he be. Centrists, especially, will come away from this movie questioning the validity of George W. Bush and his agenda. As well, the most educated Conservatives may admit that Bush is not representing them, their attitudes, and their interests. And there is no shame in that. The highest 1% of the wealth in this nation did not all vote for Bush and, moreover, his supporters are not all rich white guys. Indeed, a good number of Conservatives come from some of the poorest areas of the South and Midwest and the traditional Conservative values that they stand for are not represented through George W. Bush.

How does this movie effectively illustrate that Bush's personal agenda is not even the views of most people? First, it uses a remarkable array of poignant citations. Moore includes newspaper clippings, government documents and expert testimony in Fahrenheit 9/11. A far cry from being simple soundbytes or half-developed arguments, Moore often uses long clips of testimony, many of the most damaging coming right from the mouth of George W. Bush. A decent Conservative with genuine self respect will falter watching this movie when they see the inarticulation of the leader they have been supporting.

Second, Moore's most powerful ally in disarming the Conservative faction is through the use of his most potent case study. A good portion of the movie follows the journey of a mother of a soldier in Iraq. Presented in such a way as to cause the viewer to question Moore's motives for using her, Moore presents a woman from Flint, Michigan who easily illustrates a love of her country, her family and soldiers. If you read any reviews or hear any commentary on Fahrenheit 9/11 alleging this to be the work of those freeloading, longhaired flag-burning Liberals, the first question you must pose to the person is "Did you actually watch the movie?" There could not be a better example of a case contrary to all of those things than the one presented and Moore effectively uses her to eliminate such simple arguments.

Moreover, Moore is remarkably unbiased in his presentation. How can I say that? Despite his obvious dislike of Bush and his regime, Moore does not side with the Democrats, showing their ineffectual resistance and utter compliance with the Conservatives in accepting without challenge the declarations of the opposition. Moore effectively condemns the Democrats for their acceptance of George Bush through illustrating their own impotence and unwillingness to fight on behalf of the people who voted for them. I, personally, was glad to see members of the Black Caucus as they fought on the day of the Electoral College voting. I was glad to see it then and I am overjoyed that Moore included it in the movie. Moore very effectively balances a lot of arguments that could be viewed as simply partisan.

The rest of the time, he lets the facts speak for themselves to make his case. He shows - in very graphic detail - the horrors of war, the carnage unleashed on Iraq and the results of it. He shows the members of the Bush Administration repeating lies to the American people and he makes remarkably little commentary on them.

In fact, one of the greatest strengths of Fahrenheit 9/11 is in how minimally Moore is in it. I like Michael Moore (as recent reviews of mine of two of his books would indicate). But the truth is, his style of ambushing politicians and businesspeople and putting them on camera without necessarily warning them, can be seen as exceptionally abrasive. Indeed, many Conservative elements - who have no problem saying the most ugly homophobic, hateful racist and sexist remarks when they broadcast their opinions over the television and radio - seem to find it uncomfortable and annoying when anyone openly challenges them away from the safety and sanctity of their podium. Moore is seen as a "bad guy" by many of them because he approaches and dogs them away from the places where they are comfortable and unchallenged in their viewpoints. It's all "hellfire will rain on you, sinner!" when they are on the radio, but out back when Moore challenges them to talk, it's all "go away, stop invading my privacy! You're what's wrong with America!" And they call liberals wimps.

Sorry, that was ad hominem. Wait, actually, it was not; several conservatives have called liberals wimps. I remember many people calling Dukakis a wimp. I take back my apology.

My point here is that Moore does not fall into those tactics of dogging people in Fahrenheit 9/11. In fact, the only people he even comes close to chasing are various members of Congress and then only to ask them to help get their own sons enlisted in the war in Iraq. Moore effectively disarms many of his most vocal critics, simply by minimizing his own role in the movie and it works incredibly well. He makes his points expertly without clouding them with his personality (but for those of you who like him, like me, there's plenty of his wit and humor left in).

If you have read Stupid White Men (reviewed here!) or Dude, Where's My Country (reviewed here!), there's not a lot of new information here. Why see the movie, then? Seeing the information Moore has written about is remarkably powerful. You'll laugh, you'll cry. You'll cry. But more than that, you'll want to act. And in an election year, - and well beyond - you should want to act. This is not a ridiculous comment like "Fight the Power," this is the reminder, the wake-up call from the sense of civics most people leave behind in 5th grade; WE ARE THE POWER.

Or, we can and should be.

Fahrenheit 9/11, at its best, should awaken in those who have been sleeping through history, sleeping through their inner sense of outrage on current events, and encourage them to act. In Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back, the Internet is defined as a place where people all over the world can share pornography and complain about movies. I certainly do my share of complaining about everything on-line and I would like to close by saying this; if you are someone who has been inactive since the election scandal in 2000 or you have simply accepted current events as "simply the way things are" or you know of someone else who does, go see (or take your comrade to see) Fahrenheit 9/11. The worst it may do is cost you a couple dollars and two hours of your life. At best, it will get you out of your daze and into the world where (especially WITH your friend) you ARE the power.

It's time to take it back.

For other documentaries, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Disney's Oceans
Babies

9.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

If This Doesn't Make You Call Your Board Of Elections, Nothing Will: Stupid White Men Still Resonates!

The Good: Funny, Well-written, Insightful, Clever, Well-cited
The Bad: Moments are over-the-top
The Basics: Satirical and Well-researched, Stupid White Men goes a long way to undermining the faith one has in the Bush regime.


In the brief time I have been reading the books of Michael Moore (this is, to be fair, only the second one I've read), I've learned that he is a polarizing guy. People tend to like him or hate him. The people who like him tend to like his sense of humor and his arguments. The people who hate him tend to dislike him on the grounds that he is a jerk. The problem is, so many people are blinded by a dislike of Moore's personality that they fail to comprehend or consider the validity of many of his most poignant arguments and ideas.

Stupid White Men is a look at how the United States of America went horribly wrong in the 2000 election and how dangerous the state of the union was going into the 2004 election cycle. Moore writes about how (specifically) voters were disfranchised in Florida, resulting in that state turning the tide of the Electoral College in 2000, resulting in George W. Bush becoming "president." Moore explores other poignant issues of our time, including the poor Clinton legacy, the connections between current high-ranking politicians and big businesses, and the sorry state of education in the United States. His topics are wide ranging, but always come back to how it affects the common person in the United States. Moreover, Stupid White Men is remarkably unbiased in its criticism of the Republican regime and the Democrats who live and die by the same rules.

Moore does several things right in Stupid White Men. The first is that he is remarkably funny. Moore has a real tongue (or pen) for language and a knack for taking offensive subjects and turning them into something worth smiling about. He writes with open humor, tongue-in-cheek satire and biting sarcasm about the state of the world and how the United States has become less run by the people who ought to be running it and more by the big businesses who should be serving it.

Moore has a wonderful grasp of the facts at hand in all of his arguments. For example, when he makes controversial statements in chapter 2 about the drinking histories of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, he backs them up with at least four sources. The strength of Moore's arguments come, not simply from having citations, but having decent citations and a good number of references from a diverse number of sources. Part of the idea of Freedom of the Press is that if there is a truth out there, the wider the net is, the more likely the truth is to get caught. By having a wide variety and political range of sources, Moore effectively insulates himself from the possibility that the conspiracies and networks he exposes are false. They are there to be found and Moore does an excellent job of putting the pieces together.

Moreover, Moore has an excellent way of exposing the hypocrisies of our society while trying to offer genuine remedies to the problems. Chapter Four - "Kill Whitey" goes a long way to belabor the problems with race relations in the United States today. Moore exposes differences between attitudes toward white and black people and observes - with a great amount of sadistic humor - that most of the world's ills are perpetrated by white people. After spending many, many pages belaboring the idea that whites still keep people of other ethnicities down and "in their place," Moore offers several viable solutions, not the least of which is a request for resumes from non-whites to come work on his films with him. More than just some gasbag of wild philosophies, Moore practices what he preaches.

And that is not to say that Moore is some philosophical god or anything. In Stupid White Men, he takes some time to belittle recycling without ever actually proposing that recycling plants actually recycle. Moore also fails to mention that his bad experiences with recycling trucks and the recycling industry have a lot to do with where he is writing from; New York City. There are many admirable recycling programs where products actually are recycled, just in smaller areas.

But Moore does many an important social service by publishing Stupid White Men, a task that was hampered (according to his following book, Dude, Where's My Country?, reviewed here!) by the attacks on September 11, 2001. There are many biting criticisms of people in the Bush regime that the faux "national unity" created after the attacks undermines. The problem with trying to censor this book is that the fundamental wrongs he tries to expose here exist now more even more than before (take a look at John Ashcroft and his "Patriot" Act, for example).

The social service Moore provides comes early in the book. His exposure of the specific ways the Republican party and Bush family removed the power to vote from hundreds to thousands of Floridians is astonishing, worse so by its truth. No matter how one feels about the injustice over the counting of votes in Florida in 2000, chapter 1 of Stupid White Men exposes a fundamental wrong wherein the reader is led down the systematic way individuals were stripped of their write to even cast a vote! It doesn't matter one's political party; the write to vote is sacred in this country. If you can read Chapter 1 of this book and not call your Board of Elections to make sure you're still on the rolls, you have a lot more faith than you should in the government!

Even more than Dude, Where's My Country? Moore's Stupid White Men succeeds in exposing too many of the hypocrisies of the U.S. government and the sorry state of the world. Better than his latest book, Stupid White Men brings up points and unearths truths that will be true for many (too many) years to come. A must-read for anyone who wants to vote.

For other political books, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Keeping Faith - Jimmy Carter
The Onion Presents Our Front Pages
High Crimes And Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton - Ann Coulter

8/10

For other book reviews, please be sure to visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2010, 2007, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |

Why Everyone On The Political Fence Ought To Read More: Dude, Where's My Country? By Michael Moore.

The Good: Funny, Well-written, Insightful
The Bad: Will not endure, Chapter 8
The Basics: Michael Moore explores the hypocrisies and lies that have engulfed the United States during the Bush administration in a very readable satire.


[Back in the day, I was a political dissident. Yes, I was. I loathed what was happening in the United States under the Bush Administration and I did my part to stem that tide. In addition to a failed run for the U.S. House Of Representatives, I learned all I could about U.S. politics. I particularly enjoyed the commentaries and essays of Michael Moore. Moore's books, like this one I am reviewing here, are often very timely. As a result, Dude, Where's My Country? is pretty much worthless these days because the people in power Moore is kvetching about are no longer in power. But, for posterity and the reader's enjoyment, here is my review of this classic humor and political commentary book! Enjoy!]

I used to enjoy watching TV Nation when it was on Fox, but outside that, I realized I had not read or seen anything by Michael Moore. While debate currently rages about the release of his film, Fahrenheit 9/11, I found myself with the opportunity to pick up (and read) his book Dude, Where's My Country? The title alone is almost worth the price of the book.

Dude, Where's My Country? is a left of center treatise on the state of the union that attempts - mostly successfully - to illustrate what has gone wrong in the Bush administration. Moore tackles issues that have not been explored throughout the media and the most troubling aspect of reading this book is the thought that most of it will be new information to most people. Facts like the Bin Laden family being flown out of the United States without interrogation after the September 11, 2001 attacks will shock most people. Dude, Where's My Country? is full of such revelations.

Chapters include a searing look at the lies that followed the September 11th attacks as well as exposing the false information that George Bush used to commit U.S. troops in an armed conflict with Iraq. Moore wonderfully exposes the flaws and lies of the conservative commentators, satirically cuts into the oil-driven war to "liberate" the people of Iraq and explores the solutions for the world oil shortage. In addition, Moore attempts to rally support against Bush and his cadre of fascists by exposing the lies that have cost U.S. citizens their prized freedoms.

Perhaps the nicest aspect of this book is the extensive collection of citations. Moore thoroughly documents his allusions and allegations. Unlike much of the worst of the conservative commentators that make blanket statements and slanders, Moore has extensive footnotes and citations. It's refreshing because it immediately establishes his authority and insulates him from being accused of simply being a loudmouthed jerk.

Moore has becomes something of a public presence and he actually takes some time out of his scathing debates on the incompetency of Bush and the cronyism of his Cabinet to deal with the backlash that has come from him speaking out. By directly citing the words of conservative commentators, Moore factually deconstructs their arguments to illustrate them for the falsehoods and slanders that they are.

More than that, one of Dude, Where's My Country's? principle theses is well illustrated throughout many of Moore's arguments; the conservative element in the United States is feeling threatened because public opinion largely is against them. One of the most intriguing chapters is Moore's call to arms to all those left of center to stand up and voice the opinions the polls indicate they have. Moore most impressively explores what the issues that define "liberals" are today and illustrates that they are not simply some lunatic fringe, but most of mainstream America.

Furthermore, the admirable aspect of this book is that Moore implores the public to become involved in politics, a call that desperately needs to be heard. The fundamental rights of the American citizens have been undercut, largely because we have not stood against those who are defiling our rights. Moore calls upon us - and this is a message that should be heard by all of the citizens, not simply those who are left of center - to retake our democracy. Perhaps the most potent idea presented in the U.S. Constitution (and recalled in Dude, Where's My Country?) is the idea that the citizens ought to control the government and they are responsible for their leaders.

In fact, with Moore's endless citations, there are only two real drawbacks to Dude, Where's My Country? The first is chapter 8, a little section where Moore writes from the perspective of God, decrying Bush's justifying actions in his name. Chapter 8 rightly observes that Bush has wrongly appropriated the voice of the divine in justifying attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. There are several quotes wherein Bush claims he is doing God's work in ridding the world of evil (and they are cited efficiently by Moore). The problem with this chapter in Dude, Where's My Country? is that the narrative technique undermines the tone and importance of the argument. Bush's theocracy and theology are dangerous things and Moore's satirical tone makes it too easy to dismiss this particular argument. Moreover, because of the jovial, sometimes cheap jokes Moore uses in his voice of God, some of the importance of this issue is diluted. And this is coming from a reviewer who loves changes in narrative technique, especially in books (just read my novel Within These Walls!).

Finally, the black mark against Dude, Where's My Country? is in its place in the library. This is a book that is of critical importance now. Right now, in the history of this particular democracy, Dude, Where's My Country? is an important document that should be required reading for those who vote in the middle of the political spectrum. Seeing how very far the rights of the individual have been compromised to benefit the few rich who serve under George W. Bush and his government is eye opening, disturbing and the cause for genuine political revolution. The problem is, if the book has its desired goal - which I share - in ousting Bush as president, and replacing him with a person who undoes all of the injustices this man has perpetrated, this book becomes simply a reminder of what we went through. Unlike something like Twain's Letters From The Earth," which is also a satire and exposing hypocrisy, Dude, Where's My Country? does not have that same timeless quality.

I suppose my hope should be that this book becomes out of date quickly. If you haven't read it, you ought to - certainly before election day - and it is likely you will feel the same way.

For other political books, please check out my reviews of:
Keeping Faith - Jimmy Carter
Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them - Al Franken
The Onion Presents Our Front Pages

7.5/10

For other book reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2010, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |