---
After slacking-off on the blog and a lot of other things that I consider to be important (school work always comes first), I’m actually returning to my occasional series of reviews.
---
Michael Moore is at it again, and when I think the film scholar in me can resist, he doesn’t. This is not to say I disagree with Michael Moore or the sentiments of his latest, Capitalism: A Love Story, to disagree would make me a Glen Beck-sized douche bag. Roger Ebert’s law of film criticism is that a film is not what it’s about but how it is about - in that the construction of a film, skillful or otherwise is what decides if a film is “good” or “not good” - simply put.
Michael Moore is manipulative. I’m a liberal and I admit it, and yet this is the second film of his that had my in tears and strangely simultaneously proud to be an American. Capitalism: A Love Story is a pro-America film, it stands in defiance of profit makers who reap large benefits by cutting costs, overhead and making complex bets and hedges. It feels wrong to see it at Regal Cinemas, the largest theater chain in America (I didn’t, by the way - opting to go to Dipson instead).
I once was a banker, coming from an institution that I don’t believe to be inherently evil and short-sided the way that some where (being a community bank they didn’t make high risk bets the way that WaMu and Countrywide did, they never made a sub-prime loan, however they did take TARP money). This, unnamed bank, of coarse being what it is, is a small fish in a large pond did not garner national attention the way Citi, Bank of America, Chase, and Wells Fargo did. The two former institutions don’t look so good through Michael Moore’s lens, nor does Goldman Sacks. Chase and Wells Fargo are nearly absent from the dialogue, along with a handful of larger corporations. Wells Fargo was targeted - perhaps fairly for lending practices in Baltimore (“reverse redlining”) that lead to the destruction of neighborhoods in the other crisis doc out now, American Casino (more on that later). Foreign owned banks, who did not take TARP funds are left out (unlike in Sicko Moore doesn’t explore how other countries regulate banks - Canada is one such heavily regulated example which has caused its stronger banks to branch out beyond Canada).
I’d be interested to see a narrative film on Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis, I can’t wait for his memoirs which will hopefully provide more interesting insight than Bill Clinton’s did. And perhaps a great deal more intelligence than the upcoming Going Rouge...
But back to Moore. He makes propaganda. As a supporter of his, and I enjoy his films (I’ve been there opening weekend for everyone since Bowling for Columbine) - he makes entertaining films that aim to inspire, move, and motivate audiences. If anything they serve as time capsules of emotional energy: his Captain Mike Across America (later Slacker Uprising) which I saw at Toronto in 2007 - is a painful reminder of the Summer of 2004- when we were all so optimistic and John Kerry for lack of a better word, proved to be a pussy. Hey, you went to war, the other guy didn’t and has the balls to start conflicts that essentially lead to massive profits for major corporations, not to sound like a conspiracy theorist here but come the fuck on.
My gripes with Capitalism: A Love Story is in the documentation. He shows memos from Citibank and highlights the key points, I tried to read what else was being said. I’m sure I could find it somewhere, but that requires digging. Moore’s films usually are released in conjunction with a companion reader that will contain such information, I’m not sure if one is out yet. Other gripes I have is with the theatrics of his presentations at times, here it feels like he’s trying to hard, an animation (you’ll know the one) representing a Bush speech is over the top and embarrassing. We’re smart enough to get what’s going on without the computer graphics. That’s like something Morgan Spurlock would have done.
But what he gets right is pulling at the emotional cords. The Republic Windows and Siding folks make me proud to be an American, proud to be middle class and fighting for the betterment of the middle class. Capitalism is fine - we need people to play a role in society but poverty, joblessness - all for short term profits, stock options, yachts - that’s pretty evil. The material addictions.
Granted I own stock, sure I’d like explosive growth but not at the sake of the middle class. I may never be rich, that’s fine by me - I’d sleep better at night doing an honest day’s work and living comfortably, I don’t need five high end cars like the rappers on MTV cribs, I’m fine driving a Passat. But I do see the hardcore capitalists point of view: without incentives we can’t encourage breakthroughs, but what are we encouraging now?
Interestingly enough the film makes a great point about the top students in science and math. Some don’t take jobs improving the lives of others, they go to work on Wall Street building derivatives, credit default swaps and other products that the film tries to make sense of. A lot of these instruments seem ludicrous when explained, sure - additional security. As does the insurance policies which I knew about from my undergraduate minor (I won’t blow all of Mr. Moore’s surprises for you).
The film is worth seeing. I blast the parts of it that seem fluffed up, done for entertainment, even guerrilla theater. The film is so good on its own. Granted, if you wanted to see the bland, boring version of this I could point you to Leslie Cockburn’s American Casino, which I saw at Tribeca last year. As part of the post-screening panel a discussion was moderated by Alex Blumberg from NPR, who’s reporting on This American Life remains the best journalism on the financial (or perceived) crisis of 2008. But we aren’t out of it yet.
Moore remains optimistic on Obama, not so much on Timothy Geithner. Perhaps it’s too early to judge Obama, and I’m still hopeful he’ll deliver what he promised, and what I and the majority of Americans voted for last November: change, accountability and affordable healthcare for all.
I learn Capitalism: A Love Story started as a follow up to Fahrenheit 9/11. Perhaps Sicko II can be made in the event the health care industry continues to reap record profits while millions of American go bankrupt over health care costs. Health care isn’t cheap, and if I could continue to pay what I paid while employed to insure all Americans had the same coverage I had, I’d be glad to. Of coarse there are other issues at hand (i.e.: it shouldn’t cost more to eat poorly that it does to eat well - yes - Whole Foods, why can’t you be as cheap as Burger King).
I think the reason I despise Moore’s theatrical antics are two fold: the content is entertaining enough on its own, his voice is genuine - using crime scene tape to tape-up Wall Street buildings and banks seems unnecessary. Secondly, they make it easier for the people seeking to discredit his films to attack and dismiss him as an entertainer. The film also dives into a strange examination of religion and capitalism, it works, but only as a critique of Bush and his moron followers on the religious right. Moore for the first time in his career tries to win them over, I hope it’ll work, shall we call Samuel Wurzelbacher.
Still, if you want the boring, emotionless, but highly credible flip side to this picture: American Casino may still be playing at Film Forum.
(Note: Capitalism, I saw in the end credits was was co-produced by Carl Deal whom I met at a Q & A at IFC Center a few years ago and I remember he was kind of a dick)
No comments:
Post a Comment