A Mighty Hearty/Sicko
I was a little surprised when I got an e-mail this morning about how much I didn’t like Sicko. My sense of both of these films is that I am mixed… not mixed positive, not mixed negative… truly mixed. I admire a lot in both works… and in the end, I feel like both come up well short of their ambitions. Still, I can’t imagine telling anyone that they must or must not see either film. Swiss… no wars… great health care… the cookoo clocks work and the cheese runs free…
And so…
It’s a brutal experience for a critic and, I suspect, for a normal audience. Michael Winterbottom does probably his best work behind the camera, but he shows almost definitively that he is the Tony Scott of the indie universe … story coherency just isn’t his milieu.
Is it a love story? Yes. Is it a political thriller? Yes. Is it a police procedural? Yes. Is it a tale of the futility of hate? Yes. Is it a journalist’s story? Yes.
It’s all of those things. And it’s none of those things.
More on A Mighty Heart
There is plenty to like in Sicko, his newest film. But it suffers what his documentary work, starting with Roger & Me, has so brilliantly avoided … an indecisive tendency to lose the audience in the effort to overreach.
It’s not giving anything away to tell you that the film essentially offers two perspectives. One is Moore’s look at some ugly stories of American healthcare and an insurance industry that would rather you die than be sick and spend their money. The other is Mike Tours The World, as he learns that lots of places have healthcare that is paid for with taxes and not insurance and deductibles.
My experience of this film is that with just over two hours of running time is not enough to properly tell both stories so, particularly in the American part, Moore is forced to resort to the dubious simplicities that make Fahrenheit 9/11 a laugh riot with no lasting impact on society.
More on Sicko
Really good reviews, DP. Especially the Sicko review. It’s a tough film to review, I think, because to criticize it is to criticize its politics but you do a good job of pointing out what is wrong with his approach as it relates to the telling of the story, which is of course a problem with the film not its politics. Your review of Sicko is probably the best I’ve read yet.
Nice to read a review of a Moore film that doesn’t just pick political sides.
Nice reviews.
Re: “A Mighty Heart.” The cynic in me wonders if the average, generic multiplex audience is even familiar with the Pearl case, or if they’ll watch blithely, happily munching said popcorn and wondering what the resolution will be and expecting a happy ending. If the latter is the case, maybe it won’t be such a “brutal experience” for them.
I know you may ask how it’s possible such a widely publicized and recent case could be outside any adult’s sphere of knowledge, but it’s not quite as everyday infamous as, say, W.T.C.
I’ve seen L.A. audiences cheer or gasp during battle scenes in movies that are based on historical fact, as if the conclusion was somehow in doubt. It wouldn’t surprise me if a good portion of what little mainstream audience there is for this movie anyway will go in expecting a star vehicle thriller no more disturbing than “Perfect Stranger.”
I’m kind of tired of the easy target nature of Moore’s work. Opening Sicko with yet another absurd quote from Bush…I suddenly knew I’d be yawning at stuff like that for the rest of the film.
Still, I think it’s well past documentation and into the realm of showmanshipaganda with him, and, well…stick to what you’re good at.
“I’ve seen L.A. audiences cheer or gasp during battle scenes in movies that are based on historical fact, as if the conclusion was somehow in doubt.”
A well done movie can still provoke surprise or shock in the moment even if you know the outcome beforehand. I found myself watching United 93 tense and hoping that the passengers’ plan would somehow work and they would land safely.
Winterbottom films as good as they are have never been big box office, and I agree not many people will be moved by the Daniel Pearl story to go the theatre – but Ms. Jolie is a huge star, and this film is clear Oscar bait, so while it might not open big, it should have some legs….it sounds great.
Long time reader, first time poster
Dave,
I appreciate your honesty about your dissapointment with the film.
“dubious simplicities”
“…the stories are so one-sided…”
“…makes me wish Moore had a little more balance in his argument…”
“…make you wonder how far he is willing to twist reality to make his point.”
Unlike other people, your honest about where you see Moore manipulating. However, even though your review is littered with comments like the ones above, I get the feeling that its, “Oh well, he missed on that one, can’t wait for the next one”.
Shouldn’t someone who is so obviously twisting facts, and so obviously using completely deceptive tactics to make a political point be labeled as such and not trusted. This isn’t the first time he has done so, and it won’t be the last. Even though your review is ultimately negative, it seems as though if you really did observe the problems mentioned above, it would be overwhelmingly negative.
As much as I would like to not think so, I can’t help but feel your admission ,”I was on his team on this issue when I walked into the theater.” is the answer to why you seem to have so much mercy for such sins. Would you extend the same mercy to a documentary which had the same problems, but on whose team you were not on walking into the theatre?
KLea – I went into Fahrenheit 9/11 on the same side as Moore too, but felt he crossed the line and made a pure polemic. Here, my sense is that he missed as a filmmaker more than as a polemicist.
I don’t think of more as a pure documentarian, seeking a higher truth. He’s a political Barnum. And that’s okay with me. What I think is flawed about the film is that he got a little distracted by having too mamy balls in the air and not a clear enough picture of what he was after.
I guess what I meant to ask is, if you were somehow presented with a flipped version of Moore; a far right wing documentarian, who was on a crusade to argue against a nationalized healthcare plan. And this bizarro version did what Moore has done and shown practically nothing but horror stories from every nation with a socialized healthcare plan and then focused on nothing but the strengths of the American healthcare system, would your overall tone be as dismissive?
I haven’t seen Sicko, but your review tends to confirm and echo many of the same problems I have had with Moore’s work in the past. However, and this isn’t really directed at you or your review, for someone who is so obviously a “political barnum” why do you think that Moore is given so much air and talk time in the media? Oprah just recorded a full hour with him. Would any right wing figure who uses the same deceptive tactics as Moore be given the air time that Moore recieves?
Again, this isn’t so much directed at you, how could you control the air time given to Moore, but I do see the kind of “oh well, better luck next tiem” attitude evident in your review as a possible shared reaction amongst those who would normally deride and abhor such underhanded and deceptive tricks.
Ann Coulter gets a lot of air time, doesn’t she? Moore is given a lot of air time because he makes popular movies and does a good job of staying in the news. If someone with a right-wing bias made documentaries that turned out to be as popular as Moore’s, of course they would get a lot of air time. And I’m sure Dave would be fair with his review, just as he is fair in stating his problems with Moore.
I thought Dave wrote a good review that, for someone who is of the left, criticizes Moore more than most.
I do however think the issue for most critics lies in how far they are willing to excuse gross inaccuracies to call Moore a great filmmaker or tolerate flat out lies.
It’s easy to bring Coulter up and she is biased to be sure. But her bias is based on justification of what is happening based on her ideology. In other words, she doesn’t deny the torture at Guantanamo; she just endorses it with her ideology. She doesn’t deny innocents are killed in Iraq, she just excuses it. One can agree or disagree.
And the screen time she usually gets is her defending her views. Moore rarely gets questioned in the MSM. He gets endorsed. Very different type of screentime.
Moore is very different than Coulter. Moore flat out even denies (in the language of cinema of course) that Stalin was reponsible for genocide on his people. Moore flat out infers this didn’t happen when any historian can tell you it did. Kyle Smith mentions this in his review.
On Nightline Moore flat out contradicted Amnesty International on the human rights abuses in Cuba.
The problem with Michael Moore, is I know longer even know what he believes. Coulter can be crass, crude and even mean in some of her comments but Moore is another kettle of fish.
Moore flat out denies the mass genocide of communism in the 20th Century which are well documented.
Put it another way:
I am not saying Coulter doesn’t try to persuade you to see a different perspective, but increasingly, Moore tries to convince you that 2 + 2 = 5. I know of many conservatives that wince at Coulter and Coulter will even attack George Bush. But I rarely if ever see Moore get called on the mat by the left.
Sicko is currently at 83% on rottentomatoes and even then most critics admit they know he distorts the truth.
I think that is what KLeaman is getting at.
Does the truth not count for anything? At all. Nada. Zero. Zip. I mean when does distorting the truth just become a flat out lies and propaganda?
Didn’t Birth of a Nation just get bumped off of AFI’s top 100 due to ideological reasons?
Understand I am not defending Coulter (if you hate her I don’t care), I just agree with KLeaman that if a doc was made from the right that had sooooooooo many distortions in it. Well….it would never have gotten this far.
Hell, a doc with no distortions from the right would never got this far. Even with Ebert and Roeper’s endorsement the kid who made Michael Moore Hates America never got it released and I’d bet we’ll also never see Manufactured Dissent in mainstream cinemas.
In short; do crix give Moore a pass due to ideology…of course.
To think otherwise is to be painfully naive.
Are Michael Moore Hates America and Manufactured Dissent good docs? Neither of them contains any distortions? You sure seem to be kind to Coulter, despite what you write. That is beyond me. She is one vile waste of skin. Moore is to the left what Fox News is to the right. Some will take everything at face value while others are smart enough to examine it for themselves.
Michael Moore Hates America is not really about Michael Moore at all. The young man who made it is also not a conservative. That’s part of why Ebert and Roeper liked it. It features people like Penn Jilette explaining how documentary filmmaking allows for things to be taken out of context and to warn people not to take things at face value.
Again though we must warrant distortion vs. flat out lies.
If a neo-Nazi group made a film that endorsed National Socialism and whenever the gestapo was on camera played goofy cartoon music to make the worry over them seem trite, I would call that much more than a distortion of the truth. I’d call it flat out holocaust denial. By not acknowledging the horrors of communism and even belittling them, Moore moves into this territory.
For the record I have not seen Manufactured Dissent; but it is not made by right wingers either. I missed an opportunity to see it at an indie festival about two months ago and as best I know it does not have distribution yet.
As for Coulter; if you hate her, that’s fine with me. The difference between her and Moore though is one is supposed to question Coulter. Her persona is that of the ‘villain’ in pop culture.
Moore is seen as a folk hero who should never be questioned even though his lies are now becoming much greater than his truths. Moore is believed by people who should know better (academics, lawyers, film industry types who should understand his techniques).
I have not seen Sicko yet, but I do appreciate the line in Smith’s review. Crticizing Moore films is no longer an issue of liberal or conservative, it’s one of basic intelligence.
Stella-
Coulter is an excellent example of the point I am trying to make. Above you called her “one vile waste of skin”, and I assume you call her this because of what you see as complete inaccuracy, deception, over-simplification, name-calling, etc. in her arguments and beliefs. I’m fine with that. Why doesn’t the mainstream seem to do the same with Moore? Instead, they treat him as just a man with his own opinion that may be somewhat biased.
Nicol I am not a Moore fan, but who exactly is claiming that he should never be questioned? And isn’t it fair to say that Coulter’s persona as a villain is entirely of her making? Doesn’t she milk that for all it’s worth?
“…but who exactly is claiming that he should never be questioned?”
Please, correct me if I am wrong. I just do not see anyone of significance in the mainstream news or media or entertainment industry seriously question Moore who is not already known as a conservative (ie. Rush Limbaugh). Please point me to the way.
I would love to see a good liberal academic say we should question Moore…was there an essay I missed?
I missed Oprah. Did she grill him on the hot seat about his denial of Amnesty International?
Did some Hollywood celebs or producers say they would never work with Moore again?
Did Jon Stewart mock him? Did the NY Times or CNN have large stories that critique his work that I missed?
Have there been profiles of Cubans in Florida who fled Castro that have been profiled? Somewhere? Anywhere?
Did 60 minutes decontruct the fallacies in his work and I missed it?
I mean I saw the Nightline piece, but that was just a small debate.
Sorry…maybe I just do not read enough left-wing or mainstream literature. Please, prove me wrong.
Send me the links.
Jesus Nicol. Being a prick sure comes naturally to you. Here I thought the burden of proof was on you. YOU were the one who stated that we were all encouraged to never question Moore. I merely asked who exactly was saying that. I wanted you to tell me who out there is telling us to never question Moore. Send me the links. Asshole.
actually, in a debate, both sides are supposed to present evidence of their assertions.
i am a lapsed fan of moore’s. i enjoyed his first couple of films. liked that brief series.
he’s funny. and an entertaining character. his politics line up with a lot of the people who do the reporting and interviewing. i think that’s what gets him the pass. but i don’t think it is an earned pass, the more i read about him.
No Stella,
I did answer you. I just didn’t give you the answer you thought I would give because you asked the wrong question.
Any culture has things or people you are or are not encouraged to question.
It is a far more complex then ‘who’. We are taught by example. And there are virtually no examples of people of significance (who aren’t already labelled as right-wing) questioning Moore in our culture. That was my point, and – you -couldn’t come to the table.
You just think I am a ‘prick’ or an ‘asshole’ because I don’t act in ways you can predict and that frustrates you even though I can assure you there is no ill will on my part.
Questions: Is a documentary supposed to be journalism? Do documentaries require the same rigorous standards of fact-checking as journalism? Does Michael Moore consider himself a journalist?
Moore I think did a bachelors in journalism and worked as an editor, defintely for Mother Jones but not for long. Does he consider himself a journalist now? Dunno. He alwasy reminds me of a chat-show host–interested in facts but also interested in the entertainment aspect maybe too much for a strict documentarian’s taste.
I love Roger & Me but I hate it too since some of the saddest things were presented in an ironic or comical way which I think detracted from seriousness of the points. American Dream = real journalism/docu Roger & Me = American Dream dramedy or American Dream Lite.
But I really did think Roger & Me was a good movie…
I don;t know if documentaries are expected to have the same “fact-checking” seriousness of print journalism (even though I would like them to)–but then print journalism makes mistakes all the time since they do not verify wire sources at times and even respectable networks will take field interviews without verifying eyewitness reports.
I suppose the spirit of a good documentary is a comprehensive display of factual information without distorting/editing the situations to be make apparent non-factual/untrue representations (for whatever ends).
Wrecktum,
Excellent question. I do not have the answer but I think Moore has certainly opened the floodgates for people to question what a documentary is.
I think this though:
1) People who have studied film in school or other will always allow for the fact that the documentary tradition itself permits for certain liberties in presenting an argument (Nanook of the North is always cited as an example). The problem is, many do not see any difference in degrees.
2) The average person does tend to view a documentary with an untrained eye. Most people that I have encountered (both out and dare I say even in the film industry) see the word ‘documetary’ as being tantamount to the truth.
3) Michael Moore and many of the documentarians that have been inspired by him are aware of this difference of thought and exploit it to the max. They are more than aware of the manipulation they do. They believe the end justifies the means and know they are manipulating people.
Now obviously sometimes people do just have different opinions and interpretations…that’s fair. But Moore has taken it beyond the pale where it becomes flat out propaganda and fiction. Sadly, he is the one who most young documentarians want to emulate.
I did too once. I made a doc in film school that totally emulated the Moore style right down to the jokey kindly condescending tone. The students loved it. I used stock footage, stills, hip music…everything. I got big laughs from the entire auditorium. I received a C for my efforts. It’s one of the few times in life where I received a shit grade and you know what…I get why a got it.
I took a subject that was not political but I made a decent person look like a fool. I deliberately took them out of context and the students loved it.
I was a huge Moore fan then but I have since realized what I did wrong. I hope some day Moore realizes what he has done wrong too. You can arugue that Bush is ripe for satire, but think of all the blue collar people, desk clerks, secretaries etc. that Moore exploits for cheap laughs.
People say Moore revitalized the doc genre. I think you could argue he’s actually helped put a nail in its coffin.
In the three months prior to the 2004 election, there were no less than six anti-Moore docs, and only one anti-Kerry (and that was an hour-long TV special). This makes a pretty good case that the wingers feared Moore far more than they did the actual candidate; in other words, they knew what he was dishing out was largely truthful and had to do anything they could to undermine him lest he sway even more voters away from the GOP.
Stella: calm down, remember that you’re one of the good guys.
Nicol: Moore is due for some backlash and maybe this is the movie that will provide it, if he is indeed as crazy with the facts as you say they are…although I also get the impression that some of the info you’re reporting is also exagerrated, since as you say, you have not seen Sicko yet, so how do you know what exactly it is Moore says about the Soviets or Cuba?
Oh, and the reason Manufacturing Dissent and Michael Moore Hates America never got wide distribution are the same reasons why Robert Greenwald’s films don’t: they play to niche audiences and not to mainstream ones. Maybe MMHA isn’t a right-wing film but it sure as heck sounds like one based on the title.
Cadavra – it wasn’t fear, it was exploitation. When Dick Morris gets involved with something, it’s exploitation. No media pundit/politico on the right thought F9/11 would have the traction it did. So when it exploded, they all wanted a piece of the action.
Wrecktum – Questions: Is a documentary supposed to be journalism? Do documentaries require the same rigorous standards of fact-checking as journalism? Does Michael Moore consider himself a journalist?
I was going to post about this earlier, but felt it veered too far from Dave’s review. While it’s a good review, the tone is way too passive-aggressive for me, which seems to be at the heart of Nicol and Kleaman’s topic.
As for your question, it’s the elephant in the room for Moore because of his Cuba jaunt. For those who don’t know, no American is freely permitted travel to Cuba unless you are a journalist.
So if the Justice Dept decides to indict him, Moore will have to prove he’s a journalist. The problem, is that many, many critics have referred to him like Dave has – Barnum or something more akin to performance art. Then, you have the issue that Moore has unquestionably broken several basic rules of documentary work, such as lying by exception and misrepresentation.
But what makes the issue more interesting, is if Moore wins. He would forever change the legal definition of a journalist. Limbaugh, who’s never once claimed to be a journo, could suddenly claim freedom of the press because what he does is the radio equivalent of Moore. Coulter could do the same. So the left-media, who’s coddeled a guy that his co-workers at Mother Jones said was delusional if not paranoid, could now be irrevocably done in by said loon. And if he loses, he flees the country and becomes and expat.
Personally, I love it, because it forced him to tone down his original A&M campaign for Sicko as an attempt to show he’s serious. Then there’s the rumor he looked the other way on the Sicko DL.
As for a left-friendly interviewer taking issue with him in person, Charlie Rose was the closest I’ve seen. I remember it because Moore froze at one point. It wasn’t a fight by any means, but it was certainly not what big boy was expecting.
well, that’s the thing. he gets petulant when challenged. so, nobody does it in the media. who wants a petulant guest?
jeff, i don’t think nicol said those comments from moore came from the movie “sicko.” i think he means moore has made statements in public to that effect. referencing comments on cuba/russia.
Ah, I see.
No one is above cheap laughs, most of all the pompous folks who without a shadow of a doubt deserve comeuppance.
I’ll take one who has beliefs that can change over a crass and crude instrument of hate.
Moore is due for a backlash? Isn’t that what’s been happening ever since Farenheit 9/11? He’s the favorite whipping boy of Republicans everywhere, and his name is used to tar any policitican on the left that so much as shakes his hand. If that’s not backlash, I’d hate to see what is.
A box-office flop and mainstream media asking questions like ‘has Michael Moore gone too far?’
From the June 1 Entertainment Weekly (take it as you will):
EW: Do you consider yourself a journalist?
Michael Moore: Are the editorial pages of The New York Times journalism? Yes. But they’re opinion. They’re opinion based on fact. In my case, it’s going to take somebody 20 or 30 years to figure out what I came up with, because while it’s journalism, it’s also satire coupled with a large sprinkling of opinion to create a work of art.
I’m not sure why people think Sicko not doing big numbers would somehow make it a bomb. It’s a documentary about healthcare. Why would anyone want to go to the theatre and see that? If it’s makes $10 million, one would think it’d be doing great.
Cadavra,
“…they knew what he was dishing out was largely truthful…”
The amount of anti-Moore docs (of which I can maybe only remember one) that came out reflect in no way how truthful the content of Moore’s message was. If a couple more had been made, does that make it even more truthful? I would suggest that the amount of response was more due to Moore’s blatant misrepresentation and editing tricks.
Can I ask a further question? Does it even matter anymore what Moore calls himself? Regardless of whether he wants to be called a journalist, or a commentator, or simply a filmmaker, the nature of the argument that Moore desires to make automatically puts him in an arena where he needs to play by certain standards or take his message out of that arena. If Moore desires that his points be taken seriously on an intellectual level, then the propaganda techniques need to stop.
To sum my argument up; Moore can hide behind whatever label he wants. Its his desire for his argument to be taken seriously enough to warrant political action that damns his methods. The Barnum and Bailey’s ringmaster may get us laughing and “shock” us with the bearded lady; but deep down we all know the beard’s fake.
KLeaman – Docu work would be much better if the majority saw things like you. But it seems to be moving in the other direction.
Hoju – Thanks for putting that up. By admitting he’s not a journalist, he had no right to go Cuba. That’s some deep legal shit.
The number of anti-Moore docs does not reflect how honest or dishonest he is or has been; it reflects how threatened the other side feels by him. I know a President who’s had probably more documentaries made against him than any other in history for the same reason.
“The number of anti-Moore docs does not reflect how honest or dishonest he is or has been”
I agree. The number of documentaries does not automatically mean anything, what it means is open to interpretation. Which is why I “suggested” an interpretation of why I felt there were so many anit-Moore docs, rather than state a causal relationship like “greater the fear of someone = moore documentaries on them”
Man my typing and proofreading is suspect today.
Its anit-Moore docs and not anit-Moore docs. And its “greater the fear of someone = more docs on them” not “moore docs on them”
yeesh
anit = anti
Maybe I should take my comments out of this arena if I can’t live up to certain typing standards…wow
jeff, I like you man, but after all of your battles here with Don and others, did you seriously tell me to calm down?
I just love how people complain about Michael Moore choosing easy targets, yet they are choosing an easy target in the form of Michael Moore to complain about.
Jeff,
“so how do you know what exactly it is Moore says about the Soviets or Cuba?”
On Nightline he contradicted Amnesty International, Jeff.
As for what he ‘says’ regarding Soviet Russia…well did you read my original posts?
Is Kyle Smith’s review exaggerated?
You would argue I can’t tell before I see the film.
If a reviewer says space ships are shown in Revenge of the Sith before you see it, do you have to see Revenge of the Sith to know there are space ships in it?
I mean it’s not like Sicko exists in a vacuum.
“Oh, and the reason Manufacturing Dissent and Michael Moore Hates America never got wide distribution are the same reasons why Robert Greenwald’s films don’t: they play to niche audiences and not to mainstream ones.”
I don’t think you read my posts. Michael Moore Hates America didn’t receive – ANY – distribution even with an Ebert & Roeper rave.
Manufacturing Dissent as best I know has received – NO – distribution.
If anyone can correct me on either of these points feel free to.
You really are reaching with this one, Jeff. I mean even the John Kerry propaganda doc received fairly wide distribution and you don’t get any more niche than that.
Also, how do you know if they are niche if nobody takes a chance on letting people see them?
Seems to me a much more realistic response is that people are;
a) partially motivated by ideology
and
b) terrified of pissing off powerful people like the Weinsteins and Moore in the industry.
I mean really Jeff, are you actually going to make an argument that a film like Manufacturing Dissent would have – NO – audience. Not even in college towns and big cities?
That a movie called Michael Moore Hates America that has an Ebert endorsement couldn’t have been released in the summer/fall of F/911 and made someone, somewhere money?
Films like Shut Up and Sing, Jesus Camp and Deliver Us From Evil are niche (as purely evidenced by their grosses) yet they find mainstream distribution.
We could have a long debate on these things Jeff, but with this and your love of Hostel II, I think I have to affectionately tell you that you may have jumped the proverbial shark.
Like so many of Moore’s apologists you are putting your ideology well above what you must know is common sense knowledge abut the film industry.
Just like Fonzie with the water-skies.
Nicol, your posts are too long. I’m not a Moore apologist – I think his movies have gotten less interesting with time and yes, I think that a movie about Michael Moore and why he’s a menace is inherently less interesting to a general audience than a movie about pedophile priests or evangelical kids. And I don’t ‘love’ Hostel 2. I merely went out on a limb by not hating it.
I don’t think you read my posts either – even though I try to keep them short and conversational.
Nicol: Actually, I think Michael Moore Hates America received a fairly wide video release. I know I’ve seen it displayed at Blockbuster outlets. As for Manufacturing Dissent — saw it and reviewed it at SXSW, and thought it was a respectable piece of work (even though it could be dinged for doing some of the very things it criticizes Moore for doing). But I can see why potential distributors might feel it’s a bit too Inside Baseball to pick up for theatrical release. Think about it: A documentary about a documentarian.
Is Kyle Smith’s review exaggerated?
I’d like to step in and say that I have no idea if Smith’s review is exaggerated (and that’s having both seen the film and read the review), but I know it is fairly idiotic as a piece of film criticism. He basically attempts to debunk the film — this action itself not really being a review, per se — by offering a litany of his own uncited quasi-facts (“in a poll…” — almost as good as “some experts say”). He doesn’t so much criticize Moore’s approach or filmmaking (obviously, arguments can be constructed around that); he mostly seems to be saying “these views are incorrect.” Oh, except for some of the stuff about people getting screwed by healthcare companies. He acknowleges that those situations do happen — and dismisses that in a sentence as being “obvious” and therefore a pointless story to tell.
Also, having seen the film I can say that Moore in no way “implies” anything peachy about Stalin. He uses some Soviet propaganda footage (and anti-communism propaganda materials) to make *jokes* about U.S. fears of the term “socialism” — specifically, the idea that socialized medicine would turn the U.S. into Stalinist Russia. This is not a dismissal or endorsement of Stalin, but a point about the absurdity of thinking the U.S. is in danger of going that way by providing national healthcare. To see this and react with “so he’s saying Stalin was nothing to be afraid of?!” is a pretty notable achievement in the field of humorlessness by Mr. Smith.
The film does spend a little too long on the Canada/England/France contrast with the U.S.; it’s just a bit repetitive for each country to have its own mini-section of the film. It could’ve easily been compressed into one extended sequence and made the point just as well. But even as-is, it’s obviously intended as sort of an exaggerated riff on the *ideals* presented in other countries’ healthcare plans that the U.S. doesn’t seem interested in even attempting to replicate. I’m always surprised by how often people seem to miss the humor (as grim as it can be) in Moore’s work.
Jeff,
“…movie about Michael Moore and why he’s a menace is inherently less interesting to a general audience than a movie about pedophile priests or evangelical kids.”
Say a ‘liberal’ audience and I’m all aboard that. Both those films tanked with the ‘general audience’.
“Nicol, your posts are too long”
I know. But it takes a long post to make a point that doesn’t devolve into rhetoric and zingers. Explaing context takes longer, especially when I am pretty much the lone, non-left voice here. I like to offer more than ‘Michael Moore suck.’
Joe,
I just did a quick search and MM Hates America, as best I can tell, was self distributed by the guy who made it. He made copies and offers it for sale over the web. If the same was true of a left-wing doc maker, we’d all be screaming ‘blacklist’.
“…potential distributors might feel it’s a bit too Inside Baseball to pick up for theatrical release. Think about it: A documentary about a documentarian. ”
A doc about a documentarian, or a doc about the biggest documentarian of all-time; who is one of the most successful and wealthiest entertainers of the modern era- (backed by one of the most hard ball producers of the era)- who led a movement to take down a sitting American president and is believed by virtually all of his followers to be something of a deity even though he has a handle on ‘truth’ about as much as dry sand has a handle on wet.
For all the uber left-wing docs and films that get released that flop hard and have no appeal whatsoever, – these two – are finally the ones where the distributors worry about being mainstream enough. Sheesh.
Jesse,
“He uses some Soviet propaganda footage (and anti-communism propaganda materials) to make *jokes* about U.S. fears of the term “socialism” — specifically, the idea that socialized medicine would turn the U.S. into Stalinist Russia. ”
I am for socialized medicine. But as I wrote above…if a doc filmmaker showed footage of the gestapo and anti-Nazi WW II propaganda with goofy music over it to make it look like all the worry was ‘no biggie’ would you cut him any slack?
Would you assume that probably the filmmaker might be a Holocaust denier? I think that would be a fair assumption.
Moore is a child of the sixties stuck in the sixties. More people died in the 20th century due to communism than any other religion or ideology or economic system in the 2000 years preceding it. Period.
It’s like Cameron Diaz showing up with her trendy Rodeo Drive Mao bag in Peru, where 70,000 people were slaughtered.
For Moore to mock this…is reprehensible. It’s also very upper-class, white and western.
Nicol, if a documentary filmmaker in 2007 “showed footage of the gestapo and anti-Nazi WW II propaganda with goofy music over it to make it look like all the worry was ‘no biggie'”… in regards to an issue where there was no realistic “danger” of turning to nazi-ism (to say, spoof, a fear of buying Volkswagon cars or something), then, yes, I probably would “cut him slack” or even better, “see his point” that he’s pointing out a pointless paranoia. And no, I would probably not assume that filmmaker to be a holocaust denier! Once again, Moore isn’t saying “Stalin wasn’t a big deal”; he’s saying “socialized medicine will not turn is into Stalin-era Soviets.”
One point I wish Moore had made further to this issue was that England, Canada, and France have not fallen to communism just because they took on socialized medicine; in that sense, his argument could’ve been even stronger. But to equate spoofing anti-communist paranoia (especially in the context of socialized medicine TODAY) with holocaust denial to me is somewhat insane. Are we so humorless about the “threat” of communism that we can’t even *joke* about the fact that the U.S. is unlikely to succumb to communism in 2007?!
Jesse,
“Once again, Moore isn’t saying “Stalin wasn’t a big deal””
Why do you say this? Has Moore critiqued human rights abuses in communist countries before?
Again, I am open to be persuaded but when the guy contradicts Amnesty International on human rights abuses in Cuba…
If you can find some instances of Moore critiquing communist regimes I’ll gladly rethink my views. Please, send some links.
“Are we so humorless about the “threat” of communism that we can’t even *joke* about the fact that the U.S. is unlikely to succumb to communism in 2007?!”
No Jesse, quite the opposite. We in the wealthy West -ONLY – ever see the the humor in it. Easy if you are a millionaire, white entertainer like Michael Moore who never had to live under its rule. Not so easy to laugh at if you are one of the legions of millions who lived in the abject poverty, destitution, horror and genocide of it.
The Peruvians who found offence at Cameron Diaz’ oh so fashionable ignorance of the slaughter of 70, 000 of their citizens at the hand of the Maoist Shining Path didn’t find it too funny either.
Do you live in a large city? Take a trip to your local Chinatown district. I do on a regular basis and on any weekend in my city there will be people protesting the horrors of the Chinese Communist regime. If you find them, look at the photos of the victims; burnt, scarred faces; broken families. It is nothing to laugh at.
Again, I agree with socialized medicare. I just don’t think Michael Moore really gives a rats ass himself. If he did, he would have taken the time to make a pic that couldn’t be so easily dismissed by critics of it.
Nicol, I am talking about something that was in Moore’s movie, whereas you are taking outside interviews and saying it’s fair to extrapolate from those and from indirect “evidence” in the film (this would be sort of like me critiquing Apocalypto — a film I liked — based on Gibson’s weird personal problems). As I believe another poster mentioned, the burden is proof is not on me to provide links to Moore criticizing human-rights violations. Should I prove he’s not a witch, too? You’re essentially saying Moore is guilty until proven innocent; he has to have spoken out against human-rights violations in order to make jokes about the fact that the U.S. would not turn into Stalinist Russia by adopting socialized medicine?!
By your logic, no one should make jokes about the fearmongering of the Bush administration concerning terrorism because terrorism has led to a lot of death and misery. Obviously terrorism itself isn’t funny. But if you go that route, you’ll find yourself exempting a whole lot of the world from any attempts at humor.
Oh and you asked why I’m saying that Moore isn’t saying that Stalin ‘wasn’t a big deal’… the answer is because I saw the movie and that’s not what it says. I believe I explained that already. You may believe otherwise based on Moore’s interviews, etc., but I’m telling you what the movie says and there is no “Stalin was fine” subtext.
Nicol: Documentaries that criticize Michael Moore are very easy to come by. Indeed, right now, Amazon is promoting a two-fer package: Moore’s own Fahrenheit 9/11 and the critical Fahrenhype 9/11. It’s also easy to get Michael Moore Hates America and Larry Elder’s Michael and Me (which, like Manufacturing Dissent, is the work of a filmmaker unsuccessfully stalking Moore for an interview) through various digital and brick-and-mortar outlets.
Look, I could probably name a dozen or so interesting and/or incendiary documentaries (many political, many not) that I have seen at assorted festivals in recent years that never made it past the festival circuit. (In fact, some of them never even got DVD or PBS exposure. For all I know, they vanished from the face of the earth.) A few struck me as having at least modest commercial potential. But, obviously, distributors disagreed. And I seriously doubt that any of these docs were in any way “blacklisted.”
(BTW: You should read today’s LA Times piece on Manufacturing Dissent. Looks like even John Pierson, the indie film vet who’s helping to promote the film, doesn’t believe there’s a “conspiracy” working against it.)
In the end, the docs that get any kind of theatrical play are the ones that distribs feel (or hope) will earn at least some small change. (That’s capitalism, sport; I thought you approved of that.) Now, if you want to argue that many of those docs lean Left, and very few (if any) lean Right, well, you may have a valid point. But maybe there’s something else you should consider: Maybe Righties simply don’t flock to docs like Lefties do. Or maybe Lefties simply make better docs. And if it’s the latter, well, don’t feel bad: With all due respect to Al Franken and other past and present Air America notables, the Right does talk radio a lot better than Lefties do.
jesse
moore puts himself into the movies. his style is one of trust me, i know of these things. i think it hugely important what he says outside of the movies.
your mel gibson comparison is inaccurate. if mel did a documentary on the positive impact of the jewish culture on the world, you wouldn’t look at that rant and slightly doubt his sincerity?
i ran into two educated people over the weekend who had no idea of some of the tricks that are in moore’s movies. my assistant loves him because “he speaks the truth.”
Oh no! You better educate them hendhogan. Show them the light.
that’s not the point, stella.
it’s not my responsibility to show anyone “the light.” they are friends, so i tell them what i’ve heard. made my concerns noted.
it is, however, the job of the newspapers and news shows to educate people. hell, one can even argue that documentaries are for educational purposes.
my point is that moore’s tactics are not common knowledge and that is telling.