ASSIGNMENT 3
CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY REVIEW
Some plot - The film purports to be a cliff-notes version of the financial
scandal/stock-market meltdown that crippled the economy in September 2008.
Hitting all the usual stops along the way (Reagan's deregulation of business, the
complete destruction of the manufacturing industry, Bush Jr.'s cozy relationship
with fear, etc), Moore attempts to form a deconstruction of the myth of the
practical and moral superiority of the economic mode known as capitalism.
Along the way, we of course are invited to share in the pain and suffering of
ordinary Americans who have been caught in the economic downturn that is not
of their own making. And we are again treated to the occasional Michael Moore
stunt, but these gimmicks are both useless and counterproductive and serve to
take away from the narrative and reveal the director as a self-indulgent
entertainer first and a social crusader second.
Most problematic is not so much his preaching to the converted, but his narrative
choices that render the film downright confusing to someone who already
doesn't know what he's talking about. What's a sub-prime loan? You won't find
out in any detail in the film, only that they are really evil. What exactly did Ronald
Reagan do in order to bring about the eventual decline of the American middle
class? I couldn't tell you just from the film itself.
The film scores some of its best points detailing the abysmal wages of airline pilots,
yet makes no specific mention of Reagan's deregulation of the airline industry or
his firing of striking air-traffic control workers in 1981.
This refusal to deal with the nitty-gritty also extends to his portraits of victimhood.
As with most Moore projects, we see various vignettes of tragedy affecting the
working class of America. While these stories are meant to pull at heartstrings, it's
tough not to notice how carefully Moore avoids explaining how each family got
into their current foreclosure nightmare. The filmmaker spends a good 10-15
minutes on the ghoulish practice of companies who take out life-insurance
policies on their own employees. Yes it's morally icky and a troubling symptom of
corporate culture, but 'dead peasant' policies are not illegal and don't really play
a direct role in the financial mess that the film attempts to sort out. Yet it remains
a token chunk of the film so Moore can have scenes of mourning family members
cursing those no-good bureaucrats.
As expected and justified, Michael Moore places the majority of the blame on
Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush (Bill Clinton gets a slap on the wrist and
Senator Chris Dodd takes it on the chin). But he also slams Timothy Geithner and
Larry Summers, while neglecting to mention that President Barack Obama has put
Norizah Abidin S810509
these two in charge of his economic policy. Maybe he's saving the presidency of
Barack Obama for his next movie, but considering how similar he's been on
economic issues to his predecessors, it's unintentionally humorous to see the
election of Obama treated as the dawning of a new day. And Michael Moore's
trademark 'stunts' are lacking both in purpose and panache. Holding a mock
funeral for a man whose health-insurance policy won't cover his liver transplant is
at least attempting something productive, as is taking 9/11-rescue workers to
Cuba for free medical care. Driving an armored car from bank to bank
demanding that the bailout money be returned is only about self-aggrandizing.
Time is much better spent detailing shocking examples of greed intermingling with
public works with disastrous results. The most potent segment involves a cold
detailing of a backroom deal between a juvenile court judge and the owner of
a privatized juvenile-detention facility that ended with hundreds of kids being sent
to the prison for things as trifling as arguing with friends in the mall, arguing with
parents at dinner, or smoking a joint at a party (this was actually dealt with in an
episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit late last season). He is also brutally
effective in detailing how the September 2008 market crash and subsequent
corporate bail out may have been more than just an accidental pre-election
surprise.
But despite the running thread tying the film to his first picture, Roger & Me (Moore
argues that unregulated capitalism has threatened to turn all of America into Flint,
Michigan), the picture feels for at least half of its running time like a novice
filmmaker doing their take on a stereotypical Michael Moore film. Just because I
agree wholeheartedly with the thesis does not mean that the film propagating
said message is a good one. While Capitalism: A Love Story gets its shots, it falters
and plays it safe and simple rather than serving as a true primer of the issues at
hand. Maybe Michael Moore is right when he chimes at the end that 'I can't do
this anymore'. If for only one film, the creator of the modern muckraking
documentary now looks and feels like one of the pretenders.
Norizah Abidin S810509