michael moore bailout

Michael Moore’s latest film Capitalism: A Love Story screened at the Venice Film Festival yesterday, and the reviews and reports have begun to come in. So far the response has been very positive, a bunch of four out of five star reviews. Here is a look at the buzz from Italy:

Variety: “By returning to his roots, professional gadfly Michael Moore turns in one of his best films with Capitalism: A Love Story.” … “Unfortunately, elsewhere, Moore strives so hard to manipulate viewers’ emotions with shots of crying children and tearjerking musical choices that he’s not so much over-egging the pudding as making an omelet out of it.”

The Hollywood Reporter: “Although it’s less focused than Sicko or Fahrenheit 9/11 — whose boxoffice it should resemble — because its subject is more abstract, this is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and of dubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.” … “Simplifications are Moore?s stock-in-trade, and his documentaries are not known for their impeccable research and objectivity. But here his talent is evident in creating two hours of engrossing cinema…”

The Guardian: “Michael Moore’s latest documentary drew tumultuous applause at the Venice film festival today, suggesting that the veteran tub-thumper has lost none of his power to whip up a response. If the film finally lacks the clean, hard punch provided by the record-breaking Fahrenheit 9/11, that can only be because the crime scene is so vast and the culprits so numerous.” … “Capitalism: A Love Story is by turns crude and sentimental, impassioned and invigorating.”

Time: “Capitalism: A Love Story does not quite measure up to Moore’s Sicko in its cumulative power, and it is unlikely to equal Fahrenheit 9/11 in political impact. In many ways, though, this is Moore’s magnum opus: the grandest statement of his career-long belief that big business is screwing the hard-working little guy while government connives in the atrocity.”

ScreenDaily: “As intelligent and compulsively entertaining as his previous films” … “The conservative right will of course dismiss Moore’s elucidations as simplistic – and for the most part they would be right - yet there is a Capra-esque appeal to his pleas to redress the balance between very rich and very poor in his homeland. Moore valiantly battles the propaganda that has fused capitalism with both democracy and religion, while defending the notion of socialism which has become a curse word in the US heartland.”

InContention: “Michael Moore is this generation’s Frank Capra.By that token, Capitalism: A Love Story – an artlessly effective slice of rah-rah rhetoric more sincerely idealistic than anything the director has yet put his name to – represents Moore’s It’s a Wonderful Life.” … “The question, then, isn’t just whether Capitalism: A Love Story (a wholly meaningless title, incidentally) is a good film, but whether it really needs – or even wants – to be one. As cinema, it certainly isn’t as formally inventive or powerful as Roger & Me or Bowling for Columbine, or even as viscerally seething as Fahrenheit 9/11, but it doesn’t speak any less loudly or chidingly than those films.

AFP: “Michael Moore pulls no punches in his hard-hitting new documentary blasting “evil” capitalism” … “large doses of biting humour and a few dollops of inspiration.”

Related Posts with Thumbnails

  • Old Timer
    Capitalistic surgery began in America when they landed on Plymouth Rock and sweep across the U. S. like a wild fire; it was pure power of the wealthy that control the underclass and government then, and continues to do so now. Democracy in it's true meaning is a joke all over the world; there is no liberty or justice for all, it is something most of us hope for, but it will "never" be achieved. History has not us taught us anything, we just keep repeating the same patterns over and over.
  • Robiodo
    I wish you weren't right, Old Timer. I hope you haven't given up the fight. That only ensures that other side will win.
  • denisehubbard
    Was michael moore influenced by the financial film "Stock Shock?"
  • anyone2
    The righteous individualists among us might also consider that our current health-insurance system, which delivers them the medicine they think they've earned, is in fact massively subsidized by government, with Uncle Sam using the tax code to encourage employers to buy health insurance. And were it not for government programs like Medicare and Medicaid taking over the most expensive populations, the political scientist Jacob Hacker pointed out to me recently, the system of private insurance would probably have destroyed itself long ago. That image we cherish of our ruggedly self-reliant selves, in other words, is only possible thanks to Lyndon Johnson and the statist views of our New Dealer ancestors.

    One reason government got involved is that our ancestors understood something that escapes those who brag so loudly about their prudence at today's town-hall meetings: That health care is not an individual commodity to be bought and enjoyed like other products. That the health of each of us depends on the health of the rest of us, as epidemics from the Middle Ages to this year's flu have demonstrated. Health care is "a public good," says the Chicago labor lawyer Tom Geoghegan. "You can't capture health care just for yourself. You have to share it with others in order to protect your own health."
  • Edvin
    “Someday I want to be rich. Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That's how rich I want to be.”
  • *Moore rubs his hands together and licks his lips*
  • brian
    one good thing about doing away with capitalism is that you would also do away with michael moore films.

    he is proof that wisdom and intelligence are two totally different things.
  • jasonb26
    "...not known for their impeccable research..."

    i thought moore did extensive research and has lawyers go over everything - am i wrong? either way, i'm really looking forward to this one.
  • goobity
    @ Jordinho: "I want the option to have the government pay for my healthcare, and your greedy demeanor is impeding almost 50 million people from getting it."
    I want the option to keep the money I earn from working hard and pay for my own health care or whatever else I so choose: and for you to do the same.
    Greed is expecting others to do for you what you are unable or unwilling to do for yourself.
  • What do you mean by socialism? If it is command socialism, what Americans
    call Communism, it does not work. Democratic Socialism is where most property is private, but strategic industries are public. There is a stock market. It works, but not well. It's cousin, social democratic capitalism is what most "socialist" parties are espousing. It has more security, but keeps the dynamism of capitalism. Your car is best made by a private company.
    Your health coverage is best operated by a private company that is regulated by the government. This system also means more regulators.
    However, most systems in the world have a capitalist backbone. What do they do with it?
  • nycTrax
    Ah, finally someone who can appreciate nuanced thinking and realizes that "socialism" isn't a dirty word.
  • gaius83
    Prof, we don't need any regulation by government, as that makes it harder for people to get healthcare in the first place. Insurance companies can't even compete across state lines here. Why is that? Why do we have to use insurance for absolutely everything, from a heart attack to a sprained knee?

    The problem is that we DONT have a pure capitalist system in place, where people actually pay out of pocket for the little things, like sprains, cuts, checkups, etc, and Doctors can compete based on prices for the little things, and save insurance for the low risk, catastrophic things like heart attacks. THERE IS SIMPLY TOO MUCH INSURANCE IN THIS COUNTRY AND THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LET THE FREE MARKET TAKE OVER SO WE ONLY USE INSURANCE SPARINGLY.
  • RocknRolla
    For the love of god, I'm really sick of people going after capitalism and blaming it for the mess we're in. That's just stupid. Name one other system in the history of the world that has pulled more people from the bottom (Michael Moore being one of them) or pushed more people over the top. There isn't another one. Fact is, we want the business class and entrepreneurs to take chances and pursue personal profit and success. After all, they create jobs.

    That being said, no company should be too big to fail - that's what Moore should've focused on. Let them fail. And, if the last few administrations are responsible for kicking off an era of collectivism, then the current administration gets all the credit in the world for picking up the ball and running with it.

    This movie will fail here in the U.S.
  • jasonb26
    i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your POV, i am however going to strongly disagree with the fact that you think this film will fail. no chance in hell it will tank. no chance whatsoever.
  • gaius83
    Unfortunately, RocknRolla, this movie will do better than you think because so many people have been brainwashed by cable news to have a sense of entitlement from the ever growing leviathan government. This if anything will just help the brainwashing process so that we have another generation of budding, deluded socialists to force collectivism on us through the political means.
  • sosueme
    One correction, gaius83. People have been brainwashed far before they can make any choices about their source of news. The public school system, supported by my property taxes and aided and abetted by the National Education Association does a far better job than MSNBC can even hope for.

    And we wonder why we are in so much trouble.

    What ever happened to a voucher plan?
  • muffin7
    Brainwashed, brainwashed, brainwashed. Anybody who disagrees with anybody else is brainwashed. I'm brainwashed for being an atheist and undecided politically. My mom is brainwashed for being a Catholic and a Conservative. The liberals are brainwashed into voting for Obama. EVERYBODY IS FRIGGIN BRAINWASHED ALL OF THE SUDDEN. Can we just please stop throwing that word around like a hot potato?
  • dint
    Moore is a fraud but I'll give him credit he's laughing all the way to the bank!
  • Gaius
    Yes, Moore is getting paid very handsomely for pushing this regulation agenda, I'm sure. Of course, he won't have to sign up for any public healthcare option, or have to depend or medicare when he hits 65...
  • bonchampion
    I'd just like to remind everyone that this is a film website. If you have a political or social statement to make, I'd recommend taking it to a site or forum more suited for that conversation.
  • sosueme
    This is very much a political film. Tell Moore to stop making the slanted and manipulative things if you don't want political comment!
  • jasonb26
    are you serious?! how then, do you suggest people are to respond to this movie without addressing these issues - or rather the entire plot of the film?
  • Gaius
    Bonchampion, I'm not sure how you think people can refrain from making such comments as we're discussing a documentary. The whole point of his films, even Moore would admit, is to stimulate such conversation. Please refrain from being illogical next time.
  • denisehubbard
    While waiting for Michael Moore's movie "Capitalism, A Love Story" to come out, I found this new movie about stock market corruption called "Stock Shock." I heard "Capitalism" is being well received at the Venice Film Fest.

    In the meantime Stock Shock-The Movie"Stock Shock" follows several Sirius XM investors through their experience of watching their stock go from almost ten dollars a share---down to 5 cents/share. The movie suggests this might be due to flash trading, greedy hedge funds, "naked short selling" and other market manipulation by high rollers on Wall Street. I don't know if I'm a believer, but at least it gives a good review of how our stock markets are engineered.
  • denisehubbard
    While waiting for Michael Moore's movie "Capitalism, A Love Story" to come out, I found this new movie about stock market corruption called "Stock Shock." I heard "Capitalism" is being well received at the Venice Film Fest.

    In the meantime Stock Shock-The Movie"Stock Shock" follows several Sirius XM investors through their experience of watching their stock go from almost ten dollars a share---down to 5 cents/share. The movie suggests this might be due to flash trading, greedy hedge funds, "naked short selling" and other market manipulation by high rollers on Wall Street. I don't know if I'm a believer, but at least it gives a good review of how our stock markets are engineered.
  • GreatBigLion
    Thanks for informing me about Stock Shock!
  • Gaius
    Great, nothing like a cinematic dose of Socialist propaganda to bolster support for a Fascist president.

    Gee, I wonder if Moore will directly criticize Obama the way he rightfully criticized Bush for supporting the transfer of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to businesses that should have been allowed to fail. Businesses that according to supporters of Obama and Moore are hurting American workers...I wonder if Moore will do the right thing and blame government for being complicit in such corruption...or will he simply paint government as being a unfortunate victim of bribery, unable to resist the evil whims of so many corporate dollars and lobbyists?

    No, I do believe we can safely spoil the ending to this movie and say that Moore will conclude this film by saying that despite the fact that government is just as guilty of shafting workers with ever increasing taxes, the misuse of tax money, and the utter collusion with business interests, that the solution to America's woes is to increase the size of our government so that everybody can be guaranteed something they supposedly have a right to, while of course not stating that the obvious side effect will be that everybody will be a lot poorer than they were before socialist public policy, while insulating government central planners and big business from the disastrous effects of egalitarian foolishness and fallacies.
  • Dysthymia83
    fascism and socialism are 180 degrees away from each other ideologically. some people need to take political science 101.
  • So Sueme
    What in God's name do you think NAZI means? Does National Socialism strike any bells.

    Now, who the f**K needs political science 101? A healthy dose of econ 101 wouldn't hurt either,

    Je***s, what a maroon!
  • gaius83
    Yes, Obama is more of a fascist than a socialist. However, you can't tell me that actual socialists with memberships in socialist groups don't wholeheartedly support him.
  • nycTrax
    Stop watching Fox News. I didn't agree with the bailout of the banks (and Obama's tendency to capitulate to big business) but
    a) Obama's policies are NOT socialist. Learn some political theory and
    b) The government investment in the banking industry has actually led to profits...for U.S. taxpayers.

    The ignorance/vehemence of the right-wing is just astounding.
  • gaius83
    As I said before, I don't watch cable news, much less Fox News.

    Obama's policies ARE socialist. Any idiot can see that. And more people need to just come out and admit that they want more socialism in this country.

    Why is the government even involved with the banking industry at all? Don't see the massive potential for corruption there? They shouldn't be involved, period.
  • Konrad
    Have you ever seen something of Moore's? He attacks democrats just as much as he attacks republicans, he doesn't give a damn what party or views people have, if they do something stupid he will call them out on it.

    Also... you are just as deluded as you accuse others of being.
  • Gaius
    Ok, Konrad. Whatever you say. The problem with Moore isn't that he supports or doesn't support either side, as anybody with half a brain can tell that Republicans and Democrats are basically the same. The problem with Moore is that he would like free enterprise to go away completely, and have everybody be "taken care of" by central planners, who supposedly are a "better" monopoly than something as "evil" as Microsoft.
  • nycTrax
    When/where has Moore advocated central planning? I defy you to point to one instance in his long career where he has ever proposed this.

    You are employing a typical straw-man argument: you fabricate an outrageous claim and then attack the claim with righteous indignation (see the b.s. surrounding 'death panels' as an example).
  • gaius83
    I never said Moore explicitly supported central planning but that is certainly where the country is heading the more these egalitarian measures are pushed into law.
  • Heh, that's funny... you're joking right?
  • gaius83
    Yes, but that's just me back when the UC system was relatively cheap. Now it's gone up, and I'm only talking about tuition. I paid for my rent, books, food, etc out of pocket by working my ass off in shitty retail and decent library jobs during school and summertime. Think about how many people have ridiculous amounts of debt out there. Education should be market driven so more people can go to school without debt. As for public schools, I don't think there should be public schools at all. I'd go for a completely private system. The reasons being that school shouldn't be a compulsory thing, because some kids would be better off working, and the taxes that go towards schools would be better off in parent's pockets so they can decide where to send their kids through a market-driven approach, where parents pay for schools through their own dollars rather than through taxes. The second reason being: public schools suck, are generally in piss poor conditions in a lot of areas around the country, and do NOT prepare most kids for higher education.
  • student
    I cannot really take anymore of this BS about how nobody can afford education. It is possible to pay for education and complete it without amassing large debt and depending on family's funds. Most students go to college to drink and party and then realize at some point they should either bail out or study twice as long as normally needed.
  • You're the only person that thinks that having subsidized education drives prices in the market up. We subsidize corn farmers in the US in order to drive food prices here DOWN. We pay very little per pound of food we eat compared to other countries who don't have that option.

    The ridiculous amount of debt you speak of normally comes from private schools. You can't argue that public schools drive private school costs up. Going to UCLA isn't gonna get you $100,000 in debt. Going to USC might.

    Most states make school attendance compulsory only until age 16 or 17, which is usually when people start working.

    Local public school budgets are based mostly on property taxes. If the revenue from property is high but the local population is small, you get quality public schools. If that high:low ratio is not met, the quality of education usually declines. If all property taxes are given back to taxpayers, the quality of schools in poor areas will decline even further. While government funded schools are concerned with budgets, grades and graduating students, a private school in a poor area will mostly focus on profit. In high income areas they'll focus on both profit and academic result (where students go to college) which will in turn help create more profit in the future.

    Your idea that some kids would be better off working is ridiculous. The average income for non-high school graduates is far below that of high school or college graduates. Your views seem pretty twisted. Education is the primary ladder used to climb out of poverty. If you take that away, there is no path out of poverty for tens of millions of people. What you seem to be calling for is a capitalist version of a caste system.

    Clearly your opinions have now been exposed as the most extreme of the extreme. A viewpoint so reviled it could only be typed anonymously into a computer.
  • gaius83
    I went to the UC system myself and I would have been better off if the government hadn't gotten involved with the loans for it. The reason why universities are so expensive, even the state schools, is because the government guarantees school loans, so schools can simply charge whatever they want because after all, they're going to get whatever kids can request from the government loan coffer's right?. That's why you end up with a glut of debt when you graduate. Why saddle kids with this debt at all? I mean, I'm lucky and capable enough to have a job that paid off my debt long ago but if the government had stayed out of education, the universities would have to lower prices so that kids could actually afford to go without having to take out gigantic sums of loan money. Wouldn't you prefer to be able to pay for school with a summer job rather than be debt-ridden throughout your twenties? Why does it cost more than 5k a year to go to school? I remember I paid over 5k per year and that was absolutely ridiculous. If the government weren't involved in guaranteeing loans, you'd see kids pay about the same as they would at a state school for private school education. As for the post office. I don't get that logic. Why are we against Microsoft having a monopoly when only the government is allowed to take care of your mail? Hmmm?
  • Uh, you paid 5k a year for a UC education... and your point is what? California paid the remaining 15k+ or so. If you came from out of state you would have had to pay many times more. USC costs almost 40k per year. So let's sum this up: your whole 4-year education cost half of one year at Columbia. Good for you.
  • gaius83
    Funny, because I don't watch cable news. This is simple economics. If you give something out for "free" after forcing everybody to pay for it through taxes, you create an unsustainable demand. Rations will have to be made, and priorities are made for the young rather than for the old. I don't care if you would like the government to pay for your healthcare, but I, as another fellow citizen, don't want to pay for something I will never use. You may call me greedy, but the fact is, that you're the one with the sense of entitlement as you see it fit to take my tax dollars for your healthcare. You're the aggressor. Not me. If you can make it so the government takes tax dollars from people who opt in ONLY, like any other insurance plan, I don't have a problem, but don't make me pay for your subsidized care. I don't even have health insurance because its a waste of money for a person like myself who actually takes care of himself, unlike the millions of people in this country who think that nonstop cheeseburger eating won't cost them a heart attack or premature death.

    On the point of corporations, yes of course they want revenue, but they do it while providing goods and services to wherever there is a demand. If you actually thought about what businesses, that have people like you and me making them up, actually do for this country or any country for the sake of "profit" you'd actually see that they are indispensable, whereas government only moves resources around without creating anything.
  • K-12 schooling is free for everyone in the US. 100% of people living in the United States when they were school-age have access to public schools paid for by all taxpayers, whether they had children in public school or not. State colleges are subsidized by taxpayers even if they don't attend them. The USPS is subsidized by taxpayer money (where do you think all those blue mailboxes came from?) and despite popular belief, the post office is not a failure. It loses money but it is otherwise well run.

    In all three of these cases you have government alternatives which compete with private corporations: private primary and secondary schools, private universities and colleges & express mail services (UPS, DHL, FedEx, etc). I'd like to see your logic work in those areas. Kids won't get educated unless their parents can pay for it out of your own pockets? 80 cents to send a letter across the country? Private school prices for all higher education?

    Some of the best universities and colleges in America (UNC, UCLA, UC Berkley, Michigan, Virginia) are subsidized by taxpayer dollars and actually cost less than schools of similar or lower quality. If you had your way, that wouldn't be true, and only the upper-middle class and higher could afford quality education from 5 years-old to 22 years-old.

    No one would buy into your argument if you applied it to all current government systems that don't necessarily benefit everyone who's paying for them. Try taking away the UC system in California and see what happens? People would reject it and soon they'll reject your point of view as being simply uninformed and trite.
  • gaius83
    Britain's NHS is bleeding money, for one. I never said countries become poor under socialism. I simply said that the more socialized a country's government is, the less it's individual citizens have. That's the point of this whole socialism scheme after all: to provide the minimal services possible to everybody in exchange for the majority of their personal income. I mean, the government couldn't possibly think that people should be allowed to do with their income as they wish and spend it themselves, but no, the government is about robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  • "An increase in the size of government will simply result in even more poverty than before. "

    Do you have a crystal ball? If so, can I see?

    Britain established the NHS in 1948, when itself and the rest of Europe were still devastated following WWII. They had far more poverty in 1948 than they do now. How has their economy soared ever since if universal healthcare makes people poorer? You say NHS is bleeding money but what does that even mean? You act like Britain is a developing country. All other industrialized nations have universal healthcare and seeing as how the richest industrialized nation in the world is the US, you would think it would be even easier for us to transition.

    All this nonsense you speak about socialism shows you don't actually know what socialism is. You sound like you're on a cable news show, reciting talking points and trying to trick people into buying what you're selling. The fact of the matter is that corporations have one purpose: to increase revenue. No one will ever argue with that fact. That is their sole purpose. I want the option to have the government pay for my healthcare, and your greedy demeanor is impeding almost 50 million people from getting it.
  • Gaius
    No, I'm not joking. An increase in the size of government will simply result in even more poverty than before.

    Moore is simply a propagandist looking to popularize a socialist agenda, and Moore's supporters are following him like lemmings.
  • Hmmm. That's interesting. I'd like to know more about other industrialized, fascist, socialist countries that fell into poverty after having universal healthcare. Please enlighten.
  • Fir3Wolf
    I'll probably see this movie. I've just about all his others and while I don't always agree with his views, the movies are still pretty entertaining for the most part.
blog comments powered by Disqus