Capitalism: A Love Story - Michael Moore's latest

[Reinhold]

Wow. Why so abrasive all of a sudden? That's not like you at all, Reinhold.

Nobody needs to be called this places village idiot. That's not going to help this place grow.

yeah, you're right. mostly just a reference to the kenyan village idiot sticker he was talking about.

sorry, neil.



Ravi's on-topic post from the bottom of the last page:

The ending is the best part IMO.  It shows ordinary people banding together to fight (and win) against major corporations to get what they deserved.  Really gives a sense of hope.  And the FDR thing was extraordinary.

The rest of the film, while it has some very emotional scenes, is kind of muddled, as if Moore's not quite sure where to place his anger.  A friend told me that on a Howard Stern interview, Moore addressed that he himself was making money off his films in a capitalist system, but that he dislikes how "capitalism" has become synonymous with "greed" and that he's not against working hard to earn wealth, but that he's against depriving others to earn wealth.  That should have been in the film.

[cine]

i could care less to see this. mainly cause i find Moore to be an asshole nowadays.

in a recent interview, he said this could be his last doc if nobody goes to see it. but he took a shot at middle america, basically saying if they'd rather watch their mainstream garbage instead of an informative piece on capitalism then why make movies?

as ridiculous as that sounds, he was serious when he said it and its on one of his vids on his youtube account. coming from him, its a little disgusting.

[hedwig]

do you disagree with moore's assessment of middle america? seems pretty dead-on to me.

in this film, moore elaborates on the idea that even americans who are fucked by capitalism are neutralized by means of political propaganda and mindless entertainment. it's a fairly significant portion of the film, i highly recommend you see it.

[modage]

I really loved Bowling For Columbine but have found his subsequent films to have increasingly diminishing returns.  A big problem I had with the film was Moore himself.  Moore shows up outside a major bank with an empty sack for bailout money and can you believe they wont speak to him!  Sicko seemed to be a step in the right direction to take himself out of the film as much as possible but Capitalism falls backwards as the movie wastes precious minutes on stunts that go absolutely nowhere.  Not to say the film isn't entertaining or interesting but you've seen this before and the effect is starting to wear off.  The other problem I had with the film was that the subject: "capitalism" is too expansive to be covered in 2 hours. (I had the same problem with Bill Maher's Religulous).  If Moore had focused in on the economy crashing, for example, he might've had a more focused and interesting film.

[diggler]

Moore is starting to lose his sense of humor. As few gags as Sicko had, at least the ones it did (most notably the Guantanamo Bay sequence) were inventive.  The funniest part of the film for me was the Cleveland video, which Moore didn't even make.  That said, he still knows how to pull the heartstrings. The sequence with the family discussing their dead mother's insurance policy choked me up (when they panned to the son and he couldn't keep it in, i lost it).  The audience gasped at the Chis Dodd revelation, which surprised me (the reaction, not the revelation).  I can still get behind his mission, but I agree the statement that the film makes is a bit too broad.

[modage]

The other interesting thing is that when Michael Moore started out he was a nobody.  So trying to talk to the head of General Motors was interesting to watch because he was a nobody, so of course they wont talk to him but we relate to the "little guy fighting the big guy".  Now they wont talk to him because he's "Michael Moore", arguably bigger (though not richer) than anyone he would try to interview.  That change in dynamic makes the stunts less tolerable and more annoying.

[hedwig]

The audience gasped at the Chis Dodd revelation, which surprised me (the reaction, not the revelation).  I can still get behind his mission, but I agree the statement that the film makes is a bit too broad.

it feels "broad" because it deals with the major problem so explicitly. moore's previous films have focused on specific politicians/events/companies as a way to comment on the underlying idea that capitalism is a dehumanizing system that is fundamentally and irrevocably flawed, antithetical to democracy, a force of evil which must be eliminated. that was always there underneath the 9/11 bush-saudi connections and the general motors layoffs and the horrific state of our health care system... but in this film, it is at the front and center, and for that reason i think it is moore's best and most challenging work. i agree that it was not as funny as his others. his humor has taken on a sombre tone. it's fitting.

if it's his last movie, that would make perfect sense to me. it must be difficult to spend years of your life trying to inspire an audience  paralyzed by apathy and despair, who hardly even react to the horrors exposed in each movie apart from purchasing the movie ticket.