EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Michael Moore's Smash and Grab
Moore's brilliant new film, Capitalism: A Love Story, will find an audience for its assault on America's political economy
When I first met Michael Moore more than 20 years ago, he was showing a half-finished documentary
to a few dozen people in a classroom in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It was
funny and poignant and had a powerful message. He had taken a second
mortgage on his house - equipment for filmmaking was a lot more
expensive back then - and raised some money from like-minded locals for
a long-shot venture. We all loved what he showed us but thought he
would be lucky if a few thousand people got to see it. 
But the film, Roger and Me, about the irrationality and human cost of the destruction of America's auto industry, was a smash hit and Moore was on his way to become America's most influential documentary film-maker. Twenty years later, he has produced his most radical work, which was greeted with rave enthusiasm when I saw it at the world's oldest film festival in Venice.
As the old saying goes, you either blame the victim or blame the system. Moore is making an appeal to blame it on the system, big time.
You know this film is going to be subversive when it opens with clips depicting actual bank robbers - caught on security cameras in the midst of their heists - grabbing their loot with Iggy Pop's cover of Louie Louie (a special version for the film) blasting away in the background. Moral equivalence for the titans of the financial industry, and their political protectors, is just around the corner.
Capitalism: a Love Story doesn't just go after the seamy side of the American economy, although that is captured neatly in the scenes of "condo vultures" feeding on Florida's housing bust, alongside the corporations (including Wal-Mart and Amegy Bank) which take out insurance policies on their employees and cash in big when they die young. These ghoulish derivatives go by the charming name of "dead peasants" insurance - which says it all, really.
But Moore has bigger targets in his sights: he is questioning whether the whole incentive structure, moral values and political economy of American capitalism is fit for human beings. Although this will not seem so radical in Europe, where most countries have had governments in the post-second world war era that at least called themselves socialist, or in most of the developing world, where socialist ideas have popular appeal, it's pretty much unprecedented for something that can reach a mass audience in the US.
But you don't have to be a revolutionary to appreciate this film. Indeed, it can be seen as a social democratic treatise, with Franklin Roosevelt's proposed "second bill of rights" - an "economic bill of rights" that included a job with a living wage, housing, medical care, and education - as its reform program. Roosevelt is shown proposing this now forgotten program back in 1944.
As in his previous films, Moore combines the grief and tragedy of the victims - people losing their homes and jobs - with hilarious comedy, cartoonish film clips from the 1950's, and sober testimony as needed. And there are victories, too - as when workers occupy their factory in Chicago to win the pay that they are owed.
As an economist who operates in the think-tank world, I have to appreciate this work. He gets the economic story right. How is it that Michael Moore's father could buy a house and raise a family on the income of one auto worker, and still have a pension for his retirement? And yet this is not possible in the vastly more productive economy of today? The answer is not complicated: in the first half of the post-War era, employees shared in the gains from productivity growth; since 1973, most of them have hardly done so at all. (Productivity growth has also slowed.) Moore also explains the structural changes, such as Ronald Reagan's rollback of union and labour relations to the 19th century, that helped bring about the most massive upward redistribution of income in US history. (Moore even includes graphs and charts to back up the main points with data.)
From an economic point of view, the only thing missing was a look at the stock market and housing bubbles of the last decade. The current recession, like the last one, was primarily caused by the collapse of a huge asset bubble - an $8 trillion housing bubble in 2006, and a similar size stock market bubble in 2000-2002. This is something that most of the media has not really understood. Asset bubbles are as old as capitalism, and since this is a movie about capitalism and the current Great Recession, it would have been nice to see some of this in the movie. But I can't fault Moore too much for not taking on something that most economists and the press missed - and still don't talk about. It's a film, not a textbook.
Moore also wins my vote by getting his facts and numbers right. This is worth emphasizing because Moore's last documentary, Sicko - which was quite careful with the facts - drew attacks from CNN and a smear campaign from the insurance industry. Both attempted - unsuccessfully - to impugn its accuracy. One former vice president of corporate communications for a health insurance company, and the author of several memos attempting to discredit Sicko, recently admitted to Bill Moyers on camera that Moore "hit the nail on the head with his movie."
The new love story also targets the big boys who made our current Great Recession possible: Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers (the three smugly depicted in that 1999 Time cover of the "committee to Save the world"), and Tim Geithner. Rubin, who came from Goldman Sachs, helped deregulate the financial industry and got rich at Citibank from the results. Larry Summers, who came from academia, also made millions from the deregulated, government-guaranteed casino that he helped fashion when he (like Rubin) was President Clinton's Treasury secretary. It's a bipartisan hall of shame, tracking the havoc wreaked by a burgeoning, parasitic, and increasingly politically powerful financial industry, through the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II presidencies.
In a heart-warming contrast to the age of greed, we see Jonas Salk, the man who discovered the vaccine for polio in 1955, saving millions from the crippling and often fatal disease and refusing to get rich off his work by claiming patent rights. He only wanted that it be as available as possible. "Could you patent the sun?" he asks. And the Catholic Bishop of Detroit, when asked what Jesus would think of capitalism, replies that Jesus would not want to participate in such a system. It's all part of Moore's plot to make democratic socialist values as American as apple pie.
Which is a tough sell, but if anyone can try it, it’s a Midwestern boy from the heartland, the kind that Garrison Keillor writes about when he says that its “the dummies who sit on the dais, and the smart people who sit in the dark near the exits”, the son of a Flint autoworker who is true to his roots who doesn’t forget which side he is on. Twenty years later, he doesn’t seem to have been changed very much by fame and success.
Moore's last film was a devastating indictment of the US health care system, an excellent introduction to the battle for healthcare reform. This one could be a prelude to the anger and disillusionment that is only beginning to swell.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the official unemployment rate will remain near 10% through next year. If we add in the underemployed (involuntarily part-time), dropouts from the workforce and other uncounted unemployment we are looking at a number nearly twice as high. Even if the economy were to begin its recovery soon, it won't feel like one for quite some time. This film will have an audience that is ready for it, in the US and elsewhere.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


106 Comments so far
Show AllHas CNN's Dr. Grubba given his movie review yet?
Moore's latest film certainly appears to be of interest. One hopes that the average American can be objective by heeding the words of the reviewer from The Guardian, who noted of Moore's film that:
"Capitalism is both un-Christian and un-American, an evil that deserves not regulation but elimination."
i agree. it is plain EVIL. it's that simple.
he was asked by a TIME magazine reporter - after the second world war and probably expecting to hear some glorious remarks about the greatness and goodness of america:
"Mister Gandhi, what do you LIKE about America?"
Mahatma Gandhi:
"I do not like your christians.........they are so..UNchristlike"......
""everyone in the world knows that Jesus Christ preached peace and love....except Christians"..
"what does it matter if the people, young, old, women, men, children , sick and healthy - die or suffer from bullets, or bayonets or bombs or chemicals...or from nationalism, or communism or the Holy Name of Democracy and Capitalism? they are still dead".
Yes, you can not regulate greed. Capitalists try to pass it off as enlightened self interest. But shit by any other name still stinks.
exactly.
what Capitalism does is simple:
it INSTITUTIONALIZES and "normalizes" and "naturalizes" GREED...and succeeds in encouraging the GREED and SELFISHNESS so that they win out over humaneness , ethics, cooperation,..
as the great Canadian thinker and social commentator , John Kenneth Galbraith said:
"CAPITALISM IS THE MODERN WORLD'S WAY OF PLAYING A VERY OLD GAME: FINDING MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GREED".
In a heart-warming contrast to the age of greed, we see Jonas Salk, the man who discovered the vaccine for polio in 1955, saving millions from the crippling and often fatal disease and refusing to get rich off his work by claiming patent rights. He only wanted that it be as available as possible. "Could you patent the sun?" he asks. And the Catholic Bishop of Detroit, when asked what Jesus would think of capitalism, replies that Jesus would not want to participate in such a system. It's all part of Moore's plot to make democratic socialist values as American as apple pie.
==============
from the article-- those are the TWO MOST COMPELLING LESSONS -
that america has YET to learn.
it makes one WEEP at the thought that a person - an AMERICAN - such as that man that found the vaccine for Polio
refused to patent - and become wealthy -
for doing something so natural - be a human being using his learning to aid others rather than to PROFIT by their suffering.
Looking forward to it.
Though Moore can be sophomoric at times, he always hits the nail on the head and is consistently the best documentary producer capturing the absurd criminality of the American system. I wish TV Nation was back on the air.
He has to be "sophomoric"; he has to tailor his discourse to the level of the audience, where sophomoric may still be optimistic - look who he's talking to.
redballoon
I'm not a Moore fan, he has a habit of skewing his film to fit his outlook, but most film makers do. Roger and me was his most honest film as we would expect. He advances his cause the best way he knows.
Consider you have just said he is Sophomoric in his presentation. How so? I've seen each of his films. They are skillfully done and anything but Sophomoric. The Lad is quite bright in crafting facts to fit his message.
So consider that you have just called everyone that has lauded his work "Sophomoric" and as I have read most of these posters over the years, that charge is hilarious and silly.
Perhaps you should reconsider who's Sophomoric.
And it was shown in one of the most expensive and high class venues in the world.
I can't afford to fly to Venice.
Mike would you send me a couple of ten thousand dollars please?
I deserve it because I've been exploited.
I love you Mike, but come on. You're very very wealthy from this system.
let's do a movie about Heterosexuals overpopulating the planet and then blaming everyone but themselves for the lack of resources.
Heh heh, I'm hetero and I love your last point on overpopulation and resources.
"I love you Mike, but come on. You're very very wealthy from this system."
What you seem incapable of understanding is that the capital which Moore has accumulated gives him the freedom to keep making his truthful and subversive documentaries.
If you want a movie about overpopulation then make one yourself; Moore started with no more resources than you have. Until you have done so, stop pissing on every article which doesn't address your pet topic.
Overpopulation is a legitimate issue which you marginalize with your bad manners.
q
Contempt for heterosexuals is unlikely to further your agenda. If your parents were of a like mind, you wouldn't be here to make such statements. Also, you might want to consider that addressing the poverty problem--including better education and greater availability of birth control--would likely go a long way in reducing birth rates. Additionally, gays are perfectly capable of and breed as well, so your 'argument' falls flat.
"I can't afford to fly to Venice."
Liberals are mostly poor. To be rich, be a conservative and steal money.
queerplanet,
What complete nonsense!
The film festival was in Venice, they requested that his film be screened, so what the hell was Moore supposed to do? Not promote a movie that he poured a lot of money and effort to make???
Lots of ordinary middle class tourists go to Venice. Moores union auto worker father could have taken his family there if he were so inclined. If you can't afford it, maybe you need to organize a union in your workplace.
Actually,
there is even people living in Venice. Maybe not so many Murkans, but still ...
I'd like MM to make a movie that details the naturalness of homosexuality, that it isn't some type of deviant behavior that is chosen by peculiar individuals, and that documents the fact that our massive pollution of the environment is responsible for the rise in homosexual incidence and for the rise in learning disorders and other birth defects--essentially, to make the book Our Stolen Future into a documentary.
"...that documents the fact that our massive pollution of the environment is responsible for the rise in homosexual incidence and for the rise in learning disorders and other birth defects..."
karlof, I hope you are kidding. Don't equate homosexuality or homosexual incidence to 'learning disorders and birth defects' or you are going to have a huge battle on your hands. It would be hard to document something that is so obviously not true.
A little envy, queerplanet? Michael Moore hasn't changed his lifestyle much since the surprise success of Roger and Me. And your generalization about heterosexuals (or breeders) is so very broad that it makes no since. Take it from a confirmed simplifier, you are being silly. Some of us are so rabid with hate and anger, we bite the wrong hands.
The dude was very broke for a very long time, and he may be even donating it back now...
Michael Moore occupies a unique place in American culture that he has cleverly leveraged: he makes compelling issue oriented entertainment that is badly needed in the USA. He is a welcome relief from the chorus of corporate shills whom infest the public airwaves.
"What you seem incapable of understanding is that the capital which Moore has accumulated gives him the freedom to keep making his truthful and subversive documentaries."
Truthful?
The lies of Michael Moore.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Like "Roger and Me"?
Ah! Good ol' Christopher Hitchens, one of Britain's biggest cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq. Obviously a person of inscrutable judgment. [/sarcasm]
Like Dennis Miller, Hitchens was another phony "leftist" who shat in his pants when the 9/11 attacks occurred and suddenly became a Bush supporter.
q
Does that make Hitchen's analysis of Moore incorrect?
Hitchens does not analyze so much as he begs questions. He never actually demonstrates that Moore lies.
Although there are legitimate issues to be discussed regarding Moore's films, Hitchens dodges the important arguments.
q
Hitchens is so full of vitriolic he doesn't dodge, he wallows in his own bile. But it's not the first time a rabid dog has attacked his betters.
Every so often, the accumulation of capital is used to promote good works, like those of Dr Salk's. I hope MM's current film becomes a commercial success so he can make another, like the one I suggested on this thread. I suppose you would condemn the WPA's helping to keep painters, musicians, writers, etc., doing what they did best during the Depression. You would probably not want any government help for the starving and decry that there aren't enough Workhouses anymore.
Sorry, WVK, but Christopher Hitchens is a reactionary idiot. And so are you in recommending his drivel.
The analogy I always love is the insect that lays its eggs inside the body of another insect. The eggs hatch and the newly born quickly proceed to kill the host by eating it alive from the inside. This is the brutal and utterly ruthless form of capitalism practiced in the United States. Obama is the entomologist who tells you that the host who is being devoured alive actually enjoys the experience . . . an experience that gives it hope and change called death.
change you can believe in
Can't wait to see it though I'll probably have to travel across the state to the one theater that would show it.
Will Michael Moore's film hit fertile ground? I would like to think so.
What makes for fertile ground?
I suggest every reader of Common Dreams read an article written by Sara Robinson, "When Change Is Not Enough: The Seven Steps to Revolution". This article was carried by CD on February 22, 2008.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/22/7241
I think Sara Robinson's article has far far more relevance today than when she wrote it two years ago.
This sentence jumped out at me:
"If this year's election further confirms the growing conviction that change via the ballot box is futile, we may find a large and disgruntled group of Americans looking to restore government accountability by more direct means."
And hopefully, we will see some of those direct means on display in Pittsburgh on Sept 24 and 25.
As Sabo Cat says: "Direct action gets the goods."
Steven V. Riley - Thanks for the link. I just went back and read this article. I agree with the relevance of today. With this in mind, it seems prudent to begin to discuss the tactical strategy of this revolution. It may be nearer than we think.
Hurray for Michael Moore! Once again telling it like it is about the evil empire. Others might have tried, maybe died trying, but for some reason MM manages to get it done and live to show the movie. There is an irony in the fact that he makes some money off it.
The Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 1 governments have put in a lot of effort killing off socialist movements, and killing the socialists themselves, in the Americas [south, central, and in Mexico]. It still goes on of course, perhaps not so overtly.
And now we have Obama trying to reform the health care industry and MM making this movie.
It seems that those Past Presidents knew that socialism would be popular, if it were a choice. Even in the USA socialism would be popular.
After all, socialism helps the average person, and capitalism is all about giving the wealthy the money to invest as they see fit. We are seeing that the greed involved tends to sink the capitalist ship.
"Moore even includes graphs and charts to back up the main points with data." Gee whiz! Graphs and charts! Woweee, sounds like smart stuff!
As always, ATLAW, your brilliant argumentation has utterly destroyed the object of your derision. Complete mastery of your subject.
BTW, why do you keep wasting your time here?
Here's Mikey in Venice debating the evils of capitalism with the left's favorite hero:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/09/content_12020693.htm
when traveling in asia last year, i was amazed at how pervasive the memory of Che is. Also, i was amazed at how many books have actually been published from his diaries. It was easier to find che writings in Delhi and Bangkok than it is in your local Barnes & Noble. That guy is worth learning more about.
Thanks for the link to those photos. Hugo Chavez is a heroic figure, without a doubt. It is testimony to the poor quality of the educational system in the US that there are millions upon millions of completely unsophisticated brainwashed rubes here who actually believe that showing admiration for Chavez is a sign of naivete or ignorance. Sometimes those imbecilic rubes even show up at CD!
Let's not forget Che. I just saw Motorcycle Diaries, about the trans (Latin) American trip he and a buddy took when he was 23. It shows how this compassionate young medical student became aware of how the lower classes and Indians were being exploited and then cast aside. Its a real eye opener for those who have been brainwashed into thinking that Che was a bloody minded murderer who had to be eliminated by 'ordinary' people because of his radical views. He was, of course, murdered by the oligarchical class aided by the CIA. That's a proven fact, not just a supposition. Anyway, I highly recommend this movie, both for its entertainment and for its information.
Thanks for the info. I will look for that movie. I never knew much about Che until I was in grad school and became friends with several Ph.D. students from Mexico and South America who were great admirers of his.
Don't forget there are two new movies out about about Che:
Che, the Argentine, and Che, the Guerilla,
These are action movies with a lot of shooting, so I am sure that Americans would like a movie like that, although I am in doubt whether it will be easy to see them in the U.S. But in between the gunfights, you still see a portrayal of the same compassionate man who is committed to doing what is necessary to achieve human aspirations of freedom and democracy.
Oh by the way, of course they are still movies, which can never replace the actual history itself, but I think they are a good portrayal and they are based mostly on Che's own diaries in his fights in Cuba and Bolivia.
MM missed the boat.
According to Very Important People who know stuff, the "great recession" is over! Capitalism is totally fixed! Credit flowing like H20! Banks - and 'bank holding companies' whatever the f@# that is - are banking beaucoup profits! And, right around the bend: jobs jobs jobs!!!
MM's potential audience will be way too busy celebrating the end of the great recession and a return to the totally awesome status quo to see his leftist-looney-American-hating-evil-liberal-marxist-muckraker.
Can't be hatin' capitalism round Xmastime, know what I'm sayin?
And when the bottom falls out again in the not-too-distant future, the inevitable reactions of the great ones will include "Nobody could have known," "Only cranks predicted this," "This is unprecedented," "How did this happen," "We must get to the bottom of this and make reforms," "It is a monumental crisis, and so we must bail out the banks again or we will have a depression," and so on.
And everyone will believe them, all but those who have fallen through the cracks, that is. And this time there are a lot of people falling through the cracks. Eventually there will be no one left except the corporate biggies, and then it will be time to take off the kid gloves and get rid of the sham of American democracy and make slaves of those who are left or who might wish to immigrate.
While I do not like the fact that MM is like a corporate mouthpiece for Obama, he does produce great films that get people fired up and force them to think. His films are a lot better than most of the shit films Hollywood annually pumps out.