capitalismlovestory

Review: Capitalism: A Love Story

capitalismlovestory

It seems to me that, if you’re rolling out the howitzers with the intent to destroy an ideology, you should probably blow the shit out of everything. But Michael Moore’s latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story, feels passe and diffident, despite the fact that it has gone out of its way to include footage from only a few weeks ago. Maybe this film’s dated feel has much to do with our present information age. In an age of YouTube and Twitter, how can any well-meaning documentary capture a permanent image for posterity? But Moore’s best films (Bowling for Columbine and Sicko) have worked because they operated within a specific focus. By examining one aspect of the failed American system, Moore has demonstrated a knack for showing a regular audience how the world works according to his mind. But with a more general emphasis, Capitalism: A Love Story, much like Moore’s narcissistic offering The Big One, is unfocused, messy, and even contemptuous of its intended audience.

For example, Moore suggests that the derivatives which guide the stock market cannot be understood by anybody but the Wall Street guys. As one economist explains a derivative to Moore, we see Moore’s eyes glaze over. Moore then cuts to an academic having difficulty explaining a derivative. Lost within all this didactic comedy is the fact that a collective website called Wikipedia allowed people to come together to explain a derivative in fairly straightforward terms .

But forget how the Internet can galvanize the people (and lead Obama to presidential victory). Let’s talk about the distinct possibility that Moore’s starting to rust within his gilded cage. Since Moore has clearly not thought much about his thesis, he seems to have fallen asleep at the wheel of his liberal limousine. He looks into the recent Pennsylvania child care scandal, in which two Pennsylvania judges bartered kids for cash. But he doesn’t use his ambush tactics to interview the two judges. (In fact, unlike Moore’s other films, this film lacks a heavy along the lines of Phil Knight or Charlton Heston for Moore to confront at the end. And without that perceived villain, Moore’s hollow demagoguery is revealed for what it is.)

To the film’s credit, it does go after Democrats — including Senator Christopher Dodd — and points to Democratic complicity in the Goldman Sachs bailout. Moore hasn’t been this vocal about the lies of the two-party system since he campaigned for Ralph Nader in 2000. (He later campaigned against him in 2004.) But Moore is hardly the fearless agitator he thinks he is. He’s too afraid to criticize Obama’s many failings, preferring instead to dwell on that hopeful day in November when we elected “our” candidate and we used “our” votes to get the Democrats into office. Of course, months later, millions of jobs have been lost, the unemployment rate hovers around 10%, and universal health care — part of FDR’s Second Bills of Rights, a clip of which is included in this film — remains distant. But Moore doesn’t pin any of this on Obama. In fact, Bush 43 receives more camera time than Obama. (That’s a bit like a bunch of philosophers arguing about the 1968 riots as people are losing their jobs. Oh wait. I saw that happen last year when Bernard-Henri Levy and Slavoj Žižek argued last year at the Celeste Bartos Forum. I guess we’ll never have the guts to discuss current predicaments.)

Moore points out that Jonas Salk offered his polio vaccine for free. And at the film’s end, Moore suggests that the audience should be doing what Moore’s doing. Of course, this comes after we’ve paid $10 to see the movie. Moore stands to make millions from this movie. Is he really all that different from a rapacious CEO? Glenn Beck may want all of his pie, but then so does Moore. It’s insulting to have someone in the film referring to mainstream media coverage as “propaganda,” when this film clearly serves the same function.

This is not to suggest that our nation doesn’t need a corrective or that Moore’s services are no longer required. There is, frankly, no other filmmaker out there who can get progressive messages out to a mass audience. He is not, as The New York Times suggested, our little tramp, but there’s nobody else out there stepping up to the plate in quite this way. But Moore’s party mix of stock footage, snarky narration, and righteous indignation is starting to wear thin. It’s the kind of thing we expect out of a filmmaker in his twenties and his thirties, not a 55-year-old filmmaker. Moore naively believes that Wallace Shawn’s presence will somehow attract his established liberal affluent audience. But this is clearly a film made for Middle America, and it doesn’t understand that Middle Americans are often much smarter than bicoastal elitists.

Case in point. The naive majorette Rachel Sklar, who participated in an intellectual sweatshop during her tenure at the Huffington Post by collecting a salary while not paying her contributors, tweeted in response: “WOW. Michael Moore’s latest movie is gonna stir up some SERIOUS shit. Wow. Wow. One more time: Wow.”

No, it’s not. You can cream your pants like it’s the first time all you want, but capitalism isn’t going away.

In fact, Moore’s film really isn’t all that anticapitalist. As Moore points out, capitalism under a more equitable tax system wasn’t so bad for the middle-class. (See this helpful spreadsheet from the IRS containing lowest and highest bracket tax rats from 1913 through 2008. From 1944 to 1963, the highest bracket tax rate hovered around 91%.)

Moore pins the blame on Reagan. And the highest bracket tax rate did indeed fall from 70% to 50% in 1982, eventually down to 30% in Reagan’s second term. But drops, as we all know, occur in degrees. This didn’t happen overnight. Surely President Johnson should be held just as accountable.

So if we accept Michael Moore’s latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story, as a series of generalist sentiments designed to fire up the masses, then, to my mind, it’s probably Moore’s most toothless and tepid film. The film is entertaining enough. We get the obligatory shots of Moore being denied entrance into corporate buildings by security and Moore shouting through a bullhorn. We are horrified by Wal-Mart filing a life insurance policy against one of its employees and collecting a tidy sum (without a cent going to the family), as well as the phrase “dead peasants” used in the insurance policy. On the other hand, if people have allowed capitalism to continue, shouldn’t they be taken to task just as much as the corporations? The film’s credits feature numerous quotes from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. One key Jeffersonian sentiment that’s missing: People get the government they deserve.

Be Sociable, Share!

8 Comments

  1. I just read “Deer Hunting With Jesus” by Joe Bageant and it deals with a lot of the issues you mention in your review re: what “middle america” or probably more accurately “working class america” understands about things like derivatives.

    I wont try to paraphrase his work here but I will say it is one of the most eye-opening books I have read in a long time.

  2. Of course, months later, millions of jobs have been lost, the unemployment rate hovers around 10%, ….

    Sorry, Ed, but I don’t think Obama can be blamed for those things — the loss of jobs is the result of the recession *that started last year*. The economic stimulus has already, by some estimates, created or saved hundreds of thousands of jobs — without it, the unemployment rate would be higher than it is.
    Universal health care, though — well, that was never really on the table, though a lot of people who voted for Obama were hopeful that it would be. But let’s wait and see what Obama gets through Congress. It won’t be “universal,” but it might just be pretty good.
    “Capitalism” does sound like bilious crap, though. Thanks for the review — you’re particularly good with movies.

    Also, I know you’ve been reading Imperial. I point you to the latest NYRB, which has Madison Smartt Bell reviewing it — the first piece I’ve seen by someone who isn’t working for a daily paper, and who actually had time to read the book and think about it.

  3. Jefferson’s statement that people get the government they deserve hasn’t applied for decades, because our electoral process has been fundamentally corrupted by the influence of private money in campaign financing, which has become a euphemism for legal bribery.

    People can only be blamed for the consequences of their political decisions when they have a genuine choice as to who they elect. When candidates from both parties have their pockets stuffed with cash by big banking, big pharma, etc., it’s no surprise that our domestic and foreign policy follows nearly a straight line continuity from one president to another, even when the electoral majority party in power switches from Republican, under Bush to Democrat now. Yet, public policy remains unchanged.

  4. Mike: Thanks for the recommendation. I will try and check it out.

    Bat of Moon: Larry Kudlow said more or less the same thing about what Bush 43 inherited from Clinton in The National Review on August 24, 2001. And I disapprove of both Presidents not being held accountable for developments that occur on their watch. The cycle repeats itself but nobody wishes to take responsibility. (And thanks for the tip on the Madison Smartt Bell review. I will check it out.)

    Peter L. Winkler: One of Moore’s points is that if the richest 1% control 95% of the wealth, then the poorest 99% hold 99% of the vote. And they have every obligation to use it to reclaim their government. Which is why I bring up the famous Jefferson quote (unmentioned in the film) in response. Moore’s call for action is tepid, in part because, to my eye, it fails to raise hell about what you have rightly observed.

  5. [...] nature of the film as well as Moore’s letting the American public off for their complicit greed (EdRants, Wall Street Journal). I agree on both points, but do find this another inter­esting devel­opment [...]

  6. It’s disappointing to read that this movie isn’t the best it could be, because we could really use it right now. I think that running Sicko again in theaters would be a good idea too. Some people just don’t get it.

  7. [...] of the film as well as Moore’s letting the American public off for their complicit greed (EdRants, Wall Street Journal). I agree on both points, but do find this another interesting development in [...]

  8. yeah, capitalism sucks, america and hong kong and china all are capitalist and failing, oh wait, the tax low states of hong kong and shanghai have the best standards of living? And America has an extremely good standard of living? Everyone needs to grow a brain and start blaming their failure on themselves rather than the corporations who merely serve to bring a service

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>