That Feller Done Hate America, I Rekon!

So, I saw Michael Moore's latest movie, Capitalism: A Love Story....
Now, I'm no fan of everything that Moore has to say, so don't get all riled up. I think his movies usually lack focus and jump to the wrong, extreme conclusions. What I DO like about Moore, however, is his ability to tick people off. It amuses me to think of the face-reddening anger that Michael Moore inspires in some of our nation's most annoying citizens. You know who I'm talking about: people who throw around words like Socialism and Nazi at political rallies held in Walmart parking lots without bothering to check the spelling of their protest signs. Birthers. Tea Baggers. The ANGRY ones. It seems like there are more of them these days....

I mean, the political tone in this country has gotten increasingly hostile since about 2003, but it's REALLY been out of control in the last year or so. Opposing what the president does is a God-given right of every American; but when I see dudes carrying assault rifles at town hall meetings, I think YOWZA! How can this even be permitted? There's no way someone would have been allowed to carry a gun into a George W Bush speaking engagement. Have things changed THAT much THAT fast?"


The pundits are more insane than they used to be, as well. Sure, Limbaugh's been around for 20 years or so and he's still Top Dog...but the others nipping at his heels are something else. Just who the heck is this Glen Beck guy, and where did he come from, anyway? Can anyone just blurt out any extreme crap that pops into their head, and be put on TV now? I remember a few years ago Bill O'Reilly was the biggest name in town, and now he's like the marginalized voice of reason. O'Reilly. The moderate. WHAAAA?

Insane or not, I'm going to take advantage of this situation and become a pundit myself. Since angry conservatism seems to sell better than angry liberalism, that's what I'll go for. "The Power HOUR, with Andrew Green! Exposing the LIES of the socialist elite and LIBERAL media!" Of course, that alone wouldn't be enough -- to succeed as a pundit these days, one must go the extra mile and be just a little bit crazier than the competition. Therefore, I'll distinguish myself by occasionally attacking RANDOM classes of people, besides political forces, with no apparent provocation at all. "I tell you THIS, listeners: OPTOMETRISTS are out to DESTROY America! They HATE this county; they want to TAKE THIS COUNTRY DOWN!!! They say they want to 'fix your eyes.' Why? So you can SEE their LIBERAL agenda! And the criminal, LIBERAL media is helping them do it!!!" Imagine if I shouted something like that on the air. People would REMEMBER it! Also, to be an effective pundit, you've got to spit the word "liberal" out with a certain disgusted finesse. Chicago-based shockjock Mancow Muller says it better than anyone else I've heard, so I'll copy his pronunciation. I'd better start practicing tonight.


Anyway, here's Michael Moore's latest -- as always, an impassioned defense of the military-industrial complex.

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1232207/


Netflix description:
Filmmaker Michael Moore (Sicko, Fahrenheit 9/11) takes on capitalism's roots, the floundering U.S. economy, and 2008's global financial meltdown and subsequent bank bailout in this rousing documentary. Combining stories about those who suffer most from Corporate America's greed and insatiable thirst for profits and the people most responsible for myriad crises, Moore embarks on another shocking fact-finding rampage.

First of all, it's impossible to review a film like this without personal political leanings coming into play. If Sean Hannity saw Capitalism: A Love Story, he would almost certainly hate it, whereas Al Franken would almost certainly like it. Therefore, I'll try to steer clear of Moore's ideology, and focus on whether or not this was an EFFECTIVE film. As a documentary, did it make a point and support it clearly?

Well, not really. As I mentioned above, I'm always annoyed at Michael Moore movies because they lack focus. He'll start to make an interesting case -- one that even skeptics might be willing to consider -- and then veers off in some other direction. Sicko established that the healthcare system had serious problems, but it didn't dig deeper into the WHY. I remember rolling my eyes at that movie, as Moore left us with the simple-minded conclusion that health insurers were evil, greedy scoundrels at the root of the whole problem. Sadly, he approaches Capitalism in much the same way. It points at a problem without offering much in the way of substantive analysis.

See, this film was SUPPOSED TO BE an examination of how and why the economy collapsed last year, and that would have been great. I was hoping for SPECIFICS -- I WANTED to see how the banking industry unraveled; I WANTED to see someone explain the convoluted logic behind mortgage brokers. Instead, the most we get out of Capitalism is an aborted attempt by an ex-Lehman Brothers executive to explain some kind of dividend system.

I was also disappointed that Moore didn't go deeper into the erosion of the middle class. Yes, the subject is brought up, and sort of toyed with, but Capitalism doesn't REALLY get into it. I wanted something to be said about free trade, about unions. He hints at those things, and then returns to another ten minutes of hand wringing. This film would have been effective if it had been more technical. Instead, we get too many sob stories...too many isolated examples of the little guy winning. Moore blows this opportunity by focusing on the human interest angle.


However, I DID like Moore's examination of the banking bailout. Interesting stuff. I also enjoyed the more nostalgic moments of Capitalism: A Love Story in which Moore talks about the good old days of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The economy wasn't white hot, to be sure, but at least it felt secure. He seems to be hinting that America should go back to the old way of doing things -- before deregulation. Sounds OK, I guess....

BUT THEN, he goes and concludes his film with an assertion that capitalism has failed! C'mon Michael, isn't that going a bit too far? I suspect that he's thinking back to his Marx. If I remember my college reading correctly, Marxism predicts that capitalism will eventually burn itself out, as the wealthy become too powerful to responsibly run their own system. Greed runs rampant, the rich abuse their influence, and they kill the whole thing -- I think Moore is trying to say something like that has happened in America. But has it? Really?

I dunno. Capitalism: A Love Story does a good job of exciting emotions, but it simply lacks the substance that something like it should have. A subject this complex needs a more technical analysis, and I don't think Michael Moore is really up to the task. Plus, it tries to say too much in too little time. Oh Michael, when will you get it right?

2 out of 5.

b.