Capitalism: A Love Story - Michael Moore

[Space_Monkey]

Michael Moore's new documentary hits Australia next week is anyone else going to see it?

From what I understand the film is having a pretty lackluster release in the states, ok reviews and pretty solid numbers but it's missing the controversy and excitement surrounding Moore's last films.

What worries me about Capitalism: A Love Story is that according to the reviews it's a little to much "Moore" of the same, if you'll excuse the pun.

Alot has changed from when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, there's no clear villain like Bush for liberals to get excited about. The financial meltdown has meant that the revolutionary undertones of Moore's movies are a less exciting prospect for people who seem to just want to get on with things and keep their jobs. It's not a secret the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a mess and Moore's name has been pretty much dragged through the mud over the last few years (although maybe somewhat deserved).

Seeing Moore outside a bank with a dollar bag asking receptions for the "peoples money back" feels stale and out of touch.

I'd like to be wrong, I still feel despite having to take it with a grain of salt Michael Moore has something important to say and he often says it in an entertaining way.

I'm going to go see it next week and I'll report back here.

Also he needs to get on one of those celebrity diet plans, geez, he is getting big!

[REQUIEM]

Yeah I watch MM docos, they show interesting points of view. His ' Sicko ' doco was very interesting. Cuban health care FTW.

[Lex]

Except he kinda fudged that bit, and a lot of other bits, but hey, makes for a great story!

[texta]

The best bit about Sicko was the stuff about the US system. I can't say I'm very excited by this at all, but we'll see how it goes.

[StorminNorman]

Apparently this one is much more like his Awful Truth schtick, which is encouraging, as I still think the TV Nation/Awful Truth stuff was his best work.

(Note, however, that I've never seen Roger & Me. Apparently it's brilliant, though.)

[jawsy]

Nah, it's not, really.

[castr8or]

Capitalism is bad, we should replace it with democracy


Thats the quality of Moore's analysis, I'll probably be skipping it.

[Hide & Reason]

Probably more like,
Corporatism is bad, we should replace it with genuine choice
by the looks of it.

[castr8or]

well thats what it should be, but every indication suggests Moore is either super lazy with his terminology or is stupid and doesnt quite understand the differences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwQ41Yo60og

[Vicious]

well thats what it should be, but every indication suggests Moore is either super lazy with his terminology or is stupid and doesnt quite understand the differences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwQ41Yo60og

Or it could just be marketing for a catchy title.

[Readman]

By 'corporatism', do you mean the technical term (ie. political philosophy that advocates all aspects of society working as an organic whole towards a common purpose), or are you using it as a general term for a country in which corporations have a disproportionate influence on politics?

_______________________________________________
-..***~~~***..-

This is Readman signing out!!

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/3169/thedancingcatofmartinez.gif

[[m]averick]

By 'corporatism', do you mean the technical term (ie. political philosophy that advocates all aspects of society working as an organic whole towards a common purpose), or are you using it as a general term for a country in which corporations have a disproportionate influence on politics?


Uh, the second one. Zillafone. Next question.


http://quixotando.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/xfiles2.jpg

[jawsy]

This thread just became a 'must read'.

[Moggo]

well thats what it should be, but every indication suggests Moore is either super lazy with his terminology or is stupid and doesnt quite understand the differences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwQ41Yo60og

Uh oh, Cassie The Republican. You still on about that? What is it about Moore that so infuriates you?

[Mykle]

I'm not a Republican, but I'll have a stab at answering the question Moggo: he's a polemicist who's great at publicising issues but terrible at offering solutions. When he tries to offer solutions, they amount to dishonest portrayals of the wonders of socialism or vague references to 'the French'. He's politics for people who like to complain and not think too much - like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity etc.

[Readman]

The only Michael Moore movie I've ever seen was Bowling for Columbine.

My thoughts were that he made some good points, but it was mixed in with too much stuff that he had just outright fabricated or grossly exaggerated. The severity of this varied, but even when the fabrication or exaggeration wasn't important you really had to wonder why he did it when he could have made exactly the same point legitimately.

There was also a lot of claims that he'd fabricated or misused evidence when he hadn't, but it was harder to defend him because his detractors were right in so many other circumstances.

[Mykle]

I actually enjoyed Bowling For Columbine, probably because he doesnt really try to offer any solutions (contrary to popular belief, he doesnt advocate gun control in the film). Apart from when he's turning the right-wing into boogeymen, I thought it was a really fascinating (and entertaining) look at America's violent culture, albeit, as you say, exaggerated and hyperbolic.

[castr8or]

Bowling for Columbine is an entertaining film, but anyone who has had even the most cursory glance at crime statistics in the US would question how you could do a film about violence in the US and not take a look at the black perspective.

In respect to a film about America's violent culture, its akin to a documentary about the Nazi's failing to mention Hitler (**** yeah Godwin)

Of course had he concentrated on spree shooting, I could forgive him, but i dunno, in terms of its subject matter, its just a horribley constructed, incomplete film.

My issue with Moore is the same as I have with Olbermann, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Maher, Coulter etc etc

They are lazy polemists who are sloppy with the facts, biased beyond hell, rarely offer solutions and generally do a disservice to the causes they take up. I couldn't be any more clear than that.

Mykle has it right.

[Readman]

Yeah, it was odd that he barely touched on entrenched poverty and inequality in Columbine.

[Mykle]

Yeah, come to think of it, he was really talking about gun violence in white America wasnt he? Otherwise he'd have addressed the role than gangs playing in making the gun murder rate so high.

[Fenrir]

(contrary to popular belief, he doesnt advocate gun control in the film)
Far from advocating gun control, I'm pretty sure he proactively threw it out the window in his comparison with Canada, who apparently provide guns/ammo just as freely, but (according to him - don't hit me up for a source) have crime rates orders of magnitude lower than the US.

Bowling for Columbine is an entertaining film, but anyone who has had even the most cursory glance at crime statistics in the US would question how you could do a film about violence in the US and not take a look at the black perspective.
I think that would run against his stance of opposing the vilification of "the black man"; but as Readman said, poverty, inequality, et al, so I take your point.

[castr8or]

Far from advocating gun control, I'm pretty sure he proactively threw it out the window in his comparison with Canada, who apparently provide guns/ammo just as freely, but (according to him - don't hit me up for a source) have crime rates orders of magnitude lower than the US.


Crime rates vary all over the US which make straight up comparisons kind of silly.

I'll give you an example, the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Nunavut have homicide rates of 4.1 and 6.5 per 100,000 people respectively.

While over in the US, Wyoming sits at 1.7 or Hawaii at 1.6 per 100,000 (there are other states with comparable figures). Which in turn sit under the Canadian average, as well as that of other provinces/territories in Canada.

Why is that? I'll tell you one thing, you won't find out watching a Michael Moore film :)

I think that would run against his stance of opposing the vilification of "the black man"; but as Readman said, poverty, inequality, et al, so I take your point.

don't you think that is absurd? Blacks in the US are disproportionately represented in both as victims and perpetrators (now forgive my figures they are going to be very rough), 13% of the population sits at almost 50% of homicide victims and perpetrators (its probably closer to 45% but whatever, point still stands).

He ignores the great big elephant in the room, to make a film for white people to feel smug about how they aren't a gun toting redneck and/or american (for the foreign market).

[ChalkFacedGoon]

Crime rates vary all over the US which make straight up comparisons kind of silly.

I'll give you an example, the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Nunavut have homicide rates of 4.1 and 6.5 per 100,000 people respectively.

While over in the US, Wyoming sits at 1.7 or Hawaii at 1.6 per 100,000 (there are other states with comparable figures). Which in turn sit under the Canadian average, as well as that of other provinces/territories in Canada.

Why is that? I'll tell you one thing, you won't find out watching a Michael Moore film :)



don't you think that is absurd? Blacks in the US are disproportionately represented in both as victims and perpetrators (now forgive my figures they are going to be very rough), 13% of the population sits at almost 50% of homicide victims and perpetrators (its probably closer to 45% but whatever, point still stands).

He ignores the great big elephant in the room, to make a film for white people to feel smug about how they aren't a gun toting redneck and/or american (for the foreign market).
He did cover black issues. He just said that black crime is pretty much the predictable result of years of callous welfare cuts and ghettoisation.

[Readman]

I must have missed that, but it's been years and years since I saw the film and the only time I can remember black people is when they were being crash-tackled on COPS.

[castr8or]

He did cover black issues. He just said that black crime is pretty much the predictable result of years of callous welfare cuts and ghettoisation.

really? seriously?

In an hour and half long film on Gun Violence in america, gang related violence gets a single mention. They don't discuss it beyond us finding out the gangs in Detroit are predominantly black. Thats it.

less than a sentence...

Ghettoisation doesn't appear to be mentioned at all.

the callous welfare cuts could have been useful, unfortunately his argument doesn't touch on black crime

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/welf-a28.shtml

thats what its referring to, no meaningful discourse beyond saying she couldn't supervise her child due to her job

next!

[ChalkFacedGoon]

really? seriously?

In an hour and half long film on Gun Violence in america, gang related violence gets a single mention. They don't discuss it beyond us finding out the gangs in Detroit are predominantly black. Thats it.

less than a sentence...

Ghettoisation doesn't appear to be mentioned at all.

the callous welfare cuts could have been useful, unfortunately his argument doesn't touch on black crime

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/welf-a28.shtml

thats what its referring to, no meaningful discourse beyond saying she couldn't supervise her child due to her job

next!
In so far that the whole movie is just a series of unrelated skits, then yeah you might be right.

[ChalkFacedGoon]

Yeah, come to think of it, he was really talking about gun violence in white America wasnt he? Otherwise he'd have addressed the role than gangs playing in making the gun murder rate so high.
I'd say the cause of gangs and gang violence are pretty similar to those he portrays as causing "isolated" violence.

[castr8or]

I'd say the cause of gangs and gang violence are pretty similar to those he portrays as causing "isolated" violence.

so when a white, middle class youth goes and shoots up a school the cause of such violence is the same as disenfranchised black youths turning to street gangs and getting caught up in a cycle of violence and a culture that look up to those willing to as fiddy would say "get rich or die trying"?

hur dur

does he mention the impact that the war on drugs has on feeding the cycle of violence in american cities? What about the narco war in mexico that is slowly spilling over into the southern US?

He's the Michael Bay of Documentarians.

[Readman]

The narco wars would be a pretty good subject for a video game.

Like you have to build up your narco empire, bribe cops, kill enemies, etc.

[castr8or]

kinda Syndicate/Syndicate wars...but peddling drugs?

I can dig it

[Readman]

I was thinking more like Patrician. You would still need Syndicate elements for gang wars, though.

[ChalkFacedGoon]

so when a white, middle class youth goes and shoots up a school the cause of such violence is the same as disenfranchised black youths turning to street gangs and getting caught up in a cycle of violence and a culture that look up to those willing to as fiddy would say "get rich or die trying"?

hur dur

does he mention the impact that the war on drugs has on feeding the cycle of violence in american cities? What about the narco war in mexico that is slowly spilling over into the southern US?

He's the Michael Bay of Documentarians.
Yes, because the movie is about violence fetish and the availability of guns in the U.S. The problems in Bowling for Columbine aren't the fault of 'them dang ni**ers' any more than they are because of a drug war that escalated 6 years after the doco came out.

[castr8or]

well you are wrong? I don't really know what else to say?

My take is that if you are going to make a film about violence in the US and the american gun culture, its absurd NOT to have a black perspective in the film. Given, you know, the relevance to the broader topic.

Fantastic Michael Moore nuthuggery though

its great that you would throw in that "dang *******" part in an attempt to characterise my position as racist or at the very least racially motivated, 50% of homicide victims are black, blacks make up 13% of the population, forgive me for thinking that it'd be somewhat relevant to the topic of the film.

[Readman]

Has anyone seen the movie yet?

How does it compare to Wallerstein's book on a similar subject, The Modern World-System, vol. I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Is it as indepth?

[Lazlow]

nuthuggery

Someone's ventured into Sherdog one too many times :p

[Mykle]

How does it compare to Wallerstein's book on a similar subject, The Modern World-System, vol. I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Is it as indepth?

Less tits.

[fleshtea]

My thoughts were that he made some good points, but it was mixed in with too much stuff that he had just outright fabricated or grossly exaggerated. The severity of this varied, but even when the fabrication or exaggeration wasn't important you really had to wonder why he did it when he could have made exactly the same point legitimately.

There was also a lot of claims that he'd fabricated or misused evidence when he hadn't, but it was harder to defend him because his detractors were right in so many other circumstances.

Pretty much same case here.

I saw it the other day and definitely facepalmed. But I've facepalmed for all antecedent Michael Moores. I mean, way to illicit change by acting like a moron and trying to piss people off, hey.

The entire thing was completely oversimplified with Moore-spin. There's no point in watching a documentary if you have to verify all the facts on Google later.

And yeah, those :eek:CONTROVERSIAL:eek: bits like asking for the people's money back with a dollarsign bag, putting crime scene tape around Wall Street, and trying to make citizen arrests of bank CEOs, very stale.