In case you were wondering what Michael Moore would choose to cinevangilcize about after Bowling for Columbine, Farenheit 9/11 and Sicko, well stop it because the trailer for his upcoming documentary has just been released: Capitalism: A Love Story
The documentary, keeping in line with the running theme in all of Moore’s works, looks at the relationship between the Big Man and the Bigger Man Known as the Government. This time, however, it’s kinda saucy as the film looks at the the passionate and lustful romance between two, which seems to go beyond the simple relationships of convenience which he’s explored before. Capitalism looks at the events leading up to recent “Global Financial Meltdown” and the stimulating aftermath. Moore does the usual obnoxious harassing and poignant questioning which has become iconic of his work. 
Truth be told, after watching the trailer about five times, the only thing that got me going was the use of M.I.A’s Paper Planes. Best use of a gun as an instrument since Bone Thugs and Harmony’s Thug Lyf.
I’m personally torn when it comes to Michael Moore. While he’s definitely a Leftist sensationalist with a knack for convenient manipulation and good song choice, this controversy has helped bring otherwise forgotten perspectives on important issues to the mainstream. Roger and Me brought to light the individual and collective economic devastation which raged in Flint, Michigan following the closure of several GM auto plants during the 1980s. Bowling for Columbine looked at one of the most sensitive moments in American history, begging the American audience to look beyond the actions of the individual perpetrators towards the social, historical and political promotion of violence within American culture. Fahrenheit 9/11 touched countless nerves, focusing on the events and relationships leading up to the September 11th attacks as well as the ensuing political and social chaos. While this particular film received the most flack, out of all of Moore’s films, it did bring into popular American discourse the questioning of America’s interventionist role and the actions of the increasingly neo-Conservative Republican party. My only complaint, other than the sensationalism, was that it became an equivalent to an academic source for anyone looking for ammo against the Bush administration. Seriously. That was annoying as hell.
Then there was Sicko, which looked at the American healthcare system and questioned its self-acclaimed greatness. The film looked at again the relationship between the Big Man and the Bigger Man, and asked critical questions regarding the treatment of American citizens, including those who risked their lives to help in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on site, by a healthcare system run on private insurance companies. There were definitely major issues with the film, but it nevertheless brought into the mainstream the plight of millions of individual Americans who have unfortunately had to choose sometimes between life and death on issues where there should not have to be any such choice.
So now, we’re at Capitalism: A Love Story, which is already receiving a lot of YouTube flack. I’m sure it will be entertaining and I’m sure it’ll anger a lot of people as well as highlight key points and issues which are often overlooked in the mainstream American media. There is far more to the Global-Judgement-Day-Is Here-Financial-Crisis than AIG, foreclosures and stimulus packages and for that I’m glad Moore, as much as he irks me at times, has come out with this film.
That being said, however, I’m probably not going to check it out, unless Will pays me for being a film critic.
Related posts:
- Reason #12,033,343,343,01 why capitalism sucks
- “Capitalism not Zionism is the Problem”
- Now There, Dont Raise a Finger at Me, I Know You’re Obedient…
- Saudi Tribute to Michael Jackson
- Palestinian Solidarity Versus Big Ten Rivalry
How can a website devoted to presenting the Palestinian perspective on both political and cultural issues do a piece on Moore without referencing the most salient aspect of his Mideast politics-namely, his pusillanimous silence on Palestine/Israel?
You would never know from watching "Fahrenheit" that US policy towards Iraq was formulated and advanced by a pro-Israel gang of nutters whose wish was to redraw the map of the Mideast, nor has support for the Palestinians ever occupied much space in Moore's universe.
Moore is PEP (progressive except for Palestine) numero uno.
Posted by Ismail | August 27, 2009, 4:14 amFair point, but while the website does focus primarily on ME issues, particularly Palestine, it is not the only topic we the writers concern ourselves with. Everyone has a different focus – I could easily have written about Moore's lack of activism on the Pal/Israel issue, that but that's not my focus as a writer on this blog nor the point of the piece.
But you're definitely right – Moore has ignored discussing domestic issues regarding Palestine/Israel. This can be for two reasons – 1. Not the controversy he's interested in getting involved in or 2. His focus on all his films has been primarily domestic and related to the lower-middle class American's relationship with the American government. Who knows though. He might be working on something related to the pro-Israeli lobby. He's definitely overdue on this topic.
Posted by SanaKF | August 27, 2009, 7:32 amThis blog would be pretty boring if all we did was call out the people with bad Palestine opinions.
Posted by Yaman | August 29, 2009, 2:21 pmHow can a website devoted to presenting the Palestinian perspective on both political and cultural issues…
Pretty sure the official mission statement of this blog is to be absurd, Arab style.
Posted by programmer craig | August 30, 2009, 5:31 amHe hasn't been totally silent on Palestine. Read his chapter on it in "Stupid White Men". It sucks big time. He almost blames the Palestinians for the occupation. He says 'where is the the Palestinian Gandhi?' — as if that stupid argument has not been made before.
But he also did promise to join Arafat protesting (yea the book is pretty old now) if he decided to start leading non-violent resistance instead. So I think we should hold him to account and ask him firmly but politely to get his fat ass down to Bil'in and Na'lin.
And yea there's no way anyone could argue that Palestine is not a domestic issue for Americans while their homes are being forclosed on, US tax dollars are being sent to Israel who then pay relgious nutters to move into brand new homes built on stolen land in the West Bank.
Posted by Asa | August 27, 2009, 9:25 amSana, I fail to understand how anyone could care about Michael Moore's opinions. He makes a it a point of pride that he a dishonest sensationalist.
Asa,
And yea there's no way anyone could argue that Palestine is not a domestic issue for Americans while their homes are being forclosed on, US tax dollars are being sent to Israel who then pay relgious nutters to move into brand new homes built on stolen land in the West Bank.
That's silly. All US foreign aid combined is like 3% of government expenditures.
Posted by programmer craig | August 30, 2009, 5:28 amMichael Moore is pretty much just a lying scumbag… he faced some legal issues for distortions in his Fahrenheit 9/11 movie.
There is far more to the Global-Judgement-Day-Is Here-Financial-Crisis than AIG, foreclosures and stimulus packages… …key points and issues which are often overlooked in the mainstream American media….
Such as THIS? The Bush Administration raised red flags starting in April 2001 – the 2002 budget request said that the size of Fannie and Freddie was a "potential problem" because financial trouble in either one could "cause strong repercussions in financial markets." In 2003 the White House said that Fannie and Fredie posed a "systemic risk" that could spread beyond the housing sector. In Fall of 2003 the Bush administration was pushing Congress hard to create a new federal agency to regulate Fannie and Freddie. Treasury Secretary John Snow wanted a "strong, world class regulatory agency" to oversee the prudential operations of Fannie and Freddie. Many republicans weighed in on the need for regulation. Many Democrats opposed them. Then ranking member (now chairman) of the House Financial Services Committee BARNEY FRANK contradicted Snow and said that the threat was exagerated. Frank said that people were "conjuring up the possibility of serious financial losses…" and said that Fannie and Freddie were sound. The legislation was blocked. In 2005, after Fannie leaders admitted major accounting screw-ups, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said at a House Financial Services Commitee hearing, "…Enabling these institutions to increase in size – and they will once the crisis in their judgement passes – we are placing the whole financial system of the future at a substantial risk." Later at another hearing he said, "if we fail to strengthen GSE [Fannie and Freddie] regulation we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis." Senator John McCain co-sponsored legislation pushing for regulation in 2006. All of the Democrats voted against it.
Posted by eagle007blogger | September 1, 2009, 4:15 amMichael Moore is a fucking idiot.
Capitalism = Win
Everything else = Fail
Posted by Fuck Muhammad | November 11, 2009, 11:04 am