WalletPop review: Michael Moore's 'Capitalism: A Love Story'
Filed under: Extracurriculars, Recession
America is Rome, and it's toppling. That's the opening salvo from Michael Moore in his blistering new documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, which opens in New York and Los Angeles today and across the country Oct. 2. That's a dispiriting message that everyone can agree with, be they affiliated with Fox News or MSNBC. And if you accept that premise, the rest comes easily in this feast of outrage.
Once the Roman accusations finish, the film starts mildly enough, if you consider the violent possession of a family home by a fleet of sheriff's cars to be mild. Moore doesn't confront audiences with facts at first, so that the doubters in the audience have a moment to quietly say to themselves things like, "Well, people should pay their bills if they don't want to lose their homes in foreclosure."
As he so often does, he shows us classroom films of 1950s America, when there were few burned-out neighborhoods and no one died for want of decent health care.
Gradually, though, the narrative ramps up, and Moore begins revealing how Wall Street and the banking industry have rigged the system so that otherwise hard-working Americans could lose the homes that their parents paid off. For many viewers, it will be like Meltdown 101, and an easy-to-grasp explanation of how in many cases, the housing crash happened because so many average people were outwitted by Wall Street types whose entire careers were based on inventing hard-to-follow financial schemes.
Having tugged on heartstrings, Moore picks out two examples of how America's power brokers think of the average person as nothing more than a profit opportunity. The first is of blue-chip corporations (Walmart, for one) that secretly took out insurance policies on their workers and quietly cashed in when they died. Another is the sordid story of Pennsylvania judges who took money from a privately owned prison system for each juvenile delinquent they sentenced to stay there.
Although Moore doesn't explicitly say it, both examples are shows as proof that, without regulation of some kind, the greater powers in our lives sometimes stand to profit when harm comes to us, and that's a conflict for our future happiness. When you bring a profit motive to functions previously held by the government, you open the door for widespread abuse.
We are no longer in 1950s America, Moore repeats, and if you're clinging to the idea that we still are, you're being fooled. Our country has fallen apart. By every measure, crime and bankruptcy and misery have soared -- Moore trots out a series of sobering graphs to prove it, with each skyrocketing number's origin falling on the timeline near a beaming head of Ronald Reagan -- yet Americans still labor under the Cinderella-story belief that they could get rich tomorrow. It's this Cleaver-era fantasia, lingering today in the rhetoric of politicians and entertainment alike, that Moore seeks to shatter.
For me, one of the most fascinating segments of the movie was the segment examining the connection between Christianity and capitalism. There isn't one, Moore says, and to back up his case, he talks to three clergymen in Michigan, all the way up the bishop, who agree that capitalism, by definition, is evil and does not at all line up with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
It's boat-rocking stuff, but it's nothing that hasn't been espoused for years by a small but vocal minority of Christians, including the Christian Socialist Party. Jesus was not a capitalist, everyone in the film seems to be saying. So any effort to link a belief in God with a defense of America's capitalism system is at best specious and at worst manipulated propaganda.
Right now, Moore implies, our way of doing business is hardly Christian. It's abject Darwinism. This may be the most revolutionary point of the film.
Human stories aside, Moore also produces the kind of paper trail to satisfy readers of Naomi Klein, Greg Palast, or John Pilger. He isn't so much a conspiracy theorist as a sunshine man who casts light on areas previously unknown to the masses. Midway through, he reveals an internal memo from Citibank that celebrates the American aristocracy while confessing that the only thing standing in the way of the richest 1% amassing even more money is the potential ire of the rest of us, who are left with less and less each year.
It is a document that shows the rich of this country are privately quaking at the prospect of revolution, and it gives Moore an engine, and a mandate, for the second half of the film: Wake up the peasants.
Once the audience's emotions are massaged into activity -- and the high stakes of the situation are laid out -- then, as Moore movies do, things snowball into the marquee disaster. In this case, it's the bailout.
Among Moore's expert interviewees (including, inconceivably, playwright Wallace Shawn), Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio emerges as a heroine of the movie, a lone wolf who shouts warnings from the floor of the House of Representatives as Congress prepares to hand over $700 billion of taxpayer money to Wall Street interests, no questions asked, no legal or judicial follow-up, no accountability. Her cries were in vain. She couldn't muster enough attention to halt the handover, but she succeeds in energizing the movie and motivating its final act, when Moore tries to get viewers riled up enough to take a part in their own democracy.
If you judge at it from afar, you realize the movie isn't really a screed against capitalism, although Moore's foes will gleefully accuse it of being one. It's an attack on greed, which, Moore and many in the film say, is the fatal flaw of capitalism.
No party, neither Republicans or the Democrats, emerges unscathed from Moore's version. If anything, he blames the Republicans for the start of the deregulation that got us into this mess and then turns his blame on the Democrats for facilitating a rape of the government coffers by the ultra-rich last fall.
The movie is also surprisingly light on Moore's juvenile theatrics. Although the image of the filmmaker bellowing into a megaphone at the New York Stock Exchange is prevalent in the ads for Capitalism: A Love Story, in fact the few scenes in which he sets out to tease and harangue CEOs are, in fact, done nearly with a wink. At this point, every security guard at America's financial citadels is on guard for Moore's schtick, and by now they're probably tickled to see him coming. If you watch closely, you can almost see the merry twinkle in their eyes as they turn Moore and his film crew back around to the sidewalk.
Love him or hate him, you can take Moore down for his adolescent stunts, and for using devices (stock footage, clumsy overdubbing, camera ambushes) that have become old hat. But so far, no one has successfully taken him down for his facts. Career-wide, his reporting is rock-solid. Try as they might, his enemies have only been able to quibble, to levy charges of hypocrisy (the man is a self-made millionaire), and to fire fat jokes at him.
Moore knows he can't get past the check-in desk -- he never could -- but such moments are his trademark set piece, and he tosses them in because, essentially, he's expected to. They're strictly for comic effect to leaven the potentially heavy talk of derivatives, insurance policies, and the de facto takeover of the federal government by Goldman Sachs.
They also grease the way to Moore's final point. We, as Americans, need to take action. If Moore's impassioned plea is resistible, the preceding case is more cogent. Concepts such as co-operative ownership and unions have been demonized by industries whose bosses stand to be tamed by them, but Americans, Moore says, need to remember their democratic roots and take a look at running our businesses by similar principles. In the closing moments of the film, Moore is openly fomenting for a system that remembers it exists to provide for all Americans, not to simply provide for the market.
In the end, the same thing that brought down communism threatens to bring down capitalism: greed. Both systems are ideals more than fully-formed concepts for a political machinery, so neither one has inherent provisions for keeping corruption in check.
For Moore, who grew up in the car-making hub of Flint, Michigan, unions don't represent imbalance and corruption. He sees them for what they were when they first came into existence: Protection for employees who would otherwise be trampled by the profit motive. In Moore's worldview, when a union is properly run, it's a democracy in microcosm.
Thinking of them in that way may require us to travel a long way back into the past, to the time when they were first formed, before greed corrupted some of them, too. But since we're already clinging to our 1950s promises of the boundless wealth that is bound for our pocketbooks someday, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to embrace the populist idea that in the richest country on Earth, there shouldn't be burned-out neighborhoods, people being kicked out of their homes, and dying for want of health care.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-23-2009 @ 1:59PM
J.D.$$$$$ said...
Did you also see this?
Michael Moore's "Capitalism" Opens in Los Angeles: An Inconvenient Review
With his media mogul producer and capitalist-friendly marketing Moore is receiving "more" reviews than he bargained for.
Michael Moore's new movie "Capitalism: A Love Story" is being criticized for using capitalism and the media to promote "anti-capitalism" ideals. Moore's movie is being co-financed and distributed domestically by Overture Films, which is part of John Malone's Liberty Media. Liberty, reports Joe Flint of the Los Angeles Times, also owns satellite broadcaster DirecTV, and recently took a stake in Sirius XM.
If the idea that Michael Moore has teamed up with a media magnate weren't ironic enough, Malone's company Sirius XM was the subject of the financial documentary "Stock Shock" which highlights the company as one of the most manipulated stocks in the market. Investors in Sirius XM lost over 95% of the value of their shares in the company when it nearly went bankrupt earlier this year due to alleged illegal naked short selling, and some contend, internal corporate greed. John Malone was touted as the satellite company's white knight for saving it from ruin at the 11th hour with a loan of several hundred million dollars, but not everyone agrees.
"Stock Shock" interviewed disgruntled investors like Michael Hartleib, founder of SaveSirius.org, who insist that Malone virtually swindled the company away from shareholders when he was awarded a 40% stake in the billion dollar company for the last minute loan. Hartleib asks, "How was this management team able to steal forty percent of our company without we, the true owners of this company, having a vote or a seat at the table? How was Mr. Malone given forty percent of our company for free?" Many journalists are asking, "is this the producer Michael Moore hand picked?" Newsday's John Anderson comments that Moore provides "enough convenient logic to bury the Federal Reserve."
"Stock Shock" is a new release on DVD and is available at Amazon.com or stockshockmovie.com.
Reply
9-23-2009 @ 3:41PM
sara jane said...
Saw the film and loved it. i thought it was sad that the presidential office was just a figurehead puppet to be
controlled by the likes of Merrill Lynch exec telling the president what to do (it made me a bit teary) It seems that the president & govt became a figurehead in the 80s
People talk of not wanting big government controlling the people. I think the issue has become that corporate execs involved in the government makind biased decisions that harm
the people when the government is to protect the people.
That's why many are unhappy.
The president and govt shouldn't be a figure head anymore in this democracy. People have to speak up for seperation of
government and capitalism.
How is that the minority corporations are controlling majority of the people for their advantage. not right.
Reply
9-23-2009 @ 6:00PM
Don said...
You tried to take a middle road in your review but you failed. This is a one sided film and your review is one sided. However, this is one of the few places where I actually saw in print that greed will not work in socialism or capitalism. Thank you. However, the following statement in your review is simply not true... "Both systems are ideals more than fully-formed concepts for a political machinery, so neither one has inherent provisions for keeping corruption in check." Capitalism cannot take place without freedom. Socialism can exist with little freedom to the people. It is much more likely that there will be accountability in capitalism than socialism. Yes capitalism is an ugly beast when fueled by greed... but socialism is an ugly beast with no one to be accountable to when fueled by greed.
The Federal Government would serve the people best by using it's power to fight corruption and unjust gain instead of putting itself in the dangerous position of needing to be fought. It should foster a fair playing field for freedom rather than trying to force a contrived equality at the expense of fairness and freedom.
Reply
9-27-2009 @ 9:36PM
Travis Morales said...
Michael Moore does not propose a solution and in fact states he has not even read Marx. He may not be a communist, but we are! And if this movie moved you to want to know more, to get into a critical debate about the future of humanity, human nature, and the fact that there is actually a real, viable and desirable alternative - COMMUNISM - then you need to tune into an amazing evening with Maoist political economist and communist Raymond Lotta. "Behind the World Economic Crisis: System Failure and the Need for Revolution" will be a live webcast on September 29, Tuesday, 7:30pm EDT. For details go to http://revolutionbooksnyc.org/ See Raymond Lotta's new YouTube, "The Rape of the Congo and Your Cellphone" to get a glimpse of this amazing speaker and analysis.
Reply
9-27-2009 @ 10:16PM
Travis Morales said...
Link for Raymond Lotta's YouTube "The Rape of the Congo and Your Cellphone" is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBhiEKZezhY
Reply
10-02-2009 @ 10:49PM
Walt said...
Mr. Moore lost me with this one. While his previous work has shown the necessary inclusion of reform and accountability in our political/financial system, his latest drowns in a sea of idealism, particularly the progressive idealism that A) rationalizes heroes, or the perception of them and B) discards any pragmatic view of humans with which idealism must be linked.
So, while we have plenty of bashing Bush and even certain democrats, Barak Obama is viewed as the guiding light (displaying both flaws A and B). If anything, Barak Obama, the man of "change" has proven that the more things change, the more things stay the same. But the majority of progressives (Moore included) refuse to believe that Ralph Nader WAS right, Gore, Kerry, and Obama are all Republican light. Obama may just be playing the game until he can really show us his stuff, who knows? It would have been nice for Moore to rhetorically ask this question. That's all he had to do; I realize the movie was filmed some time ago, but even just a warning to Obama to keep his promises would have been fair and balanced.
But worse is the belief that socialism is the answer. I wish it were so. But both democracy in its largest sense and socialism need and informed and involved electorate/working force. And involved is the key. As long as most think that voting for Obama was enough, just wear his shirt and say "hope", then capitalism is the best we can "hope" for. I just don't see most Americans, even a very large minority, wanting to be really involved. Maybe I am wrong, but FOX news is still number one and the health care plan is toothless now, and most people are more concerned with Jon and kate and Ellen and so forth.
And finally, the founding fathers were certainly closer to capitalists than socialists.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 8:50AM
MIke said...
I saw the film yesterday. Generally I liked it but it seems a little one sided and in some cases. I am a real estate agent living in Broward County Florida. This is one of the highest foreclosure areas in the country. You cant help but feel for the homeowners in the film. What was not said, is that in many cases the process to foreclose on a property in Florida is quite lengthy, I have seen this take up to two years. The homeowners or investors in these properties do not pay the mortgage, insurance, tax's or maintenance fees in many instances. They have had all this time to live in the property for free and then seem surprised when the actual day arrives that they are evicted. Too many people used their homes like an ATM, refinancing every six months as property values were escalating. There is plenty of blame to go around. All parties involved were responsible.
Florida was particularly hurt for many reasons. When the real estate market was hot people from all over the country wanted to own real estate in Florida. We were experiencing 20% appreciation a year in some areas. Everyday people were lining up to buy property and hope to sell it in a year and make themselves a bundle. Investors were lining up to buy two, three and more properties so that they could rent them out and then cash out and make the big dollars. Most new construction built from 2004 and up or condo conversions have been hurt the hardest. Many of these associations are struggling or have dissolved because too many of the owners are not paying up. This has had a huge impact on many areas including jobs and local governments. There is a lot of blame to place there as well. The counties and local governments spent the money from the huge windfall from all of the tax's on who knows what.
I really don't think that the bail out of the banks was in the best interest .I think the market should have been allowed to run the course. It may have been painful, but what is going on is not fair to all. One of the major banks who received bail out money has a policy that if you ever defaulted on your loan with them you will not ever get another chance. So they get to be bailed out for bad decisions but you the consumer do not. As a matter of fact the ones who made the bad choices get a bonus.
I was shocked about the story of the PA child care. The judges, owners and anyone who was involved in setting this up should be placed in this facility. Lets put them away.
The companies who engage in buying life insurance policies on their employees for their benefit. Lets name them all. Lets boycott them all. The dollars speaks. This is capitalism at work. The banks and large corporations who are paying their CEO's huge bonus with the tax payer dollars. Lets use capitalism there too. Bank somewhere else, Buy a different product. Part of the problem with the American consumer is that we all want Walmart prices but we all want to make $100.000.00 a year. It didn't matter to most of us when the airline employees took 40% pay cuts, or that the little store down the street had to close because the big box stores ran them out of business. Yes that too is capitalism. It didn't seem to matter to many until it hit home. When you have to take a pay cut, loose your benefits, can't pay your mortgage or get a job, only then you feel the pain. America produces almost nothing these days. Many of the jobs have been shipped overseas. There was some hope in the film about other models or ways to run a business. When a person making bread can make 65,000 a year and a airline pilot makes 20,000 you have to wonder what is going on. The film is good at getting you to think about yourself and others. We do need to take a look at the way things are run. We do need to be more compassionate and understanding. We all need to take responsibility for our actions. We should not be rewarding those who just want to get rich off the hard efforts of others. There is room for both democracy and capitalism. Use your vote to voice what you want. Our politicians who voted for this bailout with no strings attached on the banks, auto industry and others lets use our votes to tell them we don't want them in office. This is democracy. All this being said. The greed continues. I see more of the same happening right now. See the film. Be informed. VOTE. Think of ways to make a difference.
Reply
10-04-2009 @ 3:21PM
marcus a. said...
If Moore's intent in this film is to point out the selfish and heartless nature of finance and power structures, then it might be possible for once to agree with him. However, it would be necessary for him to target exactly the right thing, which is not capitalism per se. More precisely, it would make sense for him to target those would use money and governmental power to destroy in order to consolidate and ultimately control.
Reply
10-10-2009 @ 10:04PM
Don said...
So, Michael Moore, if you're so against capitalism and the American free market system, Why isn't admission to this movie FREE to the public??Why would you dare take one single red cent from the people you are so worried about??
Reply