I just got back from watching the new Michael Moore film and here are my thoughts...It's pretty good, overall. I didn't find the film as invigorating or fascinating as either "Bowling for Columbine" or "Fahrenheit 9/11" but that's probably due to the fact that health care policy is not something I feel all that passionate about, so a documentary devoted to that topic doesn't swiftly draw me in. I went to see it mainly because I'm a Michael Moore fan (I own all of his available work on DVD - pretty much everything he's released since "Roger & Me" except for the "TV Nation" series which is only available on out-of-print VHS tapes at this time.)
Thinking back on the film now, the emotions that come to mind were:
1) a feeling of dread, even fear, at the prospects of getting seriously ill and losing everything if and when my condition disqualifies me from health insurance. There were some awful scenarios that Moore portrayed of people who have worked hard, lived purposeful lives but wound up broke and humiliated and in many cases unable to get adequate care because the system in this country basically looks for reasons to not treat them if it can be professionally justified.
2) frequent amusement, as Moore uses his ironic, sarcastic wit to make poignant contrasts and wry observations on the differences and similarities between American health care and lifestyles and what our peers in Canada, England and France experience. He also makes his customarily effective use of archival film stock, on-target musical soundtrack choices, and on-location footage. For anyone who's been offended by Moore's in-your-face, guerrilla-with-a-camcorder style where he pounces on unsuspecting executives, flunkies and bureaucrats to confront them with their misdeeds, he has toned that thing down quite a bit - really, there's nothing much like that in the film. In fact, his reputation now is such that I don't think he could ever get away with it anymore. Though one admirer of his invoked Moore's name to get results, as you'll see early in the film, so I suppose the tactic still has its strategic value.
3) lots of empathy and sadness as I watched the plight of many people who are dealing with real suffering and highly uncertain of what will happen to them. Also some people for whom it is too late, the worst case scenarios have already taken place and there's nothing anyone can do about it except consider what could be done to avoid putting others in those terrible circumstances.
One thing I didn't feel coming out of this movie that I especially felt upon watching "F 9/11" was a sense of exhilaration and boldness. When that film came out, of course, Bush had not been re-elected yet and I thought at the time that Moore's portrait of the Bush administration would offer plenty sufficient proof to the American voters that returning that crew of inept, dishonest warmongers would be a terrible mistake. What I wasn't prepared for and didn't expect was that so many people would automatically dismiss Michael Moore as a propagandist, a "bad guy" who distorts, exaggerates and misrepresents things in order to get his point across. I really had no idea that there was already such a dug-in bias against the guy, and even to this day I wonder why so many people have a hard time even choosing to watch one of his films? I do see Moore as a champion of the common person - his films are full of very ordinary, non-glamorous, working class people who generally do the right things according to what they've been taught, but wind up getting screwed badly by the powerful elites in our government, corporate world, the military, the media, whoever. It makes me kind of sad to think that a lot of folks who Moore truly does care about and on whose behalf he is advocating won't give his movies a serious look. Even if you end up rejecting his arguments or find them too slanted (which could even be the case with SiCKO's call for free universal health care for all), his message is thoughtful, relevant and well-crafted enough to merit engagement. And if it's about not wanting to put money in his pocket, I think you can pretty easily download the movie for free if you get onto just about any file-sharing network worth its salt!
11 comments:
I've only seen a little of F'911 which I didn't care for much. I've seen a few interviews with him and a couple of his speeches. Michael Moore just has a really irritating presence to me.
Beyond even his own views, he has a lot of extremists rallying behind him. I've heard too much support of communist and totalitarian dictators and too many absurd Bush/Hitler style comparisons from that crowd. They say the best way to judge a person is by the quality of their friends or the company they keep, or some such thing.
He seems to stand on the borderline of being an extremist and propagandist. While you might be on the non-extreme side I still group him with them so I don't give him much credibility.
About free universal health care, I have to say, I really find these kinds of notions rediculous. Its part of a communist style model which fails to account for the realities of human nature. Good health care is driven by money, that is just a fact of life. Other countries have universal health care and its not working very well for them. Too few doctors, too many patients, sub-par care. We already provide medicare to the poor and even illegals. We have minimum standards in place that are above what you would get in 90% of the world. You can boil it down to the fact that I, and most anyone else would rather be sick in America than anywhere else in the world. I get really, really, really (emphasizing this!) tired of peoples outrage to having any imperfections in the system. They say we can do it perfectly and its not acceptable, but we can't. We need to keep doing what we have and try to make things just A LITTLE better when we see a flaw we can fix, not tear the whole thing apart because it fails to meet some unrealistic ideal.
Personally I think a far better idea is doing things like raising minimum wage and working to stimulate the economy so that as many people as possible can afford to pay for their health care.
Alex, you really should see this film at some point. Moore offers a response to pretty much every point you raise about the problems with socialized medicine. There's a lot I could quibble with (or if I felt like it, outright challenge you on) in the presumptions behind the arguments you present here, but for now I'll just say that Moore doesn't claim to have the perfect answer. He only thinks we can do it better, and his purpose in the film is to bring to the forefront some of the inadequacies of our current system by comparing it with three other societies (Canada, England and France) that are quite similar to our own.
There are some serious flaws in our own system that are costing peoples' lives, squandering their life savings and forcing them to make drastic short-term decisions that ultimately compromise their health, often irreparably.
I hear what you're saying about Moore's "irritating presence" but honestly it seems to me to be an irrational hostility toward what he's saying that has been projected onto the man himself. What I don't get is how so many people seem adamantly stuck on not even watching his films as if some kind of principle is at stake here. I don't particularly enjoy listening to President Bush or most of the right-wing commentators who run his interference on radio or TV but I will listen to them just to hear the points they are raising and consider the implications of what they propose. It seems like Moore doesn't even get that much consideration from a lot of folks...
I saw The Roger film and Bowling for Columbine. I started F9/11 and couldn't get past the first fifteen minutes. MM's tone drove me crazy (not unlike how I feel when I listen to Rush Limbaugh, actually).
I think he uses polemics but dresses them in the "common man" language and it doesn't move people outside his particular political orientation.
Not a fan, though I respect his drive. I just wish we could move beyond the over-the-top rhetoric and just present data to consider.
F9/11 was an angry movie, no doubt. The product of a man who felt (imo) justifiable outrage over the course of events that was initiated with Bush's installation to the White House in 2001.
I guess I'll continue to plead on Mike's behalf that he gets a fair hearing because I think he makes worthwhile and artistically creative films, but I can only push it so far. If you do happen to get a chance to view SiCKO, I think you'll find him less over-the-top, but I could be mistaken here since I don't find him as grating as many obviously do.
I will actually watch his films as long as I don't have to pay for it. I was fine watching F'911 except it got what I felt was unnecessarily graphic. Everyone who supports a war should be able to face those images but its infuriating to do it in that context when it is being used for manipulation.
He displays the corpses of people who believed in what they were doing over there. Would they want their bodies to be used to push his agenda? Somehow I think they would be enraged. Hearing his voice speak as if he cares for them or speaks for them while defiling what they worked for; I have trouble finding the correct words for the feeling that it gives me.
Doubt I will have a problem watching SiCKO since its totally unrelated, and it will probably come on one of the 200 movie channels I've got if it isn't already. If it makes good points I'm sure I will notice but I'm doubtful how significant they will be. If I don't find it convincing it will be because I have counterpoints, not cause of my dislike of m.m.
I have been getting my medical care here for a long time and it has always been above satisfactory to me. I have many friends in Canada who have told me that their care sucks (their own words). I've met people from other countries who say the conditions are horrible. I watch the discovery channel and medical channel and I've seen people leave the countries you mentioned to fly to America for treatment. There are even those American doctors who practice free medicine, here is the thing though; they usually leave America to do it because they know that we are pretty much dead last in terms of desperate need for such a thing.
I don't mind you challenging my points Dave (wouldn't bother to comment if I did), but I will try to watch the film first to save you the work of going over the ones it makes. I'll probably DL it if I don't see it anywhere else in the near future.
As I have said before I probably will never watch one of the MM movies. That said I have to say that I would probably agree with most of what is communicated in SiCKO.
Health care is out of control in our country and I think that it is time for major reform. I think that it is tragic how millions of people (especially children) in our country are uninsured. I think that I could support a national health care system ... maybe even a nationalized version Medicare ... in a few years I'll be on it any way :)
HI Dave,
Thanks for the invite to your site from Julie's...I have to say that you really nailed it on the head when you said "many people automatically dismiss Michael Moore as a propagandist, a "bad guy" who distorts, exaggerates and misrepresents things in order to get his point across" for that is exactly what he is (and believe me I am not a dyed-in-the-wool conservative). I don't like any distortion of the truth from the right or left.
Nevertheless I think he serves a purpose...to use exaggeration to prove his point(and he does have a pointworth making) however it is just as twisted as the right's spin on truth as well. I would encourage you to read some well-balanced criticisms of his films (that are not just right-wing propaganda). I plan on seeing the movie with an open mind but open to what is possibly wrong with it as well as what is right about it.
I'll chime in with support for Michael Moore. He's a self-proclaimed polemicist, so i'll keep that in mind when watching his stuff. But he's completely got a point. There's a foundation of truth upon which his inflammatory work is based.
And probably most of my in-laws think Michael Moore should be kicked out of the USA at best, tried for treason at worst. And, unsurprisingly, they've not seen any of his movies.
I'll catch SiCKO one of these days. I never watch movies anymore... i guess i'm busy or something.
Juanito, thanks for weighing in here. This seemingly obligatory "orthodoxy" that has developed around some reviews of Michael Moore's work, where it becomes standard operating procedure to point out the extremity of his movies and how they fail to adequately cover all sides of the issue, is getting rather tiresome. Neither he nor anyone else is claiming inerrancy or "final word" status, and he is always open to being fact-checked, more willing than most pundits and commentators to be held to a standard of accuracy and accountability by providing footnotes, etc. on his website.
I don't expect it to happen, but I would hate to see Moore chastened by his critics to become some version of a supposedly moderate mainstream media reporter. He's a documentarian who makes films that are entertaining but also underscore a point and at least attempt to appeal to our social conscience. It's a shame to me that a lot of people have effectively been repressed into not even giving themselves the chance to see what he's saying, based on the prejudice that seems to have been inculcated by right-wing special interests. But I suppose he's not alone in having that happen to him!
r michael, thank you for commenting here and also for indicating your willingness to watch the film. I don't agree with your assessment that Michael Moore is "exactly" what his most vehement critics portray him to be. You declare that you're not a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, but the conclusion you draw makes you come across like one to me. I don't even mind if you are a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. I hang out with such folks a lot of the time and respect their basic reasons for thinking the way they do.
I have read some critiques of Moore's films, and if you have any particular links to send me, please do and I'll check them out. Most of the time, I'm struck by how nasty and personal they tend to get - something about MM really drives some folks over the edge!
Who would you care to cite as an example of a well-balanced, non-distorting documentary filmmaker who covers territory similar to Michael Moore? I also enjoy the films of Robert Greenwald, but he's pretty far to the left. Bill Moyers has a long-established pedigree but he's obviously a liberal. I'm open to other sources of information if you have any that you'd like to send my way.
HI Dave,
I would willingly admit that most of Moore's critics are sources such as Fox News and the like from conservative pundits but I just googled "balanced criticism of michael moore" and found some interesting stuff, mostly about 9/11.
I find it interesting that most of what gets presented in the press is fomenting views from the far left or right because it makes good press and the middle ground dialogue gets drown out by sound bites that get viewership (and therefore $$). I think what bothers me most about Michael Moore (or Fox News for that matter) is that seemingly intellegent people take the stuff hook, line and sinker without being very Berean about it. I face this all the time in the church and I find we want to read and hear what already reinforces what we already believe rather than be willing to be challenged in our belief system. I find this true of conservatives and liberals. I can't say that I have learned to be content in middle somewhere so until that time I listen to NPR as well as Fox News.
Post a Comment