Is Michael Moore Making a Vampire Movie?
Filed under: Documentary, Newsstand, Images
.jpg)
Above: A scene from Michael Moore's new untitled documentary
These days it seems like everyone wants to take a bite out of the vampire universe and suck that sucker till its bone dry. While filmmaker Michael Moore isn't exactly moving on to the world of fiction, he tells USA Today -- who premiered the first image from his upcoming untitled film (see above) -- that his new movie takes the whole vampire mythology in a new (and topical) direction. Moore says, "The movie is not going to be an economics lesson; it's going to be more like a vampire movie. Instead of the main characters feasting on the blood of their victims, they feast on the money. And they never seem to get enough of it."
Moore, of course, is talking about those greedy Wall Street men and women whose bad choices and investments helped shove this country into a recession that so far has cost thousands of jobs and forced some of the most hard-working Americans to give up their homes because they can no longer afford the mortgages. While Moore admits that his films will always be a little bit funny regardless of the topic, this time he claims moviegoers might leave the theater asking ushers for "pitchforks and torches." Hmmm ... does the man really eat that much? (Insert smiley face with a wink)
The Untitled Michael Moore Film (which I think he should call Why Are People So F**king Greedy?) will hit theaters on October 2nd.
Movie Popcorn is Bad for You? Who Knew?_thumbnail.jpg)
'New Moon' Smashes 'Dark Knight's' Opening Day Record!
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
Sex and Nudity Don't Draw You to the Movies?
What Makes a Real Vampire?
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-11-2009 @ 11:07PM
Bob Saget said...
Sorry to do this but I gotta go on a little rant here. I am so sick and tired of everyone oversimplifying the current economic crisis as the end result of the greed of a few. It's much more complicated then that. Bad decisions were made. But it wasn't just "greed". These people had extremely stressful jobs that relied heavily on gambling. That's what it is at the end of the day. Playing the market is a gamble no matter how much research you do. They have clients. They have shareholders. Their performance dictates how much money they and their clients make. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of people who deserve a special place in hell, but I do think people have just lumped a lot of wall street people into one big pile and that's just not fair. Not everyone was thinking "hmm toxic assets are fun let me lose a ton of money and ruin people's lives buy investing in this". It's a lot more complicated and I'm sick of it being diluted to just blaming it all on "greed". Sorry for the rant and I know people are going to give me grief for this but I feel like so many people love just blaming it on one simple thing when its far more complicated then that. I really hope Moore's film is a good analysis of what happened to our economy; but I doubt it. This film is coming out too soon and I fear he's going to misrepresent a lot of the people and issues that have occurred. OK, I'm going to shut up now.
Reply
6-12-2009 @ 1:01PM
Chris said...
Mr. Saget,
I enjoyed your work on Full House.
I also enjoyed your post. It is refreshing to see someone actually thinking for five seconds before playing the "it was those greedy people over there that cause it" card. You are correct that a number of issues are being ignored.
I find it particularly fascinating that the steady and sizable minimum wage increases that have taken effect in each of the last 3 years are being completely ignored as causes of and contributors to our current economic situation. If you own a store and I tell you I am increasing the wage you have to pay your workers by roughly 30%, what are you going to do? Fire some workers and raise your prices, so you can stay in business. Economist have shown repeatedly that increasing minimum wage generally (but not always) has these effects. I am not trying to say that minimum wages are inherently bad, just that there are consequences and that those consequences are contributing to what we are experiencing right now.
I also don't mean to imply that min. wage is the sole cause of our situation. Just that it is a significant contributor that is being ignore because we asked for it and don't want to take responsibility for the consequences. Instead, we blame "those guys on Wall Street" who are so damn greedy.
The next time you meet someone who is unemployed ask him if he would rather have a job that pays a minimum wage of $5.25 or no job and a minimum wage of $7.25.
6-15-2009 @ 10:36AM
Kevin said...
Let me be the second to congratulate you for your work on Full House and as a cinematical poster. People love to attack the "greedy wall street SOB's" because they're an easy target. Rich guys who were trying to get richer and made some dumb decisions. It'll be interesting though to see if Moore also goes after the people who took out loans that they KNEW they couldn't afford, but did it because they figured they'd make a killing by paying the loan off for two years or so and then reselling their homes for a huge profit. Those poorer people were just as much to blame as the wall street folks selling their loans. I have a friend who took out a loan despite everyone around her telling her she couldn't afford it, but she just HAD to have this one house, so she took it out and said she figured she'd get a raise at work, or refinance later on. So to sit back and ignore all these other factors and just lay the blame all on one group seems pretty ridiculous. But hey, thats what people love to do. Its like attacking Britney Spears...even stupid people can do it.
6-12-2009 @ 11:58AM
Dick Movie said...
Bob and Chris, with all due respect what do each of you do for a living?
Reply
6-12-2009 @ 1:11PM
stuclach said...
Mr. Movie,
I am a Economics professor at Georgia College & State University. I received my Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Kentucky in 2005. My two fields of specialization were Labor Economics and Public Economics.
Chris
6-12-2009 @ 1:52PM
Dick Movie said...
Ok good to know there can be some thought behind this, and please forgive me in advance for any ignorance as I'm just a regular guy who likes movies and economics is not my field of study.
While you did say that minimum wage was not the sole responsibility, your comment certainly did put a lot of weight on that factor.
If you believe that two dollars more per hour is excessive for hard working people, and contributed to the meltdown, how do you feel about bonuses of millions (sometimes tens of millions or more) for individuals working in the market?
Do you feel this is a fair and justified distribution of wealth?
Reply
6-12-2009 @ 2:20PM
stuclach said...
Mr. Movie,
I tried to be clear that Min. Wage isn't the sole cause or even the biggest cause, just that it was a significant, but seemingly ignored cause. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I get excited. You should see me in the classroom.
Excellent question.
I feel earnings should be based on productivity. Not effort, not intelligence, not skill, not potential, but actual output and its value (just like a student's grade in a course should be based on actual performance, not effort, etc). I feel that IF these hard working men and women who are earning minimum wage are actually becoming more productive, then they deserve a raise. If they are not becoming more productive, then I don't see how a raise is justified.
The same should be true for a CEO. If I am a CEO and am able to expand my company in such a way that it creates say 1,000 jobs (min. wage or otherwise) and that my company's profitability increases the average value of 401k/pension plans, then yes, I deserve a nice bonus because I have been very productive and society benefits from my work. However, if my company fails and/or hemorrhages jobs, then no, I don't deserve a bonus (or my job, in some cases).
This doesn't mean that I feel minimum wage should never move. Inflation requires that it move if we wish for it to serve a meaningful purpose. I prefer a minimum wage that tracks inflation to one that jumps by large chunks every 5 to 10 years. It is much less jarring for our economy if we raise minimum wage by (for example) 2% per year every year than 10% every 5 years. And the actual wage after five years would be same.
Keep in mind that that $2.10 raise, from $5.15 to $7.25 is a roughly 41% raise. That is a very, very large raise in percentage terms. If I told you a man making $30,000 year working in a factory (for example) was going to get a raise to $42,300 without doing any additional work or being any more productive would you feel that was excessive? I do.
The distribution of income and/or wealth in this country is certainly skewed (as it is in all countries). However, I feel it must be skewed to provide motivation. If income were perfectly equal, there would be near zero incentive for hard work and society would suffer. I have no problem with a more equal distribution, but I want to make sure the methods and motivations are sound.
(I don't mean to give the impression that ALL economists feel the way I do. I am giving you my feelings on these topics. I feel they are in line with most economists. However, we economists are a surly lot, so there are a great many opinions on some of these issues.)
You may want to check out this article to get a feel where we (and the majority of Democrats and Republicans) stand on a number of issues.
Chris
6-12-2009 @ 1:48PM
stuclach said...
Sorry, that should read "I am an Economics professor...".
Also, I meant to mention that I worked for minimum wage for two years while I was in High School. Interestingly, roughly two thirds of all minimum wage workers are third wage earners like I was.
Reply
6-12-2009 @ 2:22PM
stuclach said...
Here is the article:
http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~cclark/Survey%20of%20Republicans,%20Democrats,%20and%20Economists.pdf
Reply
6-12-2009 @ 2:25PM
Prhime said...
the greed was widespread. in a capitalist country where the dollar/bottom line matters the most - you have business people and you have customers. Both parties are greedy and aspirational as they reach sometimes beyond their means. This large number on both sides of the scale is the result of the current and continued downturn (side | detroit's been in a recession for over 8 years). When things take a turn for the worse and we feel like we have no control- the easiest out is to look past the mirror and point a finger at someone.
Reply
6-12-2009 @ 2:50PM
Dick Movie said...
Chris,
I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on compensation being a reflection of productivity. After all the concept of money seems to be a tool that keeps track of value added by any one person or organization.
Within this model how do you account for Wall Street traders who lost money for their clients and the country, yet still received large bonuses?
I don't understand the value they've produced which this bonus money is meant to be reflecting.
Reply
6-12-2009 @ 3:12PM
stuclach said...
Mr. Movie,
Without knowing some specific examples of traders receiving bonus while hurting their customers and the details of that specific situation, I can't really provide a satisfactory answer. I will say that any trader who is consistently under performing the market should not receive a bonus and, in some cases, shouldn't have a job.
However, if the market lost (for example) 20% of its value and a trader's clients only lost 10%, then he/she actually did a solid job and might deserve a reward. Their productivity was higher than their competitors'.
I am not sure if this is what you are referring to when you mentioned the effect on the county, but a number of people have put a lot of the blame for the mortgage crisis on financial organizations and representatives. While they deserve some of the blame, we must again keep in mind that there is some personal responsibility, as well. If I knowingly apply for and sign a loan agreement to buy a $200,000 house while earning only $30,000 a year, I am responsible (to a large extent) for defaulting on my mortgage. The bank shouldn't have given me to offer, but it was me promising to make the payments outlined in the agreement.
If the bank misled the borrower, then clearly the blame shifts back to an extent.
If that isn't what you were referring to, then please disregard.
Chris
P.S. Sorry to comment and run, but my kids and I have to head to vacation bible school, so we can get our dose of brainwashing (no offense intended, just the way it has felt this week). Thank you for indulging me in my rambling. Have a good weekend.
Reply
6-12-2009 @ 3:36PM
Dick Movie said...
"any trader who is consistently under performing the market should not receive a bonus and, in some cases, shouldn't have a job."
I agree with this, but the only question is what happens when the actions of traders drive the market down as they make money, therefore by comparison to the market performance have done well.
For instance can you really credit someone for saving the family cat when they set fire to the house, and collected insurance after? Sure the cat is alive, and that's better than the burnt house, but what caused the house to burn down in the first place?
It will be interesting to hear Mr. Moore's take on the situation next fall.
Have a great weekend,
DM
Reply