TIFF Review: Capitalism: A Love Story
Filed under: Documentary, Theatrical Reviews, Toronto International Film Festival
.jpg)
There is a mentality among some people that suggests our country was and is built upon the idea that if one works hard, is honest, and applies him or herself, he or she will be successful. My own opinion notwithstanding, the basic thread of Capitalism: A Love Story suggests otherwise: Michael Moore would have you believe that the bottom 95 percent of the economic spectrum has so thoroughly bought into the dream they could one day become part of that top five that they themselves essentially reinforce the impossibility of that ever happening. But its theories of institutional corruption and self-fulfilling propaganda notwithstanding, the film's only real leap of logic or falsehood is that audiences not predisposed to agree will want to see it. All of which is why Capitalism is essentially a one-sided love story, even if its message could be truly reciprocal if enough people opened their minds up enough to hear it.
Admittedly, Moore's net is cast wider with this film than in previous ones, and as a result his focus is a little softer. But Capitalism basically examines the ways in which excessive greed and self-interest has eclipsed the ideals of our democratic state, on both sociopolitical and deeply personal levels.
Moore starts by chronicling the experiences of a handful of families who were forcibly evicted from their homes, and then follows a loose trail of money and decision-making to the companies – and indeed, the philosophies – that led to the destruction of countless lives. Suffice it to say this makes it all seem terribly melodramatic, but Moore captures all of this with his typical flair for spectacle seeded with substance, and offers a fairly horrifying portrait of our economy and the system that cultivated its current state of terminal disease, in both abstract and incredibly concrete terms.
In the interest of full disclosure, my feeling is this about today's political climate: I think that it is the responsibility of any government and its people to provide for the well being of all people, and it sickens me that there are people who think that the accumulation of material wealth justifies a lack of empathy or supersedes compassion for others. In fact, what was most powerful in Capitalism to me was a display of generosity and support shown by total strangers to a group of factory workers who staged a sit-in at their former jobs until they were paid the wages they earned; it reassured me that there are people who believe that it's good to be good to other people, even when they don't know them, or have a personal (much less financial) investment in more than seeing them succeed.
Of course, in the film the bigger problem really is a bigger one – namely, corporations which seem to have no end of greed, and who have effectively gamed the system so that their pursuit and accumulation of wealth has become legitimized and protected by our government. I have no particular feelings about the idea of someone emerging from the private sector, much less a corporate board of directors, in order to take a prominent post in a presidential administration, at least not on principle; but watching executives-turned-cabinet members protect their former companies and even fortify their financial excesses is reprehensible on both a personal and cultural level, the latter of which because it reinforces and encourages the worst kind of creative thinking – namely, how to screw people over to make even more money next time.
What might have been more effective or even just interesting is if Moore had devoted a little bit of time trying to get inside the heads of these executives whose intelligence and scruples are inversely proportionate; for example, why do these people want or need so much money? And is it ever enough? And furthermore, is any thought ever given to the countless people whose lives they destroy in order to obtain that wealth? Conservatives might dismiss such thinking as bleeding-heart liberalism, but what we're talking about is not someone who simply wants to rid themselves of debt or buy a second car, but someone who facilitates a government bailout that earns failing banks hundreds of billions of dollars that can and will never be accounted for.
But then again, that's absolutely the problem that a lot of people, fans included, might have with the movie: it's preaching to the choir. Technically it really may not be, but the sad fact is that Moore is a poster boy for the left, and even if he weren't, politics has become a team sport where factual information and intelligent discourse has been replaced with spurious and unsubstantiated arguments that are championed louder than the opposition, simply to "win" at all costs. Sadly, I'm not sure that there's anything Moore could do to bolster his position, although engaging some of the opposing viewpoints on his theories would certainly help.
Ultimately, however, Capitalism: A Love Story redeems itself because it possesses the same quality that has inspired our country in the last year – hope. In his best moments, Moore is deeply passionate and relentlessly idealistic, but he's an advocate for positivity and redemption, if also for transparency and common decency. Right now there is no one on the left louder and therefore more important than him, even if he isn't always right; but whether or not you agree with his thoughts, theories, or even tricks, that sense of optimism is something that everyone should feel – so even if you can't find it by working hard, being honest and applying yourself, there's something to be said for a film that gives it to you anyway, if only for a couple of hours.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
9-17-2009 @ 12:37AM
Flowers said...
You bring up an interesting point about the concept that if you work hard others will recognize and guide you to your success. But that is not how it works and I can't imagine how many amazing people were thwarted due to others greed and selfishness.
Even if Michael Moore is preaching to the choir at least we have a filmmaker who creates such films. Of course there are countless other pieces of video that reveal this info but usually those vid's lack quality and credibility.
I'm looking forward to seeing this film but I'm sure I'll be depressed afterwords (hell, for that matter, I'm depressed now!). I can already feel that twinge of anger starting to percolate it's way up to my upper brow. Man human beings can be such fuckers!
--
Reply
9-20-2009 @ 10:27PM
Toni said...
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm amazed at how creedy some people are; how do they get up every morning and look at themselves in the mirror? I'd never be able to live with myself if I were a person like that. I'm a fan of Michael Moore. I think his films hit the nail right on the head and I'm very anxious to see this latest one.
America will surely go under if the types of things that have been happening lately will continue to do so. It saddens me to think of what kind of country it will become. I'm happy I'm the age I am; I've lived most of my life. But I'm worried for my children and grandchildren.
9-17-2009 @ 12:38AM
j_shaft69 said...
Bah! Moore is a nut that once again uses smoke and mirrors and public outlandish behavior to achieve his idea of a inconceivable utopia where everyone is financially equal. I haven't watched anything he's made after Bowling in Columbine because he is a fat pig that has zero taste, composure or class; oh, and because he's a huge liar and fraud. I'm sure he doesn't mention Obama's name once regarding the bank bailouts though. Shame on you for writing this biased review that barely covers the movie itself...then again, how do you review a fake documentary?
Reply
9-17-2009 @ 12:38AM
ME said...
I will not watch this even if im paid to do so, i cant stand that lying truth twisting loser.
Reply
9-17-2009 @ 12:38AM
akaison said...
His thesis is spot on. I live in NYC. Have worked on Wall Street. The disconnect between the general public and Wall Street is stunning. Most Americans think we live in a meritocracy of hard work and ability. We really are becoming a country with stratified classes like Latin America. It is not as hardened yet, but our own behavior of acting against our own interest is pushing this stratification forward. Again, I am truly amazed at how, for example, people can defend the health insurance companies as "choice" when in fact the companies provide no choice at all.
Reply
9-17-2009 @ 12:39AM
joejoe said...
healthcare? why bring healthcare reform into this?
Reply
9-17-2009 @ 12:41AM
monstermac said...
What is your goddamned problem ?
9-17-2009 @ 12:39AM
Graham said...
Moore is fat, so his ideas and movies are stupid. AMERICA FU*K YEAH!!! IF you don't like it Mr. Moore you can giiiit out! You can't criticize America, we're perfect!! So what if Morocco, Denmark, Dominica, Costa Rica and so many others have better health care; we landed on the moon 40 years ago! GOD BLESS US.
Reply
9-17-2009 @ 12:39AM
Sam said...
"I think that it is the responsibility of any government and its people to provide for the well being of all people".
That is a very broad thing to write and dangerously close to being a communist statement. Do you think it is our responsibility because the government tells us it is, or because we should take care of others because it's what any decent person would do out of their own free will?
Aside from that, I agree with a lot of what Moore says. The government is part of the problem. Giving money we don't have to corrupt companies whose thieving executives write themselves fat bonus checks is completely irresponsible.
There is a crazy idea out there that says, "we have to pay for our society". It's total bs. Let the corrupt companies fail. New, businesses will take their place. Businesses I might add, who are run by bright, intelligent people who would love to compete given half a chance.
Reply
9-17-2009 @ 12:43AM
Reuben said...
you say "dangerously close..." like there would be some big uproar if it was a communist statement. I think we, as a people, can move past the whole "communism is witchcraft *hiss*" thing.
9-17-2009 @ 12:40AM
jmg_NX21 said...
Really, it is a shame that discussion challenging our way of of life cannot be done in a calm manner; compromise is a bad thing; criticism is anathema to the 'American Way'
Yes, Michael Moore will be preaching to the choir - but is there nothing in the past 10 year that makes you wonder, why many people and corporations get a free pass?
Enron?
Ameriquest?
Look up Gladwell's Outliers... concepts of social capital and cultural capital...
We don't all have the same chance at succeeding... we DON'T...
Reply
9-17-2009 @ 12:41AM
pete thomson said...
Thank god Michael Moore preaches to someone. Sadly not the short sighted defensive Americans insulated from the realities of their medical service and how millions of people are deprived of care because they cant afford it, or how the American gun culture allows kids to buy guns of the internet and shoot their fellow class mates, or the lies told about the Iraq war or how Iraq was carved up as a resource for American companies to exploit and plunder. Now we have American banks defaulting on sub-prime debt. It always amazes me how uniformed yet stubbornly defensive some people are on these issues. Michael Moore isnt squeeky clean he tends to paint in his arguement with quite a broad brush, but he does champion the under dog and give a voice to the disenfranchised in an often satirical way. His movies always do really well in Europe because we love to laugh at the horrors of how bad things can be in the States- unless you have money that is!! Im sure this one will be another popular triumph. Sicko was excellent especially when he interviewed all the American ex-pats taking advantage of free health care in Europe! They couldnt believe their luck!!
Reply
9-17-2009 @ 12:15PM
Kevin said...
This is why Europeans have such an interesting view of the states- all you ever view from our side of the pond is the satirical garbage that attacks it. Then you overgeneralize (it was the guns that the kids bought that made American schools so dangerous...this despite the fact that even with those horrendous shootings overall violence is extremely low in American schools- put the blame where it belongs, the kids were sick and needed help, they didn't buy the guns as sane people and then slowly get twisted by them) and make false statements based on an examination of one side of the story. Hell, I absolutely adore Europe, and go there every chance I can, but the fact of the matter is I've rarely come across a European who could debate American politics, society, or economics with a real world understanding of the issues at play. Michael Moore is exactly the same as Rush Limbaugh in his techniques. You blame the southern Americans for being stupid becaues they only listen to one side of the story, and then you proceed to follow the exact same guidelines when formulating your own opinion. Obviousely I'm being extremely broad in my brush strokes with you pete, but you're always on here spouting the same liberal BS (and I'm a left of center individual who hates Rush and O'Reilly, bu that doesn't mean that every liberal idea is brilliant) so this characterization of you seems pretty spot on. Tell me I'm wrong...
9-17-2009 @ 12:53PM
pete thomson said...
Sorry Kev Ive lived in America an have friends and family there god ive even studied there so I know what Im talking about. If I seem Liberal Hurrah I am. I just get fed up of American culture getting rammed down the throats of the rest of the world when its just money and marketing rather than quality and informed debate thats got it there!!!
9-17-2009 @ 12:42AM
ML said...
I can't say that I'm a huge fan of Michael Moore. Nevertheless, I have some interest in seeing this film. I'd note, though, if you take a side these days you'll be "preaching to the choir" no matter what you do because the country has become increasingly divided. No one seems to be willing to listen to what anyone with an opposing point of view has to say anymore, and "compromise" has become a dirty word associated with failures and traitors, not great statesmen who hammer out deals as it once was.
Reply
9-17-2009 @ 12:43AM
Pater said...
" I think that it is the responsibility of any government and its people to provide for the well being of all people..."
Isn't government supposed to fucking do this ? To provide SERVICE to the people who PUT THEM IN CHARGE ?
If these officials are averse to doing that, then WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THERE FOR TO BEGIN WITH ?!?
You're the so-called ' leader of the free world ', and you couldn't figure this shit out. Jesus.
Reply
9-17-2009 @ 2:25PM
Kevin said...
Provide for their well-being? Of course. Providing a situation of being well though is much different. Should the government spend its resources ensuring that all people, regardless of contribution, be middle class? Or should they ensure that you do not live in forced poverty, as they do now? Nobody in this country need sleep under the stars or go hungry, thats what well-being means. If you want more than you have every opportunity to go out and get it. Volunteer at some homeless shelters and see how hard people work to escape poverty if you just give them the means to avoid it. Imagine if you took a class in college where the class was graded as a whole, and everyone had to get at least a B, so that if you got an 95 on a paper and somebody else got a 65 then your professor would take 15 points from your paper and gave it to the other student so that you both got 80's. Would that seem fair?
9-17-2009 @ 5:02PM
Todd Gilchrist said...
RE: Kevin's post, I'm not sure how much of this is sarcastic and how much is sincere, so my apologies in advance if I misinterpreted your point. But your assumption that people can be successful because "they have every opportunity to go out and get it" presumes (1) that our capitalist system is engineered to truly allow everyone to achieve or succeed at the same level, and (2) that in our collective community everyone starts off with exactly the same level of opportunity in terms of education, access, and encouragement. The point of Moore's movie directly refutes the first idea, documenting the way in which coroporate and government corruption has designed and strengthened a system where the filthy rich get even richer by suppressing opportunities for the less wealthy to make more money. But the second seems to be an argument frequently made by the right, and it's a fallacious one, because few people can just "be successful" because they want to be, or even when they work hard; institutional racism, economic squalor, a diminishing value on honesty, real hard work and a genuine sense of value for our collective success (meaning, for everyone without being at the expense of anyone) has made it impossible for people to overcome and achieve success.
"Imagine if you took a class in college where the class was graded as a whole, and everyone had to get at least a B, so that if you got an 95 on a paper and somebody else got a 65 then your professor would take 15 points from your paper and gave it to the other student so that you both got 80's. Would that seem fair?"
This is another myth, and a bad analogy to boot. The bottom line of "wealth-spreading" is that (as indicated in the movie) the top 5% of people hold 90 or more percent of the wealth, while the bottom 95% don't want to take it from them because they think they will ever be that rich, and THEY WON'T. This isn't about taking your next door neighbor's money, it's about people paying a fair amount of taxes in order to ensure that all people are cared for, and the current system where these corporate douchebags fortify their hundreds of millions of dollars over and over again without regulation or restriction does not continue to oppress the remainder of the population financially. Additionally, it disturbs me that people equate or justify their resistance to sharing their money (via taxes) as reason not to have concern or empathy or compassion for other people; I'm not suggesting you're doing that, but I do think that people are like, "so I should help some other dude?" The answer in a democratic society is YES, because (being purely idealistic) the benefit of helping others is that society as a whole is improved, and offers us our own additional opportunities to succeed.
9-18-2009 @ 11:16AM
Kevin said...
Todd, you're using the same techniques that conservatives use for their arguments, namely, creating straw men. Many people that don't want to pay extra taxes don't do that not because they don't want to help people, but because they recognize that the government is historically terrible at distributing funds in ways that actually make a difference. Yes, there are good programs, but the vast amount of government programs are rife with wasted resources and misappropriated funds. Its the basic nature of government; you can't strip away waste because jobs and programs are guaranteed. So many conservatives that oppose higher taxes give far more to charity than do liberals (this is true virtually across the country- the south gives far more per dollar earned to charity than new england, california, etc.). So its a horribly false claim that people are being selfish when they say "I won't pay more taxes". Furthermore, I never said that there was purely equal opportunity in this country for all. Its another false argument to say that my argument necesitates "that our capitalist system is engineered to truly allow everyone to achieve or succeed at the same". To claim that people can be successful is not the same as saying that everyone has the equal opportunity to be equally succesful. But there is the opportunity for anyone who is smart enough and works hard enough to provide a very comfortable life for their family. And yes, people all have the chance to become fabulously wealthy, specifically for the greed that you speak of. If you can make me 100 million dollars than I'm going to pay you a million dollars to be my employee so that I CAN MAKE MONEY. It certainly is more difficult for some to get this opportunity than for others. There is divergent opportunity in this country, but its not like the top 5% are keeping the bottom 95% in poverty. You've extended the argument past its logical barrier. Should we try and increase equality? Absolutely, its a noble goal and one that we shoudl continue to strive for. But people like Moore skew the debate to make it seem like we're all living in some sort of Matrix where we are unconciously being harvested by the owners of Bank of America and Citigroup of our wealth. Its simply not true. The debate lies far closer to the center (in my humble opinion) than Moore of Limbaugh try and make it seem. If you look at life through their skewed lenses than you'll never see the reality of whats going on.
9-17-2009 @ 12:43AM
MYMHM said...
LOL people getting all hater-aid on Moore. He's an entertainer.
People talking about boycotting the flick just make others want to see it more.
I think he's a funny savvy dude, so I'll probably catch this one.
Reply