michael moore Tagged Articles at Cinematical

By Todd Gilchrist, reprinted from the Toronto International Film Festival 9/16/09

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.

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.

Let's face it: recessions suck. People lose money, they lose jobs, they lose husbands and wives and ... yeah, you get the point. I'm sure some of you are still out of work, trying to get by on whatever little comes out of that unemployment check -- hoping and praying that this time the experts are right, and our economy is beginning to recover. In the meantime, though, after watching our government spend billions in stimulus money, I bet you at home would like your own stimulus package ... am I right?

Well, your friends at Cinematical have partnered up with filmmaker Michael Moore and Overture Films on a pretty cool contest in conjunction with Moore's upcoming documentary Capitalism: A Love Story where the winner will receive a much-needed $500 Visa gift card to use as they see fit. All you have to do is watch the brand new trailer for Capitalism: A Love Story and answer three questions about said trailer correctly in order to enter. Just leave your answers in the comments section below, and make sure you have a valid email address so we can get back to you if you win. It's that easy!

Capitalism: A Love Story hits theaters on October 2nd. Head after the jump to watch the trailer, see the questions and read the official rules for this contest.

Michael Moore is leaving the documentary world behind! Okay, most people would say that he already has, because his form of "documentary" takes so very many narrative leaps, but he's honest-to-goodness looking for new pastures. Just over a month after Erik typed that Moore "isn't exactly moving on to the world of fiction," the director has told the Detroit News that his latest, Capitalism: A Love Story, might be his last documentary.

"While I've been making this film I've been thinking that maybe this will be my last documentary. ... I have been working on two screenplays over the last couple of years. One's a comedy, one's a mystery, and I really want to do this."

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.

Michael Moore's next documentary-slash-editorial doesn't have a title yet, but it has a release date: October 2nd, 2009. As its distributors cannily note, that's a year and a day after Congress approved the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

The movie is about the financial crisis, and Moore is not mincing words. Describing the project in this Reuters story, he says that he made the movie to find out why "the wealthy" "systematically set about to fleece the American people out of their hard-earned money." Well then -- it's good to know he went into the filmmaking process with an open mind.

I don't have a problem with overtly political documentaries, though my personal fondness for capitalism will probably make this movie a tough sit for me. I do think, though, that Moore is most interesting when he is more curious than polemical: it's no coincidence that his best film is the ambivalent, conflicted Bowling for Columbine. Given the amount of news coverage the subject has gotten, and given that we know pretty much precisely what Moore will say, I'm just not sure how much use there is for an angry, breezily edited two-hour look at the financial crisis.

But: populism rarely fails. As with Moore's last few films, look for Untitled Recession Documentary to be the rare doc to receive a semblance of a wide release this fall.

Errol Morris is probably the highest-profile working documentarian after Michael Moore -- and since Moore is more of a video essayist than a documentarian, Morris is, in truth, number one. He's also one of the rare documentary filmmakers who embraces the genre as cinema rather than mere journalism. His movies are always visually interesting, and never straightforward.

That bodes well for Morris's upcoming maiden voyage into narrative cinema: a yet-untitled dark comedy about the good old days when people thought that cryonics was our best bet to cheat death. The movie, focusing on 1960s efforts to freeze people for later reanimation by future scientists armed with incredible technology, will be written by Zach Helm, who wrote Stranger than Fiction and wrote and directed the lovely Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium.

Documentary filmmakers transitioning to narrative features isn't anything new of course. This weekend's State of Play, for example, was very competently directed by Kevin MacDonald, who not only began his career making documentaries, but actually made one about Errol Morris. And of course we all remember Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

While MacDonald seems to be focusing on fiction these days, I can't imagine Morris will ever abandon documentaries altogether. But if his narrative effort is half as formally original and visually exciting as most of his docs, I won't complain if he does.

[UPDATE! Our old friend Christopher Campbell reminds me in the comments that Morris has already made one narrative feature, that I forgot about and now need to run out and see. So this will be his second.]

[Variety]

What distinguishes a "documentary" from a "narrative feature"? You might as well say, what distinguishes Michael Moore from Brad Pitt? Moore has made three of the top five grossing docs since 1982; the other two featured penguins and global warming. We tend to associate "documentary" with "truth," though the "facts" presented are often disputed, and some highly-regarded "documentaries" have staged some or all of their content. Ronald Bergen in The Guardian argues that "there has always been 'cheating' in documentaries." He concludes: "Isn't it time we drop the word 'documentary' for good?"

Filmmaker Frederick Wiseman is cited in the article as a "leading figure" of Direct Cinema, whose proponents "believed the camera could record the truth unobtrusively. But even Wiseman recognised that there is no pure documentary but all film-making is a process of imposing order on the filmed materials." Yesterday I watched part of Wiseman's The Store (1983) at AFI Dallas, and his skills as a filmmaker are evident: capturing a Neiman-Marcus salesman casually mention a $45,000 price tag, saleswomen being led through "finger calisthenics" and practice smiles, the opening and closing of elevator doors to signal location and time changes. Even if none of the footage was staged, Wiseman decided what to include in the finished film and in what order it would appear. We don't know what he may not have been permitted to shoot.

Some people think a "documentary" sounds like medicine: good for you but not fun to watch. I think the term itself has created a ghetto that keeps people from seeing great movies. What do you think? Is the term "documentary" archaic and out-of-date? Has the line between documentary and fiction become blurred beyond recognition? Is it time to drop "documentary" from our cinematic vocabulary?

400 Screens, 400 Blows is a weekly column that takes an in-depth look at the films playing below the radar, beneath the top ten, and on 400 screens or less.

Every year critics are subjected to who knows how many dozen documentaries; most probably don't bother to see them all, and others will be reluctant to admit that most of them are the same. Oh, the subjects are different. One may be about war in Asia and one will be about war in Europe and another is about politics in the U.S.A., but they're the same in structure and tone and rhythm. We usually get the big three: talking heads, stock footage and photographs, and sometimes some "re-creation footage."

Here are some pointers for future documentarians. 1) Don't do that thing where, if the subject starts crying, you discreetly keep the camera rolling, and then use that footage in the final film. If your cutting is otherwise neat and smooth during the rest of the film, then if you suddenly pause over a weeping shot for the first time, it's annoyingly obvious why you're doing it (see My Architect). 2) If the police or someone else tries to make you turn your camera off, pretend to comply and leave it on. It's very cool and it gets the audience on your side (see Street Fight). 3) No fancy graphics, unless your movie is funny (see Bigger, Stronger, Faster). Animation is still cool -- see Chicago 10 and Waltz with Bashir (208 screens) -- but it could get old, fast, so approach with caution.

Our friends over at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre sent in this video of their top performers re-enacting famous sketches as if [insert famous filmmaker] directed them. Which sketches with which directors, you ask? Well, we have Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" as directed by Wes Anderson, Monty Python's "The Ministry of Silly Walks" as directed by Michael Moore, and The Kids in the Hall's "I'm Crushing Your Head"? as directed by Quentin Tarantino. This is a fantastic idea; I almost wish some of them went on a tad longer than they did by introducing other elements.

Not long ago, during the election, someone else did something similar by creating attack ads as if they were directed by famous filmmakers (the Wes Anderson commercial for John McCain was brilliant, by the way). Check out this new video from those crazy cats at the UCB below, then maybe throw them some ideas for where they can go next with this idea.