Complexity
The best political magazine in the world, Reason, has an interview with documentary filmmaker Frederick Wiseman. You’ve probably never heard of him, so here’s the introduction to the piece.
It has been 40 years since the premiere of Titicut Follies, a bleak and scathing documentary about an asylum for the criminally insane. The audience at that first screening saw a cascade of disturbing images of mistreatment and neglect, most notoriously a brutal force-feeding of a naked inmate. As the prisoner is fed through the nose, a guard tells him to “chew your food”; the tube itself is lubricated with grease, and a doctor dangles a burning cigarette over the funnel.
But the most grotesque detail may be the follies of the title: an annual musical revue put on by the prisoners and guards. The revue frames the film, which begins with a row of madmen with pompoms singing “Strike Up the Band” and ends with the cast crooning “So Long for Now.” It’s a strange and darkly comic performance, part Ziegfeld and part Bedlam.
The movie was both a landmark piece of journalism and a landmark work of art. It made the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Bridgewater one of the most infamous madhouses in the country, and it is now one of the most celebrated documentaries of the ’60s. It is also notable for two reasons that have nothing to do with its merits. It was the first picture to be directed by Frederick Wiseman, a former law professor who at age 37 was beginning a long series of rich and challenging films. And it is the only movie in U.S. history to be banned for reasons other than obscenity or national security.
Inevitably the subject of Tubby Riefenstahl rears its head.
Reason: There’s a recent trend toward documentaries in which the filmmaker makes himself a part of the action. Obviously that’s very different from your style. Sicko and Hospital are both about American health care, but their approaches are just poles apart.
Wiseman: Well, I haven’t seen Sicko, but generally speaking I’m not a fan of Michael Moore’s.
Reason: How come?
Wiseman: I think he’s an entertainer. I don’t think he’s interested in complexity.
I’m not against the filmmaker appearing in a film. I think some of the greatest documentaries I’ve ever seen have been made by a filmmaker who’s present in the film. I don’t know if you’ve seen any movies by Marcel Ophuls—The Sorrow and the Pity or Hotel Terminus. Ophuls is a great filmmaker because he’s a great interviewer and he has a very sharp and analytical mind. In the case of Michael Moore, I don’t see any particular filmmaking skills, and I think his point of view is extremely simplistic and self-serving.
One of my goals is always to deal with the ambiguity and complexity that I find in any subject. Even the simplest human act can be subject to multiple interpretations or have multiple causes. In Titicut Follies, for example, there are scenes where you see a guard or a doctor or a social worker being cruel to an inmate. But there are other situations where they’re being kind. Some of them are both kind and cruel, if not simultaneously then serially.
“He’s not interested in complexity.” That’s about the most accurate critique of Moore I’ve ever read. It’s a point Jim and I have made here a thousand times.
Sicko has NOTHING to do with healthcare. Absolutely nothing. Sicko is a two hour informercial for socialism, and healthcare is merely the context in which that infomercial is presented. The issue of universal healthcare is unquestionably one of the most complex facing human society today. As the baby boomer generation ages, where are we going to get the money and resources to provide unlimited free healthcare? Is it fair to saddle the current generation with a massive mountain of debt to do so? Is single-payer government-run healthcare the best or most efficient means of providing universal healthcare? Should we even have universal healthcare?
The questions are endless, as are the possible solutions. Note that NOTHING in Sicko would ever lead the viewer to question whether socialism is the solution. The reason for this is simple: the movie exists to justify Moore’s socialist political beliefs, not to lead a debate on finding solutions to the questions that face us. Socialism is presented without critique, Santa Clause and government all rolled up in a sugar-coated ball of dreams, while any solution involving competition or the market is shown as hateful, evil, greedy, heartless, and so on. It’s an either/or solution, two sides of the same coin. Capitalism evil, socialism perfect. America evil, Europe perfect. And the Cuba segment speaks for itself.
For the record, once again let me state the obvious. Both Jim and I believe (a) that universal healthcare is possible, (b) that the American system is a complete disaster, (c) that the socialist model Moore glamorizes is just as bad, if not worse, and (d) that we as a society need to have the courage to look for different, novel solutions. Moore has no interest in actually solving the problem, he wants the problem solved using the socialist system he has clearly believed in since he was a teenager.
Think of the issue of race in America. Two people who benefit the most from race relations are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Do any of you out there honestly think that either of these men want to see the end of racism in America? Of course they don’t, because if there were no racism then there would be no need for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. So they foment that which they claim to oppose because it is the source of their power. This is the exact situation with Moore. He needs sick people, because he needs a reason to justify socialism. There is no problem for which socialism isn’t the solution. Socialism is perfect.
Don’t you think that someone tackling an issue as complex as universal healthcare should have an interest in complexity?
Comments
Think of the issue of race in America. Two people who benefit the most from race relations are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Do any of you out there honestly think that either of these men want to see the end of racism in America? Of course they don’t, because if there were no racism then there would be no need for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Ain’t that the truth
In Titicut Follies, for example, there are scenes where you see a guard or a doctor or a social worker being cruel to an inmate. But there are other situations where they’re being kind. Some of them are both kind and cruel, if not simultaneously then serially.
So much so that when the hospital workers were given an advanced screening, they liked the documentary....
They only turned on it after others saw it and picked out parts of their behaviour they didn’t like…
Basically, it was fair enough that the people in it did not see it as against them (until after a backlash from outsiders)…
Michael Moore is not a socialist; he exploits a particular market to make a profit and does so very successfully. He even “externalises” his marketing costs (which I believe is a free market strategy for transferring expenditure onto other parties thus maximising profit) through websites like this, which in turn increases the number of people that go to see his films, which in turn makes him even more money.
This is the reason why he seems so transparent to ‘real’ socialists over here in England, if he were a socialist, he would share all of his money with equally with his colleagues and not dwell with the bourgeoisie in Manhattan. He would live in a grotty NY slum, swap his baseball cap for something flatter and smoke roll-up cigarettes and moan about Margaret Thatcher.
Socialism is a very nice ideal; it is an easy ideal to sell but a difficult one to put into practice. That is why Moore touts it in his films and that is maybe why he skips on the complexities, all Moore does with his films is sell a nicely packaged slice of idealism that is very easy to digest but is ultimately tasteless.
Why do you all hate him? Moore is the embodiment of the American dream; a self made millionaire, an entrepreneur that has used a particular product to make his fortune. Freidman would have surely congratulated him on his single-minded pursuit of profit. He may be doing it by damning his own country but he would not be the first American to compromise their country to make a few bucks, long live the free market.
Have I got it wrong? Are all Americans dollar obsessed individualists just in the same way as you seem to think all Europeans are lefty collectivists?
Europe is a massively changing landscape; the ‘socialist’ NHS increasingly uses privatised services in a bid to reduce costs and promote efficiency (something that has actually compounded the funding problems within the NHS). The “left-wing” labour government has been pushing through conservative reforms for the past decade that have sped up the privatisation and led to the massive debts and cutbacks the NHS currently faces. All points Michael “not interested in complexity” Moore missed out in his movie.
England is no longer a socialist country, Moore is wrong. We have right-wing/free market policies on economics, crime, employment and increasingly healthcare. Moore’s portrayal of the state of the healthcare system in Britain was woefully inaccurate, please do not tar us with the same brush that Moore does.
Thank you for telling me my opinions on Europeans. Since you’ve already spelled them out for me, I don’t have to think about it.
Once again...our problem with Moore isn’t the fact that he makes a profit. Our problem is that he claims to be a journalist who makes documentaries, when he’ really doing op-ed pieces. Our problem with Moore isn’t that he raises questions about important issues, it’s that he decides upon his opinion first and then shapes facts to support it instead of allowing the facts, whatever they are, to dictate the message of the film. Or, in other words, to document what he sees.
Maybe Jim or Lee should put a big long explanation like this one in the space that says “The Biggest Anti-Moore Site on the Internet”. That way people will know why Moorewatch exists and we won’t have to keep saying the same thing over and over again.
Have I got it wrong? Are all Americans dollar obsessed individualists just in the same way as you seem to think all Europeans are lefty collectivists?
Where did you get the idea that this was my point? It is MOORE who presents Europe in this manner. “Look, they’re socialists! And socialism is perfect! They get everything they need whenever they need it, as much as they want! It’s a giant bowl of candy, and everyone can take as many pieces as they want, because it never goes empty!”
That’s the point. Moore is a socialist. He portrays the healthcare systems of Europe, Canada, and the UK as a socialist fantasyland, with rivers of chocolate, where the children sing and dance with gumdrop smiles. And why does he do so? Because, as I said, Sicko has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with healthcare and everything to do with justifying his unwavering belief in socialism. So he takes systems which are astonishingly flawed, going bankrupt, often times unable to provide basic services, and tarts them up as examples of the grand socialist ideal made real.
You’ve got it all backwards. I know about socialist healthcare systems, having spent a good part of my life living in countries where they were available. Let me ask you one question: can you name ONE SINGLE THING in Sicko which would lead the viewer to question the socialist ideal? Or is socialism presented as the panacea for all of society’s healthcare problems?
I think englishbob’s point was that Moore is the ultimate capitalist—even though he preaches the wonders of socialism, he still lives high on the hog.
...Come to think of it, that could just as well describe the Soviet leaders of yore. I guess socialism wasn’t truly an ideal, eh, englishbob?
Posted by bismarck on 11/21/2007 at 08:34 AM (Link to this comment | )
...Come to think of it, that could just as well describe the Soviet leaders of yore. I guess socialism wasn’t truly an ideal, eh, englishbob?
Some people have noted that Castro ‘is the richest man in Cuba’… but that’s the rub. Socialists have this perverted idea of the free market. They call it ‘capitalism’. They spend their whole life attacking it. Once they get power, they set up a system just like it. It’s been said that a lot of conspiracy theorists adopt the methods of their imagined enemy group… and its true IMO…
Basically, Castro is a gangster monopoly capitalist. Its what a lot of socialists really want… as long as they’re part of the gang.
Points taken, there was more than a hint of sarcasm involved in my last post.
I understand that it is Moore’s assertion that Europeans are socialists etc. but I do get the impression from the posts that it is European/socialist vs. American/liberal.
Lee - your last comment that was my point, the very concept of socialism is easy to sell to those who are idealistic and that is exactly why Moore sells it, but you have to admit a world where everyone is equal is a lovely thought…
Bismarck - exactly.
sl0re - Castro is on the Forbes rich list, quoted with a ‘personal’ fortune of something like $500 million dollars that comes from the profits of Cuba’s ‘nationalised’ industries - he is one corrupt SOB.
By looking at their respective fortunes, we really see what Moore and Castro have in common.
Posted by Englishbob on 11/21/2007 at 12:35
I understand that it is Moore’s assertion that Europeans are socialists etc.
It doesn’t help that it seems to be British political shorthand to refer to everyday center left politics as ‘socialist’ (it may be age related as the people that lead me to think that tended to be younger...).
We’ve had quite a few moderate center lefties, from the UK, call themselves (and the UK) socialist. We were the ones trying to tell them that the label was not really apt…
Anyway… I’d speculate a few leftists teachers thought they could make people more left wing by telling them their more moderate politics were socialist (or even ‘left wing’)… sorta has no effect really. People keep being what they were and believing what they believed… and just call themselves the wrong term…
Over on the continent (on the other hand) they do have a lot more socialists… hence the fits over the free market…
As to NHS, the PM who founded it was a socialist. I believe he nationalized just about everything and put all doctors on the payroll (re: for awhile there was no private care)… but the government allowed a dual private / state system to develop by not prosecuting doctors who stopped showing up for work at the NHS and took on private work. Sooo, calling it a socialist system is not just a jab. ;)
I might agree with sl0re that Cuba is run like the Mafia with those in power obtaining obscene wealth.
On the other hand, it’s my opinion that at least some of the rubes who fall for typical Marxist dogma really honestly believe that the vast majority of people will become somewhat “wealthy” under a socialist system. In other words, to them it’s not only possible, it’s also permissible to get “rich” as long as everyone is sharing in the boundless wealth that will be created in this near perfect system.
These are the same rubes that have trouble with long division. :)
I’ll go back to a point I made on another thread:
Ignoring the complexities is EXACTLY what Moore is trying to do. I don’t think he really beleives that socialism and socialised medicine are the answers. I think all he is trying to do is provide a neatly packaged, easy to understand position on the issue of healthcare.
To make a complex argument would marginalise his audience to those people who read Chomsky and Pilger (plus he would need to be as well read as Chomsky and Pilger).
It’s genius if you think about it. the globalisation of socialism....
Posted by Buzz on 11/21/2007 at 04:49 PM (Link to this comment | )
I might agree with sl0re that Cuba is run like the Mafia with those in power obtaining obscene wealth.
I just generally think people project themselves to their out group. Example: Nazis talked about weird Jewish rituals regarding stealing organs and other weird medical things… then, in power, they do medical experiments on Jews that are similar to their paranoid fantasies about them…
El Commentate blathers on about capitalism and then creates a repressive system just like what he was talking about…
RSS (Subscribe)
So how long do you think before Moore starts attacking Wiseman? Claiming Wiseman’s been bought off by Bush, or that he knows the skeletons in Wiseman’s closets and will tell all if he doesn’t get an apology, or just fires back something truly worthy of his level of public discourse with “Sounds like he needs to take some time in Bridgewater himself”.