Moore hypocrisy, and no one is surprised

Not that it should come as a surprise to anyone reading this site, but let me tell you a “secret;” Michael Moore is a complete hypocrite.

The event, hosted by Esquire, doubled as the launch of the magazine’s “Ultimate Bachelor Pad,” a fully tricked-out, 11-room, nine-bathroom, 9,200-square-foot signature penthouse in SoHo, filled with flatscreens, sleek, modern furniture and luxury brands—each room meticulously designed around an advertisers’ theme. (The Hugo Boss bedroom! The Heineken lounge! The Lufthansa kitchen!)

As Esquire publisher Kevin O’Malley explains in the Esquire SoHo brochure, part of the reason that the magazine does this every year—alternating between New York and L.A.—is to meet its “advertisers’ growing need to create relevant and innovative new consumer touchpoints for their brands. Our affluent readers share a range of passions: a real desire for the best-of-class products and services that our advertisers represent.”

In other words, the pinnacle of capitalism. A fantasy in capital excess. A byproduct of the corporate greed Moore rails against in the film.

By the time Moore arrived, the party was in full swing, with revelers enjoying the 360-degree views of Lower Manhattan on the 3,000-square-foot terrace, top-shelf themed bars, sipping signature cocktails (there was a guy hired to blow dry ice on one pomegranate-and-melon-martini thing) and devouring skewers of filet mignon.

Esquire even hired models to strip down and slip into the obligatory hot tub.

Wait what? Seriously? For this movie, Moore allowed this to be his premiere after party? How fucking dumb is this guy?

Answer; not dumb at all. However, to his fans and defenders: MOORE THINK YOU ARE DUMB AS HELL. He thinks so little of you that he flaunts his own personal excesses—and has for years—all the while chiding and criticizing everyone else for living far less extravagantly. He’s the precise and exact thing he rails against—which is an interesting psychological case study in self-loathing, but I digress—and should not be taken seriously by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Moore thinks you people will sit back and take it over and over and over again, because you are either too stupid to call him out on his bullshit, or you are as devious and dishonest as he is, and you believe that lying and being a hypocrite are okay as long as your “message is good.”

According to the Los Angeles Times, “Capitalism” is being co-financed by John Malone, “master of the tax-free deal, a champion of unfettered free markets, completely disdains government and most federal regulations and has expressed a fondness for Rush Limbaugh” who was recently “slapped with a $1.4-million fine by the Justice Department for illegal stock purchases.”

It seems that Moore is able to separate the marketing with the message.

This is not unlike Moore screaming about certain companies, only to find out he was heavily invested in them. Again, he thinks you are too stupid or too much like him to care about such mundane details as doing business with criminal financiers who are, by all reports, very, very Republican. Why would Moore get in bed with a guy like John Malone? Isn’t that sort of contradictory to the entire point of the film? Doesn’t it violate the very principles Moore is espousing?

Well of course it does. But that’s Moore all over: whatever gets him to the honeypot. Mikey would lick George W. Bush’s dirty bunghole if it would net Moore another million.  He’s a greedy bastard just like all the others.  He’s found the perfect situation here. He can dick around with a movie ever couple of years, underpay young, idealistic staff to do most of the work for him, raid the pockets of his die-hard fan base and whatever new crop of college freshmen are still impressed by idiotic rhetoric and stunts like wrapping buildings in crime scene tape, live a lavish, extravagant, jet-setting lifestyle and get bigger and bigger, both literally and financially.

If you self-identify as being anything left of center and are now or have ever been a Michael Moore fan, I urge you to look closer. Is this really the man you want out in front of your movement?

Mickey Hearts Wolf

Here’s Mikey’s appearance on Wolf Blitzer’s show.  Notice how craven Blitzer is this time around, since getting hounded by the Mooreons for his last encounter.

A few things.  First, the description of capitalism as “legalized greed” is accurate.  Humans are greedy creatures.  The beauty of capitalism is that confines that greed to a region that is bounded by law and not controlled by power brokers (at least, in principle).  Second, watch the clumsy way he completely dodges the question of why he is against capitalism when he does so well.  He even lauds himself, to a sickening degree, as taking “great risks” and making “sacrifices” by putting out his money-making films.  Third, he again fails to understand that the special interests who control Washington have and are being empowered by the very expansion of government he promotes.

Then there are the little touches we’ve gotten so used to—a bizarre rant about ATM fees (he prefers tellers); a profession to being a Christian.  I especially like him calling socialism a 19th century idea and capitalism a 16th century idea.  Wealth of Nations was published in 1776.  That’s the 18th century (you may use your fingers to check my math, Mikey).  And socialist ideas date back to prehistory.

But I want to focus on one thing Mikey said, which is at the heart of his film.

I just don’t think that if we’re going to call this a democracy, that we should allow the economy to be anything other than run democratically.  You and I should have a say in how this economy is run.

We are not a democracy.  We are a constitutional republic.  And thank God.  I don’t think Michael would care too much for all of us “having a say” in what movies he is allowed to make or where is allowed to live or what he is allowed to wear.

Private property rights are just as critical to our society as political and personal rights.  Our Founding Fathers clearly thought so.  Documents around the time of the Declaration talked of the rights to life, liberty and property. The Constitution specifically protects us against eminent domain and internal trade tariffs. And the Bill of Rights?  As P. J. O’Rourke pointed out in Eat The Rich

The First Amendment implies a free market. Six of the remaining nine articles in the Bill of Rights defend private property specifically. And two of the others concern rights reserved to the people, some of which are certainly economic rights.

There is tremendous danger in allowing political control of an economy.  Dangers such as—oh I don’t know—taking money from the taxpayers to support politically powerful industries; caving into pressure to inflate and keep inflated a real estate bubble; looking the other way when connected interests engage in fiscal shenanigans.  Does any of this sound familiar?

If it had been up to a vote, does he think Americans would have voted for or against dangerously low interest rates?  For or against the dot-com bubble?  And does he think a massive powerful government would be more or less beholden to wealthy interests?  How does Moore explain that two of the worst banks, two of the principal villains in this show, were the taxpayer-backed and politically-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  Or that many are worrying about the explosion of FHA-backed debt?

Michael’s response to our current financial crisis is to do more of what we’ve been doing.  He wants to treat food poisoning with a big serving of rotten meat.

The thing is that’s a pearl toward the end of the clip, for all the pretension with which it is delivered.  While I would never describe banks as “public trust” or existing for the public good, I do think they acted irresponsibly.  I do wish they would realize how deeply they have hurt and frightened the hundreds of millions of Americans who are working hard and pinching their pennies only to watch their 401k’s vanish in smoke or go up and down on the Dow Industrial Roller Coaster.  I do think they were reckless in gambling people’s savings and investments on CDS’s and other financial bullshit.

But in a capitalist system, such stupid behavior would have destroyed them.  The ones who committed fraud would be in jail.  The companies that gave AAA ratings to shitty securities would be ruined.  Only in a political company were they allowed to become “too big to fail”.  Should we know allow them to become too popular to fail as well?

Mikey Loves His Movies

Oh goody!  Michael has another letter up on his website.  He never seems to tire of spewing his poorly-researched gibberish.  And we at Moorewatch never tire of fisking him.

Hypocrisy abounds in the NY debut of “Capitalism”

The premise of Moore’s newest opus is that the economic system of capitalism is inherently evil and must be destroyed. The LA Times is not alone in noting how ironic it is to hold a premiere for a movie with this as its thesis in such a manor:

As the Deal Journal’s Michael Corkery notes in a surprisingly evenhanded report, having the film open at New York’s Lincoln Center was a huge blunder, since it made Moore a fat target (no pun intended) for charges of hypocrisy.

After all, as Corkery puts it, the center’s sleek new theater was largely funded “by the very institutions that Moore lambasts as greedy, sleazy and beyond repent. Before the film, the crowd sipped champagne and cocktails in the ‘Morgan Stanley Lobby’ and then headed to their seats in the ‘Citi Balcony.’ Movie tickets were available at the ‘Bank of New York Box Office’ and there’s outdoor seating at the Credit Suisse Information Grandstand.’ “ (Geez, when you have to pee, do you think you can do your business at the Alan Greenspan Memorial Urinal?)

Corkery says there is “plenty of good entertainment” in Moore’s film while acknowledging the emotional impact of some of the film’s scenes, including one where Moore exposes how Wal-Mart profited from a life insurance policy it took out on a young woman who died unexpectedly, leaving behind a young family scrambling to make ends meet. But he also points out that Moore is often guilty of “throwing stones in a glass house he often frequents.” Noting that Moore has gone from assembly line worker to well-compensated indie filmmaker, Corkery contends that “his journey alone exemplifies the social mobility made possible by the very economic system he savages in his latest film.”

But wait! There’s more from The Business Insider, who noticed something rather interesting at the NY premiere:

Held at the fabulous, sprawling, lushly-appointed Esquire Apartment in Soho, it was packed with good-looking, well-dressed people, had multiple bars across two suites and two balconies, featured a Steak Bar, and even had a hot tub, complete with young lovelies lounging steamily therein. Meanwhile, the Hackers were there — the Hackers from Peoria, Illinois, whom an hour ago I had watched get evicted from their home, bewildered and tearful, burning their worldly possessions. I wondered what they must think. (Actually, I asked Mr. Hacker, who said that everyone in New York seemed to be beautiful, that it was their first trip and that they were having fun. I said I was glad to see that they were doing okay; he said, “Well, we’re not in that movie for nothing.”)

Hmmm… I wonder what exactly the Hackers did receive for appearing in Moore’s new film? Given Moore’s past of attempting to buy opinions and silence (*cough*), one has to wonder.

And the bad reviews keep right on coming….

In what is turning slowly into a mess of bad press, the newest reviews of Moore’s new opus “Capitalism” continue down a very negative, critical, and sometimes even scathing path. Here are a few more interesting pieces that made their way to my computer today.

From The Metro:

Many around Wall Street seemed unimpressed by the filmmaker’s argument that capitalism is an “evil” that needs to be replaced.

“What would be helpful was to teach people how capitalism really works rather than scare them,” said Alex G., a 36-year-old financial analyst. “I don’t have a problem with him, but I would wish he wasn’t so bombastic. Cut out the hype and deal with the facts.”

Much of the online commentary comes from Moore’s fan base, praising his genius and courage to speak truth to power. Not surprisingly, there are few tempered opinions of the provocateur.

“The man is a parasite who has carved out a market from the fringes of society,” wrote one poster to the Wall Street Journal’s Web site.

Jane Lee, 26, an associate at NY Pacific Capital said she appreciated Moore’s criticism, but thought he goes to extremes.

“I don’t see that capitalism is a bad thing,” Lee said. “I come from China, a communist country and I have experienced both.”

David Epstein, a professor of political science at Columbia University, said that Moore is right to say that capitalism “harnesses greed,” but added that it works.

“It’s seems he’s upset about concentrated power and its ability to influence policy but that happens in every single system,” Epstein said “I’m not sure why capitalism is especially bad in that respect.

From Newsday in a review that gave “Capitalism” a one and a half star review:

Most of what he rails against isn’t about economic philosophy, it’s about immorality; greed is certainly the lifeblood of capitalism, but greed is eternal and it’s human failing that has Moore at the ramparts, where he shrinks from making the big connections. That various corporations took out life insurance on employees and benefited from their deaths is low, but it isn’t criminal, and it doesn’t even victimize the survivors.

But if Moore could have accused Wal-Mart of denying health care to its employees in an effort to collect death benefits, that would have been something. While Moore is happy to imply the worst, innuendo is all we get.

Moore shares the blame for financial atrocities pretty fairly - he names Democrats as well as Republicans who have bellied up to the Wall Street-catered trough. But his trademark antics - wrapping Goldman Sachs in crime-scene tape, using a bullhorn to order Wall Street malefactors into the street with their hands up, or hassling security guards to give back “America’s Money” seem cheap, hackneyed and trite. Too bad: There was probably a good movie, even a funny movie, to be made here, but Moore has too much contempt for his audience to think they’d understand anything beyond the cartoonishness that is “Capitalism.”

This one from Opposing Views is my favorite. I wish I could reprint the whole thing because it’s a truly fantastic piece that breaks down the economics Moore rails against in “Capitalism”. I HIGHLY encourage you to go and read the whole thing, but here a taste for you:

The bad rap could not be more undeserved. Rather than mankind’s scourge, capitalism has been its greatest benefactor. It is, in fact, the only socio-economic system that can provide ordinary people with dignified and prosperous lives. It was only with the advent of capitalism that the common man was able to escape the penury and filth of his existence to which he had been previously consigned. Until then, the lives of most people were short, hard and miserable. Today, as if by miracle, we can enjoy greater comforts and ease of life than the kings of the past. It is to capitalism that we owe this good fortune.

Capitalism is responsible for nearly everything that makes human existence easy and comfortable. The automobile, the supermarket, the personal computer, the washing machine, the hammer-drill, the iPhone, the airplane, the TV set, the chewing gum, electricity and countless other good things have all been birthed and mass produced by capitalism.

Because of its immense wealth generating power, people who live in capitalist societies enjoy rising standards of living and material affluence. Conversely, those who live in non-capitalist societies invariably experience the opposite. To see this, it is enough to compare the experience of, let’s say, the United States, Switzerland and Australia, on one hand, with that of the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and Saudi Arabia on the other. The rule always holds: Capitalist societies are invariably prosperous. Non-capitalist ones are always poor.

But wealth and prosperity are not the only benefits capitalism confers. Capitalism fosters freedoms of all kinds and affords unprecedented opportunities for personal fulfillment and growth. It rewards efficiency, resourcefulness, originality and inventiveness. Those whose oddness would consign them to marginalization in less free societies often excel under capitalism. Capitalism rewards good ideas regardless of who their authors are. Thomas Edison was a hearing-impaired eccentric while Bill Gates is a well-known nerd. It is inconceivable that these men could develop their gifts in the way they did under any other system. Mankind has benefited greatly from the fact that they were born under capitalism rather than under a communist or Islamic regime. Andrew Bernstein was right when he said that capitalism is, among other things, “the system of liberated human brain power.” Capitalism uniquely encourages individuals to realize their talents and pursue their dreams no matter how far-fetched they may seem.

Perhaps the most remarkable characteristic of capitalism is its ability to transform the pursuit of self-interest into the general good. In the process of pursuing profit, people satisfy the needs and wants of their fellow men. This is because success under capitalism is tied to one’s the ability to provide something – a product or a service – that benefits other people. In a very real sense capitalism is the most effective and successful welfare program ever implemented. In the process of becoming the richest man on earth, Bill Gates provided a product which tens of millions have found immensely useful. This is the story of nearly every successful capitalist. John D. Rockefeller provided the masses with cheap oil, Henry Ford with affordable cars, and Steve Jobs with ingenious gadgets.

Anyone who genuinely cares about the well-being of mankind – anyone who claims love and compassion as his personal traits – cannot but become a passionate advocate for capitalism. The question to ask is: Under which system are people best off? Capitalism wins hands down. The difference between capitalism and even the best alternative is that of light and darkness. Michael Moore and all those who oppose and revile capitalism cannot have the best interest of their fellow men at heart. If they did, they would dedicate their efforts to its defense. By trying to destroy it, they are inviting hardship and misery on their society.

Brilliant stuff from Opposing Views - please everyone check out the entirety of the article. I feel I can now saw that one thing is certain - “Capitalism” is going to have a very bumpy ride both at the box office and with the viewing populace.

Moore banned from his own premiere?

In a somewhat stunning allegation, Moore is claiming that General Motors somehow banned him from his own premiere of “Capitalism: A Love Story” in Detroit:

In what sounds like a publicity ploy, controversial filmmaker Michael Moore is claiming that General Motors banned him from the premiere of his own new documentary, Capitalism — A Love Story, on Sunday.

Moore said he rented out four theaters in the General Motors-owned Renaissance Center in Detroit for the premiere of the movie. He told WDIV-TV in Detroit that when GM realized it was his film, they wouldn’t allow him on the premises. “Somehow, they are able to ban me from my own premiere,” Moore said.

But General Motors had a different take on the controversy.

“The screenings did go on as originally scheduled, but Moore was not given permission to do a press conference in the building,” GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson told Inside Line on Monday in response to an e-mailed query.

Moore is spinning his wheels again trying to be the squeaky wheel. His claims that GM “banned him” from his premiere as simply false. Moore did not schedule or receive extra time for a Q&A session after the screening, and therefore he was not allowed to have one. The movies were shown exactly as planned and Moore was allowed to attend. He simply wasn’t allowed to hold a Q&A session after the screening because he neither asked for nor received permission to have one.

I am wondering why Moore thinks we the people aren’t intelligent, savvy, or aware enough to find the truth in his erroneous allegations. Surely we’ve proven we aren’t easily taken in by such publicity stunts, so why even try them. It truly makes me wonder.

Reason and Moore

What our late lamented Lee used to call the Best Magazine on the Planet has an early look at Capitalism, which Sean Higgins watched with members of the AFL-CIO.  The thing that struck Higgins—and has struck me in Moore’s recent commentary—is that he seems to be drifting into a territory we will call Red Tea Party, as opposed to the current tea-parties being held by the Right:

First, Moore is a radical ideologue before he is a partisan Democrat. His film hammers congressional Democrats pretty hard for leading the effort to pass the Wall Street bailouts last year. Moore fudges a little on this, portraying the opposition that sank the initial House vote on the bailout as comprised exclusively of progressive Democrats. In fact, it was mostly Republican opposition that killed it. (That opposition crumbled after the markets subsequently tanked.)

...

The film’s second unexpected direction is to go beyond just shaking a finger at Wall Street and Washington. Moore doesn’t simply call for new regulations. Instead, he explicitly states that “Capitalism is evil and you cannot regulate evil.” Something must replace it.

He doesn’t exactly say what should come next, but he does lay some pretty heavy hints. Towards the end of film he interviews Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the Senate’s only (avowed) socialist. As far as Moore is concerned, Sanders’ ideas “sound like America.”

While many liberals have mocked conservatives for claiming that the left’s agenda is socialist, Moore’s response is, “Yeah, so?”

This is no surprise to those of us who have spent time following the writing and movies of Michael Moore.  He has never been in favor of changing the system or finding sensible ideas.  He has always been a radical who believes that our culture is fundamentally sick and can only be cured by a massive overhaul.  The tepid response of the AFL-CIO tells me that this message is not going to play as well as he thinks it will.  Americans—some of them, anyway—will put up with liberalism but not outright socialism.

I did find this amusing:

One final note: Just before the film started, Moore asked the audience to turn off any recording devices because the studio did not want bootleg versions of the film getting around. Apparently this socialism stuff has its limits.

Of course it does.

Moore shut out of award at the TIFF festival

Not only did Moore not place in the Venice Film Festival, it seems he got shut out of TIFF as well:

Kiwi documentary Topp Twins: Untouchable Girls has beaten Michael Moore’s latest film to win an audience choice award at the Toronto Film Festival (TIFF).

Director Leanne Pooley was been awarded the Cadillac People’s Choice Award for Best Documentary while Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story was the runner-up.

Ouch. Canada rejects Moore? What is this world coming to? 

More heat for “Capitalism”

When even The Huffington Post starts to turn on Michael Moore’s new film, you know there’s trouble a-brewin’ for our favorite polemicist. I couldn’t believe my eye when I read their review the review of “Capitalism”. Now, for the sake of fairness, it starts out with a slew of compliments:

Like I said after a screening on Wednesday here in L.A., Michael Moore’s new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story is awesome and I want to recommend it (again) to everyone-- except for one part.

But after a short time, reviewer Howie Klein skewers Moore to the wall over Moore’s treatment of Chris Dodd in his film. Listen to this:

Well, okay, the traditional media, sure, the AP, of course, but not a liberal media source like Michael Moore, right?  Right?

Wrong.

Moore:  As I point out in the film, I have an exclusive interview with the VIP loan manager at Countrywide Loans, the largest mortgage company in the country, was giving sweetheart loans to Senator Dodd where he didn’t have to pay fees, they did away with the paper work for him, he got all-- things the average person couldn’t get. ... I think people are going to be surprised.

Hell yeah, they are going to be surprised!  Surprised that Michael-freaking-Moore ate this guy’s story up without even the most basic fact check!  Sure, it fit his narrative well, but c’mon, could you at least check to see if he, in fact got a special deal? Time to hand over that $10,000, Michael.

Also, if you are Michael Moore, and you have basically made a career out of getting powerful people, people who you have no business interviewing, on film, how is it possible that Chris Dodd is not interviewed in the film?  Roger-- check. Charlton Heston-- check.  Chris Dodd-- [crickets].  If you get the accuser on video, making wild accusations that everyone now agrees are completely false, how is the accused not here, allowed even a moment to mention that HE GOT THE SAME FUCKING RATES AS EVERYONE ELSE?

Why does this feel like, in the interest of being able to sit on Leno and say, “I went after Democrats too!,” Moore passed up the real story here?  It would have been really powerful if he made the connection between the bullshit allegations about Dodd and the banking industry desperately wanting to put the breaks on important housing and foreclosure legislation that Dodd was championing in the Senate at that very moment.  Well, mission accomplished assholes, excuse me, the Sheriff is here to foreclose on my house (is it possible its the same one from Roger and Me? Oh, the irony).

Finally, exclusive?  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.  Maybe what he meant was that, even though the Feinberg Interview Express has more miles on it than the Madden Cruiser, he was only getting interviewed by Moore at that particular moment, so it was exclusive as to that particular place and time.  Or something.  (Seriously, not counting Darrell Issa’s I-am-doing-the-bidding-of-the-NRSC’s sham investigations, Feinberg has done roughly seven quintillion interviews.  You can look it up.

Ummm… yeah. I won’t comment on Klein’s opinions about Dodd, but I do think it says a lot when The Huffington Post puts out a piece that slams Moore this hard.

But wait! There’s more! The National came out with an exceptional review of the film’s premise and execution thereof. You should read the whole thing, but I especially liked this section:

On Tuesday, pitching his latest film on the Jay Leno Show, Mr Moore declared capitalism as “evil” and called for Americans to “go back to the roots of our country, democracy”, to fix the system.

The implication seemed to be that democracy and capitalism are somehow incompatible, like oil and water. In fact, they are as combustible as fire and a stiff wind.

Unless Mr Moore is aware of some as-yet-to-be-written revisionist history, America was a democracy in 1837 when a massive banking collapse led to a six-year long recession.

It was democratic during the crippling depression that began in 1873 and lingered on for a quarter of a century.

It was similarly pluralist during the mild recession that began in 1920 and it remained so in the run-up to the Great Depression a decade later.

The October 1929 stock market crash occurred on the presidential watch of Herbert Hoover who, far from an amiable dunce as he is popularly portrayed, was one of the most able men of his generation, a self-made multimillionaire, philanthropist, humanitarian and pioneer of the liberal “progressive” movement with which Mr Moore seems to so closely identify.

In his interview with Mr Leno, Mr Moore said capitalism was “legalised” greed, as if there was such a thing as “outlawed” greed. It would be more accurate to say that a common feature of democracy, particularly in one as unfettered as America’s, is legalised excess.

Nicely put. So once again, it seems that even liberals who normally defend Moore tooth and nail are angry with him for at least parts of “Capitalism”. If these are the early reviews, I can’t wait to see what’s going to happen when the general public gets a look at it. 

Oprah puts a lid on Moore… for now

It seems I’m not the only one who’s been wondering why Michael Moore has been nearly silent in these crucial weeks before the US release of his new movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story”. When a reporter from the LA Times tried to get an interview with the usually boisterous Moore, he was told Moore wasn’t talking… for now:

But Moore has been strangely silent in this run-up and the LA Times’ Patrick Goldstein has learned that he plans to keep a lid on it for weeks to come no less.

When Goldstein called Overture Films, Moore’s distributor to arrange an interview, he was told that the filmmaker would sit for interviews after the premiere, but the pieces would all be embargoed Sept. 23rd, the day the film opens in New York and Los Angeles.

“Why? Because Moore is doing a sit-down interview with Oprah Winfrey, which won’t air until Sept. 22. And if Oprah wants an exclusive, she gets it, since when it comes to books, movies or music, no one offers a better promotional platform than La Winfrey.”

There is perhaps no bigger winner here than Barack Obama, who is trying to persuade America that his health care package is not a socialist takeover of their lives. He will get a precious few weeks wherein Michael Moore is not clogging up the airwaves with his caricature of Middle American GOP fears. A conspiratorial mind might even wonder of Miss Winfrey is slyly doing her old pal on Pennsylvania Ave. a solid.

The conclusion this reporter reached in the last paragraph above is certainly intriguing. With Obama’s health care plan going down in flames and the tea parties heating up left, right, and center, one must wonder if keeping Moore quiet for these precious few weeks might in fact be advantageous to Obama. Of course, having Oprah give Moore such a solid and far-reaching platform is just as good of a reason for Moore’s silence - after all, who helps artists out more than Oprah? Moore does have a couple of appearances scheduled before the big Winfrey interview on the 22nd, but as they were scheduled before snagging the Oprah spot they will air as scheduled.

Silence from Moore before his movie is released. Now there’s something I never thought I’d hear. ;)

Hugs and Kisses from Hugo

I can’t upload the pictures for some reason, but here you can find pictures of Michael Moore meeting with and high-fiving Hugo Chavez.  I mean, just in case you though Fidel Castro was the only human right abuser that Moore had a hard-on for.  In a related story, Chavez is shutting down 29 more radio stations that are critical of him.  If Moore actually lived in a country like Venezuela, he’d be in prison by now.  Unless he gave the regime the full Riefenstahl treatment (always a possibility).

Is there anything more hypocritical that an agitator like Moore embracing a critic-silencing thug like Chavez?  Ok, possibly making millions of dollars off of a film about how evil capitalism is.

Update Oliver Stone is also infatuated with the rising tide of thuggish socialists in South America.  I’m sure that the economy-crushing problems socialism is inducing in Bolivia, Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua and El Salvador are also our fault.

Early responses to “Capitalism: A Love Story”

I know I’ve been an absent landlord for a while, and I do apologize for that. I plan on becoming much more present in the near future, and there is certainly much to discuss as Moore’s new film, “Capitalism: A Love Story”, has just debuted at The Venice Film Festival. Set to debut in US theaters on October 2nd, the film garnered Moore a nearly eight minute standing ovation from the Venice film audience. However, reviews outside the festival have been lukewarm at best. Even traditionally liberal and Moore-friendly publications are slamming “Capitalism” right and left to a rather surprising degree. So what are reviewers saying about Moore’s newest opus?

From The Telegraph Online:

I wonder, is there a more serious reason than his weight behind Michael Moore’s demise? Seven or eight years ago, his films - such as Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine - were incredibly fashionable, and he was one of the most talked about directors around. But although his new film - Capitalism: a love story - has received an eight-minute standing ovation from the luvvies in Venice (”the longest in memory”, according to Moore’s twitter account) for most people, his hypocrisy is too much to bear.

Don’t be fooled by the scruffy cap and trampish demeanour. Moore is as well-to-do as the “stupid white men” which he has made millions of dollars from criticising. The Guardian interviewed him shortly after he became a best-selling author and discovered not only that he was the best paid presenter at Channel 4 (during his short-lived career as a chat show host), but that he was no stranger to the high-life....

Sadly for Michael Moore, many of the people that should be watching his films don’t get the joke either. He is supposed to be the champion of the oppressed, who spends his career holding the rich and famous to account. Now he’s one of them, and lapping up the lifestyle like a banker in boom time, it makes no sense. Still, at least he gets to rub shoulders with Hugo Chavez.

From The Examiner:

“Capitalism is evil” is the conclusion of Michael Moore’s coming film, “Capitalism:  A Love Story”.

What an embarrassment....

So what socialist country does Michael Moore like better than the United States?  And don’t write in by trying to prove the Netherlands, or France, or whatever:  Michael Moore says CAPITALISM is evil.  Not a mixed system.  I’ll debate the U.S. being better than those places, but not right now.  Which socialist, fascist, communist, anarchist, or other system is better than capitalism?

Every possible experiment in socialism has been a colossal failure with millions dead from starvation.  It is a system that is pure evil; stealing from some to give to others and leaving everyone poor.

And if Michael Moore is advocating that, then he is the evil one.

From CNNMoney:

VENICE (Fortune)—If anyone has profited from the free-enterprise system in the past 20 years, it’s Michael Moore. Since 1989, when his “Roger & Me” pioneered the docu-comedy form of nonfiction film, Moore’s movies, TV shows and best-selling books have given him an eight-figure net worth.

And in all of these, he is the improbable star: a heavyset fellow with a doofus grin, alternately laughing and badgering but always at the center of his own attention. Why, there he is, at the end of his new movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” wrapping the New York Stock Exchange building in yellow tape that reads: CRIME SCENE…

By now, a Michael Moore film is its own genre: a vigorous vaudeville of working-class sob stories, snippets of right-wing power players saying ugly things, longer interviews with experts on the Left, funny old film clips and, at the climax, Moore engaging in some form of populist grandstanding.

This time, he goes to the headquarters of the former AIG, a multibillion-dollar recipient of government largesse, and attempts to make a citizen’s arrest of its chief executives. He also asks Wall Streeters for advice on healing the nation. One man’s quick reply: “Don’t make any more movies.”

“Capitalism” has lots of statistics, like the Rasmussen poll that showed only a slight majority of young adults prefer capitalism to socialism. But this is a lecture from a charismatic comedian of a professor; he makes his points with gag movie references and quick visual puns.

From The Atlantic:

Instead, I’ll just say that I highly doubt that either movie will do particularly well at the box office, though Moore’s film may spark some interest due to the economic events that it considers. I think much of the public’s wary response to Washington’s efforts at healthcare reform shows that Americans are still generally pretty nervous about the government being too involved in their lives. So the thought of trading in free-market capitalism for government-run socialism probably won’t appeal to most Americans at this time.

I will also note that no one going to see these films should expect a thorough examination of the economic merits of capitalism versus socialism. Neither of these directors, to my knowledge, have much experience in economics or finance. As a result, I doubt either is a particularly rigorous film, but probably more based on opinion and anecdotal observation.

From Variety:

Unfortunately, elsewhere, Moore strives so hard to manipulate viewers’ emotions with shots of crying children and tearjerking musical choices that he’s not so much over-egging the pudding as making an omelet out of it. While it could be argued that Moore needs to milk the human-interest stories for all their worth to get auds to engage with his denunciation of capitalism, more often than not, such tactics just patronize the audience and descend into cheap sentimentality. Moore all but stops short of holding up dead puppies Hank Paulson personally murdered.....

No Michael Moore film would be complete without scenes of the writer-helmer arguing with security guards in glassy office-building foyers as he attempts to have an impromptu word with the company’s CEO. Predictably ill-fated attempts are made to storm the citadels of various banks and financial institutions that survived the crash. In perhaps the funniest moment, Moore tries to find a banker who can explain what derivatives are; he corners one and says he wants some advice, to which the reply comes, quick as a flash: “Stop making films!”

Moore shows no signs of heeding this injunction, and ends the pic on a combatative note, vowing, “I refuse to live in a country like this, and I’m not leaving.” It’s a pugnacious riposte to his right-wing critics, but in the end, Moore also fails to answer his left-wing doubters, who will have plenty of evidence here that Moore’s argument is less with capitalism as Marx and Engels understood it, or even as the North Koreans and Cubans do, than with capitalism’s most egregious excesses in the U.S. His ideal is not the end of private ownership, just more cooperatively owned businesses where everyone shares the wealth and makes collective decisions. Moore merely flirts with counterpointing socialism with capitalism, and ultimately sets up an inoffensive-to-the-point-of-meaningless notion of democracy as capitalism’s opposite.

Ummm… wow. I honestly didn’t expect such an immediate derogatory response to Moore’s work, but here it is already pouring in, and these are just the early reviews. So how off-the-mark is this film? Have people finally had their fill of Moore’s particular brand of polemic? Time will only tell, but I’ll do my best to look back through the last week or so of news to see if I can put some more meat and perspective on this negative response to Moore’s new film.

This should be an interesting car-crash of a film premiere, that’s for sure. 

Capitalism is evil

Moore has completely stopped pretending to be anything other than a total hypocrite.  Love it.

“Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil,” the two-hour movie concludes.

“You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy.”

*sigh*

“Capitalism is evil! BUT...before you overthrow the system, do me a favor and pay ten bucks at the movie theater to see my commercially produced film - the work for which I underpaid my staff and abused them as I generally do - and keep funding my extremely lavish lifestyle for just a little bit longer. Cool? Cool.”

What a jackass.