Moore manages to confound one reporter

I just got this article in my mail and I thought it was so entirely brilliant that I feel the need to republish it in its entirety. It’s from a site named The Shotgun and it counts twelve ways Moore managed to make inane remarks in a two and a half minute interview clip. Watch the clip while you read the post - it’s a really great deconstruction of Moore’s words.

The World Is Ending

Michael Moore and I agree, sort of.  In response to a question from a libertarian student, he admits that corporatism is the problem, not capitalism.

Of course, his sensibility doesn’t last long.  He quickly calls for pay restrictions and “democracy” in the workplace and can’t quite wrap his mind around the idea that big government is the problem.  And, as usual, he looks at the past through rose-tinted glasses.  He also doesn’t understand the concept of opportunity cost: the reason Europeans don’t mind big government is because they see the visible benefits of it—“free” healthcare and college—and miss the invisible costs—the full employment and booming economies they would otherwise have.  What they riot over are the effects of big government.  And when government is so big, riots and political protest are the only way to change things.

Still.  Baby steps.  Baby steps.

Documentary Oscar Goes to Obama; Mikey Applauds

Mike’s been putting a lot of letters up on his site and, being on vacation, I’ve been slow to respond.  I’m tinkering with an omnibus post addressing the worst points he’s been making, but he had a double post on Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize that contained some classic classic Mike.

Foreclosures And Rape

I’ll give Mikey credit for going on Hannity, where he was sure to get a hostile reception.  But then again, hostile environments tend to bring out the stupid:

While I share his sympathy for people who get foreclosed on (and appreciate Hannity’s point about people who play by the rules and pay their bills), let’s some get perspective here.  The foreclosure process takes many months, especially in the environment we have now.  Many loans that are currently in default are not being foreclosed on and will not be foreclosed on in the immediate future as the banks struggle to avoid crashing the system. I have a relative who went into default because clients weren’t paying him.  Once he got paid, he made good on all his missing mortgage payments.  A lot of banks are forestalling foreclosure in the hope that the economy will right itself and many of the people currently in default can start climbing out of it.

But moreover, a foreclosure does not consign someone to unending poverty.  It moves someone into the rental market and destroys their credit rating.  That sucks.  But it’s not the end of the world.  Earlier this year, I realized that I was probably six months away from a potential default.  I got through it by reminding myself that I would still have my job, my health and my family.  Not having my own home or the ability to buy one would be crushing, but not fatal.  And in seven years, it would be forgotten.  Foreclosure is not in the same ballpark as being violently and intimately assaulted.  It’s not even the same solar system.

We’ve got to get this through our heads: recessions hurt.  And the people they hurt the most are those at the bottom of the economic ladder.  There’s simply no way to evade that beyond going back to a hunter-gatherer existence.  The best we can do, apart from helping those in genuine need during a time of crisis, is to make recessions as few and far between as possible.  And the best way to do that is through capitalism.  But Mike would apparently prefer the continuous and unending recession that is socialism.

How can Moore preach about what he doesn’t practice? An idea….

I just came across a fascinating article in the Miami Herald written by one of Moore’s biographers, Roger Rapoport. In it, he asks many of the same questions we’ve been posing here on this site - how can Moore preach about the evils of capitalism when he himself has profitted so very much from it? Here’s a sample:

Released on the 60th anniversary weekend of the Chinese Revolution, Michael Moore’s new shockumentary “Capitalism: A Love Story” proves once again how hard it is to be rich in America. Last year, when his net worth finally exceeded that of his old nemesis General Motors, Moore was forced to sit down and have a serious talk with himself. How do you preach about the evils of capitalism when you make roughly $21 million on “Fahrenheit 9/11,” a film trashing George Bush? Any way you look at it, that’s a hefty return on a $6 million investment.

In 2008, serious fans at his film festival in Traverse City, Mich., whined publicly that they couldn’t afford to buy tickets for a Madonna documentary about Malawi children orphaned because of AIDS. And I was disappointed to find that neighbors in my high-unemployment western Michigan hometown of Muskegon needed to drive three hours to Moore’s closest free “Capitalism” screening for the jobless. You just can’t beat the oil companies.

Another potential source of embarrassment comes from people who helped the filmmaker become rich and famous. Take old buddies like Bruce Schermer, the cinematographer who received a whopping $5,000 for shooting 60 percent of Moore’s breakthrough debut, “Roger and Me,” which sold to Warner Brothers for $3 million.

This point - the hypocrisy of Moore decreeing that the capitalist system is inherently evil and must be destroyed while he continue to this very day to profit from it - has been bothering me more and more. The dichotomy of his stance really came to a head when I read this excerpt from one of Moore’s last letters to his fans, in which he implores his flock to go and spend their hard-earned money on his film opening weekend:

For those of you waiting till next week to see it, I can’t say this strongly enough: Do not put off going to see “Capitalism: A Love Story.” It is not just a movie. It is a referendum that is being closely watched by the CEOs of America. Let me tell you bluntly, the suits on Wall Street are closely watching to see how this movie does this weekend. So, too, are the members of Congress. If “Capitalism” has a huge opening, it will send shivers down their corporate spines, telling them loud and clear that the American people are mad as hell and are not into taking it any more. It will put all the bosses on notice that the vast Obama-voting majority has awoken from its silence and are out in full force.

But if the attendance is just “ok” or “so-so,” then they will be relieved knowing that there is not a popular groundswell of opposition out there—and then they can go about their business as usual. I’d like to send them a different message.

Treat tonight and tomorrow as if it were election day. Blow their minds on Monday morning when they show up at their executive suites, switch on CNBC or Fox Business News, and learn that America turned out in droves to participate in a raucous denunciation of Wall Street and everything it stands for. I often hear people ask, “What can I do to make my voice heard?” Your answer is at the nearest theater showing this movie. Trust me, packing these movie houses tonight and tomorrow will eff them up in an overwhelming and profound way.

I truly cannot understand how Moore can write a letter asking his fan base to essentially give their money to him through a capitalist system while at the same time decrying said system as an “evil” that must be “destroyed”. How can those two opposing positions both be justified? In short, they can’t. It’s simple hypocrisy to at once decry the very existence of capitalism whilst at the same time begging for people to use said system to earn you more money.

If Moore had really wanted to drive home the point that capitalism is wrong and that a “democratic” economic system is the way to go, he could have chosen to do so when he opened this movie. Moore could have done something that musicians have been doing now for years on the Internet - a pay-what-you-think-its-worth program. In this system, when you download a song or album from a musician, you donate only as much at you feel the product is worth. A penny, a quarter, a dollar - any donation will get you the music, but you only pay what you feel it’s worth. That premise - allowing the consumers to decide how much your product is worth, is far more “democratic” than allowing a record label to set prices that fans must pay in order to hear their favorite band’s music. There is a proven track record of reasonable success with this method and with such major names as Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead having used this system, it’s not an unknown practice.

So, dig if you will this picture… “Capitalism” opens on a modest 500 screens across the country… for free. Moore and his production company pay the theater’s rental fees and the general public does not have to pay to watch “Capitalism”. Moore mans each theater with one or two employees or volunteers that, after the end of the movie, stand near the exits and ask movie-goers to pay what they feel the movie was worth. Sure, many wouldn’t pay a dime, but most would donate something, and certainly quite a few of Moore’s wealthier fans would be willing to pay large sums to support the film. Moore might not make as much money as he might through a capitalist system, but it would be a solid demonstration of democracy in action. As an added bonus, I bet the attendance would have been through the roof. After all, everyone would turn up to see a free movie, right?

If Moore had done this or something similar, he would have proved several points. One - an economic system based on the principles of democracy is at least in theory possible. Two - the turnout for his movie could potentially have been astronomical, thus both proving his points and really making sure his message got out there to the public, even those who can’t pay for movie tickets. Three - he isn’t afraid to practice what he preaches. Four - it would have taken the ammunition away from critics like Rapoport and us who can’t help but see that Moore is acting the complete hypocrite with his behavior. And yet… Moore did none of this. He just conducted business as usual without practicing anything he is preaching. So why should any of us be listening to Moore’s message when he clearly isn’t listening himself?

Capitalism Did Nothing For Me

Hat tip to Hot Air:

Where does Mikey think the people who see his movies and line his pockets get their money from?  Where does he think the funding for his film comes from?  The difficult in getting movies made and books published is not unique to Moore.  Everyone in Hollywood is struggling to get something made.  Some of the most brilliant books and majestic movies we know spent years, sometimes decades, without garnering interest or funding.

As for the $50 million figure, CNS has more on Moore’s money:

According to Fortune Magazine, Moore’s films have grossed over $300 million worldwide. His highest grossing film was “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which critiques the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq and earned over $200 million worldwide.

Moore reportedly was paid $21 million by Disney for producing, directing and creating the film.

Moore also earned 50 percent of the profits of his 2007 film “Sicko,” totaling $25 million plus DVD sales, according to Vanity Fair.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Moore would receive all of the profits made from DVD sales of “Sicko,” sales of which have been estimated at over $17 million.

It is evil capitalists, not noble socialists, who are falling over themselves to fund his movies.  He’s not getting money from the government or some hippy collective.  He’s getting money from Walt Fucking Disney—that’s as capitalist as it gets.

And more power to him.  I don’t begrudge Moore a single penny of the money he makes.  It’s a free country and he’s not holding a gun to the heads of the dupes who fill the theaters seats.  All we do is dispute the facts, the honesty and the logic of what he says.

Capitalism’s Profits

I’ll give him credit.  Capitalism opened reasonably, pulling in $4.5 million.  That’s good for a documentary.

On the other hand, it’s not that great.  Fahrenheit opened at $24 million for its opening weekend; Sicko at about the same amount ($4.5 million).  At this point, it’s not certain that Capitalism will pass Earth as the most successful documentary of 2009, despite Earth having about one six-thousandth of the publicity.  And to put all these numbers in perspective, Capitalism finished well below a Bruce Willis flick that was not screened for critics and is in its second week, below The Invention of Lying and with less per screen than the re-release of Toy Story/Toy Story 2.

In the meantime, the movie ratings from viewers are poor.  Box Office Mojo has a typical viewer rating of “C”.  That’s slightly below Transformers 2, which I just saw on an airplane and turned off because I was getting tired of what seemed like a 2.5 hour trailer for a better movie.  IMDB’s current rating is 6.4.  The meaning of that is hard to gauge since IMDB’s rating formula is secret.  But most movies start out at their highest point (driven by fans) and sink lower as the general public judges it.

Don’t be fooled by in the inevitable boasting.  Financially and artistically, the public is responding to Moore’s movie with a great big “meh”.

ETA by DonnaK:

My paologies for butting in, but when I saw this review just now I thought it a perfect tagline for this article. When college students are trashing Moore’s movie like this, it’s really time to sit up and take notice. From the Indiana Student Daily:

Moore seems to think modern finance is a scam the rich use to steal money from other people. When he talks about the banking bail-out he makes it seem like the financial crisis was engineered so the financial industry could get its hands on tax-payer cash. He shows viewers a world in which capitalism is truly a zero-sum game. But that isn’t the real world.

The details Moore leaves out are pretty important. He talks about the health care and pension his father got while working for General Motors, but fails to mention that it was easy to offer those benefits before their true costs were clear. He damns Reagan as being responsible for all sorts of trends including stagnating wages and increasing consumer debt. No president has had that much influence over the economy.

Moore is most off-base when he suggests that a revolution is brewing. There is a big focus on strikers at a Chicago glass factory. The film also pulls its toughest emotional punches with plenty of foreclosure protests. But it is hard to buy that these struggles are the lead-up to a big revolt.

“Capitalism: A Love Story” has raked in a little less than $5 million so far. Compare that to the “Fahrenheit 9/11” opening, and Moore seems like a relic from the Bush era.
His glory days might be done.

Ouch.

Is there anybody…out there?

So, it turns out that no one gives a shit about Moore’s new movie. Wanna know my evidence for such a strong statement?

NO ONE HAS PIRATED IT.

Seriously. I checked all my usual haunts, and no one has bothered to steal this film. No one has taken a camera into a theater. No one stole a review copy or anything.

To illustrate how sad this is, you can usually download the newest episodes of say, Two and a Half Men within an hour of broadcast. That Wolverine movie was a travesty by all reports and that thing was stolen as an unfinished workprint! The worst crap coming out of Hollywood usually hits torrent sites weeks before release, and at the worst the day after release as soon as the videotapers are done. And yet...nothing.

Torrent activity is one of the truest measures of an entertainment property’s popularity. There is literally zero interest in Capitalism; A Love Story. The people have spoken, Mikey. Democratically. And they vote that your fifteen minutes? All gone go bye-bye.

That’s gotta hurt.