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.
Comments
Rann… how much am I going to have to beg you to help me out and write for us over here?
I need you!!!! Please be an author, I beg of thee! *gets on hands and knees and begs* ;)
"By returning to his roots, professional gadfly Michael Moore turns in one of his best films with “Capitalism: A Love Story.” Pic’s target is less capitalism qua capitalism than the banking industry, which Moore skewers ruthlessly, explaining last year’s economic meltdown in terms a sixth-grader could understand. “
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117940961.html?categoryid=31&cs;=1
“But thanks to some amazing stories of economic survival and Moore’s much-needed clowning, Capitalism: A Love Story will deliver sizable audiences as the first documentary release for Overture Films and easily become the year’s top-earning doc.”
http://boxoffice.com/reviews/2009/09/capitalism-a-love-story.php
“But here his talent is evident in creating two hours of engrossing cinema by contrasting a fast-moving montage of ‘50s archive images extolling free enterprise with the economic disaster of the present. Given the desperate state of the world economy, this provocative film should find attentive audiences along with many angry detractors who will give it free publicity.”
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/capitalism-a-love-story-film-review-1004009622.story
“As intelligent and compulsively entertaining as his previous films, Capitalism could be a tidy hit for Overture Films in the domestic market if only for the fact that Moore speaks to the financial crisis that has brought the nation to its confused knees. Sicko grossed $24.5m in 2007 and it has a shot at surpassing that, especially bringing in younger crowds keen to make sense of it all. In international territories, it should easily surpass Sicko which grossed a total of $11.5m, since the subject of the US financial crisis has more direct relevance than the US healthcare system.”
http://www.screendaily.com/festivals/venice/capitalism-a-love-story/5005301.article
Yeah… “car-crash” is just about right.
Yeah… “car-crash” is just about right.
I believe you’re missing my point here, dvdguy. Normally Moore wouldn’t receive much, if any at all, negative press from any of the sources I quoted. Moore’s traditional allies are slowly turning on him and his opponents are attacking with more precision and purpose than with previous releases. The Variety review you quoted is the very same review from which I obtained my quote, which shows that one of Moore’s staunchest supporters is hedging their bets on this film.
Of course “Capitalism” will get its customary rave reviews, just as it will get its customary boos. What I’m finding interesting is that a large number of Moore’s usual supporters are giving either mixed or negative comments on this new film. THAT’S the point I’m trying to make here.
Have I made myself more clear? If not please let me know and I’ll try again. :)
"but here it is already pouring in” You quote Variety Review… but ‘ignore’ the opening line “By returning to his roots, professional gadfly Michael Moore turns in one of his best film”.
“slowly turning on him” Very slowly it seems.
So using that review as an example of a upcoming “car-crash of a film premiere” prediction is more than a little disingenuous. Clear?
Hey, dvdguy, the only thing that’s “clear” is that as usual you have Moore’s dick so far down your throat that you don’t need to swallow when he cums.
You’re being deliberately obtuse as usual, which isn’t exactly a surprise as it’s a requirement of anyone that is in fact still a Moore fan. I’d explain Donna’s point to you again, but why the fuck should I when she already explained it, and when you’ve made it damn clear you’re going to resist getting it at all costs.
So why don’t you take your ideas on what’s disingenuous and stuff them up your ass until they’re in even deeper than your head?
“By returning to his roots...”
Would those roots be Flint or Davison?
In other words, there’ll be plenty of fact checking going on.
"Hey, dvdguy, the only thing that’s “clear” is that as usual you have Moore’s dick so far down your throat that you don’t need to swallow when he cums.”
Thanks for diving directly into the stereotype. Didn’t take long.
“I’d explain Donna’s point to you again” but you can’t… so....
“and stuff them up your ass until they’re in even deeper than your head?”
Nuff said.
dvdguy:
Apparently I was not being clear enough in my explanation, so let me try this one more time. :)
“but here it is already pouring in”
I used the phrase “pouring in” because at least half of the early reviews I received and read through were half-to-fully negative about Moore’s new film. The initial flood of press contained more negative remarks about “Capitalism” than about anything Moore has done save for “Captain Mike”. Early press on Moore’s work is usually saved for the extreme lovers and haters, so to see disparaging, negative, and highly critical remarks from so many beyond the usual circle of haters was and still is remarkable to me. I posted only a small sampling of the reviews I found - there were plenty more when those came from.
So using that review as an example of a upcoming “car-crash of a film premiere” prediction is more than a little disingenuous. Clear?
No, I don’t believe it is, and here’s why. Variety has had Moore’s back solidly and without wavering for his last few films (save, once again, for “Captain Mike"). To have them say anything harshly negative about one of his films is definitively noteworthy and indicative of problems that might likely build up against Moore over time. For Variety to say anything as negative as this quote speaks volumes about how Moore’s usual die-hard fan base might be viewing this movie:
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.
My point isn’t that Variety didn’t have anything good to say. I never made that statement as it is clearly untrue. What I *did* say was that Variety and other traditionally Moore-friendly outlets like The Telegraph were being surprisingly harsh to Moore in their reviews. There’s no denying that while Variety had good things to say about “Capitalism” that they also had more than their usual share of negative things to say as well, right down to criticizing Moore’s camera work.
To be VERY clear… my point is that traditionally Moore-friendly publications have written reviews that contain a great deal more harsh and critical comments than I have seen since “Roger & Me”, save once again for the skewering that “Captain Mike” got. You can insist that these reviews also contain positive comments and you would be correct and I have never said otherwise. However, you seem to be refusing to see that Variety, The Telegraph, and other publications are slamming Moore with force over this film. THAT is my one and only point.
I doubt I can make this any clearer for you so I truly hope this ends this misunderstanding. :)
“I’d explain Donna’s point to you again” but you can’t… so....
An excellent example of Moore-editing. Not that we’ll see you again, unless it’s to ignore Donna’s point again or whine that I’m being meeeean.
RSS (Subscribe)
God, he really is so far up his own ass that he’s looped through twice, isn’t he?
Ah, perhaps we’ve learned the true reason behind this movie. He got to pal around with another monster he admires.
Hey, they’re beginning to catch on!
... How “witty”. Wonder where he stole it from?
And if there’s anything communism can’t abide, it’s human emotion.
That’s really the money quote, right there.
Hey, remember when An American Carol came out, and there was a bunch of sneering about how the Michael Moore expy was overblown, ridiculous, strawmannish, etc?
Someone explain to me how Moore’s statement is all that different from “America is the greatest country in the world… and that’s why it has to be destroyed”?