A new opinion on “Captain Mike Across America”
As the last reviews for “Captain Mike Across America” trickle through my inbox, it always seems to be more of the same; it’s a poorly made film with bad editing decisions leading to an narcissistic and self-indulgent final product. However, this new review from Insider Online got me thinking a bit more about why Moore made this film and why he would want to release a film like this - especially when it has been received so poorly - right in the middle of his final push for “Sicko”. First, the obvious part - the review of the film itself:
The film itself is nothing spectacular – in fact, as far as tour movies go, it’s not that good. It runs at a long 102 minutes, and begins to get tedious in its delivery rather quickly. There are a few moments that break the mould (when Moore responds to Christian hecklers in the crowd at one of his talks), but for the most part there’s not a lot to take away at the end of it all. Canadians will love it, and it will open to big numbers (as do most of his projects north of the border). In the United States, where it really matters, I’d be surprised to see it get a wide release, much less succeed.
As you can clearly see… same thing; long, boring, tedious, self-indulgent. However, here’s the part that made me sit up and think for a minute:
This film is coming at such a crucial time, before the U.S. primaries that are going to be among the most hotly contested in recent memory, and right before a pivotal election in ’08. In making this film, Moore could’ve taken the opportunity to preach his ideals in a more accessible way, one that will guarantee people see this movie. Because, after all, Captain Mike is less about promoting a democrat agenda, but more about encouraging people – university students in particular – to just get out there and vote. When the 2004 election was won by less that a 5% margin, it became clear that, indeed, every vote counts.
So… is that it? Is Michael Moore attempting to categorize himself as The One Who Gets The Youth Vote Out? Does he hope that the American viewing public, in watching this film, will see him as some sort of savior to the electoral process and a champion of true democracy? Or, more interestingly, does Moore think that perhaps one of the Democratic front runners will watch his seemingly awesome power at driving the youth vote and embrace him into their campaign? If the latter is truly the case, perhaps “Captain Mike” is less of a simple vanity project than it first appeared. Will Michael Moore use this new film to try to launch himself directly into politics and a particular candidate’s campaign?
Of course, for the educated reader, the problem with this whole strategy - and, indeed, the movie itself - is that Michael Moore failed at his endeavor. His Slacker Uprising tour did *not* in fact “get the youth vote out” and his candidate, John Kerry, did not win the election. Nothing that Moore attempted, both on the tour and through his website and mailing, made any significant difference in the youth turnout of the 2004 election. In fact, some have hypothesized that Moore’s passionate appeals garnered him the exact opposite result that he had intended; his vigor promoting Kerry galvanized the right, turning out *their* vote thus sealing the election for Bush. Still, from everything I’ve read “Captain Mike” is clearly edited to show the exact opposite of all of this. In “Captain Mike”, Moore is the dashing hero, the rockstar to whom rockstars themselves flaunt, drawing enthusiastic and passionate crowds of young voters who respond to his magnetic presence with cheers of glory and promises that they will take up his gauntlet and vote for Kerry in the election. And it is this image - Moore as a rockstar, Moore as a galvanizing force, Moore as The One to whom the youth of America respond - that Moore is trying to sell to the public, and perhaps the candidates themselves. The question now becomes who will forget history and buy what Moore is selling? Will this hat-trick of a film have the effect Moore seems to desire?
As always, stay tuned....
Comments
I don’t know who you are, but apart from your seeming obsession with this particular films apparent failure. In this specific piece of commentary you have made a leap of assumption that could only be matched by an attempted jump across the Grand Canyon.
Nice little nonsequitor there, Black Swastika. You just keep it up.
Don’t know who I am, eh? I suppose an introduction is in order then?
Hello there! My name is Donna Kenefick. I am the wife of Jim Kenefick, owner and one of the founders of this site. I have been a writer here since the release of “Sicko”. I invite you to look up my past posts and to read the bio in my profile to learn a bit more about me and why I am interested in the progression of this film.
There, now we’ve been properly introduced. I wonder how learning who I am will affect your attitude towards me… hmmmm....
Geezzzz . . . now Moore’s making propaganda about making propaganda. This may be narcissism’s finest hour.