Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)
Michael Moore
English
Capitalism is an evil. So declares Michael Moore at the end of his latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story (2009), effectively negating its title. Even after having come to terms with the fact that Moore, as a filmmaker, is incorrigible, that he will use his images to multiply the effect of his voiceover and that he will carry on with his self-pitying, self-congratulatory brand of showmanship and provocation, Capitalism: A Love Story turned out to be a large disappoint for me (For the record, I do think that he had a strike with Bowling for Columbine (2002) and the temperature did soar with Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)). Two facets of this work prove to be the prime nails in its coffin. First of them is Moore’s largely reductive analysis of capitalism. His treatment of religion as a force that is corrupted by capitalism, instead of one that perpetrates it, betrays naïveté, at best, and hypocrisy, at worst. Perhaps, conceiving the project as a mini-series would have helped Moore build a more detailed analysis of the various elements at work. The second: Moore’s temptation for moral simplification. Moore treats all the corporations as a single, monolithic entity driven by profit motive. Instead of illustrating the flaws in the logic of the system, he comfortably resolves its participants into good and evil. Although there may be some truth to that, it is only expected of a film that works on a human level, as Moore’s film most definitely does, to explore the human dimension of both sides and discover where exactly we are going wrong. However, Moore’s film has a lot going for it, especially in the later passages which exude much welcome optimism. Unlike his antiestablishmentarian ancestor Stanley Kubrick (whose Spartacus (1960) is echoed in the opening sequence), Moore is not a cynic by any measure. Fittingly, he tells us: “I refuse to live in a country like this. And I’m not leaving.”
The Seventh Art 
March 19, 2010 at 10:11 pm
I saw this last week and came away with mixed feelings. I think your right that this could have worked much more effectively as a mini series because Moore has to reduce complex political arguments so that they are palatable for a wider audience. This is good in that more people can engage with issues that are deliberately sensationalised in the media but it also means dumbing down which can make everything appear slightly one dimensional. It is interesting that Moore was most effective when he actually had a formidable opponent to contend with the in the form of Bush but now that love affair is over, Moore’s value as a political celebrity has rendered him somewhat impotent to many.
LikeLike
March 20, 2010 at 12:01 am
Interesting, Omar. I thought this film was what Moore was arriving at all way along, Bush being just a lever of sorts. What should have been a swansong for him insead elicits a “meh”
Cheers!
LikeLike
March 20, 2010 at 3:39 am
I am a dyed in the wool left wing liberal, who campaigned vigourously for Obama, standing on the hood of my car to staple his signs on telephone polls, and ceaselessly penning anti-Bush rhetoric all over the net. I am still as left wing as ever, but I’ll admit I’ve grown tired of Moore’s antics, which for me reek of hypocricy and self-promotion. His antics with the yellow criminal scene tape at the end of the film was shameless grandstanding, and to be truthful the entire attack on capitalism by a man jokying to make millions on such a cinematic treatise, rings hollow. Don’t get me wrong: there are some splendid sequences including the heartfelt talk with the disenfranchised farmers, and the excellent election segment, and there are a number of pointed trusisms, but this humorless man is beginning to grow stale, sad to say.
Of course, in view of what you say here in your excellently-written capsule, I don’t need to bend any minds. Ha!
LikeLike
March 20, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Sam, it is pleasantly surprising to hear about your routine during the elections.
I thought Moore got off the train the moment he tried to barge into the corporate offices. Everyone, including, him knows that it is going to be a scene of stalemate. Why did he do that? Authorial signature? May be, but at the cost of what?
LikeLike
April 28, 2010 at 1:35 am
JAFB says: “I thought Moore got off the train the moment he tried to barge into the corporate offices.”
That has always been Michael Moore’s signature: confrontational to elicit an emotional response. He did the same with Charlton Heston in “Bowling for Columbine” over NRA policies, the Saudi embassy in “Fahreheit 911” and with Kaiser Permanente in “Sicko.” Frankly he is as tiresome as Al Gore and ruinous to intelligent debate across the political spectrum. I am surprised you took a break from convention and watch this movie. Bowling for Columbine was stark, but the rest according to me were just cheap rides.
LikeLike
April 28, 2010 at 7:24 am
Rocketboy,
I realize this has been Moore’s signature. But I really hoped he would set aside these gimmicks for a film that seems to be his most personal. One always saw this film coming some day or the other. He should really have nailed it here.
BTW, I don’t understand what you mean by “taking a break from convention”. I’ve always been watching docus, if that’s what you mean…
Thanks and Cheers!
LikeLike
April 29, 2010 at 9:02 pm
JAFB-
My apologies! I assumed that you don’t watch political docus since this was the first time that I’ve seen you discuss an American political documentary. The nature of your site is predominantly world cinema and I trust in your suggestions for offbeat films. I was caught off-guard when I saw Michael Moore’s work here. My apologies again!
Rocketboy
LikeLike
April 29, 2010 at 10:33 pm
No problem at all, man. True, I haven’t been writing about many docus here.
I’ve been watching political docus for some time now – from Godard, through Marker, through Moore, through Patwardhan, through Guzman to Curtis. But I still have a lot of catching up to do.
LikeLike