Archive for the ‘michael moore’ Category
‘Capitalism: A Love Story’ Targets Both Right and Left
Posted by Carl Kozlowski in Obama, michael moore on October 1st, 2009
Firing a red-hot cannon blast at both parties and the excesses of America’s capitalist system, filmmaker Michael Moore’s latest documentary “Capitalism: A Love Story” is also his most stylistically and emotionally mature work to date. Launching with a string of film clips that parallel the fall of the Roman Empire to our present societal hot mess, the film serves up big laughs with its harrowing vision of just how far off the rails our present economic crisis has taken the nation.
Moore has made plenty of claims that “Capitalism” is the summation of two full decades of work, harking back to the 1989 release of his seminal “Roger & Me,” and that this film is lobbing bombs at the figures involved. Yet much of the time, the film has a mournful, yearning approach in showing Moore’s desire that America return to the capitalism of the pre-Jimmy Carter years: he shows that the system’s promises worked out splendidly throughout most of the nation’s history, and in particular from the boom years after WWII all the way through Ford before the nation hit Carter’s infamous assessment of “malaise” in the late ‘70s.
He blames Carter’s disastrous turn as president for the emergence of Ronald Reagan as a president who in his eyes was fully bought and paid for by corporate America to sell an aggressively greedy reinvention of capitalism. The allegations he presents in this segment of the film fly past fast and furious, and it appears that Moore is up to the old tricks his critics accuse him of: barraging viewers with so many claims amid other funny or heartbreaking footage that half-truths and heavy-handed interpretations slip by as facts.
Yet this time, Moore takes almost as direct a slap at Barack Obama and the men running his economic policies. In fact, one of the film’s most damning scenes comes when Moore sends one corporate logo after another flying onto the screen, spotlighting the numerous financial investment firms and major corporations that donated millions to Obama’s campaign. His strongest attack comes when he shows that Goldman Sachs – widely criticized as the firm that made off with almost as much malfeasance as individual swindler Bernie Madoff – holds particular sway in the Obama camp.
At another point, a source says that current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is utterly hopeless for the job, and shows that highly questionable figures from the Clinton era, including former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and former Harvard president Larry Summers, are still heavily involved in the policies of today. Yet other strong segments show companies that manage to succeed while treating workers exceptionally well, including a bread factory where even assembly-line workers make $60,000 while the company’s bottom line thrives.
Moore is expressly not asking for socialism or communism, but rather a return to letting genuine morality and concern for others play a major part in corporate decision-making.
However, his use of Catholic priests from his stomping grounds in Michigan and the Bishop of Detroit as stern critics of capitalism who term it as literally immoral is sure to spark extensive religious debate among the faithful.
Mixing tragic tales of foreclosed homeowners from the heartland with his usual pranks such as storming corporate headquarters in search of their executives, much of “Capitalism: A Love Story” treads well-worn ground for Moore. But his crack team of editors are sharper than ever with their hilarious contrasts between new footage and industrial films of the 1950s, and combined with Moore’s attacking both sides of the fence and showing of fascinating long-lost footage of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, make the film well worth seeing and sure to stir discussion no matter what side of the political divide you’re on.
Hollywood Activists, Or How Norma Rae Got Norma Raed
Posted by Ned Rice in Featured Story, Politics, michael moore on October 1st, 2009
The cruel exploitation of the impoverished masses has been a staple of Hollywood storytelling since the earliest days of movie making. In fact, thanks to big-screen classics from The Grapes of Wrath to Slumdog Millionaire you might say that grinding poverty has been a real gold mine for Tinseltown. Given Hollywood’s progressive politics you might also think that a good chunk of the vast box office earnings inspired by the world’s poor might by now have filtered down to the same unwashed throngs who are, in a sense, responsible for it. And in most cases you would be wrong.
Crystal Lee Sutton, 68, died a couple of weeks ago of brain cancer. You might know her better by her Hollywood name: Norma Rae. Crystal’s life story was the inspiration for the 1979 Sally Field blockbuster that grossed $22 million (in 1979 dollars), four Oscar nominations, and two Oscars including Best Actress for the aforementioned Ms. Field. Norma Rae’s character is #15 on the American Film Institute’s list of all-time greatest screen heroes; Norma Rae is rated 16th of their “100 Most Inspiring Movies of All Time.” Given all this you probably think that Crystal Lee Sutton died in relative comfort, content with her life’s work and unencumbered by material concerns such as medical bills. Well, guess again.
Crystal Lee Sutton actually did many of the things in real life that Sally Field did in Norma Rae, including writing “Union” on a piece of cardboard and holding it up for everyone to see, sparking the wildcat strike that launched her cause. But when the producers of Norma Rae refused to give her script approval Sutton withdrew her name from the picture, thereby foregoing any participation in the profits. While Sally Field and the producers of Norma Rae were attending the Oscars, Crystal Lee Sutton went on to a series of other low-paying jobs, including work at a chicken processing plant (afterward saying she’d “rather shovel shit” than work there again) and then put herself through school to become a nurse’s aid. At some point Crystal received a small settlement from the movie she inspired, but it wasn’t enough to provide her with even minimal financial security.
At the time of her death Crystal had just won a dispute over coverage with–you guessed it—her medical insurance company, and her husband was working two low-paying jobs to support Crystal during her last days. Upon hearing of Crystal’s death, Sally Field described her as “a remarkable woman whose brave struggles have left a lasting impact on this country and, without doubt, on me personally. Portraying Crystal Lee in ‘Norma Rae,’ however loosely based, not only elevated me as an actress, but as a human being.” To which she might have, but didn’t add, “It didn’t elevate me enough to write Crystal a generous check from the many millions I have earned as an actress, or to organize a Hollywood fundraiser on her behalf, or to assume even partial responsibility for her medical bills, which would have been well within my means, but, you know… I felt like I was pretty darn elevated, just the same.” To paraphrase somebody you know, Ms. Field, we resent you! We really, really resent you for this! Oh, there’s that darn piano music telling me to wrap up… oh, thank you, everybody!
It would be unfair–exploitative, even– to blame Sally Field for the fact that Crystal Lee Sutton died broke and forgotten. Lots of other people in Hollywood were in a position to ease Crystal’s financial burdens and couldn’t be bothered to do so. What’s appalling is how many leading Hollywood figures enrich themselves playing, writing about, or directing movies about the poor, the down-trodden, and so on, and then forget all about the real-life subjects of their scenery-chewing once they’ve moved on to their next project. Worse, these smug actorcrats berate us little people for not paying enough taxes, not donating enough to charity, and, lately, for resisting efforts to “reform” the health care we’ve earned by extending it to those who haven’t.
And it’s not just actors who won’t walk the activism walk. Michael Moore has built a career out of parlaying social activism into a series of lucrative “documentaries,” if an investigative film whose findings are written before shooting starts is your idea of a documentary. Moore has been called… OK, by me… the only filmmaker in Hollywood who shoots three different ending to his documentaries and then uses the one that tests the best. For all of his blathering about “the little guy” and workers’ rights, Moore is notorious for not paying his crews union wages, not giving his writers the on-screen credits they deserve, and generally being a miserable person to work for. Moore’s four most popular films alone have grossed over $300 million; if his earnings for TV, publishing and speeches are included his tales of exploited G.M. workers, exploited teens, exploited Iraqis, exploited sick people, and exploited victims of the banking crisis have generated close to half a billion dollars. Some might say that capitalism, described by Moore in his latest offering (which I refuse to plug here) as evil, has been pretty good to him. But if Michael Moore is re-distributing the millions he’s pocketed to the victims he and his film crews have, uh… well, exploited in order to make those millions, it’s the best-kept secret in Hollywood.
But as I’m sure you all know they don’t call it show “business” for nothing, and I’ve got my own career to think about. So in the interest of full disclosure I hereby acknowledge that I’ve recently taken my place at the Hollywood writer/actor-vist feeding trough. I’ve just started a script about a union organizer whose bravery in the face of corporate intimidation sparked a movement that improved the lives of millions, after which her life story was stolen from her and turned into a highly acclaimed movie that made millions for everyone involved except its subject. The working title for my new project is Crystal Lee and I’ve gotta tell you, I’m pretty excited about it.
Michael Moore’s Latest Mocks American Capitalism
Posted by Dr. Ted Baehr in Obama, Politics, michael moore on September 30th, 2009
If only he would use his talent for goodness instead of evil!
The bumbling fictional spy Maxwell Smart often used this phrase to describe some of the super-villains he faced on the TV spy show “Get Smart” in the 1960s. The same statement may be applied to Michael Moore, the filmmaking darling of the Left who has made another polemical documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story.” This time, Moore calls for the replacement of America’s capitalist system with a socialist system, including, of course, pro-communist proposals to share all wealth or profits equally.
A talented filmmaker (see our full review here where we list most of the major problems with Moore’s new subversive, Marxist diatribe promoting his radical utopian nightmare), Moore begins his latest movie by comparing the United States to the Ancient Roman Empire, where, according to his sometimes pompous and condescending narration, society became divided between the super rich and the super poor (clearly an exaggeration). He then discusses the post-war economic boom in the United States in the 1950s and early 60s.
After showing the consumerism that began to captivate many Americans during those times, and the riches that came to the leaders of industry and the wealthy bankers and brokers on Wall Street, Moore cuts to a shot of President Jimmy Carter during the late 1970s sadly complaining about the “greed” and “materialism” of America. Then, in a mocking tone, Moore says Ronald Reagan came riding into the White House, but that Reagan and his Treasury Secretary, Donald Reagan, formerly of Merrill Lynch, designed policies that hurt blue collar workers and encouraged Americans to borrow too much money so they could buy homes and modern luxuries, while the “fatcats” on Wall Street got richer and richer.
Interspersed within this somewhat biased history lesson, Moore describes the economic “meltdown” that occurred last year. He puts all the blame on bankers, mortgage lenders and financial institutions who, he says, corrupt the politicians in Washington. Moore also visits several families and workers harmed by the economic collapse. Included among these scenes are people whose mortgages have been foreclosed, a family that is defiantly still living in its foreclosed home, and workers in Chicago who took action when their company suddenly went bankrupt and refused to pay the workers what it apparently still owed them.
Early in the movie, Moore also interviews the owner of Condo Vultures in Florida, a real estate company that buys up foreclosed homes at very low prices in order to make a profit when the homes are repaired. In addition, Moore discusses the economic decline and collapse of General Motors, where his father used to work in Flint, Michigan. While discussing these things, Moore laments, “That’s the point of capitalism; it lets you get away with anything.”
Finally, while performing several comic stunts, including a visit to the Wall Street banks that received government bailouts, Moore promotes a socialist vision with a Communist polemic advocating sharing the wealth equally. During these scenes, Moore, several Catholic priests and a Catholic bishop cite Jesus Christ’s concern for the poor and needy as inspiration, while declaring unequivocally that capitalism is clearly evil and unbiblical. Moore also cites for inspiration President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s speech calling for a “second bill of rights,” including the “right” to “adequate medical care,” “a useful and remunerative job,” “a decent home,” “a good education,” “adequate food and clothing and recreation,” and “the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.”
Wow! How exactly is the government going to define all these new alleged rights, Mr. President?
The best, most coherent and perhaps most truthful part of the movie is Moore’s attack on the government bailouts for Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, the Bank of America, AIG, etc. He correctly notes that these bailouts don’t seem to have done much of anything for the people who have lost their jobs and their homes. Furthermore, he clearly shows that the government doesn’t have a clue where exactly this bailout money went. Moreover, he shows that members of Congress are in on this and other alleged Wall Street con games, including Democratic Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Of course, President Obama also seems to be fully involved in these allegedly corrupt schemes, but Moore lets the President off the hook because he apparently loves Obama soaring, but phony leftist rhetoric of radical “Hope and Change.”
The rest of Moore’s movie presents a very strong, somewhat mixed worldview with very strong politically correct, leftist ideology. Although Moore includes overt, positive references to Jesus Christ and the Bible, including the crucifixion, he uses these references to promote his radical, anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, and even Communist socio-political philosophy. It’s all extremely polemical and one-sided in a deceitful way that will fool many gullible people, especially many young people.
Michael Moore: Mainstream Media Boosts Dishonesty
Posted by Billy Hallowell in Featured Story, michael moore on September 28th, 2009
Somewhat fresh off the trail from despicable attempts to distort the events and facts surrounding Columbine, 9/11 and the American health care system, filmmaker Michael Moore is back to perpetuate new mis-truths and to face off with a new “villain” – capitalism. In case of shear irony, in his new film entitled, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” Moore sets out to unravel the very system that gives him notoriety, fame and, no doubt, opulence.
Fortunately for Moore, we live in a free society. Despite the fact that his films are comprised of antics and obnoxious absurdities that only small-minded Americans would believe in their totality, he has every right to continue his idiocy. It is the coverage of Moore and his half-witted films that cause one to question the media’s promotional motives.
Mainstream outlets can’t seem to get enough of Moore, as they offer him positive coverage galore and provide him with valuable air time to push his insidious projects. Meanwhile, conservative film projects receive little to no praise – or even attention, for that matter.
A few weeks back, LA Times blogger Patrick Goldstein wrote a snarky post about conservative reaction to Moore’s film. Aside from dismissive commentary about why conservatives are overreacting, Goldstein offered up what he saw as proof that not all media outlets give Moore a free pass. He wrote,
…Variety has the first authoritative review up of Moore’s film — and it hardly reads like a liberal valentine, with just as many caveats as kudos. It calls “Capitalism” one of Moore’s best films but goes on to say: “There’s still plenty here to annoy right-wingers, as well as those who, however much they agree with Moore’s politics, just can’t stomach his oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and goofball japery.”
If calling the film one of Moore’s best ever qualifies as “authoritative,” I suppose journalists asking then-candidate Barack Obama how his parents would feel about his accomplishments if they were still alive qualifies as “hard-hitting investigative journalism.” And don’t even get me started on the semantic inequality present in the penning of “right-wingers” versus “those who…agree with Moore’s politics.”
How about a fact check, Goldstein? Even one? You can’t tell me there isn’t someone refuting at least one of the “facts” present in Moore’s film. It’s not just “oversimplification” that liberals and conservatives, alike, should be concerned about. Moore manipulates events and happenings and creates an aura of understanding that has the foundational value of quicksand. And that brings me to a Reuters piece (carried by none other than The New York Times) entitled, “Michael Moore’s “Capitalism” Economical With Facts.” According to the article,
…the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise. Although it’s less focused than “Sicko” or “Fahrenheit 9/11,” this competition entry is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and of dubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.
In what other venue would a documentary, book or professional record earn the distinction of being of “dubious documentation,” while making strong points that will inspire debate and dialogue? Usually, if the basis is not founded on fact, the argument can – or should, rather – go no further.
The piece goes on to admit that Moore is not known for objectivity or “impeccable” research, and that he favors Obama as a symbol of hope in the film. Now, for the article’s a-bomb. According to Reuters,
Moore has assembled a collection of nearly unbelievable horror stories to illustrate why capitalism and democracy do not go hand in hand, like a privately owned juvenile correctional facility, which paid the local judge to jail teens for misdemeanors.
Wow.
And then there’s the Washington Post piece entitled, “For ‘Capitalism,’ Moore Sells Short Politicians of all Denominations.” The lead says it all: “Just when it looked as if conservatives might be cornering the market on angry populism, along comes Michael Moore.”
I suppose those liberals who threw bleach on delegates at the Republican National Convention were lovable Furby-like creatures – not angry populists. After all, the Republicans have apparently already dominated that market.
I could go on and on. While most American outlets covered the film’s synopsis, scope, theme, etc., many in the mainstream media failed to point out Moore’s glaring hypocrisy. How can a man who has makes millions off of his anti-American rhetoric have the audacity to make a film about the evils of capitalism? It took the gusto of a British journalist to really delve into the insanity. The Telegraph’s Will Heaven wrote the following:
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…
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.
Kudos to Heaven and The Telegraph for writing the most honest piece I’ve seen on Michael Moore’s deafening hypocrisy. While American media outlets seem encapsulated in wonder by Moore’s outlandish work, it seems the Europeans – who are typically quite receptive of his films – are onto his antics. Now, if we could only get the rest of America and the media on board the “reality express,” we’d be golden.
Slate: Two Cheers for Andrew Breitbart
Posted by Publius in ACORN, Hannah Giles, michael moore on September 23rd, 2009
Sometimes it takes an outsider to show the press corps the way.
By Jack Shafer
Among the many glorious things about American journalism is that no credentialing organization or regulatory body stands between an individual who wants to break a story and his public reporting of it.
In the old days, one significant barrier did deter aspiring reporters: If they couldn’t find a publisher for their piece or afford to self-publish, they were SOL. But now, thanks to the free-for-all environment created by the Web, those publication and distribution worries have evaporated. Anybody can be a journalist in the new regime, we’re told, and on some days, it seems as if everybody is.
Last week, thanks to the sponsorship of Andrew Breitbart’s new site BigGovernment.com, self-described activist filmmaker James O’Keefe, 25, and his colleague Hannah Giles, 20, brought national scrutiny to the progressive Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, with a series of guerilla videos that are one part 60 Minutes, two parts Punk’d, three parts Ali G, and four parts Michael Moore, all bubbling under a whipped topping of yellow journalism.
If you’re late to the story, Andrew Breitbart is a conservative author, columnist, Web entrepreneur, and Matt Drudge protégé. Lately, he has distributed a series of videos made by O’Keefe and Giles in which the duo visits various ACORN offices with a hidden camera, pretending to be a pimp and prostitute seeking advice on setting up a brothel. ACORN workers in Baltimore; Washington, D.C.; San Diego; San Bernardino, Calif; and Brooklyn, N.Y., took the bait, and now ACORN is on the run, firing underlings, making excuses, and responding to charges of mismanagement and fraud. On Capitol Hill, Congress is getting ready to defund the organization, which has taken in at least $53 million in federal money since 1994.
Read the full article here.
Daily Gut: ACORN: The Movie
Posted by Greg Gutfeld in ACORN, Entertainment, Hannah Giles, michael moore on September 18th, 2009
So when two scrappy DC journalists bring down a President, it’s turned into “All the President’s Men,” winning accolades and Oscars. When an unemployed single mother of three takes the fight to an energy giant, it becomes a blockbuster vehicle for Julia Robert’s cleavage. And when a former Vice President exposes man’s inhumanity toward Mother Earth – “An Inconvenient Truth” crowns him the most majestic whistle blower ever.
But when two amateur journalists (in their early twenties, poorly dressed as sex workers, with under two grand in their budget) casually take down a sleazy behomoth that leeches off American taxpayers, you’d think Hollywood and the media would be all over this. I mean, what Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe did to Acorn – leading to the House approving to cut off all their funding – is the whistle blowing film to end ALL whistle blowing films. These two kids did what Michael Moore could never come close to accomplishing: uncovering lurid incompetence, affecting policy, and saving Americans millions of dollars.
So where is Clooney? Soderberg? Moore? Shouldn’t Megan Fox be playing Hannah – with Daniel Radcliffe as O’Keefe? When Red Eye makes an appearance, will I be played by Verne Troyer?
Or am I just engaging in fantasy? I mean, movies and fawning media pieces about whistle blowers only work if the media dislikes the targeted entity. Seriously, if ACORN wasn’t a left-wing outfit – but Fox News, how fast would Oliver Stone be slobbering over the script? Hell, he could just make that change in the script anyway, and still call it “historically accurate.” I’m sure none of the critics would mind.
Finally, check out the latest Washington Post article, detailing the ACORN scandal. In it, they focus a bit on Hannah Giles’s dad. Weird, huh? Do you think they would have done the same thing to Woodward or Bernstein? “Screw this Watergate thing! I bet Carl’s dad is a lib!”
Not likely.
Tonight we’ve got Mike Baker! Ann Coulter! Jill Dobson! Ned Rice!
Michael Moore: Artists Unite and ‘Make the Country a Better Place’
Posted by Big Hollywood in Politics, michael moore on September 15th, 2009
[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
Michael Moore gets it. He understands that politics follows the culture, not the other way around. He knows this so well that his to artistic call-to-arms is as matter of fact as it is sincere.
Moore is desperate to change the country into his vision of it. If he thought being a lawmaker would be the best route to accomplish that, he’d be a lawmaker. If he thought being a wombat was the best way, he’d be a wombat.
He chose pop culture and it was a very wise choice.