The last time Michael Moore made noise he was tackling health care. It was a weighty issue, and like him or not his film Sicko is a big reason why the health care discussion heated up and we're still debating it today. This time, with Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore is looking to take the whole damn system down. He's taking on capitalism. He's challenging the ethos of Wall Street and everything we've been told (he would call it "brainwashed") since we were little diapered Greenspans. Capitalism is great. Capitalism is morally sound. Jesus Would Do Capitalism. No, Moore, says, Jesus would definitely not do capitalism and it's hard to argue with the man's rather cogent arguments in that realm.

I agree with Film.com's Eric D. Snider in that Moore isn't very successful in connecting all the dots to his central thesis, but it's not a complete failure. There is a creepilicious sequence involving the corporate bailout of 2008 that would have made Oliver Stone proud. In the "big picture" sense, his latest film is a success. The issues he brings to the forefront are too substantial to simply pooh-pooh. Does Moore get his jollies off watching well-educated men trying (and failing) to explain the now-infamous "derivatives"? Yes. Could derivatives be explained by someone? I'm sure. Could most people understand them? I don't think so, no. I certainly can't, and believe me when I say I tried in preparation for this this article to understand them. My brain just shuts down halfway through the explanation. See, the point isn't that there isn't a definition of "derivatives." The point is that they are idiotic and dangerous and purposely complex.

I had a serious "Oh yeah..." moment while watching Capitalism that I'm not afraid to admit. All we've talked about in the past year is how greedy Wall Street got and how certain deregulations got us in the economic mess we find ourselves in today. And what has our government done about it? How many laws have changed? How much regulation has been reinstated? Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Remember all the action our political superheroes from both sides of the aisle were bellowing about a year ago? Where has it disappeared to? These politicians only respond to outrage because they know when people are outraged, those same people are quicker to vote or not vote for them. But it's hard to be outraged when our priorities are screwy. If nothing else, films like this are reminders of the power we have as voters.

Moore's film would have benefited from a more methodical approach, but in the end, he got my noggin away from movies and sports for a little over two hours and trust me ... that's saying something. Maybe it doesn't help that we are clearly workaholics (wait till you see the 30-year productivity graph -- no wonder we just want to relax and watch football). Capitalism's greatest strength is that it makes you go "hmm..." a whole lot. Moore gets you thinking and then he gets you angry. There is a wealth of material to get your blood boiling.

It is clear our system is ripe for corruption. Any economic system is, right? However, Moore's most important point is that the odds are stacked even more against us when big businesses get too big and when rules that were put in place for a reason are broken or removed through big business political prowess. The economic meltdown of 2008 is an example of the price we pay when inmates truly do run the asylum. It's in the self interest of any business to effect the political process. Moore's concern, however, is when a business becomes so powerful that it is able to drown out the voice of the people with legal trickery or fear. What's more is these businesses understand that their biggest threat is the voice of the people (showcased in a rather disturbing sequence involving a CitiGroup memorandum).

If a corporation is a living organism, then to live it must consume and profit at all costs, and this can result in some truly atrocious practices that infect the bottom-line mindset. For example, Moore devotes a good deal of time to the issue of the "Dead Peasant" policy. Believe me when I say it's not nearly as offensive in name as it is in practice. Basically, a business will take a life insurance policy out on one of its employees, naming said business as the beneficiary. This of course only makes sense in a morally repugnant and creepily unethical world. As Moore argues in his film, he can't take out fire hazard insurance on your house and name himself as the beneficiary because now he suddenly has an interest in seeing your house go up in flames. When you hear about something like "Dead Peasants" and assume it's a scheme only Mr. Burns would cast on Springfield ... that's not a good thing.

Yes, Michael Moore can be a clown who takes it over the line. (I still cringe during the Charlton Heston sequence in Bowling for Columbine, an otherwise interesting documentary.) And yes, he definitely loves the spotlight. Still, he does a pretty good job staying out of much of it here, save for the silly but amusing finale on Wall Street. But if there is a hero in the film it is probably Marcy Kaptur of Ohio's Ninth Congressional District, who may have gained enough votes with this movie to keep her in office for life. There is no doubt this is a messy little opus, but that's OK. When you're tackling a subject this big, I think you're allowed a little latitude. There are more than enough interesting topics for you to discuss on the way home, and Moore's mixture of startling facts, big questions, and baboonery make for entertainment and -- I think -- wider appeal. Considering the subject matter, this cannot be undervalued.

And here lies the value in a movie like Capitalism: A Love Story. Regardless of what you think of Moore's politics, he generally means well, even if he is in love with himself. The truth is, Moore is consistently looking out for the little guy and that's noble despite his faults. Why do we excuse and even worship athletes or artists that have massive egos while we sneer at guys like Michael Moore? If nothing else he brings up conversations worth discussing, like the airline industry's treatment of its workers, the dangers of privatized institutions getting contracts for work maybe better left to the government, the incestuous relationship between the financial district and the treasury department, and of course the "Dead Peasants." These are issues worth talking about, and like the man or not, we're talking about it now, aren't we?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dre writes for Film.com weekly. Email him!

Recommend (0)

|  Comments (0)

|  Email

|  Share

Share  Facebook Digg del.icio.us