Capitalism: A Love Story Review

Taken from Geeks :] Thanks!

__________________
"Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously."

I'm looking forward to seeing this. If you like this sort of thing, this is worth taking a look at.

&feature=fvw

I love this man, i really do. I have all his documentaries (Except Roger and Me, which sucks, i know i have to get it sometime) and watching this new one, he hits us again with another one. He shows us just how nasty and horrible this country has turned into. It was hard for me not to cry when watching people get kicked out of their homes. It could be any of us and that is what we have to realize.

Or, he always shows us just how easy it is to twist facts and make largely emotional-based appeals. For example...

...something like this. Could it really be any of us? I'm paying my mortgage and helped buy a house well within my budget. So I'm pretty sure it probably couldn't be me or anyone who approached homeowning similarly, unless some horrendous luck were involved.

The guy's an opportunist who's shown he's willing to skew things to make a point; he's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar more than once. He stokes the fires that keep him warm.

He also tells the truth from time to time. I wish that people would put their partisanship aside and actually listen to some of things Moore brings up. If anything, there should be a discussion about the matters he discusses in his films. That would be better than just brushing him aside and calling him a liar.

I think that putting partisanship aside is precisely what would do away with Moore! He would have no reason to exist without it. I haven't come across many people who excuse his methods unless they approve of the message he's putting out, too.

As for discussion: there are lots of discussions about capitalism and free markets these days. I don't think we need Moore's films to broach the subject for us; particularly not this last one, which seems to have come well after the discussion had begun and seems to exist only to exploit that interest, rather than create it. And the two aren't mutually exclusive, anyway; I can brush Moore aside and talk about capitalism -- and walk and chew gum -- all at the same time

Moore's clearly a political opportunist with a huge vested interest in stirring up anger, and he has a track record of manipulation. That kind of person will definitely generate a "discussion" in the crudest sense of the word, in the same way it generates a "discussion" when someone comes onto this forum and says something outrageous and unsupported.

I think the track record you speak of is somewhat overstated, in terms of factual manipulation (Pidz did a good debunk on accusations against Columbine like the bank-gun purchase etc, for example). He definitely plays on emotion far too often tho, and oversteps lines (such as interviewing an ailing Heston), for sure.

For those reasons I haven't bothered seeing his last few, despite quite likely being in line with aspects of his thinking. I'm quite glad he made Columbine tho, because we did all end up having a reasonably level-headed discussion here about gun laws as a result.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

I'm sure some people overstate any number of things related to Moore; both positive and negative. But the underlying record is pretty manipulative, particularly for someone who implicitly encourages the notion that he's providing some kind of public service.

I remember Pid's reply, actually; I remember he seemed not to care that one of the Heston sequences was demonstrably spliced together from various pieces of footage. In fact, I think most of the reply was basically "so what?", so "debunked" isn't the first word I'd use to describe it. I think some of Moore's opponents got a bit too zealous in their condemnation and overreached even though they really didn't have to. Which, sadly, makes them little better than the man himself, but pointing this out isn't much of a defense of his films, either.

As for gun control; I guess the question is whether or not these discussions would exist without Moore, and whether or not we judge the response some people have to his films, or the films themselves. I'd go with the latter. Our last President sure generated a lot of discussion about any number of important issues, but I doubt that similarly endears him to Moore's fans.

My recollection was that it was a bit more thorough than that. If I recall right, the argument there was that the content of the speech was identical, so it didn't matter which day's footage they used. Or at least not massively. (IE they didn't seem to have picked footage where Heston looked more demonic due to some lighting issue or what have you, but just used what was available. [Not that I wouldn't put the former past his Moorishness ]).

I think to describe his 'underlying record' as 'pretty manipulative' is, ironically, a touch too broad. He seems to draw on genuine situations, and reasonably sourced stats, even if he selects and presents them in a very partisan way. You should give a drop of credit to the real in his little fantasy lands

Maybe just call him a big fat partisan?

In the gun control case it didn't happen in any sustained form here until discussing that film. But I guess this is a film site, so it's a slanted scenario

A big fat Partisan
I've seen all of his films including this latest Capitalism, and I must admit to having a soft spot for Michael Moore. Like Golgot, I'm along the same lines of thought as him, but I do see his shortcomings too. I feel like he has a real sense of injustice that burns within him, but he just goes a little OTT sometimes.

If he just introduces a subject to someone who hasn't given much thought and forces them to do some of their own reading and research, I think that's a good thing. It's when people swallow documentaries hook line and sinker as being the total truth that become things difficult. Capitalism and it's shortcomings are such a massive subject and I don't think Moore manages to pull anything together on this film, but just has a series of vignettes. Some of them are interesting as pieces of history, specially the car factory segment, the history of of the American Dream. Some are very silly - his shenanigans in Wall Street - but seeing people being turned out of their homes for not being able to afford the mortgage and then the homes being sold for 25% of what they paid for them, that is capitalism, and that's upsetting.

Yods, as far as having your home repossessed, I do think it really could be many many people just like us. In the late 90s for many people seeing such a thing as a mortgage being within your range of possibilities for the first time, enabling you to have the dream of most British people - your very own house. That was something the banks and building societies made very,very easy - too easy it turns out now, but how were ordinary people supposed to know that when the financial institutions behaved as if everything was wonderful. I've been in **** financial situations before through wrong decision making and struggled, even intelligent people don't always do the right thing.

I agree. I also read this in an interview on rotten tomatoes with Michael himself;

No, I disagree. He has done films about health care and health insurance. That is a real problem in this country. He has talked about Bush, Gun Control, and capitalism. All of these issues are barely discussed in any kind of meaningful way on television. Especially in this age of Fox "news," all we get is one party's point of view, and a lot of partisan screaming at one another. The public rarely gets an in depth discussion.

Moore's films are entertaining. One reason is because the "methods" you obviously don't like. I say you don't like them because you are invested in the policies of one particular party. I think he has brought up some very real facts that many people ignore or don't know about.

I find it funny that anyone would describe Moore in a negative way by saying he is trying to stir up "anger." LOL. Look at Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and FOX "News." They do that every day. You're describing them, not Moore, imo. They are crude. His films contain very real stories about how people suffered under Bush, the health care system, and under the current state of capitalism. You can deny that all you want, doesn't make it untrue. Can he be manipulative? Sure. Most documentaries are.

I say thank god for Michael Moore. A talented filmmaker willing to make entertaining documentaries about the very real problems we face. what bothers me so much is that people on the Republican side of the aisle run around calling him a liar, because he doesn't agree that their policies have been very helpful to the American people.

You can call Moore partisan all you want, but if the facts support that one particular set of policies has been harmful, then that's what the facts support. It's too bad that one particular party in this country never seems to want to take any responsibility or understand how harmful their policies are. They are the partisans. Moore has criticized Democrats, too, when he thinks they are being bone-headed. Republicans somehow never seem to find fault with themselves. It's all about protecting their own, and saying Moore is lying.

One day, maybe people will stop caring about their party and start caring about making this country better and helping the poor and middle classes and not just the rich. I am not hopeful, however, when so many poor and middle class Americans don't even see what the real problems are. And why is that? Because they are manipulated every day and that manipulation is NOT from Michael Moore.

I share most of his beliefs, but I can`t stand the man. Saw his TV-show on DVD, read a biography about him and also watch Manufacturing Dissence, a documentary about his methods. Not good. He make mockumentaries for people, who only want to get their prejudices confirmed.

I love all of Michael Moore's documentaries.

He knows how to stick it to "the man".

I assume the key qualifier is "meaningful," because these things are discussed all the time. Anyway, there are plenty of thoughtful shows for people who care to find them. None of this really has anything to do with Moore, though. He won't change this fact, nor did his political enemies cause it.

Odd that MSNBC gets left off this list.

Moore contributes to the "partisan screaming at one another." His films aren't discussions, they're one-sided monologues.

And really, can we stop with things like "Fox 'News'" and "Faux News"? We know you don't like them. These things aren't funny or witty or...anything. It's just a little jab without purpose. It just makes the conversation angrier.

They're absolutely entertaining, but not because he manipulates things. They're entertaining because he's a pretty good filmmaker who never lets the truth get in the way of a narrative. This makes him good at telling stories, and bad at telling the truth.

And I've already said that you defend him because you're invested in the policies of the other.

The difference is that you need to like him in order to excuse his methods, but I don't have to like or dislike anyone or anything to have a problem with what he does. Not liking manipulation is a partisan-free trait. Defending it when someone's on your side is not.

In other words, conservatives and moderates (or even completely apolitical people) could have reason to dislike Moore. But you'd have to be liberal to make excuses for him.

Wow, again with the scare quotes. It's like you're terrified we might think you believe they ever put out a single actual news story. Wouldn't want that!

And I'm not saying anyone who ever makes anyone else angry is to be condemned. Sometimes people should be angry. My contention is that that's pretty much all that Moore does, and that he doesn't much care how he does it.

Do you see the funny side of this, though? You defend Moore from being slanted and partisan (the two nicest ways to describe what he does) partially because you think he generates discussion, yet the exact same thing could be said about the people and things you just listed. The same thing could be said about Bush, too. Clearly, generating discussion isn't enough for you to forgive someone's partisanship. They have to happen to come down on your side, too. Which means this whole argument is just "stop bagging on Michael Moore, because I agree with him." Which we knew already.

This is hopelessly vague. I can't "deny" something that isn't even being said. If we're going to discuss these things, let's get into specifics.

His films contain some real stories, sure. They also contain some heavily modified ones. And the real ones are incredibly cherry-picked, too. Emotional appeals and anecdotal evidence produce strong emotional responses, but untenable policy. But since Moore's just going for the emotional jugular, he doesn't care.

Okay, he can be manipulative. And that's bad, right? He shouldn't be, right? Or is it all okay as long as he makes his point?

They call him a "liar" (though I don't think I've used that word) because he's willing to fiddle with the truth in order to make a political point. If this bothers you, look into the veracity of it, though I doubt you'll like all that you find.

Serious question: have you ever gone looking into these things? Have you ever tried to seek out the people who find problems with his films to see what they say, and try to see if it's accurate?

What facts? Are we talking about an actual set of facts or claims, or is this a reference to the entire mass of things Moore has said in his films? I can't tell if you're defending a specific idea or just assuming that whatever Moore cites or says is correct.

And I'll point out, regardless, that one can always find some sort of fact to make things look a certain way, so merely being armed with one isn't the end of the discussion. There are discussions that come after about which facts to use and why. I don't think Moore ever gets that far, though.

Let's be clear: Moore doesn't say "hey, let's go see what the healthcare system is like!" only to learn as he goes that -- surprise! -- it's messed up in all the ways he already thought it was. He has a goal in mind. He knows before he starts what point he's going to make. He's not following the truth wherever it leads, unless you believe he somehow always manages to be dead-on about every major issue he tackles before he even begins making these films. He makes them to try to support the things he already believes, not to find out what he ought to believe.

Yeah, this is just completely untrue. We've been over this many times; I don't know exactly how you've convinced yourself that basic human traits like stubbornness or partisanship somehow manage to apply only to Republicans, but it's a terrible generalization. I have no use for it.

I'd list examples of Republican infighting and defection, but past discussions have shown me that examples going in one direction are always meaningless abberations, while those going in the other are somehow glimpses of the party's very soul.

Moore, by the by, has largely criticized Democrats for not going far enough, or for not being effective. That's not breaking ideological ranks, that's just being further left than most of them and being frustrated with a lack of implementation. He knows his fan base, and they're generally more liberal than your average Democrat in Congress, so he's always going to come at them from the left.

Do not tell me I need to "start" caring about making my country better. That's a terrible thing to say to someone just because you disagree with them.

Again, if we're going to have this discussion, let's have it. Because the insinuations in this statement are both incorrect, at odds with basic economics, and fairly insulting. It's no wonder you generalize so easily about conservatives if this is the contorted way you view them. It may be difficult to digest, but conservatives don't disagree with you not to be selfish or careless; they do it because they actually disagree with you. And I'm one of them.

Ah, we're talking about two different things, actually. I believe you're referring to the bit where he talks about the NRA refusing to move their meeting, and the pleas of the community not to come, with "from my cold dead hands." Something like that. There are a few points that fit what you just described, I think, so I'm not sure.

Anyway, the part I was talking about is near the end, where he interviews Heston. He makes it look like he confronts him with a picture of a slain child, and he makes it look like Heston just scuffles away heartlessly, but the camera angles are such that there's no way this could have happened. He would have had to splice together his little confrontation with Heston's reaction to something else, which is pretty horrendous.

I'm going off memory a bit, of course, but I do remember that half the discussion wasn't really a debunking, but a playing-down of the importance of things.

Some of his stats are certainly reasonably sourced, and I think that's kind of how he manages to rationalize some of what he does. As I mentioned in my last post, it's not always a big deal to find a fact to illustrate a point, particularly if you don't care much about showing the whole picture. I'm sure plenty of the facts he reels off are technically true. Good idealogues don't give their opponents clear-cut ammunition to shoot them down with.

Hey, stop arguing my side for me!

That's a fair description. I do wonder whether or not his sense of injustice is real, or if it's part of the act. I realize that sounds a little cynical, but I wonder that about a lot of heavily politicized media figures, after awhile. I wonder how many of them start off believing, but more or less do it out of habit after awhile.

It's hard to say, because in the case of any talk radio host, or anyone like Moore, their livelihood eventually gets completely tied up in being who they've been, which isn't conducive to reexamination.

I agree, but I fear/think that a lot of people do just sort of swallow it. I don't think people get home and start Googling for inaccuracies. Which makes sense, because if someone is unengaged enough that they need a movie to get them interested, they're probably unengaged enough to just believe it.


I don't want to branch off into a whole discussion of capitalism, but I feel the need to ask: what part of this is upsetting? I don't mean emotionally upsetting; it's always emotionally upsetting to see someone lose a home. But what part do you feel is an injustice?

That's certainly true; I've made some bad choices. But I usually chalk them up to myself, and not to a bank or the economic and political system under which I live.

I took the original comment to mean, by "any one of us," that these things just fall out of the sky and land on someone random, which I don't believe. For the most part, whether or not that happens to me will depend on me; what kind of house I've bought, whether or not I can afford it, and whether or not I've done my homework in regards to my mortgage and financial situation.

I know what you mean Yoda, but I don't feel cynicism about him, and I don't think it's because his politics are along the same track as mine. For example, he talks so warmly about his own family and home town and the things that've been happening around there. From over here looking in, he seems like he loves America and everything American, he just rails against what he perceives as injustice.

No I don't want a huge discussion on capitalism, mainly cos you can write much better than me! I know what I think but can't always get it down so lucidly
Imagine buying a place for x amount of dollars and getting evicted for not paying the x amount of dollars mortgage then finding out your home has been sold for 25% of that by people like the self styled Vulture Realtors. I don't like seeing people being put in that situation, that's an injustice imo, as well as emotionally upsetting. If you were in that place - I know you say you will never be, and god willing I hope you never are - but would you see that as fair game?

ok so bad choices are peoples own faults, yes I've done some financially stupid things that were probably down to naivity, but there are also sometimes reasons why those things happen that are to do with economics. For example a friend of mine gets a job in another part of the country, has to move quickly to take up the job, puts her house on the market, the housing crash begins, she can't sell it, the price dips considerably so she sells and ends up well out of pocket just cos she didn't predict the crash. She's not bitter about it cos she's loving her new job, but if her move would've happened a year before she wouldn't have been as skint as she is now!

of course having your home repossessed doesn't come randomly, but it does come sometimes in the long term after losing your job, or illness. You'll be ok because you've taken those decisions with the benefit of education and level headedness. What about people who don't have the benefits you have and were given financial advice in the generous times when the banks couldn't get rid of money fast enough? then when things started to go wrong they're slapping repossession orders so fast that people don't have time to arrange anything. In the UK it took the government to tell the mortgage companies to allow some precious leeway for people to come to some sort of financial arrangement.

blimey, how do you make that multiquote thing work? just taken me ages to get that post right! I must be being a right thicko

At the time, I didn't have the energy to answer Yoda's charges in his post back to me, but I kept thinking about something Yoda said about Fox News and how I shouldn't have included that in this discussion.

I disagree. I found an article that explains why I hate FOX so much:

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010...=huffpo-direct

Because, you see, FOX News (and conservative talk radio) are directly related to the vilification of someone like Moore. Without their heightened rhetoric, their deception, their sometimes lies, Moore would just be another documentarian with a point of view. All documentary filmmakers have a point of view.

Instead, he's vilified and no amount of defense of his facts can persuade these people that their point of view may not be fair to the facts.

I left MSNBC off the list because they are a direct reaction to FOX, seeing that something had to be done to counter their extremely biased viewpoint. Thank goodness since the radio waves are owned by conservatives. There is a need out there to counter their deception.

A poll was conducted regarding the Tea Party. Only 2% knew that their federal taxes had actually gone down. 98% believed they had increased. I wonder what network these people watch?

In addition, have you seen their signs? Obama is a Marxist. Hmm... I wonder where they got that, too?

I didn't say that. I said that MSNBC should be on the list, and that things like "Faux News" or "Fox 'News'" contribute less than nothing to the discussion. They're just little partisan jobs that serve no purpose other than to polarize the discussion a little bit more.

O'Reilly was wrong, but he's not a news anchor; he hosts an editorial program. The amount of misstatement in any major media outlet is staggering. Have you tried searching for evidence of Olbermann's misstatements? Because I guarantee you'll find plenty. This article doesn't explain why you hate Fox at the exclusion of other networks at all, unless you screen out (or simply never see/hear of) similar examples from other networks.

I had Fox News on in the background the day of the health care vote in the House and heard Shepherd Smith calling out conservatives and liberals alike as they trotted out their rhetoric. He was courteous and critical of both. This is not an irregular occurance, believe it or not, but obviously it's not something you'll ever see if you don't want to.

Serious question: do you ever seek out examples of these sorts of things in regards to media outlets or commentary sources you use, or only the ones you oppose? And feel free to tack on my question a few posts back about searching for evidence on criticisms about Moore, since both would be examples of confirmation bias.

I doubt that Moore is purely a product of conservative media; his films are very provocative. But sure, they enhance his standing and importance by discussing him. I'm not sure how relevant that is, however. News programs and media personalities bring up all sorts of people and topics that wouldn't otherwise get discussed as often. But they also do this largely because they think it's something people will be interested in.

This is the kind of vague statement I'm always complaining about. What facts? What defense of those facts? Anyone can throw out generalities like this.

So, it's okay for MSNBC to do the same kind of thing you "hate" Fox for simply because Fox already exists?

Also, are you aware that many of the people who enjoy Fox believe it's responding to an existing bias in media, which is the same thing you're saying about MSNBC?

I've run several searches but have yet to find out what poll you're referring to. Do you have a source? Because I'd really like to see this.

I've seen some polls along this vein (though not with those numbers), and some of the methodologies are mind-boggling. I saw an entire article written about how ignorant Tea Partiers were that was based on -- get this -- 57 respondents, and that from a single rally. I've seen a few others that mock them for thinking taxes are higher than they are, but only because their answers reflected total tax burden when the question was actually about a single tax (federal income tax).

There's another problem with the question: the central complaint the Tea Party movement has with the government is excessive spending and the fact that it will lead to tax increases. The distinction between having higher taxes now and being doomed to have them in the near future doesn't strike me as a huge one.

Yet another problem: the tax cut is technically existent, but was so small and inconsequential that I really wouldn't expect anyone to notice it.

Yet another problem: asking about federal taxes only is silly. I'll have to check, but I believe state tax burdens have had to go up in many places because of local budget shortfalls.

Well, clearly someone else told them to do it, seeing as how they're incapable of thinking for themselves. I doubt they even knew the word "Marxist" before Rush Limbaugh told them about it.

People make up their own minds. You watch news, and I'm sure you read things (blogs, newspapers, etc) that you agree with. And I'm sure you hear things from them you didn't previously know. And conservatives do, too. And like you they decide which things to accept, and which things not to. They're not mindless automatons.

I'm going to make an appeal, yet again, that we do away with these vagaries and hazy assertions. I've had all I can handle about how conservatives do this, or Republicans do that. Such statements are always myopic generalizations devoid of the kind of evidence befitting the scope of their claim. And, frankly, I think they make for a convenient diversion when someone tries to steer the discussion towards facts and falsifiable things.