Movie Review - Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)

Directed by Michael Moore

Forgive me, Ronald Reagan, for I have sinned.

This was my first Michael Moore film, and, let's be honest here, I came in with preconceived notions of the guy based solely on other's thoughts about him since I had yet to see any of his work. I realize that's not the best way to go about things, but politics riles up everyone and how could I not have heard what my fellow conservatives think about the guy.

In the end, Michael Moore proves that he's a grand manipulator -- incredibly adept at preaching to the democratic choir, but, at the same time, completely alienating any conservative that would watch the film by so unnecessarily negatively depicting Republican presidents while never saying a contradictory word about Dems Clinton and Obama. More on that in a bit.

The premise of Moore's film is simple -- Capitalism (an economic system of private ownership [thanks, dictionary.com]) is a bad thing. It allows the rich to get richer and forces the poor to stay poor. Now, while I'm not sure that I agree with that statement, I'm sure the recent bailout of banks and businesses has its roots in a failure in the tenets of capitalism. But, I can't see the greed and manipulation of business execs meaning that capitalism in and of itself is an utter debacle. Moore himself admits that the capitalist economic strategy was a success in the years following WWII, but says that during the Reagan years, people became increasingly greedy and top execs wanted everything they could get their hands on. Once again, I oddly don't disagree with Moore here. The notion of greed is certainly an inherent "flaw" (if you will) in a capitalistic nation. The big issue here is that Moore doesn't provide an answer in how to solve it.

Well, he does say that the election of Obama showcased that we Americans were tired of the greed and that we wanted, what else but, "CHANGE!" I call bullshit on that -- Obama was not elected because his voters wanted to bring an end to capitalism...but that's what Moore implies. Moore never provides a solution to capitalism. He hints that socialism would be the way to go, but I don't think he once explains what socialism actually is. Instead, he manipulates his filmgoers by showing families being kicked out of their homes, George W. Bush as an idiotic fool, Ronald Reagan as nothing but an "actor," and the piéce de résistance -- Hurricane Katrina in the final shots of the film. I have no idea what Katrina has to do with capitalism, but it's a devious move on his part -- evoke the sadness from Katrina, blame the Republicans for that (which, should you read The Great Deluge, you'd realize was everyone's fault), and instill this conservative animosity in your moviegoing flock as they follow you blindly just because you show them something awful.

I mean, make sure that you gloss over the fact that it was under Clinton that two Treasury Secretaries began to allow the big banks to merge together...sure, you mention it, but then you go back to bashing Bush because that's what your people want to see from you.

Moore's gonna be a conundrum to me -- as a filmmaker, he created a decent film here. I liked the way he utilized old movie newsreels and music from Hitchcock's Vertigo to get his points across -- it made things fun. But, at the same time, he denounces an idea, yet provides no solution while also not showing the positive side of a capitalistic society.

I recently watched Outrage at the Newark Film Festival which was about whether or not gay politicians should be outed if they are "in the closet" and voting for anti-gay legislation. That film was certainly leaning to the left, but it also provided the right's point of view as well. It was as evenly balanced as I think you could get for a politically-charged film.

Moore doesn't provide an even balance here...it's just a platform for his beliefs. As a documentary that just doesn't cut it for me.

The RyMickey Rating: C-