Capitalism: A Love Story

Movie Information

The Story: Michael Moore takes aim at the concept of capitalism and the meltdown of the economy. The Lowdown: Is it propaganda? Sure. All activist documentaries are. But it's entertaining, thought-provoking, conversation-starting propaganda. That's the difference.
Score:

Genre: Activist Documentary
Director: Michael Moore
Starring: Michael Moore
Rated: R

Controversy comes to town this week with Michael Moore’s new film, Capitalism: A Love Story. This means—among other things—that Moore will be accused of fudging facts, omitting details and even outright lying. In other words, he’ll be subject to the same charges he always is—and the same charges that can be leveled against virtually every other documentary ever made. It also means that I’ll be on the receiving end of letters and comments accusing me of being favorably disposed to Moore’s message. Fair enough. Yes, I do tend to be more in accord with Moore than not, so bear that in mind.

If you’re familiar with Moore’s other films—and by that I mean if you’ve actually seen them—this is hardly dissimilar. Moore uses his standard approach of attacking his subject in a manner where comedy is used to mask outrage and fun hides anger. The overall tone is playfully mocking, while some of Moore’s choices are nothing if not quirky (I still don’t get the idea of Wallace Shawn as an expert on free-market economy). But it’s all at the service of the deeper message at hand. Very often Moore does little beyond amass a body of evidence and lay it out before the viewer. He may tell you little you didn’t already know, but by concentrating the information into two hours of screen time, he gives it a weightiness it otherwise lacks. Overlooking an isolated outrage is easy. Ignoring a dozen or more in a short space of time is much harder to do.

In Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore takes aim at what he views as the stranglehold of corporate dominance on both the United States and the world. He gathers his information and selects the things that best make his case that capitalism is—or has become—an evil that is not only not inherent in the original principles of the United States of America, but is actually contrary to those principles. It’s a shrewdly crafted work. Moore mixes buffoonery with scenes of genuine heartbreak, as when a widow learns that the company that employed her husband has found a way to exploit him beyond the grave by having taken out a life insurance policy on him with the company as the beneficiary. (Such policies are contemptibly referred to as “dead peasant” policies.) Moore takes care to show the viewer that the family being victimized is not one you’d put in his personal camp by having his camera focus on a commemorative plate of presidents with a big picture of George W. Bush on the wall of their house.

There are problems with the film. There’s a growing sense of Moore repeating himself. His meditation—that maybe socialism isn’t the awful thing its detractors claim—is almost a replay of his look at the French people in Sicko (2007). His showboating and grandstanding is looking a little tired, but then so is the 55-year-old Moore—and that actually may work in the film’s favor as the thing that sets it apart from his previous work. There’s a sense of personal frustration, desperation and disillusionment underlying Capitalism that’s unique to it. Maybe he’s worn out by making documentaries that receive critical acclaim, make unheard-of amounts of money (for documentaries) and yet haven’t exactly corrected the ills he addresses. Perhaps the importance of simply daring to address those ills is seeming less and less satisfying.

Whether or not the viewer agrees with Moore’s take on how America’s financial mess came about is another matter. Similarly, his blistering take on Ronald Reagan is bound to polarize viewers, though it might be noted that his views on Bill Clinton are far from glowing. For that matter, his lionization of FDR and his inclusion of FDR’s speech about a “second Bill of Rights” aren’t going to suit everyone. But why should it? That’s not the point. If the film entertains you and outrages you, it’s done its job remarkably well. Rated R for some language.

SHARE
About Ken Hanke
Head film critic for Mountain Xpress since December 2000. Author of books "Ken Russell's Films," "Charlie Chan at the Movies," "A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series," "Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker."

7 thoughts on “Capitalism: A Love Story

  1. Bert

    “Similarly, his blistering take on Ronald Reagan is bound to polarize viewers, though it might be noted that his views on Bill Clinton are far from glowing. For that matter, his lionization of FDR and his inclusion of FDR’s speech about a “second Bill of Rights” aren’t going to suit everyone.”

    Bill Clinton was a liberal Republican, which I think was the only alternative you were going to get with Right Wing Populism running wild in the country. It’s still running wild, but at least we’ve got enough electoral votes to defeat it. I haven’t seen the film yet, but does Moore acknowledge how FDR never moved on civil rights because he relied on the solid south as his political base? I love FDR, and the “Four Freedoms” speech is the blueprint for human rights, but he had his flaws and weak spots, as do all politicians. JFK didn’t move very fast on civil rights either, because without NC and Georgia he would have lost to Nixon. Even our progressive presidents have had to make concessions to the nasty social conservatism in America. Notice Obama has yet to lift the ban on gays in the military.

  2. Ken Hanke

    I haven’t seen the film yet, but does Moore acknowledge how FDR never moved on civil rights because he relied on the solid south as his political base?

    No, but the film isn’t about FDR, who is brought in mostly for that speech about a “second bill of rights,” so that’s hardly surprising.

    I don’t think it’s so much that all politicians have flaws and weak spots as it’s that all human beings do.

    Even our progressive presidents have had to make concessions to the nasty social conservatism in America. Notice Obama has yet to lift the ban on gays in the military.

    This is very true and something that needs to be understood. Problem is we — as a people — are so fixated on the concept of fast, fast, fast relief that we refuse to accept that significant, meaningful change will not happen overnight.

  3. Just sayin'

    Went and saw ‘ZombieLand’ today and it was totally awesome!!!!!!! Absolutely hilarious.
    Oh wait…sorry, what were we talking about here?

  4. Piffy!

    If Michael Moore wants to criticize the bastardized version of what we call “capitalism” he should totally be poor and skinny and not wear shoes, and this film should only be seen by a handful of people on youtube, and if he makes money off of this movie, which i WILL NOT SEE, then clearly he is a hypocrite because this movie is promoting communist nazism, and michael moore is a greedy CAPITALIST!.

  5. Ken Hanke

    this movie is promoting communist nazism

    Nah, it’s promoting Marxist Communist Fascist Socialist Nazism — with possbibly a hidden Technocracy agenda.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.