criterionforum.org

Saw this today and thought it was Moore's sloppiest film in years, no doubt due to how little time he had to compile it. The thesis is fuzzy and it takes a while to get anywhere, but there's still several moments that play to Moore's strengths-- Using mafia don mugshots to identify banks seems right out of TV Nation, for instance. The anti-Reagan segment was a pretty great "I give up courting open-minded conservatives" act too. Ultimately Moore makes a convincing argument against the bail-out, but he takes the long road there and pads the way with lots of distractions, some more entertaining than others.

Couldn't agree more. I was very disappointed with how this played strictly as a film, especially since Sicko demonstrated enormous growth for Moore as a filmmaker. Regardless, the movie remains very powerful. Certainly the full house I saw it with was affected by it. I've never seen more people sit and watch the end credits than I did for this film, and it was clearly on account of how sobering the movie was.

Pretty scattershot movie. The arguments come from all over and don't really cohere.

The most powerful stuff was against the corporate bailouts and against the companies that take out life insurance policies on their employees. Talk about a conflict of interest. The companies in charge of our safety at the workplace make more money if we die.

The weakest argument was his "anti-capitalism" semantics. Sometimes "capitalism" was a deregulated free market. Othertimes, "capitalism" was business colluding with the government, which is more accurately described as corporatism and something that wouldn't even happen in a purely free market. He used the word whenever he wanted to paint something as "bad," rather than actually defining it as a economic system based on deregulated markets and minimal governmental interference.

His religious demagoguery was also as banal as the right-wing usage of it, if a little more benign.

Capitalism is all over the place, but there are indeed powerful moments and gross misuses of power on display. As usual, Moore is a better whistleblower than a political or economic theorist.

Grand Illusion wrote:As usual, Moore is a better whistleblower than a political or economic theorist.

I'm sure he would agree with you.

I don't really mean that as a slam. We need whistleblowers. But it does make him sound silly when he makes broad sweeping statements, such as how capitalism is an evil and needs to be replaced with democracy. That one just makes me scratch my head. "Democracy" isn't even an economic system.

Grand Illusion wrote:[...]such as how capitalism is an evil and needs to be replaced with democracy. That one just makes me scratch my head. "Democracy" isn't even an economic system.

Especially when, in the context of the film's arguments, it seemed like he was about to say "Socialism"

domino harvey wrote:

Grand Illusion wrote:[...]such as how capitalism is an evil and needs to be replaced with democracy. That one just makes me scratch my head. "Democracy" isn't even an economic system.

Especially when, in the context of the film's arguments, it seemed like he was about to say "Socialism"

That was the joke, he was being coy.

He was just being a wuss, you're giving him far too much credit if you think he was just being coy. He was afraid to say that he was in favor of socialism, because he knew the film would have a lot more difficulty being released and reaching a wider audience.

There are two moments in the film that spring to mind.

In one, he is commenting on the Constitution and mentions "general welfare" as well as other community-focused words. He says, "Hmmm... that sounds like that other -ism..."

He is definitely being coy there, making a joke of not saying "socialism."

In the final moment of the film, he goes off on his monologue. In that, he says how "Capitalism is an evil," how you can't regulate evil, and how capitalism has to be replaced by democracy.

I don't think he's being coy or cowardly here. If he can say "Capitalism is an evil," he can say the word "socialism." In the final moment, what he's actually doing is being a demagogue. You could probably get away with saying anything is an evil and needs to be replaced with democracy and get a rise out of some people. So that's what he's doing. Playing populist.

He is, indeed, being earnest with that statement. It just doesn't make any sense. And as the final thesis left with the audience, it plays really poorly.

Thought he was also being a bit of a wuss about the Obama administration. He slams Geithner pretty hard, and even wonders aloud how such a loser could be appointed to his position, but if you didn't know any better I think you'd come away from the film thinking Geithner was a Bush stooge. Same with Summers - he very delicately tiptoes around the fact that these are Obama guys. He wonders why these people are in government, but praises Obama to the skies, never asking the obvious question of why, if Obama's so great, he's got these losers in his administration.

I also thought that his argument against the bailouts was fairly demagogic. He certainly made a compelling case that the bailouts were *mishandled*, but he conflates "mishandled" with "unnecessary." He never considers, even in passing, what might have happened without that kind of government action, which to me is the key question. He makes some vague conspiracy-theory charges that the crisis was jacked up for electoral reasons, but that's not really persuasive without some evidence in support, which he doesn't provide aside from some (very funny) visual goofing on Bush's speech. I'm more than willing to believe that no bailouts were necessary but Moore doesn't even attempt to make that argument in a serious way.

All that said, I think it's a valuable film. Whenever I see one of his films, I'm reminded of how rare it is to see serious discussion of issues afflicting regular people in the mainstream US media and even the "liberal" political establishment.

Brian C wrote:I also thought that his argument against the bailouts was fairly demagogic. He certainly made a compelling case that the bailouts were *mishandled*, but he conflates "mishandled" with "unnecessary." He never considers, even in passing, what might have happened without that kind of government action, which to me is the key question.

I don't know what would have happened in the US, but if the bank bailouts hadn't happened in the UK it's very likely indeed that at least one of the big high street banks would have collapsed.

It's odd that the Conservatives seem to be winning the economic arguments at present, because the "do nothing and let market forces decide" policy that they were pushing a year ago would undoubtedly have left the country in a far worse state - at least in terms of immediate economic impact on millions of people.

(Granted, billions of pounds of additional debt isn't an especially attractive alternative, but I'd say it's definitely the least worst).