Capitalism, A Love Story

TedFlicks Rating:

$6.00 ticket on a scale of $0 to $12.

“THERE ARE LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS”  -BENJAMIN D’ISRAELI

In the 20 years since filmmaker Michael Moore entered the stage with “Roger & Me,” which centered on his Quixotic quest to nail an interview with then General Motors chairman Roger Smith, he has improved slightly as a filmmaker.  At 91 minutes, “Roger & Me” seemed to go on forever.  At 120 minutes, “Capitalism, A Love Story,” is at least not boring.  Although billed as a documentary it is instead a propaganda film – as much as is Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will.”

Any competent propagandist knows that selective presentation of fact and anecdote cleverly edited can elicit almost any emotion.  Hence the D’Israeli quote in the headline.  What Moore, who gets director, writer, and producer credit, goes for is disgust with American capitalism.  Your critic makes a point of taking no political position in his reviews, but he does note that Moore “capitalizes” on public anger with today’s economic distress. The statement at pic’s end that perhaps it is time to replace capitalism with democracy is Moore’s.  He’s also the uncredited narrator.  His mildly sneering tone of voice detracts from pic’s credibility.  Voiced by a pro like Stacy Keach, it would be far more effective.  No mention is made that capitalism is an economic system and that democracy is a political system and that each can exist independently of or together with the other.

Moore has a remarkable talent for coming up with obscure settings and footage which contribute to pic’s charm.  Almost no one outside show business remembers “The Killers,” Ronald Reagan’s last film.  It also featured John Cassavetes and Angie Dickinson.  There is a scene in which Reagan, the heavy, slaps Dickinsonhard.  Reagan is on record as never having liked the scene.  It doesn’t live up to the image of Ronnie as “best friend” as Sam Goldwyn called him. Moore uses it to make a point about the Reagan administration and worker’s rights.  It’s cute imagery, but “The Killers” is a work of fiction made 16 years before Reagan’s successful 1980 campaign for president.  Would it make any sense to political discourse if President Ben Gazzara were featured in a documentary in the murder scene from Cassavetes’ “The Killing of a Chinese Bookie”?

There are tons of other examples, equally creative, in which Mooreelicits emotion with obscure footage. Among them are the 1936 UAW strike against General Motors, Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union Address, in which he laid out a blueprint for the welfare state, not all of which has been enacted into law, and Moore’s own footage of a contemporary sit-in strike at a Chicago factory where windows and doors were made.  It seems, according toMoore, that Bank of America, a recipient of TARP funds, cut off the company’s credit, forcing it to cease operations owing back pay and benefits to 200 workers.  After several days’ sit-in, we learn that B of A elected to pay the workers a severance package of roughly $6,000 each rather than continue taking a PR black eye.  It may have been better if B of A had worked to put the factory back on its feet, but Moore leaves that end loose.

So as propaganda, let’s give Moore a “B”.  Where pic flunks is in overuse of Moore’s shopworn tactic of showing up at the front office of company X, Y, or Z with cameras rolling demanding an interview with the CEO.  AHollywood crew working on an expose of Japanese dolphin slaughter (“The Cove”) did a far better job of cat and mouse by accident.  In Moore’s case, we have seen it all before.  The fat guy with the loping gate being turned away by security guards at GM, financial institutions, and the New York Stock Exchange is old news. And the silly stunt in which Mooresurrounds the New York Stock Exchange building with yellow “Crime Scene” tape and then shouts at the structure through a bullhorn that he is making a citizen’s arrest does nothing to advance his point.  What does help make his case is footage of high-level financial types tripping over their tongues trying to explain what a derivative is.  We don’t know if they got it right on the second or third take or even if there was a second or third take.  Unfortunately, even to the casual observer, the absence of interviews or even attempts to get interviews with figures such as Alan Greenspan and Tim Geithner, whomMoore excoriates, detracts from pic’s credibility.  Only their critics get screen time.

Another area in which “Capitalism, A Love Story,” flunks is cinematography.  Much of pic is out of focus.  Maybe it will work on TV, but on the big screen it’s annoying. However, to Moore’s credit, sound recording (in your critic’s opinion the most prevalent technical failure in film) is more than adequate.

“Capitalism, A Love Story,” is not rated.  Other than a few four letter words, which are barely audible, there is nothing in it objectionable for children.  Heck, they may even be amused by the fat man chasing fat cats.

—30—