Review: Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)

[Scott Mendelson]

Capitalism: A Love Story
2009
123 minutes
Rated R (for three 'f-bombs' that Moore should have bleeped for a teen-
friendly PG-13)

by Scott Mendelson

More so than any of his recent projects, Michael Moore the messenger
is fatally undone by Michael Moore the showman. Time and time again we
cut away from worthwhile factual analysis or a compelling anecdote in
order to let Michael Moore have a moment in the spotlight. More so
than in any of his recent projects, Michael Moore chooses to undercut
the brutal effect of simply stating the facts in order to toss out a
lengthy side story that attempts to pull heartstrings yet falters
under objective analysis. For the first time that I can remember, a
Michael Moore documentary/propaganda piece is less about the subject
at hand and more about Michael Moore himself.

Some plot - The film purports to be a cliff-notes version of the
financial scandal/stock-market meltdown that crippled the economy in
September 2008. Hitting all the usual stops along the way (Regan's
deregulation of business, the complete destruction of the
manufacturing industry, Bush Jr's cozy relationship with fear, etc),
Moore attempts to form a deconstruction of the myth of the practical
and moral superiority of the economic mode known as capitalism. Along
the way, we of course are invited to share in the pain and suffering
of ordinary Americans who have been caught in the economic downturn
that is not of their own making. And we are again treated to the
occasional Michael Moore stunt, but these gimmicks are both useless
and counterproductive and serve to take away from the narrative and
reveal the director as a self-indulgent entertainer first and a social
crusader second.

Most problematic is not so much his preaching to the converted, but
his narrative choices that render the film downright confusing to
someone who already doesn't know what he's talking about. What's a sub-
prime loan? You won't find out in any detail in the film, only that
they are really evil. What exactly did Ronald Regan do in order to
bring about the eventual decline of the American middle class? I
couldn't tell you just from the film itself. The film scores some of
its best points detailing the abysmal wages of airline pilots, yet
makes no specific mention of Regan's deregulation of the airline
industry or his firing of striking air-traffic control workers in
1981. Michael Moore's films have always worked best as a jumping-off
point for liberal and progressive politics, so it can't be expecting
to be the Shoah of anti-capitalistic screeds. But this one is so hell-
bent on demonizing the somewhat demonic politicians and businessmen
that it neglects to mention just what they did in the first place.

This refusal to deal with the nitty-gritty also extends to his
portraits of victimhood. As with most Moore projects, we see various
vignettes of tragedy affecting the working class of America. While
these stories are meant to pull at heartstrings, it's tough not to
notice how carefully Moore avoids explaining how each family got into
their current foreclosure nightmare. This is doubly foolish, as it
allows critics like me to wonder how much blame they share while also
neglecting a crucial opportunity to expose theoretically criminal
lending practices that are as much to blame as the dreaded sub-prime
mortgage. The filmmaker spends a good 10-15 minutes on the ghoulish
practice of companies who take out life-insurance policies on their
own employees. Yes it's morally icky and a troubling symptom of
corporate culture, but 'dead peasant' policies are not illegal and
don't really play a direct role in the financial mess that the film
attempts to sort out. Yet it remains a token chunk of the film so
Moore can have scenes of mourning family members cursing those no-good
bureaucrats.

As expected and justified, Michael Moore places the majority of the
blame on Ronald Regan and George W. Bush (Bill Clinton gets a slap on
the wrist and Senator Chris Dodd takes it on the chin). But he also
slams Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, while neglecting to mention
that President Barack Obama has put these two in charge of his
economic policy. Maybe he's saving the presidency of Barack Obama for
his next movie, but considering how similar he's been on economic
issues to his predecessors, it's unintentionally humorous to see the
election of Obama treated as the dawning of a new day. And Michael
Moore's trademark 'stunts' are lacking both in purpose and panache.
Holding a mock funeral for a man whose health-insurance policy won't
cover his liver transplant is at least attempting something
productive, as is taking 9/11-rescue workers to Cuba for free medical
care. Driving an armored car from bank to bank demanding that the
bailout money be returned is only about self-aggrandizing.

Time is much better spent detailing shocking examples of greed
intermingling with public works with disastrous results. The most
potent segment involves a cold detailing of a backroom deal between a
juvenile court judge and the owner of a privatized juvenile-detention
facility that ended with hundreds of kids being sent to the prison for
things as trifling as arguing with friends in the mall, arguing with
parents at dinner, or smoking a joint at a party (this was actually
dealt with in an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit late
last season). He is also brutally effective in detailing how the
September 08 market crash and subsequent corporate bail out may have
been more than just an accidental pre-election surprise.

But despite the running thread tying the film to his first picture,
Roger & Me (Moore argues that unregulated capitalism has threatened to
turn all of America into Flint, Michigan), the picture feels for at
least half of its running time like a novice filmmaker doing their
take on a stereotypical Michael Moore film. Just because I agree
wholeheartedly with the thesis does not mean that the film propagating
said message is a good one. While Capitalism: A Love Story gets its
shots, it falters and plays safe and simple rather than serving as a
true primer of the issues at hand. Maybe Michael Moore is right when
he chimes at the end that 'I can't do this anymore'. If for only one
film, the creator of the modern muckraking documentary now looks and
feels like one of the pretenders.

Grade: C+