01
Jul
Michael Moore is not your daddy
I’ve seen Michael Moore’s Sicko, and liked it. He had a couple of points to make — lots of people in the U.S. suffer from inadequate or no health care, and the impact of our system has a repressive effect on more than just our health — and he made them effectively.
I’ve since read a number of reviews. The negative ones were predictably thick. What puzzled me more were the more or less positive ones which take Moore to task for not providing explicit answers to the problem, something he avoided deliberately and, to my mind, with good reason. I’m thinking specifically of Stephen Hunter in the Washington Post, and R.J. Eskow in the Huffington Post.
Here’s Hunter:
His “Sicko,” an investigation and indictment of that system, which is choking on paperwork, greed, bad policy and countervailing goals, turns out to be a fuzzy, toothless collection of anecdotes, a few stunts and a bromide-rich conclusion. He’s not even above looking hound-eyed into the camera as he stands on a Venetian bridge as a gondola scoots by underneath him and intoning, “We’re all in the same boat.”
We may be, but here’s the problem: He never tells us which boat.
Here’s Eskow:
The problem seems to be that Moore doesn’t trust his audience to weigh competing arguments and come to the right conclusion. That’s a shame. If he had raised more of the arguments against single-payer and then responded to them, he could have made a much more compelling and effective film. If 60 Minutes can present both arguments in a debate and come to a conclusion in a 15-minute segment, Moore had time to do it here. Instead, he presents a glib and superficial one-sided position that’s too easily shot down, even though there are compelling arguments in its defense.
Moore’s intent was to show up the failings of our system and get people talking about them. By not presenting his own solution, he at least partially avoided the prospect of seeing the film attacked solely on the basis of what it offers as The Answer. I didn’t see the 60 Minutes segment Eskow mentions, but if they managed a comprehensive explanation of the rather significant differences between the various national health systems in other countries, and between those systems and ours, I’ll be really surprised.
Because it’s complicated stuff. I’ve been reading about health care more or less diligently for a long time, especially so since I decided to write about it in connection with Sicko. Some countries have no private insurance. Others have a mix of public funding and private insurance. Among the latter, the nature of the private insurers and the regulatory structures within which they operate vary greatly. Some countries have prescription drug subsidies; others don’t but, like Canada and Australia, use their purchasing power to negotiate much more favorable pricing than we get here. Some countries cover dental and psychiatric needs thoroughly; others don’t. Some countries have systems where the money follows the patient; others, where it follows the providers. All of these things, and many other things, have an impact on what services people get, and how, and how much it costs. All of the systems have evolved and are still doing so, in ways that may or may not ultimately be for the better, and all are tugged by local historical and political forces that don’t really have a direct bearing on what we ultimately decide to do.
It’s interesting stuff, at least to me, but it wouldn’t make a very interesting movie even if you could cram it into two hours. And besides, Michael Moore is fat, ugly and annoying and I don’t want him dictating my health care future even if he wanted to do it.
What especially struck me about both Hunter’s and Eskow’s reviews is that they failed to mention what Moore probably saw as the most significant scenes in the movie, or at least among them, which included those featuring Britain’s Tony Benn and made very clear that Moore regards national health care as a revolutionary prospect, something that’s as vital to the health of our democracy as it is to the health of our citizens. It was clearly his intent, which seems unfortunately to have failed with Hunter and Eskow, to implant that notion.
The film does what Moore intended it to do if, unlike Hunter and Eskow, you’re not waiting around for someone to tell you what to do. Moore has injected the subject into the public conversation. He’s highlighted the failures of the system, he’s shown how it developed and what the obstacles are to reforming it, and he’s pretty overtly said that it’s important to our democracy to do so. That’s sufficient unto the day, I think. The rest is up to us.
(For more on Sicko and health care in general, click here.)
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Google]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Great post! I saw the movie last night, and in so many critical review postings, its obvious those that have not yet seen it. So many are just spouting off talking points. It is sad that so many are missing the points that Tony Benn made, as they are quite compelling. The ‘anti-Moore in anything he does’ camp would have pounced on him, had he tried to offer up his exact solution, and would be the quick death of the movie and intellectual debate from the right. He was absolutely correct, not to espound his perceived solution, it makes the issue harder for the insurance lobby to find an easy target.
OMG when even Fox News gives a positive review of a Michael Moore movie, you something is up!!!
July 1st, 2007 at 1:17 pm[...] Link to Article sicko Michael Moore is not your daddy » Posted at BTC News on Sunday, July [...]
July 1st, 2007 at 1:49 pmHey Bettybettybetty!
Journalists who try to skewer Michael Moore for his alleged failure of objectivity are projecting some. They delude themselves that they are themselves objective. What passes for journalistic objectivity is a predominantly white, male, middle-class (increasingly upper middle class), elitist objectivity that is most interested in protecting its privileged access to power – which, of course, isn’t objective at all. Surely something inside them tells them this, but rather than face the facts these journalists start pointing fingers and screeching like the pod people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers: “Michael Moore’s not one of us! Get him! Get him!”
American journalists have points of view and they editorialize regularly in their reporting, but they’re so imbedded in their belief in their own objectivity they don’t recognize their blatant subjectivity. And to then go after a film-maker like Michael Moore for not doing what they themselves don’t do is just another hypocrisy. I don’t believe that journalism can be objective, certainly not when it comes to politics – and someone once said that everything is politics. If journalists just gave up the pretense and admitted that they are as biased as anyone else I think people would eventually learn to depend on journalism again. They would read and watch news media that make no show of objectivity, that wear their POVs on their sleeves, that are honest about it, that tell their consumers that “we’re not trying to fool you that we’re giving you the whole story in complete fairness.” Consumers of news media know instinctively that this conceit is just that – objectivity is just about impossible. In a way, Faux News is the only honest MSM journalism around these days; though it trumpets its “fairness” you know it’s just for the record and said with a smirk.
Well, this started out just to be about Michael Moore and the fact that he is not a journalist, thank god. Here are some links and quotes from three recent LA Times articles on “Sicko” and the director. The points you make are substantiated in these articles and in his own words.
http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-et-sicko29jun29,0,2337263.story?coll=cl-movies-features – a review by Kenneth Turan:
“We would be horrified, the filmmaker insists, if the police and fire departments were forced to make profits, so why should healthcare have to go down that difficult road? We Americans inevitably feel we know the best way to do everything, but the great accomplishment of “Sicko” is that it is difficult to watch this slyly confrontational film and remain sure.”
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-goldstein3jul03,0,1894071.story?coll=la-home-entertainment – a dissection of Moore’s objectivity and impact:
“If you think you’re seeing objective truth when you go to a Michael Moore film, you’re missing the whole point,” says Brett Morgen, director of the forthcoming documentary, “Chicago 10.” “He’s not a journalist, striving for objectivity. He’s a provocateur trying to engage the viewer. Context belongs to journalism. The responsibility of a filmmaker is not to write an essay, but to create something exciting or entertaining that stays with you.”
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-moore29jun29,1,61278.story – how Moore’s savvy financial arrangements ensure his independence:
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:43 pm“Certainly, the No. 1 question I get asked is, ‘What can I do?’ ” Moore says. “I am not prepared for that. Because I am not leading a movement to revolutionize the healthcare system in America. I am making a movie. I have spent a year and a half making this film, and this is my contribution.”
The thing that I thought was great, and is often overlooked in Moore films is how much of the film is not actually about health care, but about us, and why we put up with this abominably shitty system. That to me is the most important question here, and it’s a recurrent them in Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11. The part with Tony Benn was my favorite as well.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 pmlet me get this straight. you wouldn’t want to listen to him because he’s FAT?
I am consistently appalled at the number of reviewers who discuss Moore’s weight as if that is some kind of reason for disliking him. And I’m speaking of reviewers who like his movies, for the most part.
When you talk about the movie, you make some good points.
But maybe you can explain to me why fat people are apparently deserving of hatred, all because of their size: I’d be interested to see you take it on. Or the alternative would be to stop including fatness as one of the reasons why you don’t want to listen to someone. (Or ugliness. my gosh, are we four year olds? what does any of this have to do with the arguments being made? even judging someone on their annoyingness makes more sense that physical appearance)
July 4th, 2007 at 4:38 amI have to agree with trouble above, although trouble says it more gracefully than I might have. Much better to say and more in keeping with the standards you set for yourself elsewhere, “I think he’s fat and ugly and that’s why….” You’d be exposing yourself as a person with opinions that I might not agree with rather than presenting yourself as the all-knowing narrator who has opinions that I must not question. We get enough of that stance in the rest of the SCLM.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:28 amBut I still like this site and I’m glad Tom tomorrow linked to you.
I haven’t seen the film yet, but I agree with this comment. I’ve noticed that, like Al Gore, Michael Moore frequently stimulates a knee-jerk response among “friendly” critics. The substance and details of the critiques vary, but there is an overall tone of “Moore may be trying to accomplish something positive or constructive in his own way, but one must concede that he misses the mark because, after all…” [fill in the blank].
There are several handy items with which to fill in the blanks, typically by noting something Moore’s film allegedly doesn’t adequately address or consider. Or by characterizing episodes (e.g., the trip to Cuba) as (mere) stunts or self-indulgence. There he goes again!
And then there’s the shameless, appalling ad hominem low-blow of Moore being fat– meaning fatter than the critic, presumably– as if THAT undermines or invalidates his work. There is no end of pious declamation, different in degree but not kind from the incoherent castigations from flaming wingnuts, suggesting that Moore should never have dared to examine a national health care crisis before purifying himself physically. I suspect that, in fact, criticism of Moore is a zero-sum game; if Moore had become a Jack LaLanne clone while making this film, the critics would simply pick harder at the film’s other putative flaws or shortcomings. Or simply remark that yeah, Moore’s in shape NOW, but what about BEFORE? In short, Moore can’t win. And that’s the point.
As noted, I see a parallel between the way Moore and Al Gore are generally treated by the corporate media and other co-opted critics. (I want to simply write “Establishment” critics, since that term seems as valid and relevant now as it ever was.) I’m not referring to the full-bore enemies, opponents, and detractors; I’m referring to a class of critic that pretends to superficial sympathy with the men and their causes, but tempers such support with a sometimes regretful exposition of the heroes’ Achilles’ Heel(s) or feet of clay.
It’s as if these critics have not a “black ball”, but a grey or marbled black-and-white ball in their collective sweaty palm. And, in a peculiar pseudo-iconoclastic lockstep, they are compelled to drop the “grey ball” into the hat in order to diminish the value of the problematic public person’s contribution.
Odd that these two should be subject to such persistent mild denunciation, which by default excuse corrupt persons and systems designed to produce moore and moore gore.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:42 amI like Moore, and his appearance is neither here not there. My comments about it were meant to echo or forecast the reactions of the people who do perennially criticize him on those grounds rather than on the content of his films. I did it poorly, my bad, I don’t blame anyone for taking exception to it and I’m sorry it detracted from the point I want to make, which is that Moore has done a good job of and a great service by injecting the subject into the national consciousness and it seems ungracious to expect more from him than that.
July 4th, 2007 at 1:04 pmI agree completely. I hope I made it clear that the exasperation expressed in my previous comment was directed at Hunter, Eskow, et al– not Mr. Berger, with whom I was attempting to express agreement!
July 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pmI guess what everyone says what Moore is doing with his movie is correct. I’m one of the people who want an answer though. Not a single Moore answer but different options. I wish Moore would have talked about how those other healthcare systems worked . Each one works very differently. For instance in France’s healthcare system you get the care because you have employment not just because your French.The poor can file for welfare and recieve free healthcare. Also healthcare in France is not free. You are resposible for 25% to 15% of the bill. Many French have supplimental insurance to cover that. You are also reimbursed by the government. It is not walk in and walk out pay nothing. But France still does have one of the best health systems. England system is a little botched up right now. Especially for surgeries. Many people use private hospitals for that because the wait is to long at a NHS hospital. Also the government deems your services appropriate considering them elective or nessecary and then deciding on your care. Again not as easy and carefree as Moore makes it out to be.General healthcare is what is provided well in these countries but you take any of the people in the Moore movie and they would be running circles in the NHS.But they would also have the choice of private healthcare and be somewhat reimburtsed by the NHS.I don’t know much about Canadian or CUbain healthcare so I won’t comment. I will note evreybody from France and England seemed to be well off upper class people . He didn’t talk to any low-income people like he did in the States. As for Moore sparking a health revolution that is great but if the revoulution has no direction what is the point. Moore never gives a direction. If you take that responsibilty to spark change you have to have a direction.Anyboby can tell this country is about money and the bottom line.Hello were have you been. I look forward to the movie “11th Hour” because I think it will lay a direction not an answer but a path for enviromental change .Not just another movie about how corparations are are greedy and pollute everything. No duh.I think that is the point that critics are making (or at least some) when they say Moore dosen’t give an answer to the problem. Moore has an answer it just wouldn’t sell as many tickets as making an enemy. Isn’t that what Bush does .He motivates war by creating an enemy.Ah the American way. Doesn’t fall far from the tree.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:52 amHi, Paul. Thanks for stopping by.
My reason for not wanting Moore to single out a particular model is that critics would then seize on that model as representative of the whole debate; it would give them a single target to discredit rather than a concept. Our system is indefensible, and people will get around to looking at specific options as the pressure to do so grows. So again, I think Moore has done a great service by raising the profile of the topic and helping to generate the pressure necessary to come up with a solution.
You’re obviously more familiar than I think most Americans are with other health care models. If you had to choose one that the US should emulate, which would it be?
July 14th, 2007 at 7:21 amSorry I just wanted to add to Weldon’s article that the subject is already a hot topic in America so Moore did not add to making it a subject to talk about.If it created any subject to talk about amongst the masses it is corparate greed again. I think that is the main theme of all Moore movies. Something I hear about very little in popular society.Sure amongst some liberals and prog’s but very little conversation amongst everyday people. Healthcare I can honestly say I hear something everyday. You really should not put your opinion into why Moore made his movie. You should let him say for himself. If I seem rude it is not because I’m liberal/conservitive bashing I just think we take Moore movies at face value and believe everything they say. And it is known his movies do skew the truth or things are conveintly not talked about (much like the structures of those countries healthcare systems) to make a point and that is wrong . You don’t have to do that to show corparte greed . It pretty much speaks for itself. I won’t accept it from conservitives and I won’t accept it from liberals. That is my opinion.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:00 amPaul, Moore has said his purpose in making the movie was to raise the profile of the issue, not to propose a solution, but even if he hadn’t I’m somewhat at a loss as to why I should be any more hesitant to express my opinion about it than you are yours.
Moore oversimplifies things. In a 2-hour polemical film about a complicated subject, that’ll happen. But he doesn’t run the country, he’s not running for office and he’s not obligated to tell everyone else what to do. Again, as I said in the story, he’s done what he set out to do, and the rest of it is up to the rest of us.
I’m genuinely interested in what you think would be a good solution, if you care to share that.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:21 amI did not say you should not express your opinion . I stated your opinion had become the reasons for why Moore made the movie.I never made an opinion as to why the movie was made,but to how it was made.( By the way I apprciate this immediate response and you not insulting me. That is rare on these post on some sites.)Also I said was not expecting a soltuion from Moore but a dirrection of were to go from here.Many many people don’t understand what national healthcare means or how it would work. They are just told we need it. That really means nothing.I would agree with you on creating the pressure but the pressure is felt by 50 million and somewhat felt by 250 million. So 80% of Americans have insurance and 20 percent have shit. You need to convert the 80%.I was not stating thet he should tell everyone what to do or how to run this country. And by the way I have seen Moore at many political rallies supporting candidates. That is putti ng his face and his ideals into politics I would presume.Plus as I stated I’m sure he knows of different ideas for healthcare but that subject wouldn’t sell as many tickets. He is also responsible money wise to people that supported his movie from production to distribution to packing seats. I’m not sayin g the movie was awful or anti-American. Just like many social movies you walk away going ok now what.Again that is why I’m exicted about the 11th Hour.Ideas that is what it is about not cynicism. In the Islamic videos that I have seen they don’t just complain to people that America is evil, they give solutions to combat it get involved.Why in America must we be always entertained? As for solutions I am for a form of national healthcare, but like many Americans that is a vague discription.What are the options ,what are the models out there.Try and find them on the Internet or magazines and it is not that easy. So leaving it up to us loses steam.No direction .I guess Moore wants us to start pushing politicians to make it an issue is what you are getting at . I would agree with that.I feel if more people were educated on the subject then more steam would be produced to move it along.Moore was a spark but I guarentee it didn’t start the fire. Like his other movies.Nothing really changed. We all still hate Bush. He’s still in office.Guns are still plentiful.Cynicism not action . If you watch Roger and Me you will notice the approach was very different then his later movies. Entertainment and ticket sales became the issue. Again my opinion.He made it comfortable for the liberal crowd to sit at home and agree.Also laugh he has a great sense of humor.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:55 amWeldon hey .I was just talking with a friend of mine.It made me think about my feelings on this subject. She had not seen the movie so I was explaining it to her. From my comments I hope it is understood that I did not hate the movie. I enjoyed it. When I saw Columbine I really thought that every young American ( wierd) should see that movie. I thought the spark would really bring about some motivation amongst people. In explaining the movie to Bic I realized I was just expecting to much from the movie in the end. I’m frustrated by our generations complaining but very few sacarifing what it takes to make change. I guess I was expecting that for some strange reason (it was never present in any other of his movies before) for a direction “what next” so I should not blame Moorte for that. I still will agree with the oversimplification of his statements made in the movies.But I still feel there is no excuse for the lack of depth.There are many specials(Expose,Frontline) that tackle issues and can cover a story pretty in depth on PBS in an hour. Your right in that it will make an isssue of healthcare but I’m afraid and certain that it won’t leave the choir,And that is what needs to happen. It really was just entertainment.Sad.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:59 amP.S. Who am I to tell Moore how to make his movies?
July 15th, 2007 at 4:01 amPaul, I understand your point, I just disagree with it on grounds of practicality — that is, I think the movie will be more effective as is than it would have been had it prescribed a particular solution. Obviously that’s not the case for you and others who have criticised his approach, and of course ultimately we’ll never know which was the better approach since we only get to see the outcome of the one he took.
It’s just my opinion, and the answer to your last question — “Who am I to tell Moore how to make his movies?” — is the same for you as it is for me. We’ve got every right to criticize or praise him and he’s got every right to ignore us, assuming the occasion ever arose.
July 15th, 2007 at 8:22 amWeldon thanks for the dialoge. Of course I want to get the last word. I was not looking for a particular solution or stating the movie give a solution. I never said that others might have though I’m sure. I would like to ask effective at what ? Will you be on the street with a direction to go toward national healthcare or will you just talk about how crazy the healthcare industry is,how funny the movie was ,and of course the coments Bush makes. I have learned that I have become confused at the point of the movie. Somehow I was thinking and others also that Moore was to be a leader in issues that he brings forth.I realized why would I expect that. It is just a movie. Why would I put this social judgement on it that it has to guide. I don’t expect Frontline to give an answer.I think his movie just brings about the frustration in people and reminds them that it is all messed up.He didn’t uncover anything new. But now they are like great thanks for the reminder now what? I ask you Weldon now that it is up to us what are your suggestion or what will you do to advance national healthcare? I think my personnel frustration comes from our generation.Moore’s movies just really bring about cynicism (sorry bad spelling)for our generation. We will not achieve anything by watching a movie and saying that was great and funny now back to noraml life. That is what happened with the other movies.I guess I say this because usually people are praising him saying the movie will stimulate debate and things to change. They say that is why Moore made the movie. But those people don’t then go out and carry the debate further.We just laugh at it all. If we want better healthcare it is not gonna happen from our couches. And I feel because the movie is really just cynicism that never happens. So as I say it’s just entertainment and I should not criticize it because it was not more, because it was definitly worth the $8.50 to see, I will say that.I remember hearing a story about Jews in Germany before WW2 at how they just shrugged and would joke at all the laws against them that Hitler was making.Losing library privileges ,not able to go to public parks, had to be in before night, and then we all now what happened. From what I here about the sixities protestes large and small were a daily occurance.In Europe people demand something they hit the streets .Protets are very common throughout the world except America. I was at a party last night and I brought up so what do we do next now that Moore made us aware of the healthcare crisis. No responses.Not even suggestions. Got any? Please don’t say the other safe answer “write your representative” done that.Millions I’m sure do that. It is easy to have an intern check e-mail and letters then send the offical letter. Pose that question to your friends please, I am genuinely intrested in their responses. Also I think Moore should ingnore us it is his movie and he can do what he wants with it and we shouldn’t expect it to be our movie or our idea of how the movie should have been made,or for that matter the message. That was my mistake. I guess I’ll ask Hilary and Obama what to do next.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:03 amweldon:
The system is only part of the issue.
August 9th, 2007 at 4:16 pmHey, Run. I agree, but what in particular are you thinking about?
August 9th, 2007 at 5:56 pm