Reviews » Capitalism: A Love Story
Love in the Time of Capitalism
Modern mediums of art and film have provided extraordinary opportunities to deliver messages of change, and at times, offering insight on how to do so. Without a doubt, as a connoisseur of cinematographic philosophy, Michael Moore has continually grappled with interpretations of a world around him; yet changing the collective perception of his viewers has never been a simple task.
In his latest attempt at siphoning the gas out of Corporate America’s fuel tank, Moore takes on a colossal topic in his new movie Capitalism: A Love Story. Resuscitating the creativity, talent and jarring techniques of cinematography within the Mooresque Genre, this one time Academy Award winning director once again captures the underpinnings of a society gone awry—namely those underpinnings that reveal the imbalance between the haves and have-nots. And true to form, Moore has created yet another brilliant film that is sure to be viewed by millions of people in the years to come. Notwithstanding this positive impression, the movie does leave itself vulnerable to criticism, especially the type of criticism that questions Moore’s ability to critique the fundamentals of Capitalism.
Perhaps when viewing such a late-modern salvo toward the powers that be, Karl Marx himself might have rolled over in his grave had he witnessed the lack of complexity and reflexivity of Moore’s production; yet in doing so, he may just as well have rolled ever-so-slightly over that “invisible hand of the market” that Adam Smith so eloquently described in his 1776 book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. That is to say that while Moore may have compromised complexity for clarity, he nonetheless managed to democratize a critical view of a system that has ostensibly created major financial damage throughout the world.
To begin, the title of “Capitalism” can be misleading. Yet if one has ever seen Moore’s films then they would probably agree that a misleading title isn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, in this case, the sardonic title did seem to make an enormous semiotic difference. For example, I was left wondering to what extent this production was really a critique of Capitalism. That is, is Moore’s film a critique that extends back to the original engines of an economic system that is now showing signs of wear? Or is it simply criticism of a corrupt minority, neatly wrapped up in a banner of capitalistic nuance and served to unassuming audiences?
To be sure, Moore does wrestle with advocating for the people that make up “Main Street,” and not the possessions that make up the culture of consumption driven by Wall Street. In several scenes, Moore documents foreclosures and the loss of the lifestyle that comes with owning a home. Although I understand that Moore, and many like him, are critiquing the system that advances mechanisms of debt and usury, I was left puzzled about how he can separate the private ownership of repossessed homes from the private ownership of homes in general? That is, I find it confusing that a message of dismantling the very economic system that provides the opportunity to own private property would be accompanied by a message of giving this property back to private owners. Furthermore, has Moore disregarded an entire economic system because of its greedy tendencies, or is he more selective in his argument and thus attuned toward accepting this system insofar as the wealth at stake is evenly distributed?
In a humorous move to explain Capitalism, Moore consults Wallace Shawn—yes, the actor that played the role of the dodgy “Vizzini” in the Princess Bride! And although I waited earnestly for Shawn to sputter that now classic line “Inconceivable!” he instead illustrated the inconceivability of the Capitalist enterprise. Providing a bare-boned description of Capitalism’s theoretical beginnings, Shawn describes the practice of consumption through free-enterprise as a clever way of of voting for the worth of commodities—a description that does little to establish a substantive explanation of Capitalism. Although I can appreciate the attempt at comic relief, I believe Moore misses an opportunity to confer with true experts, especially as he does so strategically later on in the movie when the subject of Wall Street emerges.
Indeed, the subject of Wall Street receives a great deal of attention, where Moore scrutinizes the irresponsibility of a system immersed in gluttony. The strategic trickery of financial schemes intentionally sold to the novice investor, yet created to fail and generate profit, lead Moore through a labyrinth of incomprehensible terminology where he finally concludes that Wall Street, like gambling casinos, are always designed to protect the profits of the House and not the gambler. This simile is certainly striking and one soon receives the impression that perhaps the phrase “liberty and justice for all” may have actually always meant “liberty and justice for some.” And so Moore opens more eyes to the world of exploitation, but why then has this movie received so little success in contrast to Moore’s other blockbusters? Is the answer really found in the unmanageability of the subject or could it be timing?
Unlike Moore’s last four major movies, the timing for the release of Capitalism was not accompanied by a single effervescent event that provoked anger or even challenged viewers to resist. Instead, the gradual digressions of the Capitalist system seem to take place within individually-based social vacuums, never allowing for people to stay very angry for very long. For Roger and Me in 1989, there was the unprecedented downsizing and subsequent out-sourcing of jobs by General Motors that resonated with all working-class people around the country—especially those that had witnessed the atrocities in Poletown. In a timely fashion, tackling the topic of school-shootings and gun violence, all of which was still fresh in the minds the nation some three after the tragic events in Colorado, Moore released Bowling for Columbine. And of course Fahrenheit 9/11 could not have been released at a more opportune time with the escalation of war and the gradual disclosure the Bush Administration’s patriotic propaganda. So Capitalism: A Love Story sprung up in the midst of a major financial crisis, but if one lives their whole life in such a crisis does Moore do little else than state the obvious? He certainly does push a new envelope that may be one the greatest segments of the film when Moore invokes religion.
In a highly provocative set of scenes Moore draws connections between the intentional institutionalization of the profit motive and tenets of Christianity—a Christianity that is, in theory, designed to care for the meek. Exposing the ironies within this contradictory union, Moore brings to fore a hilarious depiction of Christ’s Passion where Jesus himself delivers modern-day rebuttals to the current state of insurance coverage, profiteering and exploitation. Moore even went a step further by consulting a variety of Catholic clergy about the sinfulness of Capitalism; a consultation that confirmed Capitalism was in fact a sin.
At that point in the movie Capitalism was now the faceless yet omnipresent antagonist, performing a tragedy of sinful greed and exploitation, while churning out idiomatic conundrums in an effort to ruse the public. So what then, one might ask, does Moore offer as a solution? Socialism? Communism? No, the solution is much more obvious though somehow confined to Civics 101—the topic, Democracy, the solution, public participation. The only thing missing is someone to direct traffic toward change. Moore “drinks the cool-aid” on the subject by introducing change through the neologism of the “Obama-Effect,” deviating largely from his fervent modus operandi where no one is safe from scrutiny. With a heart-felt delivery Moore applauds the Obama Administration for attempting to clean-up eight years of the an economic and political disaster. For once, it seems that paying homage to something other than Flint, Michigan has driven Moore’s savvy sense of the audience’s emotional procurement.
Ultimately Moore is right on target with this movie. It is time to see the larger picture and Moore has certainly provided this for his audience. However, regardless of the connotations it has acquired over the years, Capitalism in the raw is not merely a social system that undermines one’s agency, as much as it is an economic system that presents a cadre of social realities which serve to influence one’s entire existence. Moore attacks vital regions of the Capitalist body, yet fails to command control over the the central nervous system from which Capitalism receives its commands—largely because such a nervous system is made up of its adherents…that is, frankly speaking, we the people that lack wealth and power!
In the tradition of Antonio Gramsci, our state of cultural hegemony speaks to the way in which the wealthy few have reigned over all other classes, which can only be attributed to our subconscious support of the very system that confines us. In fact, Capitalism may be the only system in history where the aftermath of its destruction is blamed largely on ancillary reasons, rather than the system itself. To criticize such a broad topic simply cannot resonate with all viewers. Problems with topics as vague as this are indelibly difficult to manage in any amount of time, much less two hours and seventeen minutes. To rely upon the principles of Democracy as a concluding theme for change may have been even more vague for the audience’s digestive track. Yet for Moore, the undertaking of such topics appears to be an avocation that he executes as well as any other contemporary director. In the end, the People of our times do need Michael Moore’s films and given enough time movies like Capitalism will go beyond a mere interpretation of a world, and instead, change it!
JGCinema - Jura Gentium Cinema - Cinema and Globalization