
Photo Source: Starpulse.com
Very seldom do I take the time to write about a movie. But last weekend I had a chance to see Capitalism: A Love Story, the new film by Michael Moore, with my daughter. She thought I might like it because it was "about Wall Street" and it "seemed funny" in the previews. Our other movie choice was to see Zombieland. We both wished we had seen Zombieland. I honestly cannot remember watching a movie that was as bad as Capitalism.
Knowing full well that Moore has made less-than-par movies in the past, I still wanted to give him a chance. The movie starts out with what seems to be a historical comparison between the United States and Ancient Rome. With Moore drawing similarities between both societies and asking the question as to whether we might follow the same path as Ancient Rome. But there is where seemingly factual portrayal ends and fantasy begins. The movie is laced with half-truths and opinions, obviously Moore's own perspectives, sometimes completely false, and downright nauseating.
Moore goes on to talk about how the American people have been brainwashed since the 1950s to believe that capitalism was "good." He then goes on to spend several minutes pointing out how President Ronald Reagan helped us to "feel good" about capitalism and the profit motive without knowing the great evil that was among us. Switching between pictures and images of Presidents Reagan and Bush, Moore inserts interview footage of people who are being evicted from their homes, or other tragic circumstances. Somehow, in Moore's mind, Presidents Reagan and Bush are to blame for this. He spends several minutes developing the idea that capitalism is not biblical and even has a Catholic priest making a statement that "Jesus would not condone capitalism." What bible is he reading from? I cannot find any bible reference that states capitalism is evil. But the nausea continues...
The movie tries to dismantle the idea of capitalism, and the "evil" profit motive, but then uses an example of a successful bread company that is employee-owned. Moore states, "The employees each make over $60,000 which is three times as much as employees of other similar companies." Hello! This is called "free enterprise," i.e. capitalism. And in the employees' own words their incentive is to make a profit-- hence the profit motive! Just a plain contradiction.
He also talks about how the unions have systematically been dismantled and how bank derivative contracts helped cause our financial problems. Here, there is some truth. Apparently, Moore didn't do enough research to realize that more jobs have gone overseas during the 1990s with the implementation of NAFTA and other free trade agreements. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1998 allowed banks to trade high levels of deriviatives on their books. Glass-Steagall was put into place in the 1930s after the 1929 stock market crash to prevent banks from being overzealous with derivatives trading, among other risky operations. Both events took place under the Clinton Administration. Oops. Moore must have overlooked these important facts. He doesn't mention these two key facts at all.
And why does he think that just because he shows up at a Fortune 500 company with a camera, he will get invited in to meet with its CEO? When he showed up at GM's headquarters and was not let inside, he made the comment, "What do I need to do to see someone?" Why not pick up the telephone, Michael, and schedule an appointment instead of showing up un-announced? What Hollywood producer would give someone the time of day if they randomly showed up at their office with cameras rolling?
The so-called "fat cats" and "profiteers" on Wall Street are portrayed as enemies of the American people. What Moore doesn't tell us is that his own net worth is somewhere around $50 million. Gee. Doesn't that make him a "fat cat" too? (No reference intended towards his weight.) He would never have achieved this level of wealth by making these 'B' rated movies anywhere else in the world. China or India perhaps? I doubt it. But he does his best to try to convince the audience that he is on "our" side. Moore has a history of associating with leftists and radicals which goes back to his early days working at "Radio Free Flint" (Michigan.) He even tries to suggest that the Constitution describes socialism as our fore-fathers' intended form of government. More half-truth and opinion.
Perhaps the best part of the movie is when he is shown outside of the NYSE asking for some "advice." One Wall Streeter shouts "Don't make any more movies!" I wish Moore would have taken this man's advice.
One thought I had was to show up in Moore's hometown, Flint, with my camera rolling, to ask for my money back. It cost me $17 to see this garbage he calls a movie. Michael, if you are reading this, just send me a money order.
My suggestion if someone wants to see what Moore's socialist agenda would be like when put into practice-- watch Dr. Zhivago-- a timeless classic which portrays socialism as its best (and worst.) In keeping with the Ancient Rome theme at the movie beginning, I give this movie two thumbs down. I would give more thumbs down but I only have two thumbs.