Review: Capitalism: A Love Story

Michael Moore, love him or loath him, is the film maker of the poor. He is the modern day Frank Capra, showing the misery of the downtrodden and campaigning for the underclass. His latest movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, is no exception to this characterization.

Disclaimer: Michael Moore is not a communist spy trying to show the benefits of socialism over capitalism. He is simply questioning that a free market, unregulated capitalist economy is really beneficial to all Americans. Throughout part of the film Moore actually argues for the idea of injecting democratic philosophies (i.e. everyone has an equal voice) into the American workplace.

Though the title was never fully explained, the movie as a whole deals with American big banking and its control over the lives of the American people. The viewpoints presented in this film are enough to make just about anyone’s mouth hang open in shock and disgust. Now don’t get me wrong, I do not believe every little nuanced piece in Moore’s tale as indisputable fact, and acknowledge many of the scenes to be very biased, but they are biased towards the common people. Anyone saying that Moore unfairly attacks Capitalism and believes he should show both sides does not get the true intent of the film. Moore is not trying to destroy the idea of capitalism; he is simply showing how ugly it has become due to greed.

No one denies that Moore likes to shake things up and grandstand. In this film, he makes a point by trying to make a citizens arrest of various big-shot CEOs and putting crime scene tape around the NYSE building. Many people dislike him for these tactics, but to me, at least he is doing something that others are afraid or refuse to do. Some may call him a hypocrite because capitalism allowed him to make these movies and gain notoriety from them. Again, Moore is not saying that capitalism does not have its advantages for those who know how to exploit it, he is saying that it creates the false idea that anybody can work hard and become rich when that is clearly not the case. This 'golden carrot', as he puts it, is dangled in front of the middle class, tantalizing them by offering riches for hard work, thus allowing the rich elite to continue to get away with dubious behavior.

In the movie, Moore railed against Reagan’s idea of the “trickle down” economic effect. Moore argues that when companies are given billions of dollars by the government bailout and rather than use it to fund employees’ pensions or provide severance pay if they are forced to lay off workers, they spend it on parties and bonuses for the top tier of the company, that shows a fundamental breakdown of the ideals of Reagan’s economic plan.

In the film, Moore also documents the lives of many people who have been negatively affected by the economy. He shows people who have lost their homes, their jobs, and their family because of corporate misconduct. In these instances it is clear that Moore is trying to make the viewer empathetic to their situation in an obviously biased fashion. But what he also does in turn is display notions that many Americans may not be aware of that he, due to his clout, has access to. One example is his discussion of the “Dead Peasant” insurance policy in which companies take out life insurance on their low level employees, allowing them to receive large sums of compensation if the employee should pass away, unbeknownst to the employee or his/her family. The idea that companies are trying to benefit from the death of a human being is a sickening idea no matter what political fence you straddle.

Despite Moore’s attempt at clarity, there are, however, parts of the film where his intent and opinion aren’t fully known. Instances where he is throwing a barrage of facts and statistics at the viewer make it sometimes difficult to comprehend what he wants the viewer to feel or what point he is trying to make. His discussion of the danger of derivatives, however poignant, ended up being lost in a sea of charts and facts. Part of his discussion of ‘Reagonomics’ also seemed lost in charts that added little meaningful substance to the argument.

Despite the lack of lucidity of portions of the film, the single thing that impressed me the most was Moore’s intent to incite rebellion and hope in the common people. In this light he distinctly, if subtly, argued for a ‘revolution’ of the middle class against the rich, going on to cite the Obama campaign as a rallying factor for many fed up Americans. Now, do not be mistaken, Moore fervently attacked the democrats as virulently as he did the republicans in citing the political corruption that leads to unregulated corporate greed, taking specific aim at the head of the Banking Committee, Chris Dodd. Moore also encourages his audience by revealing the successes of the downtrodden when they stand up against the corporations. One such instance in the film was a documented six-day sit in strike at a Chicago window factory by former employees who did not receive severance or pension after being laid off which resulted in them receiving their $6,000 severance pay. Whether those successes are temporary or lasting however, it shows a strength and willpower not seen since the civil rights battle of the 60s. This sense of unrest and determination in the common American people was inspiring to me and gave me hope that maybe things can change.

The movie closed with a moving footage of Franklin Roosevelt outlining a plan for an “economic bill of rights” that guaranteed job and home security and the right to a decent living. The plan was laid out only 9 months before he died and never came to pass.

In total, Moore created a very damning documentary that I implore all to see, Democrat or Republican, if not simply to see the scathing realities and taboo topics that corporations attempt to cover up.