I'm not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, those close to me will already know I tend to despise his films. It's not because I always disagree with his thoughts nor because I find his films uninteresting, it's due to his underhanded approach to the subject matter at hand. Never one to stray from one-sided arguments or twisted statistics, Moore presents his opinions as if they are fact and has no qualms in attacking people personally if he feels they are doing something wrong. Does he seriously wonder why politicians or company heads don't comment when he suddenly shoves a microphone and camera in their face? Because it's neither the time nor the place to have a decent, intelligent conversation – but I suspect Moore already knows that.
As you can see, I'm definitely not a huge Moore supporter, which is why Capitalism's enjoyment comes as even more of a surprise to me. Moore still reverts to his same old antics of ambush and theatrics in parts, but thankfully it is kept to a minimum. He is off screen for a major portion of the movie, allowing his interviews and narration to take control instead. No-one doubts the man is both clever and confident (his capturing of young minds all over the Western World attests to this), it's his control and objectivity we want to see, something we get more of here than in his other, lesser, docudramas. This doesn't mean he has lost his passion for the issues, he just takes a more subtle (well, Moore's version of subtle) and intelligent approach to making his point instead of throwing in adolescent-aimed insults and attacks.
His previous efforts at film-making have proved one thing though, Moore knows how to use contrasting images and words to devastating effect. In a few seconds Moore can elicit a thought or sensation by, say, showing us a bird's eye view of the inside of Wall Street which slowly morphs into the inside of a casino. Or by having scenes of a family sleeping in a van head to toe accompanied by Bush delivering a speech on making things better for low-income families. Undeniably persuasive and emotive, a few times they also come across as surreptitious and pervasive; a fine line which Moore blurs intentionally.
If I may put Moore aside for a moment (which is awfully hard to do when he insists on making his films so very Moore-ish), the content explored is tremendously interesting. The debate on capitalism's effectiveness – does it just make the rich richer and the poor poorer? – and the argument for socialism is intriguing enough to warrant further research.
A sturdy picture with a stimulating premise proves that sometimes less is Moore.
3 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 - Classic)
As you can see, I'm definitely not a huge Moore supporter, which is why Capitalism's enjoyment comes as even more of a surprise to me. Moore still reverts to his same old antics of ambush and theatrics in parts, but thankfully it is kept to a minimum. He is off screen for a major portion of the movie, allowing his interviews and narration to take control instead. No-one doubts the man is both clever and confident (his capturing of young minds all over the Western World attests to this), it's his control and objectivity we want to see, something we get more of here than in his other, lesser, docudramas. This doesn't mean he has lost his passion for the issues, he just takes a more subtle (well, Moore's version of subtle) and intelligent approach to making his point instead of throwing in adolescent-aimed insults and attacks.
His previous efforts at film-making have proved one thing though, Moore knows how to use contrasting images and words to devastating effect. In a few seconds Moore can elicit a thought or sensation by, say, showing us a bird's eye view of the inside of Wall Street which slowly morphs into the inside of a casino. Or by having scenes of a family sleeping in a van head to toe accompanied by Bush delivering a speech on making things better for low-income families. Undeniably persuasive and emotive, a few times they also come across as surreptitious and pervasive; a fine line which Moore blurs intentionally.
If I may put Moore aside for a moment (which is awfully hard to do when he insists on making his films so very Moore-ish), the content explored is tremendously interesting. The debate on capitalism's effectiveness – does it just make the rich richer and the poor poorer? – and the argument for socialism is intriguing enough to warrant further research.
A sturdy picture with a stimulating premise proves that sometimes less is Moore.
3 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 - Classic)