Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)
Directed by Michael Moore
Capitalism: A Love Story is, in a way, too ambitious for its own good. Its title feels like the one we’ve always wanted from Moore. Anyone seeing at least one of Moore’s documentaries knows that his films are about certain aspects of the American society and are essentially case studies: Bowling for Columbine was depicting violence and fear conducting to violence in America, while Sicko was polemically discussing the American health care system. Maybe his most subtle film to date, Roger & Me, his first film, was concerned with the decay of Flint, Michigan, due to the closing of the General Motors factory. Beyond his subjects, his attentive viewers could imagine always the big picture, with other similar communities and corresponding stories; that’s why Michael Moore’s films seem to be about the United States in general. At times hinting at the Canadian mentalities or praising French social policies as clearly opposed to the American ones, Moore always insists that there something wrong with the American people, although we’re not always told what. Well, Capitalism: A Love Story seemed like the film that will allow Michael Moore to put his finger on the problem: it’s not only corruption or greed leading to corruption, but the whole system, the capitalism itself, which is supposed to be guilty for how bad things are in the United States. Could Michael Moore bring enough evidence for his theory? It seemed so, at least during the financial crisis that Capitalism: A Love Story was picturing: according to statistics that Moore quotes towards the end of the film, the Americans still trusted the capitalism, but were strangely more and more drawn towards socialism too. This was enough proof that the capitalist system wasn’t working anymore for the majority of the people, and Moore knew that his film was supposed to be something more substantial than the daily headlines. Until a certain point, it is more substantial: there are in his film quite a few moments, of course, merciless manipulated in Moore’s usual style, with less concern for “objectivity”, moments that allow the film to quit the numbers and get interested in real people, in their stories and their sometimes tragic experiences with American corporations. Then, where’s the love story? Few can tell only after watching the movie, and Moore has to explain over and over in interviews that the title is about the financial elite’s love of money: that’s the actual love story. It makes sense one it’s explained, but the film is obscure enough not to let you understand Moore’s meaning of the title or, eventually, his overall aims. After all, why is capitalism evil? The cases found by Moore are excellent food for thought and they should scandalize, but the overall, deductive demonstration is nowhere to be found.
 |
 |
The film is quite imprecise when it comes to using specific terms and concepts; historically, capitalism equals the actual political system, with his origins in the Reagan era. We are told enough about deregularisation and free market, as we are told that capitalism with regularization in its key sectors is quite acceptable for Moore’s views. But then Moore opposes capitalism and democracy, without considering even once all the literature that finds this opposition unacceptable. Having a closer look, Moore’s concept of “democracy” doesn’t even fit its definitions; for him, democracy isn’t just a political reality, which allows you to elect a nominee from a list, but also an economic reality, giving you the right to a minimal wealth level. How many don’t actually think that this is what capitalism and democracy should be? Nevertheless, in his crusade for a greater good, Moore confuses the definitions with his projections of what those terms should stand for. Hence, according to the definitions and no matter what Moore says, the United States is politically a representative democracy, allowing the universal suffrage; according to Moore’s own projections, it’s not, because it doesn’t allow a fair access to wealth. No matter if you agree with Moore or not, even before deciding if you would rather live in Moore’s “democracy”, it’s obvious that this “democracy” is something different than the political democracy. His project actually resembles more an egalitarian utopia or even socialism, but Moore prefers the term “democracy” instead. Why? Why doesn’t he discuss this in the actual terms?
 |
 |
It’s a fact that the Capitalism: A Love Story was shaped by the economic context and its original intentions were changed: no more a sequel for Fahrenheit 9/11, it became a philippic against corporate America. The problem is that those shifts from one subject to another are still visible. Michael Moore’s latest film begins almost like Roger & Me: people are evicted from their own houses since they don’t afford to pay their installments anymore. Towards the end of the film, the theme is reprised, as a democrat representative instigates people to disobedience: they shouldn’t leave their houses no matter what. In the structure of the film, themes are reprised in a similar manner several times; sometimes you’re getting the impression that they’re abruptly abandoned in favor of something else, without a strong connection. It’s obvious that Moore tries to shape the heterogeneous episodes into a structure, but overall it feels more like he’s delivering a bittersweet monologue, randomly connecting various subjects. Thereby, specific parts from Moore’s films are memorable, but it’s a mystery how he thought he could make his point with such disparate scenes. Hardly for the neophytes, Capitalism: A Love Story would deliver equally for the fans and the skeptics what’s expected of a Michael Moore film: a pamphlet, mixing facts and opinions, more or less a pastiche of Moore’s usual style.
