Michael Moore's 'Capitalism: A Love Story'

Byrnzie

This looks good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhydyxRjujU

WaveCameCrashin

If capitalism is so bad then why doesn't he just go get a job?

WaveCameCrashin

Byrnzie wrote:

This looks good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhydyxRjujU

I bet you can't wait :roll:

Byrnzie

prfctlefts wrote:

If capitalism is so bad then why doesn't he just go get a job?

'Michael Francis Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an Academy Award-winning American filmmaker, author and liberal political commentator'.

WaveCameCrashin

and your point is ?

TriumphantAngel

prfctlefts wrote:

and your point is ?

that he already has a job....

WaveCameCrashin

no he doesnt he works for himself...

JOB= Just Over Broke

gimmesometruth27

prfctlefts wrote:

no he doesnt he works for himself...

JOB= Just Over Broke

just over borke? he's rich, bitch...

pray tell, what is it like to be independently wealthy and not have to have a job?? must be a terrible existance... :roll:

Byrnzie

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

no he doesnt he works for himself...

JOB= Just Over Broke

just over borke? he's rich, bitch...

pray tell, what is it like to be independently wealthy and not have to have a job?? must be a terrible existance... :roll:

So anyone who is independently wealthy is irrelevant? Does this also apply to Eddie Vedder and every other artist on the planet?

Byrnzie

Capitalism: A Love Story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep ... ory-review

Michael Moore film Capitalism: A Love Story

If Michael Moore's latest documentary lacks the clean punch of his best-known work, it can only be because the crime scene is so vast, writes Xan Brooks at the Venice film festival

4 out of 5 *

Xan Brooks - guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 September 2009 16.47 BST


'The bankrobbers caught on CCTV at the start of Capitalism: A Love Story are a forlorn and feeble bunch. We see a bedraggled old man in a Hawaiian shirt, and what looks to be a 12-year-old boy wearing a balaclava. For all their flailing efforts, they've got nothing on the real crooks: the banking CEOs who recently absconded with $700bn of public money, no strings attached. That's what's known as a clean getaway.

Michael Moore's latest documentary drew tumultuous applause at the Venice film festival today, suggesting that the veteran tub-thumper has lost none of his power to whip up a response. If the film finally lacks the clean, hard punch provided by the record-breaking Fahrenheit 9/11, that can only be because the crime scene is so vast and the culprits so numerous.

Undeterred, Moore jabs his finger at everyone from Reagan to Bush Jr, Hank Paulson to Alan Greenspan. He drags the viewer through a thicket of insurance scams, sub-prime bubbles and derivative trading so wilfully obfuscatory that even the experts can't explain how it works.

The big villain, of course, is capitalism itself, which the film paints as a wily old philanderer intent on lining the pockets of the few at the expense of the many. America, enthuses a leaked Citibank report, is now a modern-day "plutonomy" where the top 1% of the population control 95% of the wealth. Does Barack Obama's election spell an end to all this? The director has his doubts, pointing out that Goldman Sachs – depicted here as the principal agent of wickedness – was the largest private contributor to the Obama campaign.

Capitalism: A Love Story is by turns crude and sentimental, impassioned and invigorating. It posits a simple moral universe inhabited by good little guys and evil big ones, yet the basic thrust of its argument proves hard to resist.

Crucially, Moore (or at least his researchers) has done a fine job in ferreting out the human stories behind the headlines. None of these is so horrifyingly absurd as the tale of the privatised youth detention centre in Pennsylvania, run with the help of a crooked local judge who railroaded kids through his court for a cut of the profits. Some 6,500 children were later found to have been wrongly convicted for such minor infractions as smoking pot and "throwing a piece of steak at my mom's boyfriend". The subsequent bill for their incarceration went directly to the taxpayer.

Moore's conclusion? That capitalism is both un-Christian and un-American, an evil that deserves not regulation but elimination. No doubt he had concluded all this anyway, well in advance of making the film, but no matter. There is something energising – even moving – about the sight of him setting out to prove it all over again. Like some shambling Columbo, he amasses the evidence, takes witness statements from the victims and then starts doorstepping the guilty parties.

"I need some advice!" Moore shouts to some hastening Wall Street trader who has just left his office. "Don't make any more movies!" the man shoots back. Moore chuckles at that, but the last laugh is his. This, more than any other, is the movie they will wish he had never embarked on.

catefrances

TriumphantAngel wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

and your point is ?

that he already has a job....

he means why doesnt moore get a 'real' job.

Byrnzie

catefrances wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

and your point is ?

that he already has a job....

he means why doesnt moore get a 'real' job.

At least the level of 'fashionable' criticism of Michael Moore has evolved from 'He's a fat piece of shit' to 'Why doesn't he get a 'real' job'? I can see that some progress has been made here by these yahoo's.

Come to think of it, didn't George Dubya say to Michael Moore that he should get himself a real job? Hmm, yes he did...in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Who said originality was dead? And paraphrasing George Dubya to boot! Onwards and upwards!

WaveCameCrashin

No my point is that Moore is hypocrite. If he thinks that capitalism is so bad than why doesent he just show his movie for free.

catefrances

Byrnzie wrote:

catefrances wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

he means why doesnt moore get a 'real' job.

At least the level of 'fashionable' criticism of Michael Moore has evolved from 'He's a fat piece of shit' to 'Why doesn't he get a 'real' job'? I can see that some progress has been made here by these yahoo's.

Come to think of it, didn't George Dubya say to Michael Moore that he should get himself a real job? Hmm, yes he did...in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Who said originality was dead? And paraphrasing George Dubya to boot! Onwards and upwards!

*shivers*
for unintentionally paraphrasing dubya. thanks for bringing that to my attention steve. :P

Byrnzie

prfctlefts wrote:

No my point is that Moore is hypocrite. If he thinks that capitalism is so bad than why doesent he just show his movie for free.

Why don't you ask the same of anybody else? Do you ask Pearl Jam to perform for you for free and just give you their albums and t-shirts?

And besides, since when does criticizing the system of Capitalism constitute wanting everything to be free?

Byrnzie

catefrances wrote:

*shivers*
for unintentionally paraphrasing dubya. thanks for bringing that to my attention steve. :P

No, not you. You didn't paraphrase anybody. You were explaining what someone else was trying to say. You've clearly not had enough coffee this morning Cat. Go get the kettle on.

Byrnzie

I like this description:

'Moore's conclusion? That capitalism is both un-Christian and un-American, an evil that deserves not regulation but elimination. No doubt he had concluded all this anyway, well in advance of making the film, but no matter. There is something energising – even moving – about the sight of him setting out to prove it all over again. Like some shambling Columbo, he amasses the evidence, takes witness statements from the victims and then starts doorstepping the guilty parties...' :P

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

No my point is that Moore is hypocrite. If he thinks that capitalism is so bad than why doesent he just show his movie for free.

Why don't you ask the same of anybody else? Do you ask Pearl Jam to perform for you for free and just give you their albums and t-shirts?

And besides, since when does criticizing the system of Capitalism constitute wanting everything to be free?

Not sure i\I'd go there...Pearl Jam has been creeping away from their ideals in regards to prices for tickets & merch since 2003.

I'm interested in seeing it. I'm not a big fan of Moore by any means. But mostly because I do not like his way of filmaking, I think he tries to make it more about himself than the story. And I think it's been getting worse in each film. Though, my least favorite of his (despite my agreement that more gun control is needed) is Bowling for columbine.

I do find it kinda funny that for the most part, he takes something that has happened and then documents his point of view on why it happened. Why this is important to look at things and figure out the mistakes so they aren't made again, his attacks are pretty cold for someone who has no answers himself.

It's a lot easier to look back than to look ahead.

WaveCameCrashin

Byrnzie wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

No my point is that Moore is hypocrite. If he thinks that capitalism is so bad than why doesent he just show his movie for free.

Why don't you ask the same of anybody else? Do you ask Pearl Jam to perform for you for free and just give you their albums and t-shirts?

And besides, since when does criticizing the system of Capitalism constitute wanting everything to be free?

Well for one Im not a mooch and
why the hell would I do that. :roll: I don't mind paying $85 to see pj or spending $ at the merch booth. It's not that capitalism is bad its just there are alot of corporations that have taken advantage of the system. Let me ask you something.. Would you rather have a profitable business of your own or work for someone else who told what time you had to be at work,what time you could go home, when you could take a vacation,and how much they thought you were worth. Or would you rather be your own boss ?
And like I said I think he's a hypocrite because the same system that he is bashing is the same system that has allowed him to make his movies more than $170 million and make him a very wealthy man.Why doesn't he go try to make his movies Venezuela,N. Korea,or Cuba.

cincybearcat

prfctlefts wrote:

It's not that capitalism is bad its just there are alot of corporations that have taken advantage of the system.

Interesting quote I just learned from Herbert Hoover...

"The only thing wrong with capitalism is capitalists. They're just too darn greedy"

I may be paraphrasing a bit, but that's how I remember it.

Brisk.

People have been saying stuff like why is he then make a capitalist venture etc but I believe this could be answered with him being able to make more documentries like this and others, if he makes everything for free then he can't exactly carry on making doc's to create change.

cincybearcat

Brisk. wrote:

People have been saying stuff like why is he then make a capitalist venture etc but I believe this could be answered with him being able to make more documentries like this and others, if he makes everything for free then he can't exactly carry on making doc's to create change.

Or, maybe he's just a big fat hypocrite. :shock:

Byrnzie

prfctlefts wrote:

Would you rather have a profitable business of your own or work for someone else who told what time you had to be at work,what time you could go home, when you could take a vacation,and how much they thought you were worth. Or would you rather be your own boss ?

Please explain what this has to do with the corrupt banking system and the fact that 2% of the worlds population own 50% of the wealth. Thanks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

prfctlefts wrote:

And like I said I think he's a hypocrite because the same system that he is bashing is the same system that has allowed him to make his movies more than $170 million and make him a very wealthy man.Why doesn't he go try to make his movies Venezuela,N. Korea,or Cuba.

So anybody living in a rich western country is a hypocrite if they shed some light on the corruption inherent in their countries system? He's Canadian, not Venezuelan, North Korean, or Cuban. Next you'll be telling him to 'Love it, or leave it'.

Random_Wookie

i will watch this movie and hoepfully get a good laught out of it. As micheal moore's ability to make a documentary should be question, before you belive a word that comes out of his mouth. Just buy watching the seen in the preview where the people are coming out of the office and he is standing their saying can you tell me what this means, is just an atempt by him to land a few cheap shots and make the movie more about him. Of course the system is harsh, but what system is better?

Byrnzie

Random_Wookie wrote:

Just buy watching the seen in the preview where the people are coming out of the office and he is standing their saying can you tell me what this means, is just an atempt by him to land a few cheap shots and make the movie more about him.

It's his style of documentary film-making. It's the same gonzo style that he's been employing since 'T.V Nation' and 'The Awful Truth' and that resulted in him being awarded an Oscar for best documentary. And why is injecting humour into a movie suddenly a bad thing? You call it a cheap shot? Why?

Once again, it's just fashionable to knock Michael Moore and everyone steps in line.

Random_Wookie wrote:

Of course the system is harsh, but what system is better?

One that's regulated and transparent?

Brisk.

cincybearcat wrote:

Brisk. wrote:

People have been saying stuff like why is he then make a capitalist venture etc but I believe this could be answered with him being able to make more documentries like this and others, if he makes everything for free then he can't exactly carry on making doc's to create change.

Or, maybe he's just a big fat hypocrite. :shock:

sure, either way but thats just the answer to that question, i dont really have a stance on his movies and i've watched quite a few of them.

Random_Wookie

Byrnzie wrote:

Random_Wookie wrote:

Of course the system is harsh, but what system is better?

One that's regulated and transparent?

but was it not the loaning of money to people who could not pay it back, one of the reasons for crash. We can live in hope that we can get a deceant system in place?

Random_Wookie

Byrnzie wrote:

It's his style of documentary film-making. It's the same gonzo style that he's been employing since 'T.V Nation' and 'The Awful Truth' and that resulted in him being awarded an Oscar for best documentary. And why is injecting humour into a movie suddenly a bad thing? You call it a cheap shot? Why?

Once again, it's just fashionable to knock Michael Moore and everyone steps in line.

I call it a cheap shot as he will use it to try and prove a point that people who work in the industry dont know the basics (in relation to him standing out the front of an office). But all it should be seen is a bunch of office workers running off to get lunch,go home, or something along those lines. As for him reciving an oscar for best documentary in my mind does not mean he can make a documentary. It just means that the pannel of people who decied the oscars think it was worth one, but was it? Granted i found the awful truth funny and enjoyed watching it.

catefrances

Byrnzie wrote:

catefrances wrote:

*shivers*
for unintentionally paraphrasing dubya. thanks for bringing that to my attention steve. :P

No, not you. You didn't paraphrase anybody. You were explaining what someone else was trying to say. You've clearly not had enough coffee this morning Cat. Go get the kettle on.

and change my name to polly????

Byrnzie

Random_Wookie wrote:

As for him reciving an oscar for best documentary in my mind does not mean he can make a documentary.

Righteo. :?

catefrances

Random_Wookie wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

It's his style of documentary film-making. It's the same gonzo style that he's been employing since 'T.V Nation' and 'The Awful Truth' and that resulted in him being awarded an Oscar for best documentary. And why is injecting humour into a movie suddenly a bad thing? You call it a cheap shot? Why?

Once again, it's just fashionable to knock Michael Moore and everyone steps in line.

I call it a cheap shot as he will use it to try and prove a point that people who work in the industry dont know the basics (in relation to him standing out the front of an office). But all it should be seen is a bunch of office workers running off to get lunch,go home, or something along those lines. As for him reciving an oscar for best documentary in my mind does not mean he can make a documentary. It just means that the pannel of people who decied the oscars think it was worth one, but was it? Granted i found the awful truth funny and enjoyed watching it.

i do believe the oscars are peer voted.. therefore it would be assumed that those documentary makers who do this shit for a living thought moore was worth the award. but what would they know, right??