Easily the world's most controversial and well-known filmmaker, Moore has successfully sparked nation-wide debate on such topics as health care (Sicko), gun control (Bowling For Columbine), and war (Fahrenheit 9/11). And now, with the sarcastically titled Capitalism: A Love Story, he has taken on an epic foe, the economic system Americans have largely accepted as the foundation of all prosperity and innovation.
Through personal, heart-wrenching stories of working-class woe, from a foreclosed family farm to a widow who lost her husband to cancer only to learn that his employer made a profit on his death, Moore paints a stark portrait of the forsaken everyday American.
Set against the backdrop of the 700 billion dollar bailout of Wall St., these emotional tales seem all the more unfair. Indeed, it is with these teary-eyed scenes that the film is at its most compelling. Moore takes pains to point out that these individuals are not necessarily of the same political mind as the filmmaker. At one point, the camera scrolls away from the widow and reveals a George W. Bush commemorative plate on her mantle.
Dead Peasants and the Richest One Percent
The most striking stories in the film revolve around two families who lost loved ones to illness and later found out that the corporations who employed them had secretly taken out a life insurance policy on their workers (called "dead peasants" insurance) and subsequently made millions following their deaths. Wal-Mart, Bank of America, and Proctor and Gamble are among a horde of corporations who actively pursue this policy.
Moore does not fear being criticized for crass sentimentalism- one shot features the family, kids included, all sitting around the living room watching home videos of their deceased mother. The film is stronger when Moore is willing to take these kind of risks. If these everyday Americans are willing to allow Moore into their homes, cameras and all, shouldn't the viewer trust him enough to take his perspective seriously?
Capitalism makes use of statistics in the form of graphs and narration to tell a story of a structure that is failing the poor. Moore repeatedly sites the fact that the richest one percent hold more wealth than the bottom ninety-five percent combined. After hearing this same statistic time and again, it starts to sound like a rant without solutions. This is one of the pitfalls of the film; just what does Moore offer as an alternative to the capitalist system as we know it?
Solutions: Democracy, Socialism, or a Friendlier Capitalism?
Moore suggests, through interviews with religious leaders, senators, and friends, that capitalism as we know it is an evil that cannot be reformed.
But as an example of how things ought to be, we are taken to a bread factory in which all of the decisions are made democratically and the profits split evenly. Yet, this factory still thrives under the current system, a hard to reconcile point if capitalism is truly beyond reform.
Moore is reluctant to advocate socialism, instead opting to suggest capitalism can be replaced by democracy. While a more robust democracy would be a welcome change, it would not in and of itself dissolve our economic system. Socialism as an alternative winds up being the elephant in the room, Moore seems to point toward it without any real acknowledgement of its role in the debate.
Perhaps the most realistic outcome of this film is that it draws much needed attention to some of the cruel consequences of unbridled corporate greed. Following the opening of Capitalism, Representative Luis Gutierrez of Chicago has introduced legislation to end dead peasants insurance. Who says a documentary cannot influence the course of history?
Capitalism: A Love Story is out now in theaters.
 |
