Kapitalismus: Eine Liebesgeschichte

Michael Moore has never been objective. No documentary maker ever was. When you chose a subject, you've already taken some kind of position and Moore doesn't try to hide what he thinks.

And he shows us worker's families being driven from their homes and brokers making profit on it. He shows business companies taking life insurances on their employed and taking all the money when the employed dies. He says that the Congress is in the hands of Wall Street and especially Goldman and Sachs. There are more examples.

The interesting question is why Michael Moore is so alone making these kind of films in the US. The answer is probably that the investors don't want him or anybody else to do them. They want to go on, treating the American people in the most terrifying ways. And since money seems to decide so much in that country, such films are very seldom made. But you're not supposed to know.

I saw the movie last night at a free screening. The theater was packed and after the movie started you could not hear a sound from the audience for the rest of the two hours besides two or three times when applause errupted.

You could feel that everybody in the audience really got the message.

I only hope that Michael's parting words will come true and everybody will join his fight. As long as we are being led like pigs to the slaughter nothing will change. We have to stand up against the insurance companies, the exploiting employers, the greedy merchants, the predatory lenders. If we all say no, things will change.

I will not be punished again for pre-existent conditions, car accidents caused by somebody else, retributions because somebody stole my wallet and I was punished. I will not fall buy trash anymore which breaks in a short time and cannot be repaired. I will not be talked into buying useless gimmicks which change every few months. etc.etc.

Thank you Michael Moore, without you, I would have lost hope a long time ago.

Michael Moore's latest feature, Capitalism: A Love Story, has everything I could want from one of his films: a hotly debated and relevant issue, information, personal accounts, funny clips, and great music. I enjoy seeing his films not so much to be informed, which I feel he does quite well, but to be entertained. That is something rare with a documentary. I don't think you can say the same about An Inconvenient Truth.

Love him or hate him, Moore makes a fantastic film. This time he takes one the recent economic turmoil this country has been facing for the past year or so. Moore traces it's roots back to the Reagan administration on up. He presents a lot of facts, memos, and documents some companies and banks would not like us to see, but he does it because the people have a right to know.

I can't say much about what went on because Moore presents a lot of data, but to the best of my ability I can say that there is an awful lot of shady activity going on behind closed doors. We look at the bail out plan proposed to congress. We see how companies like Goldman Sachs infiltrates the government and starts doing their own bidding. We see companies spend their money frivolously while workers and homeowners are losing their jobs and livelihood. Some of these banks and groups do terrible things that force people into uncomfortable and downright oppressive situations.

One thing I expected to see from this film was Moore perspective and nothing else. I don't know what information he is withholding and what truths he is stretching, but I am impressed with how convincing some of his arguments and testimonials are. He plays on our heartstrings like a trained musician, hitting home with issues involving blue collar Americans struggling to keep their jobs, their homes, and their families together.

Aside from the content of the film, the actual film itself is very well put together. He makes excellent use of stock footage from the 50s and 60s, weaving them perfectly to fit the film's flow. One thing Moore does better than most is his use of music to drive home a point or a feeling. Be it classical, rock, or country, Moore blends it all together quite nicely.

This film makes you think. It makes you angry. It makes you want to do something, and that's okay. That is what a film is supposed to do. It is designed to evoke some sort of emotion and help spring it forth. That's not to say you should go out and do something drastic, but it will at least make for excellent conversation amongst friends and coworkers.

Controversial documentarian Michael Moore has taken on some important news topics over the past two decades but perhaps none has affected every American more than the financial meltdown of Wall Street in 2008 as depicted in Capitalism: A Love Story. Done in his customary style of news clips, interviews, and enactments, he has fashioned a convincing indictment of greedy bank executives while being engaging and at times enlightening.

He points out a startling fact: We used to be one income family, Wall Street and corporate profits were guided by sound principles, and our country had no business competition. It's a kind of history lesson courtesy of Moore as he also notes parallels between the demise of Wall Street and that of the Roman Empire, a comparison not without merit. His thesis is that since President Ronald Reagan came into office, the influence of Wall Street has increased to the point that, while Congress and the U.S. Treasury have promoted financial deregulation, many of them have direct links to financial giants such as Goldman Sachs. It would seem on surface to be a major conflict of interest, and that is the point. A handful of CEO's have benefited from running the country as a corporation and costing millions of jobs and livelihoods.

Moore ties news stories to an increasing pattern of corporate greed. There is a juvenile facility in Pennsylvania financed by taxpayer money and corrupt public officials. There are college students beholden to banks with student loans, and we witness news reports of a recent plane crash in Buffalo, New York, for what appears to be the lack of funds for safety issues. Then there is the surprising practice of businesses like Wal-Mart that take out life insurance policies on its employees and collecting on the benefits. By contrast, he does show examples of companies owned by workers that operate efficiently and at a profit. His point is there can be win-win situations.

As Wall Street sold 'derivatives', a risky form of corporate gambling, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan suggested that Americans tap the equity in their homes, and thus came the refinance boom for banks and a new found wealth for the masses-or was it? Using a home like a bank was a formula for financial disaster as the housing industry collapsed with foreclosures and the banking industry fell too. Moore makes his point with footage of actual foreclosures as sheriffs evict homeowners, and the cruelty is not only losing a home but in the cottage industry that has taken advantage of this agonizing process. Added to this is the preferential treatment that CEO's gave to each other and many lawmakers regarding mortgage approvals. The question that keeps being asked by Moore and others is 'where were the regulators' in all this?

As Congress debated on how to repair the economy with a bailout of as much as $700 billion of taxpayer money, Wall Street used media abetted fear to manipulate lawmakers. It was a politics of fear. But not everyone was buying into the fear. Some members of Congress were brave enough to tell a sobering tale of a lack of oversight versus corporate bonuses being fed by the bailout.

Moore shows that some people are fighting back. A new President (Obama) ushers in the potential for change. People are fighting foreclosures and forcing banks to prove chain of title. The laid off workers at Republic Doors refused to exit the factory, and with media coverage and a supportive President, Bank of America caves in and agrees to pay the workers what is owed to them. This event is not without precedent as Moore points out in 1936, workers at a GM Flint, Michigan plant also fought back. In an ironic, fascinating piece of history of what might have been, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed but never lived to see a second Bill of Rights which would address virtually every important concern for Americans including health care, education, and financial security.

Then Moore makes this observation based on a private corporate memo that says 1% of the population in this country has 95% of the wealth but that the other 99% have an equal vote and the power to make changes (yet still hope to be part of the rich). It is this equal vote that scares the corporate powers. His conclusion is that the only hope for this country is for democracy to work.

Some things don't come off well in the film; Moore appears to be grandstanding when he rents an armored car to make a citizen's arrest of the CEOs of Wall Street and get back the public's money. He even takes crime scene tape to cordon off bank doors. Also, an interview with actor Wallace Shawn seems a bit out of place. Wouldn't an interview with an industry insider have worked better? You may not agree with everything Moore espouses, but some of the information should cause anyone to research the facts and draw their own conclusions. If you are a fan of his previous films Sicko or Fahrenheit 9/11, then you will appreciate Capitalism: A Love Story.

Economics. Who in their right mind would try and make a feature length film about that subject? Michael Moore's previous work that included subjects about guns, General Motors, and George W. Bush, to the audience these were clear points for us to identify with, or in most cases, against.

In his new film, Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore attempts demystify what economics and capitalism really mean to the vast majority of Americans. This is no easy feat. I must admit the first quarter of the film had me doubting if he would secede. I am not going to sit by and say that people who took out adjustable rate mortgages and then were foreclosed are not at all to blame. They bear a good share of personal responsibility. But so do the lenders who were drooling to make a profit via the art of deception.

Soon afterwards we are presented with an example of capitalism gone awry. A judge in a US town was locking up juvenile offenders, for "crimes" such as throwing meat or criticizing a vice-principal online. The prison was a privately run corporation that was sending financial kickbacks to the very judge who was locking these kids up on absurd charges. Granted this was just one example, but a shocking one that could make you question just what are American values. This is where the film really started to get interesting. Are capitalism and Christianity compatible? What becomes of capitalism when you strip out regulation? Who actually controls the government of The United States of America, the top 1% or the bottom 95%? When the markets crashed last fall and the banks cried uncle, where was the oversight by our elected officials regarding the bailout funds?

These are questions, and some answers, that make Moore's documentary effective and engaging. While he is reflecting upon the past he is also asking us, what are we going to do about it in the future?