Moore for your money
Julie R. Neidlinger gets some return on her investment while watching Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story:
[W]hat really hit home, was his direct dealing with how American Christianity has somehow become tied into capitalism when, really, what Jesus preached had nothing to do with anything capitalism espouses.
I have to agree: I don’t think Jesus would have been a capitalist. He expected us to work and take care of each other. Have money? Give it to the poor. The poor will inherit the kingdom. Jesus, who had no home of his own, has more in common with the newly foreclosed-and-homeless than anyone. So, I appreciated that segment of the film the most, and wished it had been longer; it is a topic I’ve been chewing on for years. (I’d recommend reading Shane Claiborne’s Jesus for President book — it’s a book I read when it first came out, and have read more than once since).
To be honest, I’ve always been a little uncomfortable with having “In God We Trust” on our money, because it seems like a bit of a conflict of interest.
“Render unto Caesar,” and so forth.
Then again, Caesar and his successors never did quite get the hang of looking after the poor, something Christians, and, yes, non-Christians, take to heart. A single Andrew Carnegie was, and is, worth an entire battalion of writers of rules and pickers of nits and exploiters of institutionalized poverty. Not that Michael Moore is likely to notice.
Jeffro »
18 October 2009 · 10:54 pm
A single Andrew Carnegie was, and is, worth an entire battalion of writers of rules and pickers of nits and exploiters of institutionalized poverty. Not that Michael Moore is likely to notice.
A-freaking-men.
McGehee »
18 October 2009 · 11:17 pm
Hence, the other half of that “Render unto Caesar” line.
I’ve long since regarded that admonition as evidence that Jesus Himself believed in separation of church and state. Let the state do what it’s best at, and private action take care of the rest — including private acts of charity toward the less fortunate.
Also, if I fell into a massive amount of money and the direction of the government were more simpatico, I would find it far more effective in terms of helping my fellow man, to create actual, productive jobs than to set up charitable endowments or the like.
Lisa Paul »
19 October 2009 · 12:26 am
I’ve just seen Capitalism and have noticed, like with other Moore films, most negative critics just don’t “get” him. Moore never has been, never will be and never professed to be a straight documentarian. He takes on the role of the Fool as in Shakespeare’s great Fools who were the only people privileged — or brave enough — to speak truth to power. (In fact, in Shakespeare’s day, Kings often purposely employed Fools precisely because they needed someone to call them on their shit.)
Moore is not against capitalism. He’s a capitalist himself having come from humble beginnings to make quite a good modest fortune on the back of his own talent. What he is questioning in the film is the gamed system that capitalism has become. It’s not the capitalism that originally built America’s middle class. It’s now a rigged game and the house always wins. But like a giant Ponzi scheme, it perpetuates by advancing the myth that “Hey, work hard and you can all get rich, too.” But the conditions that once allowed that — including the making of an Andrew Carnegie — are quickly eroding.
He posits, not radical revolution, but a return to the democratic system we once had — or maybe making that long ago system even better — so it is more of a level playing field.
And, by the way McGeeHee, he does profile some businesses, specifically the Bay Area’s Alvarado Bakery, where the owner built the business and through fair wages, generous health care packages and profit sharing, has helped his fellow man (his employees) — all while becoming a prosperous business owner.
CGHill »
19 October 2009 · 6:03 am
Just wanted to note here that someone at 74.86.225.187 was pretending to be Lisa and swiped almost her entire comment for use elsewhere. I killed it here, but it may show up somewhere else. (The one above is genuine.)
McGehee »
19 October 2009 · 11:16 am
His recent rhetoric while promoting the film says otherwise.
Frankly, I have no use for him or his work. I’ll make use of my freedom to keep any of my money out of his pockets.
Lisa Paul »
19 October 2009 · 10:24 pm
McGeehee, he’s an expert self-promoter, which, bless his heart, he has to be as a documentarian. But despite his leading statements in interviews, his movie doesn’t support that rhetoric. He castigates only the big guys who’ve rigged the game, but celebrates the capitalists who are playing by the rules. And he keeps saying “I’m against capitalism as it’s become, I’m for Democracy.” Which seems like hairsplitting. He’s also said, with a big grin, that he wanted to make a documentary that would make the big firms sh*t in their pants. So again, lots of political theater, but the thrust of his movie doesn’t play out the hype. Scratch his surface and he’s pretty much a traditional Midwestern kid.
Again, I don’t always agree with him on every point. But he’s the master of the artful juxtaposition. Sometimes, I come out of the theater saying, “No, Michael, those two points are not related.” Sometimes I start to think about possible connections. But at least I’m always thinking as a result of his movies.
Which is more than Transformers did. But then, I’m not the demographic that would appreciate Megan Fox.
Lisa Paul »
19 October 2009 · 10:32 pm
And Chaz, does this mean I’m moving toward the A-List if someone is stealing my comments? I’m also being scraped regularly. Or does that just mean I don’t have very good spam protection?
CGHill »
20 October 2009 · 7:00 am
In the case of that particular comment, I have no doubt that the scuzzbucket in question saw your name, noted that it was present in several locations here, concluded that it was probably good enough a name to usurp, or at least to get past the spam filters, and did so.
Scraping is one of those unfortunate facts of life that can really only be reduced by killing one’s feed. Since I have more feed readers than site readers, this is not something I really want to do.
I was a fan of Moore’s TV Nation series; he did a lot of the same shtick that shows up in his films, but somehow it struck me as funnier then. Woody Allen syndrome? (“We liked the earlier, funnier ones.”) Or maybe it’s just that he does his best work in shorter increments.
Lisa Paul »
20 October 2009 · 9:45 am
Yup, a little of hiim goes a long way. And he needs to be sure that he doesn’t find himself making fun of people who are just working stiffs trying to get along. Which he sometimes does in the course of TV nation. But he and Morgan Spurlock, who did the excellent series 30 Days, are the only two documentarians who are making me think — with humor. Something that can be lacking in the deadly earnest documentary form.
McGehee »
21 October 2009 · 1:06 pm
I assume that means you didn’t agree with him thinking al Qaeda was foolish to target New York City on 9/11, because New York didn’t vote for Bush.
Or was that only self-promotion?
Some things cannot be forgiven. Sorry, but that’s how it is. No statute of limitations.