Capitalism: A Love Story

SlashFilm spotted the trailer for Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story and you can enjoy it after the jump.

There’s an important point to be made here, but if this trailer is any indication, Moore buries it once again in a series of smirky stunts.

This guy needs to stop being the star of his own films.

10 Responses to “Trailer – Capitalism: A Love Story”

  1. I like Moore’s stunts a lot better when he had his own little TV show nobody watched and they were in small doses. They don’t translate as well to the big screen. I still like Bowling for Columbine and parts of his other films. He just needs a muzzle and a professional ego wrangler/editor on deck at all times.

    In the early years of the Bush administration, I actually had a bit of a crush on the fuzzy fella. Weird now.

  2. Although his satirical style is very familiar I still found the trailer quite entertaining and I’m curious about the extent to which the documentary hammers home its message. AiG and an American political system that enabled unethical and incompetent financial dealings are not my friends, they conspired to lose me a chunk of savings that were the product of honest and ethical toil. I’m all for the bastards and the corrupt systems that allow them to flourish being called out in any and every way.

  3. Yeah, sartre, but if it’s just hijinks and no real substance then I have no interest in it. If he just wants to make comedies then don’t label them documentaries.

  4. It takes a strong ego to do what Moore does — take a public stance against powerful financial and political interests. He apparently has decided to not “make nice,” and I’m not going to second guess that choice.

    While I don’t always appreciate some of Moore’s tactics, he knows how to get the conversation going, which is something the USA has been in short supply of. Despite his devilish tendency to sometimes embellish the truth, the man knows his facts.

  5. Jennybee, I loved Crackers the Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken. That kind of silliness works much better in small doses on TV.

    Sartre, the importance of this subject makes it all the more galling to me that he’s doing stupid things like showing up at office buildings to make a citizen’s arrest. I’m going to give him the benefit of a doubt and assume the movie is more substantive than that, but the trailer simply leaves me cold.

    Pierre, what kind of conversation did he get going with Sicko? Almost none. The movie came and went. Granted, the pro-status quo righties were responsible for smearing Moore and the film with lies that an american public eagerly swallowed, but Moore sets himself up as a big fat juicy target ripe for the taking down. It’s too easy to take all the stupid stunts he pulls and use them against him out of context.

    I hope I’m wrong and I hope the trailer isn’t an accurate reflection of the movie. I want this to be great, but like Joel I’m skeptical.

  6. what kind of conversation did he get going with Sicko?

    Moore’s film helped set the stage for public discussion of health care issues leading up to the 2008 election. Remember the long series of Democratic debates leading up to the primaries? Sicko helped rev up the base.

    Next, Moore made a series of appearances on shows such as Larry King Live, which reaches a lot of people. CNN responded by doing a Fact Check by CNN’s medical guy, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, that later was found to be less accurate than Moore’s set of facts. Moore was invited back to dispute the Fact Check segment.

    Moore’s website became an oft-visited online source for health care-related information. He also toured the country, participating in public forums on the health care issue.

    All this occurred despite an intensive, targeted campaign by the right to marginalize Moore and his film. Granted, Moore sets himself up as a target because of his personal style. However, if he were less provocative, he’d blend into the background and the health care issue would suffer from less public awareness.

    It’s too easy to take all the stupid stunts he pulls and use them against him out of context.

    It’s also too easy to take the current health care bill out of context and use its provisions against its backers — for example President Obama. For example, Michael Moore wasn’t responsible for the “death panels” controversy but, rather, the wording of the proposed legislation. Making nice is no guarantee of fair discourse.

    If I had Moore’s resources, would I do it just like him? No. But I’m not going to judge him. He ultimately speaks the truth.

  7. Moore is great at revving up the base, but we need to reach the other 80% of the country, or at least half of that 80%

    I do think the film was marginalized in that it never reached the mainstream. It essentially sang to the choir. Did it help kick off the conversations happening now in the halls of government? Maybe, but to me it feels like we’re still starting from square one. The right is making all the same arguments they made against Clinton.

  8. To reach the other 80%, they need to be knocked over the head to know that the issue exists. People like Michael Moore — and there are precious few who have the balls to stand up to corporate, monolithic interests — help do that because what he does receives widespread attention. Moore hopped the tide of the outrageous tactics employed by the religious right in the 1980s. Whether that’s the right thing to do is a matter of opinion. Moore apparently believes that the ends justify the means — and I think both he and his most loyal audience members revel in the fact that he has turned these right-wing tactics on their head and used them to fight back, using data that’s considerably more reliable than what people are being fed from ultraconservative ideologues. Moore’s occasional lapses of judgment are just that.

    The reason Sicko didn’t reach the mainstream more than it did is a direct result of a targeted campaign to discredit him and his film. Corporate media interests responding to economic and political pressure are responsible for this. That Moore has survived is a testament to his resilience. One either accepts him — warts and all — or one doesn’t. Either way, the underlying message is there for all to glean. If it weren’t for his personal style, the underlying message would be much more underlying than it is now.

  9. The ability of any individual voice and their message to sway public opinion on a contentious issue with the heavily resourced forces of evil stacked on one side is minute – even for Obama. If Moore is only preaching to and energizing a proportion of the converted, those who don’t find his style of doing so egregious, he is making a valuable contribution in my opinion and I can respect him for it. I personally prefer less showmanship and more substance in documentaries but I think it takes different approaches for different folks.

  10. Put it this way. I’m glad Michael Moore exists, but I wish there was someone equally aggressive who didn’t always have a smirk on his face and didn’t feel the need to be the star of his own movies.

Leave a Reply


Tiny Subscribe to Comments





  • LiC on Twitter

  • Archives

All material copyright 2007-2012 by Craig Kennedy unless otherwise stated