Scott on "Sicko"

email this story
read comments (19)
post a comment

Sicko director Michael Moore "has hardly been shy about sharing his political beliefs, but he has never before made a film that stated his bedrock ideological principles so clearly and accessibly," writes N.Y. Times critic A.O. Scott.

"His earlier films have been morality tales, populated by victims and villains, with himself as the dogged go-between, nodding in sympathy with the downtrodden and then marching off to beard the bad guys in their dens of power and privilege. This method can pay off in prankish comedy or emotional intensity -- like any showman, Mr. Moore wants you to laugh and cry -- but it can also feel manipulative and simplistic.

"In Sicko, however, he refrains from hunting down the C.E.O.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s of insurance companies, or from hinting at dark conspiracies against the sick. Concentrating on Americans who have insurance (after a witty, troubling acknowledgment of the millions who donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t), Moore talks to people who have been ensnared, sometimes fatally, in a for-profit bureaucracy and also to people who have made their livings within the system.

"The testimony is poignant and also infuriating, and none of it is likely to be surprising to anyone, Republican or Democrat, who has tried to see an out-of-plan specialist or dispute a payment."

Three more Middle-Eastern dramas<< previous | next >>Aniston as Pearl?

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 22, 2007 at 4:58 PM

comment #1

AJW says ...

I watched "The Trials of Henry Kissinger" today. It's amazing how much more persuasive Eugene Jarecki's films are than Moore's ("Sicko" notwithstanding, as I haven't seen it) simply because he has the ability to restrain himself.

Posted by AJW at June 22, 2007 5:23 PM

comment #2

JD says ...

I agree, AJW, but they're different kinds of filmmakers. Whereas Jarecki is a straight-ahead reporter, Moore is a gonzo filmmaker in the same way that Hunter S. Thompson was a gonzo journalist. He combines facts with subjective beliefs/experience and entirely invented, creative scenarios (ie. hiring a pimp to recruit members of congress). Moore is using politics to stimulate thought, outrage, and entertain, Jarecki is just using politics to stimulate thought and outrage. Thus, their dramatically different box office records.

Posted by JD at June 22, 2007 5:46 PM

comment #3

AJW says ...

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, when did thinking stop being entertaining?

Moore has done himself a disservice by so overtly including his subjective bullshit; people refuse to take his work seriously because of how much he has sensationalized his material, which doesn't require any sexing up in the first place. This is unfortunate because Moore seems less concerned with the box office than with changing his audience's opinion (and good for him!), but that's harder to do when many people view his work as little more than agitprop. Granted, his methods have produced an audience much larger than Jarecki's, but the US still has tremendous gun violence, Bush won again, and I'd guess Flint, MI remains dirt poor. Whoopedy-doo. Mission accomplished. I would question how much thought Moore's films actually stimulate. To me, they seem like the cinematic equivalent of listing to a Rage Against the Machine album.

Posted by AJW at June 22, 2007 6:31 PM

comment #4

christian says ...

just because our society doesn't change overnight because of a moore film is not the reason to thrash him. i agree he doesn't need to go over the top (i didn't like his talking over bush's most damning moment -- sitting and sitting in a class while new york was under attack) but his films inspire debate and discussion. i think he's cool and real. i had an encounter with him that makes me think highly of him. and clearly the reviews are stressing his temperance, so...bring it!

Posted by christian at June 22, 2007 8:03 PM

comment #5

AJW says ...

That's the thing, I don't think Moore's work really inspires actual debate and discussion among his audience because Moore has made himself such a polarizing figure. (Though, Jarecki doesn't have much of an audience with which to foster a dialogue.) I think they mainly inspire cable news arguments about the filmmaker. If I ask a Republican friend about points made in a Moore film he will respond with a somewhat justifiable attack against the filmmaker, because the spectre of Moore clouds his movies. I truly hope Sicko is different.

I'll concede that the desired results for "Bowling" and "Roger and Me" can only be seen in the long term (15 years is not long enough?), but "Farhenheit 9/11" was meant to take down Bush and failed. Certainly John Kerry presented a near-impossible obstacle for anyone looking to sway voters against Bush, and I don't mean to place the blame for Bush's second term on Moore. However, to think that F911 wasn't intended to change things overnight (overnight = by November) is incorrect.

Posted by AJW at June 22, 2007 8:41 PM

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

JD: "Moore is using politics to stimulate thought, outrage, and entertain,"

He's no worse than pundits who throw the word faggot around to sell books.

AJW: "Moore has done himself a disservice by so overtly including his subjective bullshit;"

Yes. Why can't he be objective like Bush on stem-cell research?

"people refuse to take his work seriously because of how much he has sensationalized his material,"

You have a point. I mean, why can't he be honest, like Bush was about WMDS and uranium?

"Granted, his methods have produced an audience much larger than Jarecki's, but the US still has tremendous gun violence,"

That's due to the propaganda and lobbying power of the NRA, not him.

"Bush won again,"

No, he stole votes again. There's a difference.

"and I'd guess Flint, MI remains dirt poor."

True, but the Republiscum fucking up New Orleans even more than Flint is what will make them obsolete by the end of the decade. So Moore won in the end.

"To me, they seem like the cinematic equivalent of listing to a Rage Against the Machine album."

Funny you should say that, since he produced one of their videos. And while I can't vouch for their music, RATM was considerably successful and influential to have been able to compete with the flavor of the months that dominated that decade of crappy music.

"That's the thing, I don't think Moore's work really inspires actual debate and discussion among his audience because Moore has made himself such a polarizing figure."

His work isn't discussed, because theater chains and radio programs have monopolies on what the public is allowed to see or hear, hence why many Americans refused to listen to Moore. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/20/radio-report/

"If I ask a Republican friend about points made in a Moore film he will respond with a somewhat justifiable attack against the filmmaker, because the spectre of Moore clouds his movies."

If your Republican friend wastes time attacking Moore, he probably hasn't seen his films in the first place and is probably just repeating what he read on his conservative blog.

"but "Farhenheit 9/11" was meant to take down Bush and failed."

It failed, because of America's homophobia, not Moore. Again, they didn't want gays to get married, but they didn't mind taking it up the ass from Bush.

"Certainly John Kerry presented a near-impossible obstacle for anyone looking to sway voters against Bush"

True. It's tough to pick a guy who has ideas over a guy who thinks war is the only solution to our problems...

christian: "i agree he doesn't need to go over the top (i didn't like his talking over bush's most damning moment -- sitting and sitting in a class while new york was under attack)"

I'm fine with that scene. The guy is a draft-dodging coward who likes sending other people to die in his place; so it's only fitting that he's outed as a clueless asshole.

Posted by D.Z. at June 22, 2007 11:52 PM

comment #7

BurmaShave says ...

D.Z., you're a disgrace to liberals everywhere. John Kerry was a terrible candidate. Bush won in 2004 by about 1.5 million votes, or does the popular vote not matter anymore? We can't have it both ways.

Your rant also shows you fundamentally misunderstood a lot of what people on this thread have been trying to say, which is kind of a new problem for you.

"The guy is a draft-dodging coward who likes sending other people to die in his place" - that however is absolutely true.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 23, 2007 6:04 AM

comment #8

jeffmcm says ...

DZ is a disgrace to _people_ everywhere, not just liberals.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 23, 2007 7:12 AM

comment #9

ltlewis3 says ...

"True, but the Republiscum fucking up New Orleans even more than Flint is what will make them obsolete by the end of the decade. So Moore won in the end."

Take it from someone living it. Local and state politicians, overwhelmingly Democrats, are the primary reason New Orleans is and has been fucked up for many years. Billions of dollars of Federal money is being poured into Louisiana and the Democrat governor and mayor are inventing new and creative ways to be inept, incompetent, and corrupt. Two years ago, I could not have imagined living anywhere but New Orleans. Today, I regret having invested the time and money I did to come back and rebuild, and that has very little to do with Bush, but much to do with Blanco and Nagin.
So, next you time to place blame regarding the state of New Orleans, DZ, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Posted by ltlewis3 at June 23, 2007 10:04 AM

comment #10

AJW says ...

I'll just say I'm very confused and leave it at that.

Posted by AJW at June 23, 2007 10:28 AM

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

Burma: "D.Z., you're a disgrace to liberals everywhere."

Why? Because I refuse to back down from idiots running my country into the ground unlike other "liberals" like Joe and Hillary?

"John Kerry was a terrible candidate."

At least he actually had combat experience.

"Bush won in 2004 by about 1.5 million votes, or does the popular vote not matter anymore?"

Sure the popular votes counts. That's why Bush-with the help of Diebold-chose to destroy more votes which would have gone to Kerry.

Itlewis: "Take it from someone living it. Local and state politicians, overwhelmingly Democrats, are the primary reason New Orleans is and has been fucked up for many years."

Perhaps, but they weren't the ones who were supposed to save your ass from a national emergency and whom your state "voted" for that specific purpose. But I'm guessing if you live there and can bitch about them, you probably were one of those lucky individuals who had an escape vehicle, and didn't have to deal with "those" people.

"Today, I regret having invested the time and money I did to come back and rebuild,and that has very little to do with Bush, but much to do with Blanco and Nagin."

If you have the time and money, then obviously Blanco and Nagin were better to you than you claim, since most of the residents don't even have healthcare. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-21-new-orleans-crime_N.htm?csp=34

Posted by D.Z. at June 23, 2007 11:10 AM

comment #12

jeffmcm says ...

You're a disgrace to liberals because you make liberals look like empty-headed knee-jerk jerks who post on blogs all day long writing smug, superior posts about how much better they are than everybody.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 23, 2007 3:12 PM

comment #13

SpinDozer says ...

AJW

Jarecki's works are persuasive. His thesis are typically much less controversial or evidentiary-based than Moores. If Jarecki had made F-9/11, he would've used 90 minutes to prove that there was a Bush Saudi connection, James R Bath and Carlisle Group 30 minutes a piece, nothing wrong with that, just not nearly as complete a work of doc film-making art. There is a reason why Moore has two films in the IDA's 20 greatest docs list, he's real fuckin good. I do not know how you could say one is more convincing than the other. 98% of the time people that whine about Moore being a 'polarizing' figure do so cos he's just made them all look like a-holes on the big screen and that arguement is the best they have or else they would demonstrate why a claim was false, etc.

Posted by SpinDozer at June 23, 2007 6:13 PM

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "You're a disgrace to liberals because you make liberals look like empty-headed knee-jerk jerks"

I'm actually being quite analytical. I just chose to come on strong, because the only thing the other side has going for it is name-calling.

"who post on blogs all day long writing smug, superior posts about how much better they are than everybody."

I never said I was better than everybody. I just like shooting holes in people's thin arguments.

Posted by D.Z. at June 23, 2007 8:39 PM

comment #15

AJW says ...

"AJW

What exactly was Moore's thesis in "Bowling for Columbine"? I honestly cannot recall. Here is my recollection of: Moore spends part of the first half dispelling myths about why America has a much greater rate of gun violence than other developed countries: poverty, divorces, diversity, etc. (right? Doesn't he flash statistics up on the screen showing other countries worse in such social categories with lower rates of gun violence? I may have that wrong.) He then spends the human interest part of the movie blaming poverty and a broken home on a young black boy shooting a classmate. I was very confused.

How can you claim that Jarecki's docs are less evidentiary-based than Moore's? Almost all he does is present evidence, in the form of statistics or archival footage or 'expert' talking heads (I prefer his interviewees than Moore's) or declassified papers. He spends much less time on the anecdotal/dramatic stuff (like following the army recruit in "Why We Fight"), which really isn't evidentiary at all, than Moore.

Posted by AJW at June 23, 2007 10:44 PM

comment #16

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, all of your own arguments are thin and your arrogance in asserting them is obnoxious and insulting. I loathe that you argue in favor of things that I agree with. You are as much a part of the problem as any right-wing theocrat who chooses their votes based on xenophobia, homophobia, and ignorance. You're as closed-minded and as self-righteous and _you_ are destroying America as much as they are.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 24, 2007 12:47 AM

comment #17

ltlewis3 says ...

"Perhaps, but they weren't the ones who were supposed to save your ass from a national emergency and whom your state "voted" for that specific purpose. But I'm guessing if you live there and can bitch about them, you probably were one of those lucky individuals who had an escape vehicle, and didn't have to deal with "those" people.... If you have the time and money, then obviously Blanco and Nagin were better to you than you claim, since most of the residents don't even have healthcare."

DZ, you don't know me. I'll bet you assume I'm white, rich, and Republican because I have a computer and I'm criticizing Democrats in complete sentences. I'm not white and I'm not rich. I get up every morning and go to work, no politician needs to be good to me.

The personal animosity between Blanco and Nagin killed people, because they refused to act together as responsible public servants. The federal government didn't have the keys to the buses that sat when they could have been used to evacuate people. State and local officials did. The federal government hasn't run one of the world's most incompetent school districts, that contributed to the inordinately high number of citizens without the will or ability to provide for themselves. State and local officials did. Nagin knew the Superdome was an inadequate shelter. The city had used it when Hurricane Georges threatened and it was a disaster. Nagin, himself, refused to use it as a general shelter when Hurricane Ivan threatened just two years before Katrina.

Things were as bad as they were because the first line of defense (state and local systems) failed.

Posted by ltlewis3 at June 24, 2007 7:32 AM

comment #18

SpinDozer says ...

'How can you claim that Jarecki's docs are less evidentiary-based than Moore's?'

Poorly expressed on my part, I'll try again. Jarecki's works are persuasive. His thesis are typically much less controversial than Moores, they are also evidentiary-based. Then the comp between a contrafactual Jarecki treatment of the Bush Saudi connection. My apologies.

I like Jarecki, I find his thesis to be concise and thoroughly demonstrated than Moores and, not nearly as stimulating. He is cinematically inferior to Moore. That's not a harsh criticism, Moore is just a very very good film-maker.

Posted by SpinDozer at June 24, 2007 8:24 AM

comment #19