Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore has laid all his cards on the table.
The Michigan-born director, whose films and books have earned him a tidy income, wants America to become a socialist nation.
Good for him. No more tap dancing around the topic.
So that leaves Hollywood talent in a curious bind. Do they applaud his upcoming movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” even though the film’s solutions to our economic woes would effectively abolish the many perks of their industry?
And will they nominate “Capitalism” for an Academy Award?
The intricacies of economics elude me – “Dammit, Jim, I’m a movie critic, not an economist!” – but it seems odd to praise a man whose call to financial arms would spell the end to one’s luxurious lifestyle.
Then again, isn’t it strange that some filmmakers worship leaders like Venezuelan’s Hugo Chavez, men who cruelly censor voices in opposition to their agendas?
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Reminds me of an interview that Steven Soderbergh gave about his Che Guevara movie. He readily admitted that there would be no place for him in the society that Guevara was trying to create.
Had I been the interviewer, my follow-up question would have been, “so why did you feel you needed to make a four-hour, $60 million movie about him?”
They praise it because it wouldn’t mean an end to their lifestyle, just the end of the good life for everyone they loath. Hollywood would be ran by the government and turn into an arm of PBS and NPR, where Michael Moore would get tax dollar after tax dollar to create propaganda – i.e. the recent NEA scandal. Meanwhile, small businesses (which Moore has decried as the worst element in America) would be all but gone, as will entrepreneurship on all levels outside the government sphere. The ultra-rich would remain rich (think Heinz-Kerry), they would just give out a bigger share and have the comfort of knowing there will be no innovation or competition on the horizon from those rich bastards making $150,000 plus. Calling Mr. Galt.
Hugo Chavez regularly takes over businesses, the arts, local TV, radio stations and the more he does it the more Moore and Oliver Stone love him for it. I find it hard to believe Moore would support this type of system if there wasn’t something in it for himself.
“My artists shall live like princes” – Adolf Hitler
Art in The Third Reich, Peter Adam
Christian – I see Patrick Goldstein wrote an incomprehensible blog post implying that you’re flying off the handle with the idea that Moore “gets a free pass” from the media. (oops, now I see that commented on that.)
This quote is so priceless, “I’m not saying Toto is wrong, though I’d argue that the media makes just as big a fuss about plenty of other filmmakers (starting with Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino and Michael Mann) simply because it’s infatuated with their films, not because it endorses or even cares about their politics.” (“Yeah, like I’m not saying Toto is wrong, only that he’s a hysterical wingnut, full of fear and loathing and – wait for it – ’sheer snarkiness.’ “)
I saw that, MikeH. I enjoy Patrick’s blog and have swapped e-mails with him in the past. Nice fellow, and one willing to engage in open, non-hostile debate. But the quote you picked from his blog post is priceless … how could you be infatuated with Moore’s films and not embrace their politics?
It’s like saying you can’t get enough of Ann Coulter’s humorous columns but vote Democratic every time …
Moore’s films are a clear liberal vision of the world, without nuance and without complexity. His black and white hats are infinitely more clearer than those in any John Ford yarn and he targets his enemies without mercy.
I watched Roger and Me along with a few GM workers at the time, who laughed out loud at Moore’s depiction of Flint. These guys lived in four-bedroom homes with multiple cars, boats and the rest, while Moore portrayed GM’s working class hero as something residing in the ghetto. It couldn’t have been further from the truth and that in a microcosm as Moore. Think of it as liberals masturbating to themselves in the mirror.
Although I disagree with almost everything Michael Moore stands for, I plan to see his movie, it should be funny, although not in the way he intends.
However, I also plan to respect his opinions about capitalism. I would hate for him to fell guilty over making money in a system that he abhors, so I plan to buy a ticket to “Cloudy With a Chance for Meatballs” and then crash his movie.
Roger and Me is probably the one good movie he made and depicted the results of moving GM plants out of Michigan to Mexico accurately. Ironic isn’t it, considering where his documentaries have gone?
Really? Further from the truth? Flint – It’s not cars, boats and houses oh my. Its shacks, crimes and poverty look out! It’s a truly scary place to visit, you can see the remnants of GM and the impact it had when they closed the plants down. What is sad is that Michael Moore did make a great documentary once but has moved forward into making progressives look like nut cases.
If Roger and Me wasn’t accurate and everything was so false, what were those towns I drove through on my way to Saginaw? Movie sets? The only folks who still have those boats, cars and houses are the ones who still had pensions and/or took the buyout years ago and most don’t live in Flint.
I only agree that Moore isn’t helping his cause of shedding light on the true nature of government offices and other bureaucracies with his current style of film making.
But then again I enjoy watching his style of “without mercy.” Its only entertainment, after all.
“Then again, isn’t it strange that some filmmakers worship leaders like Venezuelan’s Hugo Chavez, men who cruelly censor voices in opposition to their agendas?”
The double standards are piling up faster than maggots on a carcass in the dead of summer. Praise for Chavez and his quest for a socialistic Venezuela while overlooking such inconveniences as ‘cruel censorship’ (not to mention ‘x, y and z’) is at best grossly dishonest or a mental illness and at worst a perpetrator of fraud.
The patterns repeat.
Praise for a more socialistic society in the US versus a free market society because those bad ‘capitalists’ have brought economic malfeasance to America is so unbelievably dishonest. Now instead of ‘cruel censorship’ we have vast corruption that is being conveniently overlooked. Free markets failed because of the corruption in our government on both sides of the aisle.
Are the Big Bad Banks the perpetrators? They got away with murder. Yes. But how they got away with murder is where the light should shine. And that is one movie Moore will not make even though the material is out there.
Why? Failure to expose the realities of this malfeasance amounts to a cover-up and protection of those ‘like-minded’ trolls. Like how the quest to put poor Americans into over-priced homes ended up bankrupting Iceland’s pension.
Why no investigation of Jamie Gorelick?
“but it seems odd to praise a man whose call to financial arms would spell the end to one’s luxurious lifestyle.”
Not really. While the Soviet people practically universally lived in poverty, the Soviet leadership lived in the lap of luxury. Does anyone doubt that Hollywood pinheads like Moore would cling to their fortunes no matter what? Heck, how many of these people lecture the average joes and josephines about “carbon footprints” and “being green,” but do far worse themselves? ‘Nuff said.
And it is really disgusting that (for lack of a better word) people like Chavez and Castro get praised by Hollywood pinheads. Fun fact: a large number of people that have to live under despots like them don’t like them. I mean, sheesh, if Cuba were the island paradise morons like Moore believe it to be, then why do so many Cubans keep trying to get out?
My thoughts: Moore, emboldened by about two decades of uncritical praise from critics and the film industry and college students too stupid to know their ass from a hole in the ground, has decided that his clout and power is large enough that he can essentially declare himself a full-on communist and will still win accolades. The hypocrisy is galling and notable to anyone (even his fans, who when asked by me always shrug their shoulders, thus I wouldn’t ever accuse anyone on the left of being morally consistent without a thorough background check first), but his behavior is hardly new. One need merely look back in time to when plenty of Hollywood characters had Red sympathies to note that a far left ideology has never prevented any rich person from indulging their most opulent desires. Moore’s no different.
Wow. Well said, James.
And SpideyTerry, I’m afraid you could be right, but what an ugly display that would be. Good thing the media would be state controlled, and therefore unable to pursue such a story.