Blogs
Capitalism
While watching Michael Moore’s new film “Capitalism: A Love Story” I couldn’t help but think about some of the readings we had been doing in class. “Capitalism” is probably Moore’s best work so far. In it he tries to show how our current recession was created, and how it is an inevitable part of the capitalist system. He also shows that, contrary to popular belief, Capitalism is not the same as democracy, and the free market system as it exists now is almost the opposite of the democratic ideals we hold dear. The movies argument is strong and it includes almost no “gotcha” interviews (thanks Sara Palin). Instead he utilizes interviews with representatives, economists, lawyers, priests, and every day Americans, and political theater events like trying to tape off Wall Street with crime scene tape, or make citizens’ arrests of company CEOs.
Some people in class have seemed to have a problem with the literary perversions in some of the first or second hand accounts we have read which, y’all claim, distort the truth and lead the audience to certain conclusions. While I disagree with you, the same arguments could be made against this film as it makes full use of the Eisensteinian montage. Sergei Eisenstein was a Soviet film director who created and theorized on the idea of montage. In this “arbitrarily selected independent …(outside the given composition and the plot links of the characters) attractions [are put together] with a view to establishing a certain final thematic effect“ (Eisenstein, Montage of Attractions) In other words, by combining lots of somewhat unrelated footage and images into a rhythmic presentation, the filmmaker can create an emotional reaction from the audience. Eisenstein was actually brought to America in 1930 to direct some movies but they failed and were never finished. While here though he befriended Charlie Chaplin and Upton Sinclair, both of who would go on to make major works based on the Great Depression, and traveling. Chaplin’ 1936 “Modern Times” opens with a satiric plate which reads, “Modern Times: a story of industry, of individual enterprise – humanity crusading in the pursuit of happiness”
But back to Moore: In “Capitalism” the parts of the movie are intercept with footage from old American and soviet propaganda, as well as information videos on ancient Rome and many other stock clips ranging from riots, to the metropolitan opera. This helps to create a sense of overwhelming cultishness, and shows the hypocrisy of how American functions now.
Moore also shows some of the home reclaiming groups in action, in which a community group takes back a family’s foreclosed home. Like the conversation in beginning of the Grapes of Wrath, it poses the problem of, with such enormous inhuman companies, who do you rebel against. The movie also by default makes the audience think about the Great Depression because it focuses on our current “Great Recession”.
The point about not knowing
The point about not knowing who to rebel against because what you are against is inhuman is a vital one, in my opinion. Not only is it a scapegoat to have an inanimate, truly nonexistent non-living entity to blame, but it also confuses those who it wrongs. The focus needs to be shifted to personal responsibility, business ethics. A business is the sum of its parts, ethically and fiscally. I understand that everyone has needs, everyone needs to feed their family, but people in companies can do that without destroying those under them. Every part of a company is to blame, if they don't blow the whistle. I know this is overly simplistic, but its either that, or nothing.
I can't speak for the class,
I can't speak for the class, but I can say that the problem I had with some of the pieces is that they did feel too didactic. The writers were trying to do too much at once. They were trying to write an opinion piece with the language of a novel, or the wrote a novel whose agenda was so obvious that it felt more like an editorial than a piece of art. It is very difficult to do both at once. And I do think it can often make a story less engaging when it feels as though the author is trying to persuade you of a larger political philosophy, while using a human tragedy as its vehicle. When it feels that they aren't just trying to awe you, but convince you of something. It almost feels like a betrayal of trust. That would be my only complaint about Grapes of Wrath--just when he has you engaged in the struggle of the human condition, he'll pit one kind of thinker against another kind of thinker and use imagery to extract blame onto one of them.