"Sicko" -- Michael Moore's next flick about U.S. Healthcare & HMOs

What about the BBC version? Does that count?

Less tasteless than just not funny and really weird.

They was a season on NBC.. then there was a season on Fox (yes, it's true)... the Comedy Central resyndicated moments from those shows. I have to admit, I don't really go back to those tapes... and the presentation was pretty annoying. But Crackers, the anti-corporate crime fighting chicken was funny only in that his followers were even funnier.

http://www.p2pnet.net/images/sicko.jpg

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/sicko-poster-2.jpg

This hits the last weekend in June in the US. Rated PG-13 so far.

and the Trailer is out

(warning: contains Stones)

fox news gives it a good review?!?!? http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,273875,00.html

so this is going to be of even less interest to an international audience than farenheit 911 then?

i suppose we can get some lols out of pointing at a country with no proper healthcare system being too stupid to introduce one?

Laughing at Americans is fine sport where I'm from. Bring it on.

The obligatory "stunt" involving Gitmo looks stupid. You'd think he'd just rely on the overflowing wealth of things that are wrong with American health care and let the material speak for itself. For the finale just boat some sick people to Havana straight away. That's what he was planning to do anyway. See, that's a good stunt already.

I'll see this, of course.

I'm hoping M Moore succeeds with this, mostly because my dad's insurer won't pay for cancer pills which are $8K per month. Also because of a lifetime of seeing insurers prove themselves to be protection-collecting playground bullies rather than holders of emergency funds. My uninsured sister managed to get the government to pay for her care for viral encephalitis, which included being in a coma for a week, but thousands don't because possibly their mom's best friend is not a former welfare officer who rustled up the funding through knowing bureaucracy. My mom smashed her ankle a couple of years ago and after 10 years of paying $500 a month (I think) had $5,000 deductible and had shitty, lackadaisical care in her hospital stay.

I'll have to ask my mom how they paid for my whole episode of being the first kid ever given surgery, radiation and chemotherapy for cancer treatment. I doubt they would be able to do so now.

The reviews have been pretty awesome right across the board for this movie.

Yeah but worried about herd mentality of Americans who have been inculcated to haaaaaaaaate M Moore despite being sensible in other ways.

some reviews here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6673039.stm

xpost. A lot of that can be attributed to the polarising nature of his work. When it comes to bums on seats, there will be no problem. And that's what it's all about really.

That glove poster is terrifying. Plz stick to skeletons in waiting room or I'll have gynecology nightmares for years.

um, as mentioned in cannes thread, i have no idea why this is getting good reviews. it's taken away all the most entertaining aspects of a moore documentary (ala uncomfortable and confrontational situations) and keeps all the sad weaknesses (ala arguments built around anecdotes / simplifying the reality of health care until good and bad lose all meaning entirely).

leaked fyi

how's the quality?

still downloading - but i guess its some internal mirmax screener so probably good

quality is great. As good as can be.

And the movie is pretty damn good, too. Manipulative? Well, I guess, sure, but it's damn hard to take the side of the health care industry in America.

ok, the shot of Moore standing at Karl Marx's grave was a bit much.

You probably think I'm kidding. No.

Well, I guess, sure, but it's damn hard to take the side of the health care industry in America.

Not if you go to YouTube and check out the reactions. People seem to already know Moore's points and are eager to disprove the shit out of them. No surprise they are the inculcated herd mentioned above.

ok, the shot of Moore standing at Karl Marx's grave was a bit much.

but see this is how come hes so lovable. people could focus less on his politics/manipulations and notice what delightful movies he makes.

fuck all that. This movie did its job. It made me ANGRY.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9006414844032752909

I'm sick of michael moore

um, as mentioned in cannes thread, i have no idea why this is getting good reviews. it's taken away all the most entertaining aspects of a moore documentary (ala uncomfortable and confrontational situations) and keeps all the sad weaknesses (ala arguments built around anecdotes / simplifying the reality of health care until good and bad lose all meaning entirely).

After watching about two-thirds of this movie (will probably watch the ending tonight) I have to say... "Whaaat?"

Yeah, there are anecdotes. Anecdotes about people dying because they were denied care by an insurance company! Anyone who watches this movie and isn't moved needs to have a cynicism-ectomy. Sorry it wasn't entertaining enough for you!

Anyone who watches this movie and isn't moved needs to have a cynicism-ectomy

Michael Moore's got his new tagline, folks.

i enjoyed this but its so damn heavy handed

the scene near the end where he shows up at Guantanamo w/ 9/11 refugees and yells stuff about treating our workers worse than evildoers is relentlessly corny.

That is balanced out by him sending the dude from the michael moore hate site a check to cover the cost of website maintenance. Good zing

any mention of lack of treatment for u.s. vets? i'm dealing with that right now. well, my dad is.

Anyone who watches this movie and isn't moved needs to have a cynicism-ectomy

I don't think that's covered by my H-EMO.

I haven't got to the Guantanamo bit - sounds a little unnecessary. I think he actually sent that anti-MM guy a check to cover the guy's wife's health costs.

Yesterday I talked to my step-mom who lives in Toronto about this movie. She said that the only negative that they have run into is that if you have a low-level health issue, it can take a few months to get in to see a specialist. Here (in the USA), if you have a fancy PPO, you can get in to see a specialist pretty quickly. Of course, if you DON'T have a fancy PPO, you're screwed.

ILXors who didn't know that insurance companies are evil and American health care is completely fucked, raise your hand.

Who is this aimed at? Who, among Moore's audience, doesn't understand the issue? What's the point?

i ran into my landlord a self described conservative the other day and he'd just gotten back from greece where thanks to his mother in law having some minor issue he had a run in w/their health care system and his mind was blown - it was an easy practically free experience. then told me abt how him and his wife are paying out the ass for all their various ailments and insurances. he seem genuinely shocked that things didnt have to be this way.

but the point is he just didn't know before going to greece how awful our system is compared to all other wealthy countries in the world.

if this movie can educate get the discussion flowing it will be doing us a valuable service.

(x-post)
Americans who aren't ILXors raise your hands... This movie is for you!

You missed the line about 'Moore's audience,' schwantz.

Seriously, who do you think this is going to reach that wasn't already a convert?

Did Fahrenheit 9/11 cost George Bush in Nov. 2004? Did Bowling For Columbine turn America against firearms? Did Roger & Me incite a groundswell of unionizing or help save American manufacturing jobs?

Fuck you're right.
He should do a movie about how awesome the U.S. health care system is then.

Yes, that's clearly the conclusion to draw.

did those movies generate discussion?

(genuinely curious about BfC & R&M because I don't remember ever hearing about those movies until F911 came out)

Who is this aimed at? Who, among Moore's audience, doesn't understand the issue? What's the point?

-- milo z, Monday, June 18, 2007 5:15 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

lots of people

That's a polite way of putting it.

(xpost)

I'm not seeing what your actual point is, Milo.

the point is that the american health care system is fucked beyond fucked, and even if you have insurance and think you're safe and taken care of, you're not. It's a fine point, I think.

More than anything I'm bothered that Moore's purported distortions make such easy ammo for his detractors. They stop any discussion in its tracks:

BUT MICAHEL MOORE DISTORTS THE TRUHT

xp to Curtis -
Between 'wingers about what a schmuck Moore is, yes. Between liberals patting themselves on the back, yes.

Between people who disagree on the issues - no.

My point is that Michael Moore is a self-serving entertainer (and complete shit as a filmmaker) who makes movies that let self-righteous people feel good about themselves for being on the 'right' side, but that fail completely to engage anyone in a critical way or foster discussion. He's politically irrelevant and ethically suspect and receives far more attention than he deserves.

My point being that these sort of questions

Who is this aimed at? Who, among Moore's audience, doesn't understand the issue? What's the point?

-- milo z, Monday, June 18, 2007 5:15 PM (1 hour ago)

seem unfounded when confronted with the fact that so many Americans clearly DON'T realize how dire the health care problem is. If this film generates enough discussion that health care becomes a bigger issue in the 2008 election, I think it will have more than served its purpose.

yeah uh the assumption that moore's movies are only seen by some core audience of accolades is a bit questionable - fahrenheit 9/11 was a hueg movie, biggest doc eva, big play on pay cable, v successful dvd etc.

and lol milo "fox news" z

In his thinking (such as it is), attitudes, and humor, he's a lot like the rubes he casts in his movies to make some point about omigod how stoopid us Americans are.

seem unfounded when confronted with the fact that so many Americans clearly DON'T realize how dire the health care problem is

Um, I haven't met a single person of any age who doesn't bitch about (a) their current health plan (b) not going to the doctor or dentist cuz they HAVE no insurance.

xp
You're making the big assumption that Michael Moore's movies have broad mainstream appeal and have historically convinced otherwise-clueless people about the righteousness of his positions.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending), that doesn't appear to be true. At all.

Moore's biggest, most mainstream movie did fuck-all to foster national debate. A bunch of people who already distrusted Bush went and saw it, and continued to distrust Bush.

i challenge anyone to watch paul wolfowitz combing his hair w/his spit and tell me moore is complete shit as a filmmaker.

i challenge anyone to watch paul wolfowitz combing his hair w/his spit and tell me moore Wolfowitz is complete shit as a filmmaker stylist

HI DERE

"A recent Kaiser Family Foundation's health poll revealed that 46% of voters are "very worried" about health care. Despite this demonstrable concern, only 8% identified health as one of their two top "issues" in deciding their vote in the 2006 Congressional elections."

xpost

LET THE EEEEEEEEEEEEAAAGLE SOAR

Being "very worried" about health care and not responding correctly to a poll non-shockah.

Moore's biggest, most mainstream movie did fuck-all to foster national debate. A bunch of people who already distrusted Bush went and saw it, and continued to distrust Bush.

milo this movie was huge it played over and over again on hbo a lot of people saw it - it was the most successful documentary ever. i dont know where yr claims are coming from.

granted it was on a topic most people had pretty strong views on already. healthcare - not so much, get it? god.

i am not saying michael moore will solve all our problems

119mn box office = 11.9mn viewers = 3% of the population, tops, if no one went to see it twice. Triple that for cable/DVD (which wasn't as successful as the initial box office) - 10% of Americans.

How many of those 10% were pre-disposed to thinking Bush/etc. were corrupt and evil? More than half? More than 3/4? Now how many of the remaining audience were convinced by Wolfowitz spit-combing?

Doesn't matter whether 10 people or 10,000,000 people saw it. F 451 was full of distortions and outright lies, which might have been aesthetically acceptable had Moore been a good filmmaker.

Being "very worried" about health care and not responding correctly to a poll non-shockah.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, June 18, 2007 6:35 PM (1 minute ago)

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/269063/2/istockphoto_269063_good_work_a_grade.jpg

xp I think it was important for liberals to get on the "GODDAMNED EVIL TOWELHEAD SAUDIS" issue before anyone else adopted it.

ok 10 million non-bush hating people saw it using yr out-yr-ass calculations. now how many saw or read something about the movie or something inspired by it. how many people talked to someone after seeing it? it was hueg event everyone was talking abt it etc etc. duh.

actually looks like the fr33p3rs beat us to it dude xpost

http://www.fr33r3public.com/focus/n3ws/801901/posts

Everyone talks about Lindsay Lohan doing coke and not wearing panties. 'Talking about' != 'has an impact.' Moore's films are treated as events unto themselves (like the latest car crash or summer action movie), they don't inspire people on opposite sides of the fence to talk. If

This is primarily because Moore's films aren't made to convince anyone who isn't already sympathetic to his issue. He knows his audience, he knows how to push their buttons and he knows it will continue to provide him a healthy lifestyle.

This is primarily because Moore's films aren't made to convince anyone who isn't already sympathetic to his issue.

fwiw my entire extended family was pro-gun before they saw B4C

(and now they are not, if the subtext is not clear)

So they thought that fake-South Park skit was just killer, eh?

ty milo you have repeatedly articulated fox news et al's talking points clearly and passionately.

They saw the movie, talked about it, did some research of their own, and came to conclusions that supported gun control. Like intelligent people do. Good try shitting on my family though, man.

http://www.nndb.com/people/428/000022362/rush-pubshot.jpg
no one pays any attention to michael moore!

(not suggesting "intelligent people support gun control," but that "intelligent people do research & come to their own conclusions")

Fox News is really concerned about health care (cuz I have, like, none) - but doesn't think that a propaganda film that appeals to people who (like me) are already concerned about the issue is particularly valuable?

'k.

see propaganda is going way too far - try polemic.

as i said in my initial post it can have value by drawing attention to the problem and provoking discussion.

So don't see it. Plug your ears when people around you talk about it. Why bitch?

xposts

as i said in my initial post it can have value by drawing attention to the problem and provoking discussio

Taking a shit behind a bush in Yellowstone National Park might draw attention to the continued federal funding of parks too!

milo you're making some good points but come on

So they thought that fake-South Park skit was just killer, eh?

-- milo z, Monday, June 18, 2007 1:53 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

don't take cheap shots at people just because they don't fit in with your theory, I mean that just makes you seem like a dick and makes me more sympathetic to the people calling your argument some FOX News bullshit

and the country is just ripe for said discussion.

doodoo the right thing

i'd like to point out that my contribution is more worthwhile than arguing with milo ffs. IRONING

xp No, I think propaganda is a completely valid description of his work. And I still don't see how Moore draws attention to an unknown problem - you really think your right-wing landlord would have been rushing out to catch the Sicko matinee and would have been swayed by Moore had he not seen it all with his own eyes?

Whether it's his fault or not, Moore provokes discussion about his methods and personality far more than about the politics.

So don't see it. Plug your ears when people around you talk about it. Why bitch?

No one on this thread thinks that our fucking sinkhole of a healthcare system isn't worth examining by a good filmmaker (Frederick Wiseman or Errol Morris, say), but Michael Moore's not the one.

doodoo the right thing

-- tremendoid, Monday, June 18, 2007 7:05 PM (1 minute ago)

^^ ace

big hoos otm

i mean in general

no, i wasn't being glib, milo is exactaly voicing o'rielly and friends' argument: moore is a extremely media visible liar who no one pays any attention to except a small group of radicals.

now he may be a liar and a manipulator, but how can you be so omnipresent and have no one pay any attention to you. not possible!

moore is a extremely media visible

liar

who no one pays any attention to except a small group of radicals.

Whether it's his fault or not, Moore provokes discussion about his methods and personality far more than about the politics.

you probably think the same thing abt rush limbaugh - but his ideas trickle down to the mainstream. it's the same way w/moore. you simply cant have that high a profile w/o making an impact.

119mn box office = 11.9mn viewers = 3% of the population, tops, if no one went to see it twice. Triple that for cable/DVD (which wasn't as successful as the initial box office) - 10% of Americans.

How many of those 10% were pre-disposed to thinking Bush/etc. were corrupt and evil? More than half? More than 3/4? Now how many of the remaining audience were convinced by Wolfowitz spit-combing?

sorry if i made the huuuueg stretch from propagandist to liar

so yeah you said all that

people who have preconceived opinions != radicals

pedant

Okay, if a 'small group of radicals' is 30mn people, you're on point with that accusation, I guess.

Limbaugh has a daily audience in the millions (hopefully not that 20mn it was in the early '90s) and his ideas do have great value inside of that audience. Just like Moore and his audience. Neither of them is relevant to the other side (except as a bogeyman) or the masses in the middle.

sorry if i made the huuuueg stretch from propagandist to liar

Just like Moore and his audience. Neither of them is relevant to the other side (except as a bogeyman) or the masses in the middle.

RONG see limbaugh > drugde, fox > msm well documented news flow

limbaugh != FoxNews

I mean, Jesus, there's some overlap in audience, but they're hardly the same thing (also true of O'Reilly, who usually appears to be much less of a complete nut than Limbaugh - they try for a veneer of respectability).

Does Michael Moore = The Nation for you?

when the fuck did i say that limbaugh equaled fox news its a flow chart

he had a big mainstream movie that did nothing' != 'small band of radicals

what have you done on this thread except say his movies only play to some inconsequential group of people?

commas separate

I said he was preaching to the converted. I didn't say that his audience was tiny or irrelevant, but that he wasn't moving them so much as reinforcing what they already believed.

commas separate

ok you are the most annoying person

joeks, dude. You're getting upset because I misread your comma as two different >>> sequences.

it separated drudge and fox

Possibly because a) I'd like 'my side' to have a reasoned, honest voice that's capable of engaging the disengaged and convincing some of the opposition and b) I really, really hate my side having a Rush Limbaugh analogue.

finally a fucking argument at least. (disallowing the rush limbaugh nonsense) yeah who wouldn't like a more, er, rigorous mouthpiece to have this kind of spotlight -- but I'm glad he's realized it's harder to marginalize a clown than a pedant(and msm can make a pedant out of anyone if they need to; which is why artistic merit /= getting things done) and by gum he makes sure these issues get dumped in the public sphere by hook or by 'crook' fwiw(you don't think it's worth much for some reason, duly noted. seriously, it's duly noted. i read what you said there man. seriously).
to the extent that he's been attacked, I think it's stuck to him personally (cf people being 'sick of michael moore apropos of nothing) and not to the core values he's put over through the polemics(and F911 aside, he distorts incidents, not issues, and a lot of people are smart enough to make the distinction), which makes for a net gain as far as public awareness is concerned, using ticket sales as the barometer if nothing else.

this is silly. dude gets coverage, he's raising issues, the 'masses in the middle' hear about him, make a decision whether or not they will think 'he is teh liar' or see movie to decide for themselves.

this is how this sort of shit works dude. i'm sure plenty of 'masses in the middle' have been moved by his films

anyway if you think someone can have such a hueg profile and have no impact,,,,,,,,,,,, u mad.

lo,,,,,,,,,,l

Everyone seems so upset at the fact that Michael Moore makes a living off this stuff. The basic model of financial success in America is selling/marketing to your base and people everywhere are whoring themselves out. Because that is what you do in a capitalist society, that is how you compete. People need to grow up when it comes to Michael Moore and treat him as a business man rather than some false prophet. Is there really a difference between him calling out the prez to ring up box office tickets versus right wing radio hosts shooting down Hillary to score sales on their new book? Cos I don't see it...

F911 may not have stopped the Bush re-election or put an end to the Iraq war but come on, it's just a movie. But it did contribute to public awareness. It generated just as much discussion about Moore's credibility as it did about 9/11 conspiracies; I remember seeing a tidal wave of documentaries flood the market after it came out. The fact that Moore's expose-style movie misrepresents some kind of fictional objective truth matters far less than the drop in approval in the war and the president over the following years.

I think the biggest benefit that movie had going for it was that it contributed to a public disillusionment with the media and specifically how it treats political/corporate news. Michael Moore can make all the money he wants to, I don't care. But as long he and likeminded individuals are pointing out faults in mass media, and drawing eyes to the corruption of the state as a whole, hopefully the general public will start to take a more critical stance on the shit that is fed into their minds every waking hour.

i'm sure plenty of 'masses in the middle' have been moved by his films

Why are you sure of this?

Roger & Me: Nothing. Unions have continued to decline, manufacturing jobs have continued to leave, Democrats jumped on NAFTA. Few people saw it anyway, not so much a knock against Moore.

I don't remember the '90s - mostly books and TV, no?

Bowling For Columbine: Americans have become more pro-gun than ever, the number of people carrying guns on a daily basis (sanctioned legally) continues to rise rapidly, and in the wake of the worst mass shooting in X years, even the Democrats rapidly backed off of any potential gun control legislation. (nb: this is the one issue where I actually disagree with Moore)

Fahrenheit 9/11: Bush still won a few months later, with little change in votes between 2000 and 2004 despite opposition to Iraq, economic doldrums, tax cuts, etc. Democrats only began to rebound thanks to Katrina, continuing Iraq fiasco, ethics scandals, etc.

At no point, on any issue he's filmed, has Michael Moore made a visible impact.

holy shit you guys basically seem to know nothing about healthcare

i missed that part

No one on this thread thinks that our fucking sinkhole of a healthcare system isn't worth examining by a good filmmaker (Frederick Wiseman or Errol Morris, say), but Michael Moore's not the one.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, June 18, 2007 7:08 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

For starters, this: sinkhole?? What does that even mean? Moneypit? Or that it's totally shitty and awful? What?

I know nothing about healthcare because it costs me $105 every time I need a prescription for $10 worth of sinus medication. I would learn more about the system if I could afford to take part in it.

milo u r insane

No one on this thread thinks that our fucking sinkhole of a healthcare system isn't worth examining by a good filmmaker (Frederick Wiseman or Errol Morris, say), but Michael Moore's not the one.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, June 18, 2007 7:08 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

huge lol

i mean wtf dude there are so many fallacies in that argument you just made! you realize that by the same logic someone could argue that moore is the sole reason things aren't WORSE than that now?

holy shit you guys basically seem to know nothing about healthcare

SICKO IS NOT OUT YET DUH

I EXPECT MICHAEL MOORE'S DOCUMENTARY FILMS TO SINGLEHANDEDLY SAVE AMERICAN INDUSTRY OTHERWISE HE IS FAILING TO CONVINCE ANYONE OF ANYTHING

Give it a try then. Show me where Moore has had a measurable, real impact on public opinion or voting or anything else.

Hypothesis: If not for Fahrenheit 911, we would have named George Bush dictator for life?

you realize things can preach to the choir and still, you know, preach to other people too?

Moore is way more populist than 99% of 'leftist propaganda,' he's actually getting his message out there. if you want to talk 'preaching to the choir,' uhhh how about posting to the noam thread or something

At no point, on any issue he's filmed, has Michael Moore made a visible impact.

correlation =/ causation

and besides i think the rest of us were asking: did people talk about the move and its subject. not: did michael moore institute heaven on earth.

this may have more of an impact than his last few, if only because healthcare is such a hot button campaign issue

Give it a try then. Show me where Moore has had a measurable, real impact on public opinion or voting or anything else.

he has contributed to the debate thats been occurring in this country since the war started about whether or not it was just. More people lean towards his perspective now than did before his film and the ensuing firestorm.

Do I think he is singlehandedly, or even predominantly associated w/ the shifting public opinion? No. But thats irrelevant. Its a fucking documentary and expecting it to singlehandedly change election results is silly

Hypothesis: If not for Fahrenheit 911, we would have named George Bush dictator for life?

-- milo z, Monday, June 18, 2007 7:50 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Dude, c'mon you are being ridiculous and contrary.

correlation =/ causation

yeah this basically

my only concern is that ppl are going to mistake it for journalism xp

my only concern is people mistaking it for a good movie because it happens to be on 'the right side'

still, it has its moments .... like harold and kumar

jk harold and kumar is way better

he has contributed to the debate thats been occurring in this country since the war started about whether or not it was just.

Do I think he is singlehandedly, or even predominantly associated w/ the shifting public opinion? No.

if you want to talk 'preaching to the choir,' uhhh how about posting to the noam thread or something

I THINK HIS MOVES ARE GREAT AND ENTERTAINING AND COMPELLING AND I EVEN LIKE THE MANIPULATIVE ASPECT SO THERE

(EXCEPT THAT ONE ABT NIKE WAS PRETTY TEDIOUS)

milo yr starting to baffle me here

Can't say Moore doesn't know his audience:

Michael Moore claims a "well-known pollster" told him about "an informal poll" with Fahrenheit 9/11 audiences in three different cities:

"Essentially, 80% of the people going IN to see your movie are already likely Kerry voters and the movie has galvanized them in a way you rarely see Democrats galvanized. But, here's the bad news for Bush: Though 80% going IN to your movie are Kerry voters, 100% of those COMING OUT of your movie are Kerry voters."

milo yr starting to baffle me here

He contributed to the debate by contributing to the debate?

you are so weird! he contributed to the debate by making a documentary that was very popular! And was discussed widely! People hated it! If the right wing bothers to talk shit its probably 'impacting' more people, or they worried it is - otherwise they wouldn't try to marginalize him

How about "was he a little bit associated"? Should be easy to show a shift - what were the Iraq & Bush poll numbers pre F911 and post?

correlation =/ causation
correlation =/ causation
correlation =/ causation
correlation =/ causation
correlation =/ causation
correlation =/ causation
correlation =/ causation
correlation =/ causation
correlation =/ causation

like, who cares if michael moore does or does not affect the polls? a documentary, even one as "big" as this one, is just another bit of media that contributes to the discussion. i agree that it's crazy to think that Sicko is going to BLOW HEALTHCARE WIDE OPEN mostly because (a) everyone's already talking about it and (b) there's not much to blow open, really. but railing against him for not affecting the polls and getting all emperor has no clothes about it is UH

xpost to Deej - Go back and read what I wrote about Moore's audience (which he seems to agree with).

A movie (or book or radio show or an evangelical crusade) can be hugely popular AND completely irrelevant if the audience it reaches either isn't swayed or doesn't need to be in the first place.

re: correlation/causation, you seem utterly clueless about the applicability of the phrase. I'm asking you to show either one.

i'm telling you it doesnt fucking matter

you're asking me to show causation when i'm saying there's a correlation

I can't believe Atul Gawande released a book about MEDICINE! Like it's going to do any good! The people that read will already have an interest in medicine! His insights will merely confirm what ppl already know! Who does he even think he is????!!?!?!

most things published/produced are irrelevant by your measure, milo

I like Michael Moore(flinttown represent), and his ultimate impact is that his movies allowed docus/polemics/whatever to be screened as mass entertainment, and going to see a docu at the multiplex is a normal, regular experience.

If nothing else, his movies get a political issue out there, and he has the ability to raise an issue to folks who're ultimately too busy or too distracted to follow politics or know the details.

xp

the more people discussing an issue, the more people will decide to 'take sides,' and the more media there is surrounding an issue, the more people will be discussing it, therefore michael moore has an impact

If nothing else, his movies get a political issue out there, and he has the ability to raise an issue to folks who're ultimately too busy or too distracted to follow politics or know the details.

it's the last bit that worries me

i agree with most of what you said there, kingfish, but it would take very little to make everything you just said applicable to the right-wing blowhard of your choosing.

i'm telling you it doesnt fucking matter

you're asking me to show causation when i'm saying there's a correlation

What you don't seem to grasp is that there was no meaningful change toward Moore's direction with anything he's raised. You're okay with that, I'm not.

Give it a try then. Show me where Moore has had a measurable, real impact on public opinion or voting or anything else.

-- milo z, Monday, June 18, 2007 7:50 PM (13 minutes ago)

"Essentially, 80% of the people going IN to see your movie are already likely Kerry voters and the movie has galvanized them in a way you rarely see Democrats galvanized. But, here's the bad news for Bush: Though 80% going IN to your movie are Kerry voters, 100% of those COMING OUT of your movie are Kerry voters."

-- milo z, Monday, June 18, 2007 7:58 PM (4 minutes ago)

You just answered your own question in 9 minutes! Being a movie released in theaters and DVDs worldwide, you could also look for a "real, measured impact" in that oh-so-objective bottom line of the movie world, the box office! Boxofficemojo.com reports

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES (the movie cost 6 million to make)
Domestic: $119,194,771 53.6%
+ Foreign: $103,252,111 46.4%
= Worldwide: $222,446,882

If you're stuck with concerns about if Moore distorts facts, if he is a shameless self-promoter, if he had a major impact with the political sense of the USA, etc. etc. then you are overlooking the fact that this is a guy that found a way to make 200 million dollars off what Frank Zappa called "The entertainment branch of industry" (politics).

"No meaningful change".....it's irrelevant, man. This is a hollywood movie and it did what hollywood movies are supposed to do, it found its target audience, widened it a little, and made a whole crapload of money. Since any answers about the effect the movie had on popular thinking is unacceptable to you, maybe you should just concede the fact that your just jealous.

most things published/produced are irrelevant by your measure, milo

he has the ability to raise an issue to folks who're ultimately too busy or too distracted to follow politics or know the detail

What you don't seem to grasp is that there was no meaningful change toward Moore's direction with anything he's raised. You're okay with that, I'm not.

-- milo z, Monday, June 18, 2007 8:21 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

How on earth can you prove this, or show any evidence of it? You're the one the burden of proof should be on here - i'm not claiming that his films made a MEASURABLE difference, just that they're not completely useless

(at impacting large groups of people and, along w/ many other media forms, shaping discourse)

your expectations of a documentary film are absurdly out of line.

I gave you my reasons ('because there has never been a visible shift in opinion that coincides with one of Moore's documentaries') and you wanted to write them off completely.

Again, I didn't ask you to 'prove' causation - only that if you want to argue that Moore has had an impact (politically - yes, arthur, he's changed the doc game, etc.), you should be able to illustrate it with some kind of factual backing.

your expectations of a documentary film are absurdly out of line.

no, because people actually watch him

Again, I didn't ask you to 'prove' causation - only that if you want to argue that Moore has had an impact (politically - yes, arthur, he's changed the doc game, etc.), you should be able to illustrate it with some kind of factual backing.

its really hard to measure that kind of information in anything other than anecdotals, though! How can you measure the impact of a piece of media on discourse? Through sales, through popularity. Moore's films get lots of attention ... obviously a lot of 'moore fans' are committed liberals but even if you argue that ONLY liberals watch his movies (something that seems highly questionable) he could STILL be having a significant impact on national discourse about a significant issue!

You keep arguing that if i can't prove that Moore can swing an election or something, or that more people aren't 'becoming libral' or 'voting liberal' (which, actually, they ARE, but i'm not about to claim that really has much to do with Moore specifically as much as the failings of the conservative majority) then i'm failing to make a case for his impact, which fails to take into account the impact of DISCUSSION and DEBATE and how there are, you know, millions of different variables impacting our national discussions; he's just one of the bigger fish, and i think its entirely reasonable to argue that as a result he has a meaningful impact on the debate. I dont even like Moore that much, he's sloppy, a weak filmmaker, etc, but there's no question that people pay attention to him, know who he is, and find his highly-manipulative films to be convincing!

You keep arguing that if i can't prove that Moore can swing an election or something

As I've said - and as Moore confirms - the people watching his movies are overwhelmingly predisposed to agreeing with him. You can't be convinced past already agreeing with the man.

milo how do you think ppl who aren't already 'converted' to the anti-bush cause should be approached? serious question.

how can i possibly provide a poll that proves causation tho??? i don't understand how you're not getting this.

here is one for you; since Fahrenheit 911, approval for the war has decreased dramatically!!!

For starters, this: sinkhole?? What does that even mean? Moneypit? Or that it's totally shitty and awful? What?

You own a dictionary, buddy.

The pro-Moore camp seems to be saying, "It doesn't matter that he makes shitty films; at least they're being SEEN." Call Jerry Bruckheimer, dude.

i can't afford a dictionary because of my healthcare bills

The pro-Moore camp seems to be saying, "It doesn't matter that he makes shitty films; at least they're being SEEN." Call Jerry Bruckheimer, dude.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, June 18, 2007 9:11 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

ok. i've enjoyed some bruckheimer films too, i can still acknowledge that they're shitty

i dont even know why i would be considered the 'pro-moore' camp
pro-his film being a good thing?

It's like we're supposed to honor the man's intentions. It's 1994 all over again: he made a shitty film but we're supposed to credit him anyway cuz it was the one of the first (and most lucrative) visible shots at BushCo, and during an election year.

er, 2004 again

I was about to ask what shitty movie was made about Bush in 94!

I guess I was thinking about the last time I took the GOP seriously.

how can i possibly provide a poll that proves causation tho???

If I say "I'm not asking you to prove causation" five more times, will you get it???

milo how do you think ppl who aren't already 'converted' to the anti-bush cause should be approached? serious question.

Not to be an asshole, but this question is basically irrelevant.

It's like we're supposed to honor the man's intentions. It's 1994 all over again: he made a shitty film but we're supposed to credit him anyway cuz it was the one of the first (and most lucrative) visible shots at BushCo, and during an election year.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, June 18, 2007 9:20 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

you are such a weird dude. yes how dare we give credit to a guy raising an important issue on a mainstream stage with a leftist perspective! i'm not saying give the guy an oscar, i think his films are pretty rough and emotionally manipulative, but i'm not about to get all crybaby about how he's not a better filmmaker ... he is who he is

If I say "I'm not asking you to prove causation" five more times, will you get it???

well i already explained in how i think moore's films have an impact on mainstream discourse because they are popular and "talked about" by mainstream media outlets. I don't have 'stats' to back that up but like turn on a tv

I don't really care if Moore "convinces" anyone or not, but deej still OTM about his media presence having some value (to me Moore's single greatest moment was his Oscar-acceptance speech). On a personal level Moore doesn't convince me of anything - I don't always agree with his stances, and his films are manipulative and heavy-handed - but he IS funny. So I go for the laffs.

(iow I go for the spit-combing moments)

My prediction is that the box office performance of Sicko will be used as a barometer of how important public health care is to the voting public.

you are such a weird dude. yes how dare we give credit to a guy raising an important issue on a mainstream stage with a leftist perspective! i'm not saying give the guy an oscar, i think his films are pretty rough and emotionally manipulative, but i'm not about to get all crybaby about how he's not a better filmmaker ... he is who he is

If caring that my filmmakers actually, you know, create a narrative that doesn't rely on second-rate yuks or making The Common People he so adores unnecessary targets then I'm pretty fucking weird, ok? Please forgive me for wanting more from our leftist icons. Even agitprop has standards.

If you just said, I DON'T CARE ABOUT ART, I JUST WANT A MESSAGE, then fine, but don't delude yourself. That's dishonest.

Milo when someone tells you water is wet, do you ask for stats to prove it? There's no way to quantify if/how much an impact anything Moore has ever done has. But a significant portion of American society knows who he is, have seen one or more of his movies, and has an opinion on him and, by extension, the issues he tackles. You seem to be arguing that if at first you don't succeed (wildly), give the fuck up.

My prediction is that the box office performance of Sicko will be used as a barometer of how important public health care is to the voting public.

-- Elvis Telecom, Monday, June 18, 2007 11:36 PM

And inevitably this thread will be revived. Probably by me.

When the alternative is "he's important because... uh... he's important," yes, I think, some sort of facts or logic or something to defend the guy are in order.

1. Moore's audience overwhelmingly consists of converts. He doesn't have many people to reach through his films because you still can't convince someone past agreeing with you. If he reached 30mn+ people with F911 before Nov. 04, and many were undecided... don't you think it would have moved the vote compared to 2000? Somewhat, at least? And if not, can't we then assume that viewers either agreed with him to start, or else his methods were completely ineffective at changing minds?

2. Moore's public persona is a bogeyman for the right, and a clown to the middle. He doesn't debate publicly, he doesn't do a lot of grassroots organizing anymore, he doesn't have much sway with anyone outside of his being a filmmaker now. And that runs into the first problem.

3. There is no evidence that Moore's films, writings or television shows has swayed public opinion or public policy. In each case, reality moved to the opposite of what he advocated. Was it his fault? No. Should we expect a filmmaker to save the world? God no. But if a filmmaker is treated as politically relevant, a left-wing Limbaugh (back when he mattered)... shouldn't he have some kind of impact on policy? Didn't Rush, at his peak, help Gingrich & Co. battle Clinton?

Moore, in truth, has no more political relevance than Steven Spielberg (maybe less, I bet Spielberg's donated a shitload to the DNC).

Do people buy Ann Coulter's books to expand their horizons, or to have their beliefs repeated back to them by an anorexic blonde?

Ha. Sicko is tracking to get blown out of the water by Die Hard. Also, Soto should talk more because I like how sonorous his voice is in this room full of red faces...

Also, fuck this movie based on the Weinstein company alone. Can we fault it for that at least? All other arguments are dull and probably just an ILX search away...

Yeah. Hating on the Weinsteins is SO much more interesting.

And Milo, I think we've all heard enough of your self-hatred and cynicism to get exactly where you are coming from. Could you possibly have absorbed MORE right-wing talking points about Michael Moore? Is there ANY "evidence" that Rush Limbaugh has had any more impact on public policy than Moore? NO! Of course not!

And did you even SEE this movie?

Is it already out?

Oh and fwiw guys, here is the official Fox News line on the movie.

pay attention!

hoosteen shit is up on google

leaked.

right right

lolz, michael moore is not enough an "agent of change" for the guy who doesn't vote.

1. Moore's audience overwhelmingly consists of converts. He doesn't have many people to reach through his films because you still can't convince someone past agreeing with you.

there's a weird logical fallacy at work here - if all the people who saw F911 were already "converts" to Moore's work, wouldn't they be voting the way he told them already? You are aware this is the biggest selling documentary of all-time, right? You're telling us ALL those people were already thinking/voting/agreeing with Moore? Obviously that is not the case.

If caring that my filmmakers actually, you know, create a narrative that doesn't rely on second-rate yuks or making The Common People he so adores unnecessary targets then I'm pretty fucking weird, ok? Please forgive me for wanting more from our leftist icons. Even agitprop has standards.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, June 18, 2007 11:42 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

eh i agree w/ yr criticisms but i think his films are at the very least effective on a larger level and thats all i'm getting at ... i think yr right that they are manipulative and not really as funny as their adherents think they are

the thing is, i do respect someone who can actually affect change for doing that, even if i think his agitprop has little going for it aesthetically

1. Moore's audience overwhelmingly consists of converts. He doesn't have many people to reach through his films because you still can't convince someone past agreeing with you. If he reached 30mn+ people with F911 before Nov. 04, and many were undecided... don't you think it would have moved the vote compared to 2000? Somewhat, at least? And if not, can't we then assume that viewers either agreed with him to start, or else his methods were completely ineffective at changing minds?

Uh how do you know that 30m+ people would have voted the same way in 2004 regardless of F911? Do you have election results from an alternate universe or something?

(nb: the 2000 election and the 2004 election were nothing alike so using 2000 as a yardstick is a little eh)

don't you think it would have moved the vote compared to 2000? Somewhat, at least?

how do you know it didn't?

"Because Bush won" will be the answer here.

there's a weird logical fallacy at work here - if all the people who saw F911 were already "converts" to Moore's work, wouldn't they be voting the way he told them already?

You are aware this is the biggest selling documentary of all-time, right? You're telling us ALL those people were already thinking/voting/agreeing with Moore? Obviously that is not the case.

I never said all, I said an overwhelming majority.

the 2000 election and the 2004 election were nothing

There were no distinct shifts in voting patterns anywhere in the US, or nationwide. Bush's poll numbers, so far as I can tell, didn't vary widely pre- and post- F911.

the thing is, i do respect someone who can actually affect change for doing that, even if i think his agitprop has little going for it aesthetically

"How do you know people's opinions didn't change because of F911?"
"Because there was no change in voting patterns from 2000 to 2004."
"So? 2000 and 2004 aren't comparable elections."
"Yes they are."
"On what do you base that assumption?"
"The fact that there was no change in voting patterns from 2000 to 2004."

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/2/2c/Circleoflogic.gif/180px-Circleoflogic.gif

milo you seem unable to grasp that there are many many many variables that enter into 'how people vote.' You realize that maybe the reason voting patterns stayed consistent and didn't shift in favor of liberals (speaking purely hypothetically here because there really is no way to determine concrete influence) was because F911 was counteracted by conservative agit prop on the other side, that, you know, the deal with discourse is that its a constant dialog between different sides, and that maybe Bush would have won in a bigger landslide in '04 were it not for the impact of films on the left that can a) galvanize the base and b) convince some people in the middle that, you know, maybe the liberals have the moral high ground on some issues.

like, you're assuming that F911 happened in a vacuum, that you can somehow extricate its influence from the influence of ALL THE OTHER media impacting people's perceptions of politics, which just can't be done, which is why people are so frustrated with yr "where's the PROOF" argument. You dont have any 'proof,' no one does, unless you can find some media studies implying that Moore is ignored by the 'middle'

but his mainstream popularity implies to me that he has some CROSSOVER success

Curtis, what were these vast differences.

same Republicans, very similar Democrats, Congressional makeup not changed, no great swing toward either party as 9/11 fervor cooled.

major differences: Iraq War (poll numbers the same in April-May as in September-October - basically a 42/58 mistake/not a mistake split), Nader not a factor (which means more votes for Kerry, no?)

milo you seem unable to grasp that there are many many many variables that enter into 'how people vote.'

You've offered absolutely nothing to indicate that Moore or his film made one iota of change in public opinion or how people voted. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

The sole argument for Moore's relevance is that he's, like, well-known. Thus relevant.

No, I don't. But one variable that cannot be found, in any way, is that Moore had any effect on

By the same token, what variable did George W Bush have an effect on?

like, you're assuming that F911 happened in a vacuum, that you can somehow extricate its influence from the influence of ALL THE OTHER media impacting people's perceptions of politics

Well, what films/books/etc. had equal popularity and counteracted him? What were they?

You dont have any 'proof,' no one does, unless you can find some media studies implying that Moore is ignored by the 'middle'

but his mainstream popularity implies to me that he has some CROSSOVER success

O'Reilly and Limbaugh is a much, much bigger media figures - would you say they have CROSSOVER appeal, or do they appeal to a dedicated and specific bases (particularly Limbaugh)?

By the same token, what variable did George W Bush have an effect on?

Other than that, I don't know what you're asking.

you live in Texas

and in a precinct that voted for Kerry

in a county that voted for Bush

LA Times poll found that 92% of F911 viewers were pro-Kerry from the start

from the Annenberg website:

Michael Moore’s movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, has attracted about as many people as Rush Limbaugh’s radio broadcasts, but the election-year film appears to have hardly changed any minds, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey shows.
Forty-one percent of the Moore movie goers said the picture made them think worse of George W. Bush. But that claim must be treated skeptically because three fifths of the people who said the film made them think less of Bush were Democrats to begin with. While a third of the independents who saw the movie said it made them think worse of Bush, those independents who watched the movie were much more liberal than independents generally and had been three times more likely to back Al Gore than Bush in 2000. Only a handful of Republicans saw the movie; they were too few for their attitudes to be measured with confidence.

Moore boasts 80% pro-Kerry himself (though I don't think we need to pretend that his pollster was real, but it speaks to what he believes his audience is).

Other than that, I don't know what you're asking.

You are stated that: same Republicans, very similar Democrats, Congressional makeup not changed, no great swing toward either party as 9/11 fervor cooled.
demonstrates that Moore had no effect on the 2004 results. I am saying that if you use that as a benchmark then nothing whatsoever, including the president of the United States, affected the results.

Did no-one change their vote? Did the exact same people vote?

I don't think anyone is saying "Michael Moore made people vote Dem" but that the leftist "propaganda", promotion, campaigning, etc. machine that he was a high profile part of all contributed to mobilising the Dem vote and swaying a few undecideds.

demonstrates that Moore had no effect on the 2004 results.

he was a high profile part of all contributed to mobilising the Dem vote and swaying a few undecideds.

But what I've said, from the start, is that Moore doesn't reach enough people, and more importantly doesn't try to reach more people (he makes a very comfortable living with this MO) to be politically relevant.

This is all so ridiculous. God forbid a filmmaker make films for his fans!

And anyway, the point of movies like this is to provide the viewers with arguments and anecdotes for them to share with people who AREN'T necessarily fans of the filmmaker. For example, after this film, I could point to an English doctor who is making a perfectly good living under socialized medicine. These films help clarify a viewpoint or an argument, and as much as everyone loves to throw around statements about how "dishonest," or "misleading" MM is, I haven't actually heard any good examples of this (and he DID offer a $10,000 prize to anyone who could disprove any of his assertions in F911).

and as much as everyone loves to throw around statements about how "dishonest," or "misleading" MM is

Ironically, the only people who've done this (unless Alfred did and I didn't notice) were defending Moore.

ps are you a Michael Moore street-teamer?

I don't think people who "don't try to reach more people" have street-teamers.

milo i'm having a lot of trouble decided which fallacy you're making to hone in on at any particular moment. there are more holes in your 'argument' than a goddamn sieve

where's nabisco

Moore's 'Sicko' Will Be Released Ahead of Schedule
By MICHAEL CIEPLY

LOS ANGELES, June 19 — Hyped in Cuba, unveiled in Cannes, pirated on YouTube, and rallied around last week in Sacramento, Calif., by nurses chanting for the health insurance system’s demise, Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko” is finally ready to meet its American audience — or at least some of it — a week ahead of schedule.

Executives of the Weinstein Company, which provided backing for the film, a documentary indictment of America’s health care system, said “Sicko” would open Friday on a single screen at the AMC Loews Lincoln Square theater in New York.

Lionsgate, the movie’s distributor, will otherwise proceed with a planned opening in about 250 theaters around the country the following Friday. But it is offering “sneak previews” this week in 27 markets where Mr. Moore’s politically tinged documentaries have played well in the past, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, and Philadelphia, the Weinstein executives said.

“This gets it started,” said Gary Faber, Weinstein’s executive vice president in charge of marketing, who said the early opening was intended to feed growing demand for the film and was not related to the movie showing up on the Internet.

The decision to bump up the opening came on a day when two New York tabloids, The New York Post and The Daily News, sharply split in their early reviews of “Sicko.” The Post called it a “Botched Operation”; The Daily News pronounced it “boffo.”

The film has been tracking well in markets that have traditionally been friendly to Mr. Moore, Mr. Faber said, and the boost of a New York opening (and the attendent reviews) could help its performance nationwide.

But a Weinstein spokeswoman said the company expected “Sicko,” budgeted at about $9 million, to perform more like Mr. Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine,” which had around $21.6 million in American ticket sales in 2002, than like his “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which took in $119.2 million at the domestic box office in 2004.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

It's been a long time since I saw Bowling for Columbine, but is that really an argument for gun control? I thought I remembered him going to Canada and pointing out that they also have a strong gun culture but far fewer murders, so something else was up besides too many guns.

the one "misleading" thing in F9/11 that I recall was something Hitchens (ugh, sorry) pointed out - which was that it was anti-war/lefty hero Richard Clarke who takes sole credit for authorizing those much-maligned Saudi flights the day of the attack. Moore conveniently ignores/sidesteps this in the interest of further demonizing Dubya's connections to the House of Saud.

(and there are a number of little things like this in all of his films)

Excellent response, deej.

he's right though - this assertion that the millions of people that saw his movie are all Kerry voters, I'd like to see the math on that. (hint: there isn't any)

he's right though - this assertion that the millions of people that saw his movie are all Kerry voters, I'd like to see the math on that. (hint: there isn't any)

Yeesh.

Moore's words = irrelevant, he's not a pollster

The U Penn study is interesting but has a number of caveats and I'm not clear on who they were surveying - just voters in the pres election?

I wonder where Ron Paul stands on all of this.

Moore's words = what he believes his audience to be (which coincides with what his audience has been online and in person), and one would think is what the Weinstein Co. people tell him his audience is.

The Penn study is of Fahrenheit viewers.

its an "Election Survey" of movie viewers that doesn't ask about voting patterns? wtf

the one "misleading" thing in F9/11 that I recall was something Hitchens (ugh, sorry) pointed out - which was that it was anti-war/lefty hero Richard Clarke who takes sole credit for authorizing those much-maligned Saudi flights the day of the attack

he's not very popular here these days, but Hitchens' take-down of F 9/11 is the best of its kind.

its an "Election Survey" of movie viewers that doesn't ask about voting patterns? wtf

but I thought we were talking about differences between 2000 and 2004 - survey doesn't reference 2004 vote...?

Hole #1: you're only measuring 'impact' by people's vote, not the other numerous ways in which a piece of politically-charged media affects public perception

Hole #2: Even if 80% of his viewers are already kerry voters, that 20% is actually a really large number when you realize how many people he reached with a movie that grosses over 100$ in ticket sales

shd i continue?

uh supposed to say $100 million

I don't really understand how the U of Penn survey could've canvassed a representative sample of people who saw the movie anyway. Its not like everyone who bought a ticket left their personal information with the box office to be contacted later in the event a political survey was being conducted.

x-post

(I mean they could've canvassed VOTERS and asked them if they'd seen the movie and who they voted for, but that doesn't appear to be what they did)

(and even then, as deej points out that wouldn't account for non-voters - like you Milo! - who saw the movie but didn't vote)

The survey was taken before the 2004 election, Shakey. It asks specifically about how they were going to vote, though.

Hole #1: you're only measuring 'impact' by people's vote

not the other numerous ways in which a piece of politically-charged media affects public perception

that 20% is actually a really large number when you realize how many people he reached with a movie that grosses over 100$ in ticket sales

Of course, if you go by the Annenberg poll, that 20% consisted of Gore voters and liberal-leaners primarily, and of those he only moved a third.

Which has been, since the start, my point: Moore's influence is negligible outside of his ability to maintain a fine capitalist lifestyle.

your ability to miss the point is unparalleled

I don't know where this non-voter stuff started. I've argued that there's nothing wrong with not voting and it's a completely valid fuck-you to the status quo. But every time we have those arguments I also say that I haven't yet managed to not vote.

I can't help it, even though I know I'm voting for losing candidates and propositions and even if I wasn't it wouldn't matter.

"the point"

haha okay I take it back

(I'm familiar with trad-anarchist non-voting arguments and they're a-okay with me)

still I just can't get over the idea that there are enough Kerry voters in the country to sell $120 million worth of tickets, that just seems wildly disproportionate to me.

movie tickets be expensive

Moore's influence is negligible outside of his ability to maintain a fine capitalist lifestyle

How is not voting a fuck you to the system? If anything, it's a fuck you to yourself!

you're looking for logic from a dude who thinks that if kerry didn't win the election, F911 had zero impact

movie tickets be expensive

-- milo z, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 21:38

hay guys i think we found a point we can agree on.

shit, I downloaded it.

Dan, are 'sick outs' a big fuck you from employees to management or to themselves?

milo how do you think ppl who aren't already 'converted' to the anti-bush cause should be approached? serious question.

Not to be an asshole, but this question is basically irrelevant.

um, why?

I wonder if the end credits music being Cat Stevens is another thing he hopes to provoke Republicans with. It seems to serve two purposes at once: it's evocative and over-the-top emotional, and it's by a man who is now known as a Muslim extremist. Accident? I doubt it. Still a great song, though.

yusuf islam is not a muslim extremist.

Moore argues he's mainstream now

Isn't Yusaf Islam going by Yusaf Stevens now?

That link has Moore himself extolling his cultural significance:

He said that he hoped people realized that he was no longer a radical bomb-thrower and that he was now firmly in the American mainstream. "Three years ago I was booed off the Oscar for daring to suggest that we were being led to war for fictitious reasons," Moore said, recalling the night in 2003 when he accepted the Oscar for his documentary Bowling For Columbine and made headlines with an anti-war outburst that ended with the proclamation "Shame on you! Shame on you!" directed at President Bush. Moore said that today "70% of the country agrees with [that sentiment]. They don't support Bush or the war. I am now in the mainstream majority, which is weird; I don't sit out on the edge, I sit here." Moore ticked off each of his films, and recounted the ways he believes the world has caught up with his sentiments. With 1998's Roger & Me. he took on General Motors and no one listened, Moore said. Today, "they're near bankruptcy." With 2002's Bowling For Columbine, he tried to take on the culture of gun violence, and this year there was another deadly school shooting at Virginia Tech. With 2004's Fahrenheit 9/11, he took on a then-popular president and a then-popular war, and he said Bush's polls have plummeted ever since.

With 2002's Bowling For Columbine, he tried to take on the culture of gun violence, and this year there was another deadly school shooting at Virginia Tech.

kind of a weird thing to take credit for!

that aside, he is right to be proud of his Oscar speech, that was some real balls on display there.

PS YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT THIS SHIT FOR LIKE TWO DAYS NOW

yusuf islam is not a muslim extremist.

Oh, no he's not! But he is KNOWN as one.

Maybe this has been mentioned upthread but are the Weinsteins totally incapable of marketing anything lately? First GRINDHOUSE then SiCKO... are they trying to trick people into seeing films because they sound like Eli Roth movies?

Hee hee. CNN bounced Michael Moore offa wednesday's Larry King, to be replaced by Paris Hilton. God Bless America.

Denby: Me no like.

Maybe Denby would have been happier if MM had asked Vanessa Redgrave her thoughts on health care?

It's his fault she died in her last film.

This comes out in two days, and they're screening it at the local multiplex, and the reviews are coming in: Onion liked it, A.O. Scott liked it, and somebody at the Murdoch Post hated it.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/21/arts/22sicko600.1.jpg

ugh, Hoberman compares him to Abbie Hoffman

In fact, here, enjoy this review of the flick by Kyle Smith, entitled "BOTCHED OPERATION:
CRAZY MOORE OFFERS WRONG PRESCRIPTION"

Does he use his review to make really forced jokes somehow involving both Groucho and Karl Marx? Does he feel the need to get in a dig at Al Gore? Is the French health care system attacked? Guess!

denby @ new yorker hates it

good job with the killfile there

Zancharek's review is the most ambivalent.

hah oops

accidental fat joke from Zacharek - ""Sicko" is a blunt, effective picture, and there's no doubt that Moore feels passionately about this subject, even discounting his own considerably bloated need to be the center of attention."

flabby critique

Dude was on the Daily Show last night, for the curious. I'd post a link to the vid but comedy central's vid site is shitty.

is the AOL video better?

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/id/1074461148

so what's the significance of the selective capitalization in the official spelling of the title, "SiCKO"

is this something I have to see the movie to understand e.g. The Pursuit of Happyness?

moore's work is manipulative; he's a bit of a reprehensible attention junkie. He's also done a pretty impressive job of creating a smooth bit of agitprop about an incredibly difficult to explain and unsexy topic. I'm not surprised that there seems to be an attempt to bury it for this news cycle rather than feed the discussion. I also applaud his willingness to allow people run the thing on the web; that "with permission" tag is pretty amazing.

That hyperlink should be (and is) http://insanefilms.com/?p=413 ; not sure if it's not allowing linking or not.

on larry king yesterday - http://youtube.com/watch?v=8T2A9aoKWXc

that's awesome that the whole film is online like that

I saw the movie last night. It was great, but after Farenheit 9/11, my hopes are not high for any sort of change as a result. As I watched the movie, I realized that most of the online critics I'd seen bashing the film and claiming they'd seen it online were just lying. If they'd seen it, they wouldn't have said some of the things they said about the Gitmo scene. What they got from the scene, they got from the trailer and from rumors. Yes, I was sent a googlevideo link, but these people definitely did not see it based on what they said.

When I got home, I instantly looked up JimK of Moorewatch to see his reaction. Unsurprisingly, Moorewatch has several posts responding to the movie which give Moore very little credit and they've disabled user comments. So, I took the time to read JimK's critique of how he was presented in SiCKO. B

asically, this guy is a moron. That's the problem a lot of Moore critics have. They're just not very bright. They always think he's lying and "prove" this by referring to his dishonest editing techniques. Anyone with a brain sees the sharp cuts and knows that Moore is not telling a linear story here and his skew-take is meant to enhance the irony and entertainment factor. JimK's big problem was like "the two-ties incident" in Bowling for Columbine where Charlton Heston's words are spliced together "to make him look like a monster" (and you can clearly see he's wearing two different color ties). So, when SiCKO shows JimK's comments reading on Moorewatch reading "Fuck you, Michael," it irks JimK that this looks like his less than gracious response to Moore sending him $12000. Well, guess what, JimK? You have no need to be irked, you moron. It's obvious that this scene was nonlinear. I never for once thought that this was JimK's reponse to Michael after receiving his $12000. Just like the Charlton Heston scene, the point is that JimK said these things, period. The point is that JimK is allowed to continue bashing Moore on his Moorewatch website, as he has in the past. JimK even says on his recent comments: "thanks for the money but I will still speak my mind about your work." No shit. This is the point of the scene where JimK's "Fuck you, Michael" comment is flashed. JimK also has a problem with the way it was presented in the movie. Moore makes himself look like the good guy of two mortal enemies, first of all. Well, this is obvious. But, it's also true. Moore is humorously making himself look good. Yeah? And? The second problem JimK has was that the $12000 came long after JimK's problems were solved, but he took the money anyway. The point Moore was making, which was lost on the moron JimK, is that people will gladly take $12000 to help their healthcare expenses if someone with more money is willing to part with it. The point Moore has made here is that a universal healthcare system depends on rich people becoming slightly less greedy, which Moore is clearly willing to do. So, this isn't dishonest at all. The scene shows quite well that Moore's bitter enemy/critic would like the benefits of universal healthcare, too. It shows quite well that nobody likes to get stuck with medical bills that could drive them to poverty. And it makes the link quite well to the opening SiCKO scenes which show that impoverished Americans simply die without healthcare.

And as far as I have seen, critics of SiCKO ignore everything in the movie except the "gimmick" Gitmo scene, which is not a "gimmick" at all, but a humorous and sad stab at reality. Sure, MM could have stopped at simply stating that the prisoners who supposedly tried to kill us on 9/11 get free healthcare and the 9/11 workers who tried to save us get none, but so what if he went the extra mile to make a visual point in a movie meant to be somewhat entertaining? So what if he already knew these workers wouldn't get care this way? What is the point of that criticism? It evades the actual issue. MM's "gimmick," on the other hand does not evade the actual issue, as critics claim. MM's only mistake with this scene was giving critics an obvious point to complain about. Other than that, the scene took about 5 minutes and was kind of funny, helping make that sad little fact more memorable. And the 9/11 workers later got their free health care from the Cuban government, which was the plan all along. So, where's the dishonesty here? That it wasn't really all planned? Fancy edits? MM went on Larry King and said it was planned for about 6 months and everything was worked out in advance. If it's not obvious enough from the film, you got problems.

So, what are critics saying about this film? They don't want their taxes to be high like Sweden! Moore's film focuses on Canada, England, France and Cuba. So, why are they talking about Sweden?

B

asically, this guy is a moron.

Yes, the ironing is delicious.

Moore's film focuses on Canada, England, France and Cuba. So, why are they talking about Sweden?

it's not about taxes:

http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_08_29_a_hazard.html

it's about this:

http://www.thelocal.se/7650/

the same way authoritarian social conservatives believe that using education and free condoms to prevent the spread of STDs, or giving girls vaccinations against HPV, is the same as authorizing everyone to become a dionysian slut-hippie and will tear apart the very fabric of society.

In many ways, the neocon agenda strikes me closer to socialism and communism than it does capitalism. Average conservatives I meet with around the dinner table simply view it as "Capitalism is great!" and "Democracy is great!" and "we're spreading democracy to Iraq!" Well, democracy is not the American way. Democracy is 51% of the people being free and 49% not being free. That's why we have a democratic republic and that is what makes Capitalism "good." The problem with the neocon agenda is that its not really Capitalism. It's a monopoly that divvies out the funds. The only reason the people in charge don't want universal healthcare is because they're greedy fucks. The people in the middle are left with a bunch of propaganda about why it would be so bad. As far as the healthcare PROVIDERS, well, yes, of course, if doctors start making less money, they will not be happy. That's obvious. It kind of seems to go against the American dream to suggest that if you're a doctor you can only make so much money, but does it really? As Moore points out in the movie: are our firemen, police, teachers and librarians not living the American dream. My goodness, these are socialist programs!

Actually I think universal healthcare is an utter certainty, since social security and medicare are both apparently broken, and about half the population of the country is about to retire and start voting every tuesday in earnest until they get us kids to pay for their goddamn erection pills.

the rest of your post seems to overgeneralize a great deal about the neocon's grip on the american electorate and I'm not sure I want to converse too much more with you based on that thread wherein two out of three countries that call their currency the dollar all of a sudden switch over to something called an "amero" by shortening a process that took europe decades into the space of three years

I understand your points. I am overgeneralizing and I am even shifting blame to neocons that doesn't even really fall there. But, that is because I don't really have a problem with conservativism or capitalism.

What I do have a problem with is the way, in general, this government has run on the model of "capitalism" and "the American dream."

To get away from the overgeneralization, I'll get specific for a moment, but about money, in general. Consider our education: up to high school graduation, it's socialized and not the greatest. Then, to go onto college, you have various options, but unless you've saved up, you need to borrow money from a bank. It seems like the bank is lending you money, but in reality, they pull a switcheroo. They deposit your application for, say, $10,000 into the Fed which gives them the right to make between $100,000 and $300,000. Your debt has just made them rich. And you get to pay them back! At interest! This wouldn't be quite so bad if it was the government, but it's not. Our government is in debt to the Federal Reserve. We borrow money from them at interest, not just individually, but collectively as a nation. Of course, it's all tied together and what good is the Fed without a government, but why is it set up this way? This creates inflation that strangles our own citizens. Is this somehow preferable to other industrialized countries who provide free education and free healthcare?

well 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' has applied for a couple of generations in these cases and I don't think the tipping point where we're forced to consider becoming more european in these respects has happened yet. It will soon enough. We're fucked anyway, unless you're over 40.

I just kind of worry that by the time there's some sort of uprising or voted-in change that it will be too late. Like, maybe we will have lost all our power to do anything. I don't know that I feel these people in charge respect our voice too much. They seem to have gotten pretty good about manipulating issues and working according to their own agendas.

The fact that this thread has been almost exclusively a debate on Michael Moore, with almost no discussion of the US health care system, shows that the Fox/conservative agenda has made a tremendous impact, even on those who do not watch Fox or identify with right wing conservatism. The fact that so many people here have complained that Michael Moore (horrors!) manipulates The Truth shows how easy it is to manipulate the debate.

When you examine this claim, you will find that it always boils down to this: Moore did not say something he could have said and we think he should have said. It isn't Moore's job to say everything his opponents wish the public to hear. That is their job. But they frame it as if, by failing to include this or that argument in their favor, he lied. He's a liar. He is a shameless, baldfaced liar. And fat. And ugly, too.

So much of this is pure ad hominem argument. If you can persuade people to mistrust the messenger, it doesn't matter if the message is completely fatual and the conclusions to be drawn from those facts are inescapable; you've won.

I am constantly amazed that such trivialities as Moore's weight or appearance can be used to discredit him. But it works like a charm. It works because no one attack has to be 100% effective. All you have to do is cast enough aspersions of enough varieties that each pellet from your shotgun knocks out some potential members of Moore's audience. Most pellets will glance off most people, but only one has to find its mark.

You just keep firing until you've run out of ammo, and in the end you've whittled away at his effectiveness from every conceivable angle and never once had to address any of Moore's facts. Simply amazing.

Hey Aimless, did you know that Al Gore is fat, too? It's true! Also, he lives in a palatial C.M.Burns-style mansion powered by a monstrous smoke-belching incinerator burning coal and orphans, one that would put Battersea Power Station to shame! And he's fat! LOL

Was this posted yet? (Michael Moore's views on filesharing)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OlAB0v8wHdc

It seems like this might shut up the criticism that he's just out to make money.

It seems like this might shut up the criticism that he's just out to make money.

haha, you sure about this? you're assuming that the volume of the criticism launched at the guy is from people arguing cogent, rational positions that can be countered by actual fact, reason, and evidence. Where have you been for the last 15 years?

yeah my bad

river wolf started a discussion of the health care system here:

healthcare thread

HEALTHCARE THREAD

that, rather. bbcode wasn't working for me.

didn't expect to like it, but i did. moore stays serious throughout; when he suddenly returns to his old prankster persona near the end of the movie, it's oddly moving.

hitchens' "takedown" of F911 - impressively comprehensive as it is - is hard to take seriously considering how much mendacious bullshit from rumsfeld et al he's obediently swallowed just because it fits his trotskyist take on the iraq war.

He's never parrotted any Rumsfeldian talking points, or fallen prey to ooh-we're-turning-the-corner jargon (I could be wrong; I haven't read every word etched by his prodigious pen). If anything, he's a victim of a touching, debilitating idealism: helping the Kurds is moral and just, destroying one maleovent branch of a monotheistic religion is moral and just, so we're fifth columnists if we don't applaud.

i'm reminded again of why "idealism" is the most overrated political trait ever.

i think there's a difference to be made between idealism and dogmatism; Hitchens tends to fall into the latter camp.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=419182687849538532

My problem with Moore is never his politics, or even his idealism -- I quite like both of those. It's his tone, most of the time. His inability to successfully mix comedy and commentary, which is especially bad because it's what he pretends to do best. Mixing comedy and anything else at all takes a certain light touch, and Moore has anything but that. I get annoyed at his voiceovers, that heavy tone that always ends on a note of some kind of doom, like he's doing the trailer for some third-rate disaster movie. "But then... she got sick." DUM DUM DUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMM!

I still thought this movie was powerful, though, because I know first hand how fucked beyond belief the American health care system is. Anyone who's ever seen anyone in their family get sick knows that.

What do you do when you need a lazy-ass ad hominem attack and you don't have any game? why, send in Mark Steyn!

"'Would these be Doctors who work for the U.K. health care system so lavishly praised by Michael Moore? ...Perhaps they are not Jihadists at all but simply men driven insane by their employer? Maybe Michael Moore has spawned an entirely new breed of suicide bomber — the alienated UK health care worker'" Steyn quotes from one e-mail, after noting "I've been getting more than a few letters along these lines."

He also posted a second e-mail, and observed, "Now that Dr Mohammed Asha has been arrested in the Glasgow/London terrorist investigation, several readers have noticed that this artfully combines Michael Moore's two most recent enthusiasms, 'insurgents' and socialized health care." Steyn, however adds, "Mr Moore has yet to call these medico-jihadists 'Minutemen.'"

I just saw this. Wow. I mean, you hear about the state of the US system, and I thought that I understood - but it's simply unbelievable. Why do Americans let this continue? In a country as rich as the the United States, it is incomprehensible. Margaret Thatcher was a supporter of the NHS, so it's obviously no communist plot to sneak in the back door. The US could easily sort this out. I have a really hard time trying to understand why they wouldn't want to. The Canadian system is far from perfect, but I will never take it for granted again. What justifications are used for maintaining the status quo?

Wow.

Mixing comedy and anything else at all takes a certain light touch

hmmm, not sure I agree, tho Moore has his hamfisted moments. One of the funniest things on The Awful Truth was a bunch of Crucible-costumed zealots running after Ken Starr's car and yelling "UNCLEAN!" Hardly light of touch.

Margaret Thatcher was a supporter of the NHS

Who told you that?

What justifications are used for maintaining the status quo?

Where to begin?

If you consult the public relations machine, it will tell you "the US healthcare system is the most advanced in the world and the envy of all nations." No facts are ever provided to back this hilarious assertion.

It also spits out a lot of flak about how dismal "socialized medicine" is and how "market forces" are the only reliable way to ensure that the US healthcare system maintains its lead over the rest of the world. The fact that hundreds of billions of dollars of profits are being raked off the top and pocketed by stockholders each year instead of reinvested is immaterial to the quality or cost of the product.

Dig a bit deeper and you will find that the major form of reinvestment for these billions of dollars is to buy off the doctors, the media, and the US Congress, thus neutralizing most of the channels by which change might be implemented. The US Congress especially is wholly owned by the medical-industrial complex.

But, if you dig even deeper, you have to conclude that the root cause of this inertia is that the US citizenry is so beaten down, misinformed, distracted and fragmented that it literally cannot see how to use the political tools at its disposal to improve its lot.

Also, for the psychological reasoning:

His point with his trips abroad is that there's something fundamentally being done right there with health care that has not been discussed in the United States because we're so fucking scared of seeming worse off than other countries. Meanwhile, the truth is, as Moore shows, that we are.

One of the funniest things on The Awful Truth was a bunch of Crucible-costumed zealots running after Ken Starr's car and yelling "UNCLEAN!"

yeah, ok, that was hilarious.

But yeah, a lot of it is either cluelessness on the public's part(as Joe Bageant says, we have a 6th-grader's understanding of economics) coupled with well-funded ideologues who dogmatically insist that the Way Things Are is the way they should be, and the fact that Medicare only has about 2-3% overhead vs the 25%+ of most huge private concerns is either a Good Thing or should be ignored. Market idolatry runs rampant.

short answer: money

but money's only part of it; free market cluelessness is more the problem.

the two are inextricable - the "free market cluelessness" is subscribed to because people want to believe the market's "natural" adjustments in regards to a healthcare system will be less painful than the government basically forcing the redistribution of wealth that a reshaping of the industry would entail.

And now, Kurt Loder

Gah. Thing about Kurt's review is that he does the standard response to this flick; he's gotta do the "but but BUT! look! a system run by humans has errors! " as if these other national systems are protrayed as perfect. They're not, but they are _better_, and maybe if we actually start wondering why they're better(and maybe actually acknowledge that fact), we might begin to figure out how to fix our own. What, Cuba's health system has problems? Holy shit, we'll have to completely reject it all out of hand and any examination of it would corrupt our freakin' ears.

It's like what was mentioned upthread; a way for people to rep for the status quo is to go "you think THIS is bad?" and proceed to rattle off anecdotes about other places and other systems, as if everything in America was the pinnacle of human design & development. The national dogmatic jingoism is such that we can't even allow for pragmatic eclectism, approaches that have worked before, to operate.

"Margaret Thatcher was a supporter of the NHS"

Sorry. That was based on her "The NHS is safe in our hands" quote. A bit of quick research indicates that she was not in fact a strong supporter. Still, she would never have dared, nor gotten away with dismantling it for a US style system.

Gah. Thing about Kurt's review is that he does the standard response to this flick; he's gotta do the "but but BUT! look! a system run by humans has errors! " as if these other national systems are protrayed as perfect

To be fair, kingfish, these are critics, not advocates.

Following your line of reasoning, we must accept F 9-11's fallacies and terrible jokes because the criticism of the Bush Iraq policy was legitimate.

Why am I paying for school? I don't have shorties!

It's a decent, entertaining film. Didn't care for the $12,000 check self-congratulatory bit re his Web enemy, but eh.

that, and the guantanamo groaner were the biggest wobbles ; actually all comedy not generated by interviewees was piss-poor (your previous movies called, they want their ironic 50's montages back...) but it was affecting overall.
I like that he's getting more Lakoff on your ass, cutting deep into the basic values/culture questions (encapsulated in the roffles that the britishes couple with the newborn give re: American health care, great). And some of the anecdotes are heartwrenching, if redundant. Not data-rich by any means and reeks of cherry-picking and coaching and thus sets back the progressive movement 30 years, makes me hate michael moore and life itself, etc.

reeks of cherry-picking and coaching

ie, filmmaking.

he's the Michigander Herzog!

the atul gawande response to this was pretty good

reeks of cherry-picking and coaching

ie, filmmaking.

yeah i mean not only can you see the strings but they're engorged and veiny. ie bad documentarymaking.

HE DON'T MAKE THOSE

i thought the $12,000 check was a pretty good zing actually

Were the guys who did that website the same ones who showed up in a Daily Show bit two years ago, when Samantha Bee asks them why they can't find michael moore?

those guys were doing a movie on him i think, probably not the same. website is a one-man operation apparently.

the check thing was classless and smug, full stop. he already wrung a bit of pub out of it in the press, should have left it at that.

god bless his carny blood though, i can't stay mad.

Okay, I was at my friend's house a few weeks ago. We were outside discussing that her husband has a porn on his computer of a three way between a man and these two twin women. "Incest yuck no oh boy nasty" was our conclusion. Then we went inside and she showed me some of the naked lady pics he had on his compy. She then opened up a movie file and said, "SICKO." "Why are you showing me the sick twins movie?" "No no no, Michael Moore's Sicko." Such was my introduction to this movie.

Okay, I was at my friend's house a few weeks ago. We were outside discussing that her husband has a porn on his computer of a three way between a man and these two twin women. "Incest yuck no oh boy nasty" was our conclusion. Then we went inside and she showed me some of the naked lady pics he had on his compy. She then opened up a movie file and said, "SICKO." "Why are you showing me the sick twins movie?" "No no no, Michael Moore's Sicko." Such was my introduction to this movie.

― Abbott, Monday, July 23, 2007 5:11 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

omg