|
I’ve been a fan of Michael Moore since I was a very young man. Roger and
Me, the books, the subsequent jaunts with TV Nation, Fahrenheit. People
get livid when you mention his name, mostly because he stood up to
George Bush and raised some hell at a time when it was considered
unpatriotic to stand up to George Bush and raise some hell.
He gets the most strategic critical rap from the fact that he appeals to
emotion and uses that, along with statistics, to try and prove a point.
For this, on internet message boards people suggest he be shot, kicked
out of the United States, banned, imprisoned, whatever. Who gives a
solid damn? People have always acted in this manner when someone speaks
up. I’ve had people threaten to kill me over things I say about
Superman, so I’m unsurprised that a simple viewpoint expressed in a
persuasive manner pisses people off so much.
When someone is controversial, I tend to look into them. Bill O’Reilly.
George Bush. John Ashcroft. Michael Moore. Al Gore. Hillary Clinton.
Sometimes, the controversies are founded. Ashcroft skewered the
constitution. Hillary Clinton is often a face and hypocritical when it
suits her needs. George Bush led us criminally into a war against a
sovereign nation that hadn’t attacked us. The facts speak for
themselves, ultimately, no matter how Bill O’Reilly or Michael Moore put
them persuasively.
None of the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 were journalistically reaching, no
more than any other media outlet has stretched things. The major
objections to the film were the idea that, like Bill O’Reilly, Moore
uses emotion to try and spur the more ignorant members of the audience
who can’t inform their own opinion through dual-natured study of the
opposing opinion, into beliefs that aren’t valid, like Bush did in
making 40% of the American population, even now, believe that Saddam
Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Instead, his schew was geared
toward getting the troops home, he argued.
The key difference being, Moore has no power at all, Bush actually
invaded a sovereign nature. Moore’s intentions were to stimulate and
persuade opinion. Bush killed the people who disagreed with him. Subtle
difference, I know.
|
Sicko follows the same paradigm. People are dying because
they can’t get their asses into hospital beds. He very
persuasively shows worst case scenarios to highlight this
fact. Critics will no doubt attack Michael ferociously,
pointing out how he uses emotional arguments, statistics
that reflect his point of view, and ploys emotion, as if
critics don’t do the same thing, as if all media is not a
pointed attempt to do the very same, without even the
illusion of an altruistic motive. |
|
 |
I’m very personally involved with this situation. Last year I almost
choked to death. Literally, my throat closed. I went to the emergency
room only as I was sure I would need a crash cart, knowing that the
bills incurred would put me out of house and home and end my writing
career.
I was wrong. I went in, filled out my forms, got admittedly poor
treatment because of my status, but the hospital, seeing that I had no
cash at all, paid for my treatment. It would normally have cost a
thousand dollars, and thanks to a Christian donation program, this
atheist lives again.
So is the situation as bad as the emotional ploy would have you believe?
Can you walk into a doctor’s office and get turned away because you’re
poor if you’re dying?
Not as likely as it would seem, which is what this film would make dumb
people believe.
Is that the point? No. The point is that there ARE cases, extreme cases,
on a constant basis, where people are denied treatment that could save
their lives because it costs money. The reason for this is because
Richard Nixon turned out medical system into a for-profit affair, and
this will continue to kill people until our hospitals, like our schools,
fire departments, and military, are no longer capitalist but government
controlled, at least in some respects, for the poor.
You don’t have to socialize medicine in order to get people who have no
money treatment. Socialized medicine, as this film points out, isn’t an
endless horror, but it does have some problems.
I bring this up to appraise you as to how I feel about this issue. I
only half agree with Moore. However, his emotional entreaty is strong,
the presentation is artistic, and the subject matter is very thoroughly
covered.
To give a contrast, then, why is this good as opposed to when Bill
O’Reilly does it? Well, Bill will often flat-out purposefully obfuscate,
bully opposition, bring in sycophantic talking heads, his presentation
is jingoistic, and his tone is not one that makes you empathize with his
points, it’s one that makes you want to find him wrong.
Many would argue that Moore’s nasal tone does the same thing, but the
point for me, is that one is looking for the solution to the problem,
and doesn’t give a damn if you disagree, and the other is trying to
convert you or make you leave. I find this the fundamental belief system
problem between Republicans and Democrats, and it’s why I fall straight
into the middle between them, because one never takes a stand, the other
takes a stand so vehemently they will kill anyone who disagrees.
Sicko, on the other hand, is rather ballsy and suggests a point and
change for the problem at hand, unlike most liberal propaganda, and it
doesn’t condescend with those who disagree, beyond factual attacks,
never adopting the conservative attack tactic.
I found Fahrenheit 9/11 more compelling, even though this film affects
me personally, but I find both masterful examples of a visual persuasive
essay.
The only issue I have with both is that as a citizen I have already
examined both of these issues fairly thoroughly and arrived at much the
same conclusion before either movie came out, so it’s not an incredible
enlightenment. The only thing I can say about it is how it worked on me
dramatically, which is profoundly. I’m not suddenly socialist, my
opinions haven’t changed, but I’m sitting here, right now, upset at the
fact that people died so greedy motherfuckers can buy 500,000 dollar
closets and line their trophy wife’s neck with gold that could have been
another poor bastard’s bone marrow.
If anything, the run-up to Cuba in the end where they use the bullhorn
at the military was a bit arbitrarily dramatic. Also, though the media
and Moore himself has suggested that an upcoming bill could help address
this dilemma, it’s not addressed in the film’s body, even if it would
date the piece.
Like most Moore films, entertaining, worth a watch, and if you can’t
watch a film without blindly believing everything that’s said, it’s not
for you. Oh, and you’re a goddamned moron. But don’t believe that,
either.
|
