Point: Michael Moore’s New Movie Raises Questions About Capitalism

Michael Moore is up to his old tricks again in “Capitalism: A Love Story.” He had publicity stunts, a whole lot of emotion, and, most importantly, a point.

This time, Moore attacked one of the core beliefs of Americans: capitalism.

At first, it seemed like he was just appealing to the audience’s emotions with a tear-jerking story about a husband and wife who lost their home to foreclosure.

He gave the audience nothing about the situation other than that the people lost their multi-generation home and they felt cheated.

The movie continued on in a similar vein for another hour with the heartbreaking story of how Moore’s dad lost his job at General Motors when they left town along with the tale of a judge who was locking up kids in a for-profit jail because he was getting kickbacks.

Individually, none of these show that capitalism has major problems, neither do they collectively, especially without background.

Later, though, Moore does more to connect it all and show the larger problem.

The couple lost their home, for example, because their interest rate skyrocketed beyond their ability to pay after they were told they could “tap the equity in their home” to get rich.

He also shows how large corporations systematically exploit their workers by taking out life insurance policies on them to profit when they die.

To bring it all together was probably the issue that inspired the whole film: the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street corporations.

With this alone he could have proven his point, but his flair for the dramatic gets ahead of him, though, when he goes to Wall Street to make a “citizen’s arrest” of the CEOs who “stole from America.”

But he doesn’t flesh out his logic. Of course these CEOs and their companies shouldn’t have received taxpayer funds, but this is a problem with the U.S. government, which is bought and paid for by these corporations.

Though Moore covers the fact that even President Barack Obama is bought, he doesn’t begin to show the depth of the issue.

In the end, Moore’s film, though moving, probably would not satisfy the skeptical viewer, especially since it didn’t convince me, a sympathetic one. Though he gives the audience much to think about, his theatrics and overwhelming appeal to emotion hardly justifies his position.

As shown by his lengthy footnotes on his Web site, Moore does discuss facts, but the anecdotal evidence he provides does not imply the vast conclusions he tries to prove.

This is not to say he couldn’t have proven his position with different evidence – he certainly could have. Unfortunately, he decided to make a movie that would fill more seats instead of one that may not have grossed as much but was more convincing.

Then again, what can you expect from a docu-drama?