Today, I went to see the new Michael Moore documentary, Sicko. It's actually a somewhat different film than his more recent efforts, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11. I say this because, in the admittedly limited number of documentary films I've seen, I have found that documentary filmmakers rarely change their techniques even a little bit as they move from subject to subject and film to film.So in what ways is this different from Moore's other recent documentaries? Well, most notably, he is not as significant a "character" this time as he's been before. Though he provides the narration as always, he himself does not appear on screen until 50 minutes into the 2-hour movie.
Part and parcel with the fact he has less camera time, Michael Moore does fewer of the sorts of "stunts" in this film than he's done in others -- things like driving around the Washington DC reading the Patriot Act on a loudspeaker. In fact, the only really "publicity stunt"-like material in Sicko comes in the last half hour of the movie, as he heads down to Guantanamo Bay and Cuba.
I think it's a better movie for it. I've felt that in all his movies, Michael Moore has presented a well-ordered and compelling argument. But then often these cheaper tricks have undermined the credibility of the argument a bit. Even if not, they certainly seem to be the moments that make him such a polarizing figure in the political arena, that makes so many people immediately tune out anything he has to say.
Obviously, health care coverage is not a simple issue, and the movie can't cover everything about it. But I think anyone would be hard-pressed to argue against the central point of the movie: plenty of other civilized, democratic societies do it better than America does. So why not try following their examples? Sicko makes this point in a way that entertains: you laugh, you cry, you feel sympathy, shock, anger, and more.
That's what I look for in a movie -- to be taken on an emotional journey. So I give the movie an A-.
6 comments:
I thought it was well put together as well and I was happy for the limited amount of MM. Did you see http://www.hook-a-canuck.com/ in the end credits?
There were a few parts that seemed overly staged like his relatives getting insurance to go to the US and whole trip to Cuba was obviously over staged.
Filming aside the message was overly frustrating - especially where the US fell length of life, child mortality, and overall health in the world wide scheme.
I can't say our health care system is better than any others, but I can say that the American way of life is detrimental to human health, and there aren't enough doctors out there who take an holistic approach to treating patients. Instead, we have too many people reaching old age who are "dependent" on numerous prescription drugs and living out their final years as virtual invalids.
I'll see this when it comes to DVD in a few months.
My beef with Moore's campaign for Sicko is that it looks more like an advertising stunt and a campaign of awareness. Perhaps they can't be separated when promoting something like this.
I wish Moore could let the documentary itself make the point without any of his stunts, which have always gotten him into trouble.
I should have added that PBS Frontline ran an eye-opening special about health care as it applies to our elderly population. This made me angry enough. I can't imagine how I'll feel after Sicko.
Well, I don't know if the "getting insurance to travel to the USA" was staged, but I know *I* certainly do that every time I travel there. For about 15$, it ensures that my national medical benefits will cross the border and follow me into the US. So whatever happens to me, the government will pay whoever's asking for cash for having treated me.
Now, even without insurance, the state refund will eventually happen, but it's usually a LOT of legwork if you do it after the fact. Taking care of things before you go on your trip is just simpler for everyone. And it's cheap, too.
Oh, and I liked the movie too. :)
FKL
Not usually being a huge supporter of Michael Moore's, I found this film to be much more palatable than some of his previous efforts. My problem in the past is that MM hasn't been a documentary filmmaker, but an entertainer under the guise of a documentary subject. However, in this film, he managed to keep himself out of the picture most of the time and let the subject come through - and the film was better for it.
I do agree with some of the points he makes, and I disagree with some as well. I believe that what we have here is broken, but just in a different way than other places are broken. Like most documentaries, I think you have to look for the filmmaker's point of view. In this case, I think when you take the best points of every other system and pit them against the worst points of the US system, you'll get exactly the result and proof you want.
You are completely correct that this felt different than most Moore movies in that it was more straight-laced and documentary-like, excepting rounding up people for the trip to Guantanamo Bay. It really helped to put a face on the health care problems in this country.
I also like how it tried to show that government-run health care was not as scary as most make it out to be (though anyone who has used medicare knows that) and tried to show, beyond lobbying by the health care industry, what the inertia against a government run system by average people was. I particularly liked the French official's quote: "In America, people are scared of the government. In France, the government is scared of the people." Though the UK officials commentary resonated as well.
I really think this movie underscored why Canada, UK, France, and even Cuba have better health care than the US. It may have glossed over some of their shortcomings, but I think that was immaterial to the fact that their systems were definitely preferrable to what the US has.
Post a Comment