Here again the good old Mike to the office! Who is in the crosshairs this time? Compared to previous films, is a bit 'more difficult to say: what, or who is, capitalism? There is a single subject on which to discharge responsibilities for the economic crisis that has become apparent to all, for over a year, and that is the real prim'attrice of Capitalism, A Love Story . The bad stories to tell, as well as the misdeeds of the system are many, and indeed, for the first time, the attack is directed on several fronts. In his last film Moore had indicted several actors in society and the economy in the contemporary United States: the automotive industry, the arms industry, health care and insurance, the Bush administration, had very precise objectives and identified, with names and surnames, and were especially unique objectives. But here the director has an enemy more problematic, because multiple and indefinite (as substantive), in short, This film is a bit 'different from previous, certainly more difficult to cluster because it does not lend itself to the procedure usually used by Moore, which is more or less what the journalistic - as accurate as deployed.
So, this time we are faced with a philosopher Michael Moore more and more idealistic than usual, while his documentary eye is forced to move quite wildly in different places: from Wall Street, where now all the work best brains of America for the sole purpose of making more money, the province where families deep lose their homes and find themselves overnight in the middle of the road from the condo vultures who speculate on the misfortunes of eviction, the airline pilots sometimes underpaid and forced to seek a second job to support himself. Thumbs up from one place to another of States : Moore moves from Washington, where the administration of the national economy seems to be in the hands of Goldman Sachs, the American Catholic Church, with applications to several priests on the moral value of Capitalism ...
What can I say? I do root for Mike, his heart, but the film I felt a bit 'less successful precedents. I do not know: maybe it's the lack of a precise thesis, perhaps there are too many irons in the fire, and the fact is that Capitalism, A Love Story is less shocking than its predecessors. And 'maybe some' more pathetic than usual, and this does not improve the situation, moreover, does not help the fact that the director continues to be well in front of the camera. He has always done, all right, and is a sign of intellectual honesty, as if to say "I'll tell you about these things personally, because I believe and why I think such things, as they are, do not go good ", but in doing so, the higher the risk that Moore is over, even involuntarily, with the making show, by becoming a kind of logo or trademark. His credibility continues to come out unscathed? Again, I do not know, for me personally there is no problem, but his detractors may have the easiest game.
Michael Moore makes movies to change the reality: there was never any doubt about this, and it's a good thing for me. He has his own style, which has remained unchanged, and this is not a major problem has not evolved much, ok, but does what he can do with energy and idealism. But if his shots become less accurate or if his gaze is confusing, yet manages to upset people? Because this is what must be able to do in the end: to help ensure that we all begin to think differently and then act accordingly. It 's a huge task in itself and the admiration that Moore has earned and continues to deserve.
0 comments:
Post a Comment