Who is seeing Michael Moore's Sicko documentary?

[TomAz]

Tom - there is no such thing as a documentary without a bias. Moore's F911 was horrible and so full of bias, ego, and contempt that it didn't strike a chord with anyone because of how clearly he got too personally involved. There is every chance, from what I understand, that "Sicko" will actually provide information or perspective that many people do not have. Will it be biased? It has to be.

You make it sound so easy to draw lines between reasonable, objective rational information and propaganda. But those lines are artificial. Everything I've been hearing about "Sicko" has been favorable - including FROM sources who found F911 over the top propaganda. For one thing, Moore himself is barely present in the film at all. So, to say the film is pure propaganda and not worth seeing because of how it will distort the "reality" is naive. You should know by now there isn't any such thing as objective reality anyway.

To claim "everything is biased" as a defense of Moore's propaganda work is silly. It ignores shades of gray. And Moore's track record puts him pretty close to black.

Film reviewers are judging 'Sicko' on its merits as a movie, not as a source of fact.

[Yablonowitz]

To claim "everything is biased" as a defense of Moore's propaganda work is silly. It ignores shades of gray. And Moore's track record puts him pretty close to black.

Film reviewers are judging 'Sicko' on its merits as a movie, not as a source of fact.

No, it embraces the shades of gray you are denying. Moore is more truthful than Rush Limbaugh. He actually goes out and tells stories of people's lives. There's manipulation in all of his films. All documentaries are exploitive by nature when they tell a story about a larger issue through someone's personal experience. In fact, look at "Supersize Me." That was actually MORE manipulative than most of Moore's movies. But it doesn't make it less "true." You're basing your opinion of him almost exlusively on F911 and his public buffoonish comments and actions, his stupid stunts. I've always found those to be distractive bs, but usually there is a lot more going on in his movies than his stunts (with the exception of F911 which I think he completely botched). I didn't think Bowling for Columbine was perfect - the Charlton Heston stunt was glaring proof of that. But if you'll remember, if you actually saw it, he pretty much realizes that he can't quite explain WHY there is more gun violence in the US than in other countries, he doesn't entirely blame the problem on the NRA. He's not so strident as to lock the door on the issue. People don't believe that, but it's true (actually Spike Lee is similarly misunderstood, if you compare his movies to his public comments).

And if you don't think the grand perception he shows in Roger & Me isn't truthful, than I'd like you to take back all of your Springsteen and Woody Guthrie albums right now. Again, there was manipulation and some cheap showmanship that was unncessary, but for a non fictional film, it was very, very effective.

I guess my biggest problem is that you're calling his movies propaganda. I'll take your point about the films not being "documentaries" in the sense that they don't work solely on the quantity and thoroughness of the facts and research done. But propaganda should really only be applied to those in power, those who actually directly effect people's lives. His films are the visual equivalent of a columnist like Frank Rich, Molly Ivins, Paul Krugman, or (shudder) Mona Charen.

They are unapologetically opinion pieces but they also strive to present a perspective that some may not have held before. And, I'm serious about this bs about "factual" and "objectivity," etc. You can find facts and figures to back up any perspective you have - I mean there are millions of examples of that out online. David Icke's got some pretty compelling evidence that we are being ruled by an alien reptilian race. Don't laugh. The perspective, itself, informs and draws one to the facts not the other way around. Or only rarely the other way around. People who fein objectivity are in serious denial. Health care comes down to values and perspective not facts and figures.

[TomAz]

Roger & Me was pure propaganda. Just because I appreciate or agree with the viewpoint he was espousing doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade. In that movie Moore focused on the pain of layoffs and financial downturns, fine. He did not present, though (if I recall correctly, it's been quite a while) anything on the macroeconomic forces driving the change in the automobile industry -- nothing about why the layoffs occured, or what alternatives GM had.

as far as:

Health care comes down to values and perspective not facts and figures.

try telling that to the people who are trying to keep Medicare solvent.

[Yablonowitz]

Roger & Me was pure propaganda. Just because I appreciate or agree with the viewpoint he was espousing doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade. In that movie Moore focused on the pain of layoffs and financial downturns, fine. He did not present, though (if I recall correctly, it's been quite a while) anything on the macroeconomic forces driving the change in the automobile industry -- nothing about why the layoffs occured, or what alternatives GM had.

Oh, he definitely explains WHY GM is laying people off at the beginning. And maybe if he'd gotten an interview with Roger, we could have heard more about that. The point isn't the macroeconomics, it's the human story of what happens to the people who get left behind when capital shifts overseas. The transfer of our manufacturing economy overseas was probably the defining economic issue (and continues to be so as far as I'm concerned) of the 70's and 80's. Moore does a micro lens focus (just like Springsteen does when he tells stories of people's personal lives who are affected by forces beyond their control). The ultimate question we have to ask ourselves is - why don't we take the human toll of economic change into consideration as a society? And his contrast of Roger's Christmas speech with the eviction of a family in Flint is manipulative but also displays truth - that there is a huge gap between rich and poor in this country and those who make the "tough" economic decisions of their corporations do not have to face the human reality of their decisions.


I just don't think you should be dismissing his movies as not important to the issues he raises.

Seriously, why do you listen to Dylan, and Springsteen and punk music and spew out this stuff? That music is as much propaganda as Michael Moore's movies.

[woogie846]

He's lost weight, fuckface.

But carry on with ignoring the real issues.

Continuing voting fascist [republican] as well.

Idiot.

E

I really don't understand right now. You seriously need to broaden your mind a little more and accept a joke once and a while. Maybe taking the metal pole out of your ass would be a good start so that you can realize not everything has to be so damn serious.

[noisemachine]

Michael Moore's films seem to be more about him and how great he is than at the topic at hand. I think people would take his movies more seriously if he did not feature himself so much in them.

[TomAz]

Seriously, why do you listen to Dylan, and Springsteen and punk music and spew out this stuff? That music is as much propaganda as Michael Moore's movies.

Because Dylan and Springsteen and the others have never done anything as downright misguided as Moore's stuff. Moore, IMO, is an embarassment to liberal politics and detracts from rather than helps the causes he supports. He damages the credibility of populist causes. If he really believes what he supports is right, then there'd be no need to go to the extremes he does in presenting his case. If it's right, the facts'll support it, and there's no need to distort and mischaracterize things like Moore does. As a result, the US public almost automatically disregards anything he has to say, and he is confined to the fringes.

[Yablonowitz]

Michael Moore's films seem to be more about him and how great he is than at the topic at hand. I think people would take his movies more seriously if he did not feature himself so much in them.

Sicko, according to the accounts I've read, has very little of Michael Moore in them.

I also think that perception of him is mostly attributable to F911. I'm not endorsing his movies as perfection, but I do think they are less than pure Leni Riefenstahl propaganda.

[Yablonowitz]

Because Dylan and Springsteen and the others have never done anything as downright misguided as Moore's stuff. Moore, IMO, is an embarassment to liberal politics and detracts from rather than helps the causes he supports. He damages the credibility of populist causes. If he really believes what he supports is right, then there'd be no need to go to the extremes he does in presenting his case. If it's right, the facts'll support it, and there's no need to distort and mischaracterize things like Moore does. As a result, the US public almost automatically disregards anything he has to say, and he is confined to the fringes.

OK, fair enough. Talking with you is like arguing with my brother. I get all heated for a while and then I realize it's not that big of a deal. You're my older brother, you just don't know it.

Anyway, can we agree, though, that the real enemy is not Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or Jesse Jackson? But, rather, thelastgreatman?

[TomAz]

Yes, the real enemy is close-mindedness, stubbornness, and stupidity. i.e., randy.

if i'm your older brother then you are gonna get noogies or wedgies or something.

[Yablonowitz]

Yes, the real enemy is close-mindedness, stubbornness, and stupidity. i.e., randy.

if i'm your older brother then you are gonna get noogies or wedgies or something.

Too late, you had your chance when I was younger. I've been working out. I can kick your ass. Sorry.

[amyzzz]

Wait, if yabs and tom are brothers, doesn't yabs get to pee on Tom in a closet?

[J~$$$]

Wait, if yabs and tom are brothers, doesn't yabs get to pee on Tom in a closet?

so much double entendre its not even funny.

[Yablonowitz]

Wait, if yabs and tom are brothers, doesn't yabs get to pee on Tom in a closet?

Yeah, I already did that over Coachella weekend while he was sleeping.

[amyzzz]

Oh damn.

[TomAz]

that's ok amy. You can be next.

[amyzzz]

Oh joy!

[noisemachine]

Sicko, according to the accounts I've read, has very little of Michael Moore in them.

I also think that perception of him is mostly attributable to F911. I'm not endorsing his movies as perfection, but I do think they are less than pure Leni Riefenstahl propaganda.

Yeah, I think his negative image started with Bowling for Columbine but F911 definitely built on that. Perhaps Moore took some of the criticisms to heart (although I kind of doubt it) which could be why Sicko is being more well-received. Maybe he wants more credibility as a film maker? We'll see I guess. Especially with the next F911 movie.

[kroqken]

I hope Sicko will lead to real health care reform, not just a debate that goes nowhere.

[TomAz]

Ken, I metaphorically pee on you.

[kroqken]

No golden showers, just Goldenvoice on this board.

[Lt. Dangel]

TomAZ:

Still, we shouldn’t be naïve: a lot of people would lose if medical care came to be based more on what actually worked. Right now, drug companies and medical device makers can go to the Food and Drug Administration and get approval for an expensive new product so long as they show that it’s as effective as its predecessor. They can then turn around and suggest to doctors that the new product is more effective than its predecessor. The doctors often profit, too. And many patients demand the latest, most expensive procedure, regardless of the evidence.
So reforming the system will require a fight — not just over the meaning of the word "universal" but also over finding tough, sensible ways to save money

is it safe to generalize here that this so-called "Fight" against unnecessary spending goes against everything the U.S. has come to stand for economically, politically, and even culturally? I mean we're talking a complete revamping of how business is done in this country with this kind of thinking.

Are potential candidates such as Obama and Clinton really prepared to lose the support of corporations linked to the profit hungry medical industry by cutting waste? and if so should we be worried about what that means regarding the corporations that the Clintons and Obamas will be supplementing that support with?

I can already see the money rolling into Republican campaign headquarters the moment Clinton declares her strategy as "the fight against waste".

Waste is what we do best.

[Yablonowitz]

TomAZ:

is it safe to generalize here that this so-called "Fight" against unnecessary spending goes against everything the U.S. has come to stand for economically, politically, and even culturally? I mean we're talking a complete revamping of how business is done in this country with this kind of thinking.

Are potential candidates such as Obama and Clinton really prepared to lose the support of corporations linked to the profit hungry medical industry by cutting waste? and if so should we be worried about what that means regarding the corporations that the Clintons and Obamas will be supplementing that support with?

I can already see the money rolling into Republican campaign headquarters the moment Clinton declares her strategy as "the fight against waste".

That very same lobby destroyed Clinton's health bill back when. They are not to be underestimated.

[Lt. Dangel]

Exactly. I mean the second you wage the war on waste..you've just called on some very powerful enemies.

[TomAz]

TomAZ:

is it safe to generalize here that this so-called "Fight" against unnecessary spending goes against everything the U.S. has come to stand for economically, politically, and even culturally? I mean we're talking a complete revamping of how business is done in this country with this kind of thinking.

Are potential candidates such as Obama and Clinton really prepared to lose the support of corporations linked to the profit hungry medical industry by cutting waste? and if so should we be worried about what that means regarding the corporations that the Clintons and Obamas will be supplementing that support with?

I can already see the money rolling into Republican campaign headquarters the moment Clinton declares her strategy as "the fight against waste".

Waste is what we do best.

Business foots much of the bill for healthcare in this country, via employer-sponsored (and subsidized) health plans. Understandably, they're all for cutting costs, especially as international competition intensifies. The thing is, cost-cutting doesn't really need to be all that painful. As that article points out, there are great variations in medical practice in different regions of the country, with no difference in the quality of care delivered. What's needed is (1) that existing best practices which are both cost-efficient and high quality be identified and (2) doctors throughout the country be trained in those best practices. Notice I say "trained" which is quite a bit different from the heavy-handed tactics HMOs have tended to use in the past.

Yablo, Hillary's reforms in the 90s were derailed for many reasons, of which the healthcare/pharma lobby was just one. Another reason is that she took a good idea and fucked it up royally, to the point where the academics who crafted the original concept declined to support her plan.

[kroqken]

I am glad that Michael Moore showcased his film to the California Nurses Association. They are one of the biggest proponents of a single payer health care system.

[TomAz]

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs when it's free."

[kroqken]

I would rather pay more taxes under single payer than the much higher hospitalization costs, even with private insurance. Health care should be a right. Public schools are guaranteed, so is a police and a fire department. Profit has no place in the health care system.

[adamnikyo]

I'm not seeing the documentary. Where is it? Is it over there? Where?
I'm just not seeing it.

[DeltaSigChi4]

All this talk of taxes reminds me that I have to do my taxes [return].

E