Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

UKking · 07-04-2007, 04:32 AM

[Might contain spoilers for some who haven't seen this movie yet]

I just watched this film, and I expect that for the same reason I didn't like Fahrenheit 9/11 as much as many Americans - i.e., it's a very America/centric film. As I expected, the section of the film where Moore visited the UK and saw the NHS was my favourite part, particularly as Tony Benn was a talkng head, and he's a man I admire greatly (see Concorde for a good example why).

I've seen Bowling For Columbine, and I loved that film. I could watch it again and again. It's on a great topic, it's well put together, and consistently interesting and entertaining. Only one part of the film really feels as though it's labouring the point and should move on. Overall it's a smart, fast-paced, funny and effective documentary with some absolutely fantastic interviewees, and they make many of the film's best scenes.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was basically made as an all-out assault on George Bush to try and affect the results of the American election that year, from what I understand (I heard that Moore gave up the chance of an Oscar by having it broadcast on TV in November), and as such it naturally held most potent appeal for Americans, by and large. I found myself largely bored by many parts of the film, because I simply didn't find it a very interesting subject, and felt that many parts of the film repeated themselves over and over.

Sicko had a more wide-ranging message, as is shown partly by the fact that Moore gets himself into debates about it over in England and France, and everyone seems ot have an opinion. It wasn't quite what I expected it to be about, either - I'd thought it focuses on people without health insurance in the USA, but it in fact focuses on how those with insurance get consistently ripped off by the companies who are supposedly there to 'help'. This made for a more interesting and fruitful topic than I suspect the first one would have. However, for those who see Moore as a manipulative, sneaky man who twists and invents facts for his own purposes, often mirroring those he opposes, there's quite a bit to dislike in Sicko, particularly in the first part of the film, where he speaks to several normal Americans about their experiences (not only people who were victims of sickness and accidents, but some who worked for the insurance firms and had to deny people healthcare). While there are several interesting points made - I certainly had no idea about the problems with health insurance in the USA, living in the UK, and having never really thought about it - it often feels as though Moore is beating a dead horse, and should move on to something else. Worse than this, though, is the use of crying and instrumental music, and all sorts of crap like that, to manipulate the audience's feelings in a sickening sort of way that you haven't seen since the start of Love Actually, where Richard Curtis uses the phone calls that people made on the doomed planes on 9/11, telling their families and partners they loved them, to show that "actually, there was a lot of love on that day". It's really quite nauseating to see Moore treat the audience in such a patronising way. How ironic that a film about the corruption of the healthcare system makes you feel like throwing up.

Apart from my pet peeves with the film, it's as well put together as any average documentary you'll see, really. The content serves to move the film along more so than the filmmaking, which really wants to just hold back and make you cry as much as possible. This lowered my view of Michael Moore somewhat. I have no real idea about the accuracy of the facts in many of his films, but I do believe that there's a good dollop of truth behind what he says most of the time. The film does have a small but notable whiff of a teenage "big corporations are bad" rant about it, and in the end you do want to just slap Moore in the face and shout, "But they're there to make money, asshole, that's what they do!" ...but you can forgive it that.

The type of manipulation of the audience displayed in Sicko betrays a desperate filmmaker, and that disturbs me because Moore really has nothing to be desperate about. He has a very good subject for a film and gathers some very good footage from various people and archives concerning it. That's what a good documentary comes down to in the end - good footage relevant to an interesting topic (whether it supports it or not - and it's often good to have some content that disagrees with the supported notion), logically, well-contructed with a decent introduction (which Sicko lacked) and a sensibly-reached conclusion, whether you agree or not.

Sicko failed on a few levels for me, but it's still a documentary worth seeing, especially if you live in the USA and have medical insurance. It's enlightening on a number of points. Just remember the fact that I didn't consider, and makes all the difference - the insurance companies are profit-making, like any other, and so the less healthcare they pay for, the better.

07-04-2007, 04:32 AM	#7 (permalink)
UKking Crazy	[Might contain spoilers for some who haven't seen this movie yet] I just watched this film, and I expect that for the same reason I didn't like Fahrenheit 9/11 as much as many Americans - i.e., it's a very America/centric film. As I expected, the section of the film where Moore visited the UK and saw the NHS was my favourite part, particularly as Tony Benn was a talkng head, and he's a man I admire greatly (see Concorde for a good example why). I've seen Bowling For Columbine, and I loved that film. I could watch it again and again. It's on a great topic, it's well put together, and consistently interesting and entertaining. Only one part of the film really feels as though it's labouring the point and should move on. Overall it's a smart, fast-paced, funny and effective documentary with some absolutely fantastic interviewees, and they make many of the film's best scenes. Fahrenheit 9/11 was basically made as an all-out assault on George Bush to try and affect the results of the American election that year, from what I understand (I heard that Moore gave up the chance of an Oscar by having it broadcast on TV in November), and as such it naturally held most potent appeal for Americans, by and large. I found myself largely bored by many parts of the film, because I simply didn't find it a very interesting subject, and felt that many parts of the film repeated themselves over and over. Sicko had a more wide-ranging message, as is shown partly by the fact that Moore gets himself into debates about it over in England and France, and everyone seems ot have an opinion. It wasn't quite what I expected it to be about, either - I'd thought it focuses on people without health insurance in the USA, but it in fact focuses on how those with insurance get consistently ripped off by the companies who are supposedly there to 'help'. This made for a more interesting and fruitful topic than I suspect the first one would have. However, for those who see Moore as a manipulative, sneaky man who twists and invents facts for his own purposes, often mirroring those he opposes, there's quite a bit to dislike in Sicko, particularly in the first part of the film, where he speaks to several normal Americans about their experiences (not only people who were victims of sickness and accidents, but some who worked for the insurance firms and had to deny people healthcare). While there are several interesting points made - I certainly had no idea about the problems with health insurance in the USA, living in the UK, and having never really thought about it - it often feels as though Moore is beating a dead horse, and should move on to something else. Worse than this, though, is the use of crying and instrumental music, and all sorts of crap like that, to manipulate the audience's feelings in a sickening sort of way that you haven't seen since the start of Love Actually, where Richard Curtis uses the phone calls that people made on the doomed planes on 9/11, telling their families and partners they loved them, to show that "actually, there was a lot of love on that day". It's really quite nauseating to see Moore treat the audience in such a patronising way. How ironic that a film about the corruption of the healthcare system makes you feel like throwing up. Apart from my pet peeves with the film, it's as well put together as any average documentary you'll see, really. The content serves to move the film along more so than the filmmaking, which really wants to just hold back and make you cry as much as possible. This lowered my view of Michael Moore somewhat. I have no real idea about the accuracy of the facts in many of his films, but I do believe that there's a good dollop of truth behind what he says most of the time. The film does have a small but notable whiff of a teenage "big corporations are bad" rant about it, and in the end you do want to just slap Moore in the face and shout, "But they're there to make money, asshole, that's what they do!" ...but you can forgive it that. The type of manipulation of the audience displayed in Sicko betrays a desperate filmmaker, and that disturbs me because Moore really has nothing to be desperate about. He has a very good subject for a film and gathers some very good footage from various people and archives concerning it. That's what a good documentary comes down to in the end - good footage relevant to an interesting topic (whether it supports it or not - and it's often good to have some content that disagrees with the supported notion), logically, well-contructed with a decent introduction (which Sicko lacked) and a sensibly-reached conclusion, whether you agree or not. Sicko failed on a few levels for me, but it's still a documentary worth seeing, especially if you live in the USA and have medical insurance. It's enlightening on a number of points. Just remember the fact that I didn't consider, and makes all the difference - the insurance companies are profit-making, like any other, and so the less healthcare they pay for, the better.