Advertisement
Well Michael Moore is one of my favorite filmmakers ever and "Bowling for Columbine" is the main reason I decided to get into documentaries. With that said, he isn't what he used to be. I've been thinking about it and "Sicko" kind of sucked ass. No doubt he had compelling info in it but overall it was flat and predictable. Here are my three main points against the film....
1) The story didn't really make me think outside the box. He is always accused of being one-sided and polarizing issues which is sort of true but I didn't mind it in his previous films. With "Bowling for Columbine," for example, he presented so many issues around media, fear, and military history that after watching it I could consider gun violence within a broad context, which made the story that much more interesting. In "Sicko," it was just America's health care is bad and the other countries are good (which I agree with, no doubt), and he discussed our labor and education system but that wasn't really enough for me.
2) Some of his examples of how other countries have better health care were really weak. Like when he went around and talked to a few families and doctors to show their good standard of living, I was like what the fuck, just cuz you show a few people from that country like that, I should believe that's the norm there? And the last scene in Cuba was such a joke, just a bit too melodramatic. Those folks made one visit to a Cuban hospital and got sent back to the States where they would have to continue dealing with the American (lack of) health care system. I don't exactly think that one visit made as much of a positive impact on the patients as MM wanted us to feel, unless they would have regular access to those medical facilities after the cameras stopped rolling. It was just really cheesy to me. I think I'm a lot more skeptical and apathetic than I was several years back, so it takes more in a film to get me worked up now.
3) Last but not least, and this relates to number 1, I really don't think Moore needs to suppress any info from the other side to advance his own message. No one needs to assume other countries have perfect health care cuz they don't. My friend who lived in France for years said she had quacks for doctors, and of course there is the issue of taxes. Moore can incorporate these factors and still produce a strong conclusion that the US needs reform. Besides, taking all this into account might help people understand some of the reasons (besides corporate and political influences) why America is still like this. It's not always those in power, but also citizens who choose not to make changes. I know some people who would rather stick with our shitty system (which they don't think is shitty anyway) than cough up taxes for otherwise free health care.
Thoughts, feedback, anyone?
1) The story didn't really make me think outside the box. He is always accused of being one-sided and polarizing issues which is sort of true but I didn't mind it in his previous films. With "Bowling for Columbine," for example, he presented so many issues around media, fear, and military history that after watching it I could consider gun violence within a broad context, which made the story that much more interesting. In "Sicko," it was just America's health care is bad and the other countries are good (which I agree with, no doubt), and he discussed our labor and education system but that wasn't really enough for me.
2) Some of his examples of how other countries have better health care were really weak. Like when he went around and talked to a few families and doctors to show their good standard of living, I was like what the fuck, just cuz you show a few people from that country like that, I should believe that's the norm there? And the last scene in Cuba was such a joke, just a bit too melodramatic. Those folks made one visit to a Cuban hospital and got sent back to the States where they would have to continue dealing with the American (lack of) health care system. I don't exactly think that one visit made as much of a positive impact on the patients as MM wanted us to feel, unless they would have regular access to those medical facilities after the cameras stopped rolling. It was just really cheesy to me. I think I'm a lot more skeptical and apathetic than I was several years back, so it takes more in a film to get me worked up now.
3) Last but not least, and this relates to number 1, I really don't think Moore needs to suppress any info from the other side to advance his own message. No one needs to assume other countries have perfect health care cuz they don't. My friend who lived in France for years said she had quacks for doctors, and of course there is the issue of taxes. Moore can incorporate these factors and still produce a strong conclusion that the US needs reform. Besides, taking all this into account might help people understand some of the reasons (besides corporate and political influences) why America is still like this. It's not always those in power, but also citizens who choose not to make changes. I know some people who would rather stick with our shitty system (which they don't think is shitty anyway) than cough up taxes for otherwise free health care.
Thoughts, feedback, anyone?
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Critiques of "Sicko"
Tue, November 13, 2007 - 1:06 AMThanks, Le, for the thoughts. I haven't seen Sicko yet 'cus it just opened recently where I live (Finland) but I plan to see it soon. Moore is also one of my favorite film makers and I often get into discussions with people about his movies. He is very well received here, partly because he lays into the ills of the US which are so glaringly obvious and yet glossed over by most of the media. Some people criticize his techniques along the lines of some of the points you mentioned and no doubt about it, he does cut corners. But i usually don't mind because the message he is delivering is so important and who else is getting it across to the masses better? So I cut him some slack there based upon the mission he is on. Now if he were to seriously twist the facts and lead to a skewed conclusion then that would be a different matter altogether. But he's in the right ball-park and I'm glad there is somebody out there doing what he's doing.
I actually thought the cheapest melodramatic move he ever made in a film was the scene with Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine. That detracted from his case rather then support it imo, although I have met some people that thought that was "cool."
One thing I have heard about Sicko first-hand is that old retirees, normally conservative folks, have been applauding the film when the credits roll in retirement community theaters (in Arizona) so I think he really hit a vein here.
A bit of unintended irony, in an hour I will be on my way to a hospital for a high-tech x-ray body-scan. In the US I would imagine the cost would be outrageous. Total cost for me under the Finnish health care system with follow-ups will be $30. I just hope they don't find anything abnormal:)
