According to complementary Reuters articles today, Hollywood appears to have a new foe: capitalism. One article is about Oliver Stone's new film, which portrays socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a "champion of the poor" who is "unfairly demonized by the U.S. media." Another article reports on Michael Moore's latest "documentary," where he concludes that "Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil." Both films premiered at the Venice film festival this weekend. Sadly, I was not there, so I have seen neither film. But Reuters provides some interesting information about their contents.
The first article focuses on Stone's complaint that U.S. distributors are showing little interest in his film "South Of The Border." That's probably not surprising, considering the U.S. is not on very good terms with Chavez. Stone says that one of the central investigations of his film involves South American nations attempting to keep the U.S. at arms length. Reuters quotes him as explaining:
"This is a bigger issue than Mr. Chavez and South America," said Stone. "Not only is there a revolution there, but there is this issue in America of constantly seeking out enemies, whether they be in Vietnam, whether they be in Iraq ... or whether they be in Iran.
"Venezuela was on the hit list, no question. Why do we make enemies? Is it to maintain our own military? Is it to justify the creation of the American superstate? Why?"
Reuters says that Stone delivers "a strong endorsement of Chavez's socialist agenda."
It seems that Michael Moore would agree. His film, "Capitalism: A Love Story," takes a different route in endorsing socialism -- by attempting to tear down U.S. capitalism. His film responds to the financial crisis by portraying Wall Street and banks as gamblers whose negligence almost destroyed the nation. He also criticizes Washington's closeness to big business.
Moore sees democracy as the solution. Reuters explains:
Amid the gloom, Moore detects the beginnings of a popular movement against unbridled capitalism, and believes President Barack Obama's rise to power may bolster it.
"Democracy is not a spectator sport, it's a participatory event," he told a news conference. "If we don't participate in it, it ceases to be a democracy. So Obama will rise or fall based not so much on what he does but on what we do to support him."
Because I can't stand it when people review movies they haven't seen, I don't intend to do so here -- even though I'm extremely tempted to do so.
Instead, I'll just say that I highly doubt that either movie will do particularly well at the box office, though Moore's film may spark some interest due to the economic events that it considers. I think much of the public's wary response to Washington's efforts at healthcare reform shows that Americans are still generally pretty nervous about the government being too involved in their lives. So the thought of trading in free-market capitalism for government-run socialism probably won't appeal to most Americans at this time.
I will also note that no one going to see these films should expect a thorough examination of the economic merits of capitalism versus socialism. Neither of these directors, to my knowledge, have much experience in economics or finance. As a result, I doubt either is a particularly rigorous film, but probably more based on opinion and anecdotal observation.
If I do happen to get a hold of a copy of either, however, I'll be sure to post my full thoughts. Until then, if anyone reading this was lucky enough to see either film at Venice, please let us know what you thought in the comments.
the delicious irony...
two filmmakers combine natural ability, hard work and investors money to make films critical of the political status quo, becoming very wealthy in the process....
and then go on to make films blasting capitalism
Yeah, how dare they! In order to critique capitalism you should have had to live in Cuba for your entire life, only make movies you can pay for by yourself, pick your own food and certainly remain poor. The hypocrisy!
lets call Moore and Stone what they are:
leftist poseurs. They no more want a socialist system than the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. This is just the schtick they peddle to their target market: people who espouse socialism while secure in the knowledge that they would never have to really live in such a system.
I don't think either one of these two are working for free. It appears that they each have tastes acquired through filthy capitalist ways.
For what contribution to the quality of peoples' lives are these two to be recognized?
I think some time in an old house with bad neighbors and iffy utilities would be great for each of these gasbags.
agreed. ever notice how easy it is to be a socialista when you're either rich or dirt poor. i'd like to see how many obamabucks they get when us middle-of-the-roaders stop paying the ticket freight.
Both films are widely reported to have gotten very good reactions at the festival - by critics and fans alike. Oliver Stone's film, in particular, was said to have gotten the biggest applause of the fest. But I wholly expect media hacks in the US to do their best to poo-poo them. As President of Ecuador Rafael Correa says in the film, if the US capitalist press would say good things about him, he "would have reason to be worried."
The Atlantic Monthly, like every other capitalist rag, has refused to write one positive sentence about Hugo Chavez. Yet, Venezuela is by far and away the most impressive economy in Latin America. Nowhere else has the economy grown so fast (almost doubled in 6 years), poverty and unemployment dropped so far (by half) and industrial production increased so much. This at the same time that illiteracy has been eradicated, health care and education have become real rights for all and the poor and average people finally have a say in their government through community local councils.
But that's the problem--while there is plenty to be admired about the direction that Venezuela has taken, Chavez has done the country a disservice by making himself the face of the revolution. Chavez is a buffoon. He associates with or even supports corrupt regimes and rebel groups, not because they are allies of his revolution, but because like a child he will do anything to spit in the face of the United States. It is as much spite as social justice with him. The real problem with the media is not that it is capitalist, but that it oversimplifies (okay, you can connect the two, but that's another issue). It does not draw a distinction between the progress in Venezuela and the person of Hugo Chavez because nobody draws distinctions between anything anymore.
Does anyone even go to see these political message films? I'd rather watch things explode and girls take their clothes off myself.
Neither of these directors, to my knowledge, have much experience in economics or finance.
...as opposed to The Atlantic's business bloggers? Didn't Conor run off to get that experience after his stint here? Does Megan's gig as journalist as experience?
Where do you guys post the bios?
His film responds to the financial crisis by portraying Wall Street and banks as gamblers whose negligence almost destroyed the nation. He also criticizes Washington's closeness to big business.
And he's wrong because... why, exactly?
Moore is dead on that many people who are capitalists are abusive assholes, not all capitalists are bad people but most people defending capitalism as a sacred cow from criticism are assholes. And those pieces of human waste in the banking sector in another society would be killed and their heads would roll. They're lucky they didn't get the deaths they truly deserved for their insane risk taking and knowing fraud they pepetrated on the world and the american people.
This isn't about capitalism, this is about not knowing limits to ones own greed. The paying of insane bonuses for outright failure, most bank CEO's are little more then grand theives dressed up in the rherotic of legitimate business. Legitimate business owners don't try to screw their fellow human beings out of a fair wage or decent existence, and do not over indulge in opulence or compensation packages for themselves while they see other people suffering. They know wealth corrupts people and it destroys relationships if that is all one measures things by.
Hm. And who appointed you judge, jury and executioner?
What I don't understand is why no one starts non-capitalist companies. I mean, if your model is better, create some companies that pay everyone the same, and promote that that is the model they use. Use the capitalist system to promote another system. That would just blow peoples minds :) seems like enough people talk about the benefits of such a system that you would have a good base to market to (unless those people are all talk).