| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 18:03:17
Good-o.
EM :) |
| 8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/27/2010 : 05:15:56
Here is a newer thread about this film. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 09:59:26
Yes, you make a very good point that it is fine for Moore's films to be polemic. The government position in each case is presented overwhelmingly enough in many other sources without the need for Moore to repeat it in half of each film.
I agree with those who would have liked more stats - I liked those in the previous films. They provide both a strong sense of fact and a zippy style. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 20:57:50
If the only result of Sicko is to get Americans who don't live among the chatteratti of NYC or the West Coast even discussing universal health care, or for the rest of the world to understand the relationship between their own health care costs and the American drugs giants who control the global market, or for the British - edging ever closer to the intrusion of private medicine into the system - to contemplate how threatening the loss of the NHS might be to them and their families... then Michael Moore's film will have justified itself.
As has been noted in many critical challenges to Moore's documentary techniques, film-makers have always made editorial choices in presenting their material. I'm really not interested in nit-picking this or that instance of editorializing. Especially not about the criteria used for and against people in providing or denying health care.
Apart from Moore there is precious little debate representing his side of the argument, and nowhere has he promised some quantifiably balanced view. However, considering the blatant bias of those setting health-care policy, implementing it and reporting its status in terms of a financial rather than human balance sheet - I'd say his films are fairer than those of his detractors.
He's no saint and yes, he uses instances of altruism to his consequent self-aggrandizement - but even so it was impressive that he was motivated to write an anonymous check to pay off the twelve thousand dollars of unexpected medical bills of the dying wife of the man who runs a website wholly dedicated to pouring vitriol on Moore and all he stands for. Whether he knew or not that he would eventually report this action in this film that he knew would be seen around the world -- the fact is that the guy is still able to continue his web work castigating Moore while his wife doesn't have to suffer the indignities of a health-care system that refused to treat her without payment.
The media, reflecting both big business and government policy, is so skewed that the film comes as a refreshing counterpoint to the relentless and ubiquitous justification of private control of health for profit. For this film's focus is not on those 40% of Americans with no private health insurance, but the plight of the rest who think they're covered, who've assumed their premiums will protect them.
The point is made in the film, not least by former Labour MP and government Minister Tony Benn - always acknowledged even by his political opponents as personifying elegant social analysis - that democracy, true democracy is so precious precisely because it is dependent on the power of the people. That's why it's in the interests of the occupants of seats of power to keep those who have most to lose by their self-serving decisions, in a state of poverty, fear, ignorance and low morale. That way, they're less likely to be a threat come election time, and are too demoralized to muster up enough energy to protest collectively, let alone effectively.
By choosing to focus on the US's health-care inequities Moore reveals his interest yet again in the duplicitous process of devolved power, of democracy by sleight of hand and at several removes.
The arguments he makes about the American attitude to the health of the nation in comparison with other countries, both allies and others - are really there to serve his wider focus. That the people to whom the enviable Constitution is dedicated need not be passive recipients and observers of a debased system which is literally killing them.
It is that wider agenda that scares politicians of all complexions. And the more heavily funded they are by multi-national business interests the more fearful they are of engaging Moore in real, honest, debate which owes nothing to mediated questions by biased moderators. Or - as Moore himself asks countless times in that YouTube clip - he doesn't need to be involved if the media itself will just for once challenge those policy setters with pertinent questions from a different perspective. And preferably from broadcasters whose sponsors and advertisers have no direct tie-in to the issue.
In some of Moore's previous films he was slated for presenting too many statistics. Sicko soft-pedals on the numbers - though Benn's quote remains in tact that 1% of the world's people control over 80% of the wealth. And I've read critiques that there aren't enough stats in Sicko. So you can't win, can you?
I do wish there had been one set of figures, though. Moore several times makes the point that the US falls well below other countries in providing for the social well-being of its entire population. I'd love to see some fiscal comparisons from various countries between investments in military and defense-related initiatives and those which directly impinge on people's well-being, family welfare, education and cultural development ... the kinds of things that make life worth living.
To paraphrase Benn's eloquent observation: if we can spend so much on the instruments of killing people, why can't we invest in keeping them healthy?
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 13:55:24
Sicko
It was interesting to see this post-Manufacturing Dissent, although the distortions are clearer than in his other films anyway, but also not so bad (assuming that none of the medical conditions etc. were made up). There's the usual oscillation between humour and seriousness, but the film is not as jam-packed as I remember the others being, especially Fahrenheit with its graphic elements.
It was of course preaching to the converted for me, since there is no sane argument for not having free universal healthcare in a developed country. A British audience is also obviously going to like having its ego massaged with praise of the N.H.S. I do think the N.H.S. is great and shouldn't get some of the criticism it sometimes receives, but this criticism is not mentioned in the film: it does not mention the 'postcode lottery' under the latterly decentralised system, whereby certain very expensive drugs and treatments are sometimes not available to some patients; it also does not mention waiting lists and M.R.S.A. However, I did not really mind these omissions since N.H.S. treatment still is much better than people who apparently insist on talking about 'socialised medicine' imagine, and because it is not as if it prevents private healthcare's parallel existence. In particular, anyone who cuts their own fingers off in Britain can definitely get them sown back on straight away! The French system was particularly highlighted for praise, but only a glancing mention was made of the fact that they need to pay for treatment and then get the money back there, as far as I know. I would think this has advantages, but it certainly has disadvantages too.
I didn't mind those simplifications, but I didn't really like some of the scenes in Cuba, at the hospital and especially at the fire station. These were quite staged, and so Moore was merrily participating into Castro's propaganda. I'm quite sure that the Cuban medical system is excellent, and probably preferable to the American one in most cases, but that doesn't mean that random Americans can normally just rock up for treatment.
There is a very funny (though smug) coda, which I'll let you see for yourselves (or you can just read about it below!). |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 07/12/2007 : 19:09:35
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
Well Blitzer is the mouthpiece for the American Pharmaceuticals Association, so he had it coming.
What? You and I agree on something? Amazing. 
EM :) |
| turrell |
Posted - 07/12/2007 : 16:09:12
Well Blitzer is the mouthpiece for the American Pharmaceuticals Association, so he had it coming. |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 15:39:20
Man, did you see Michael go off on Wolf Blitzer?
It's on YouTube.
I'll get the link. Wait here.
..................................................................................................................................................................................................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpyD43JTZE
Here ya go.
EM :) |
| Shiv |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 23:58:33
Truth About Michael Moore
Hi there - just posting this link in case you hasn't picked up on this discussion about Sicko already. |
|
|
