I have read a great deal about Sicko and much more about what others have thought about it. I have read the impact it has made on how people view the health care system here in the United States of America. Most of these viewers seem to take the stance that they are glad someone took the time to bring this discussion to the table located in the public commons. That position is primarily due to the important nature of the state of the American health care system. What I find odd is; all of those who say they are glad someone is creating a public discussion about this topic seem to simply discuss the perspective that Michael Moore presents. There is no analysis of facts or other perspectives. There is no investigation of the pros and cons of capitalism or the good and bad outcomes of such an economic system. It seems to me that if this is really creating a public discussion then people would think more about the complexities of the issue. More attention would be paid to what actual experts are saying in response to this "documentary," as well as the state of health care. That is the discussion I would like to see, not a bandwagon reaction to a profiteering alarmist. It is a given that we are in need of health care reform. However, this cannot be done via pick-and-choose statistical selection, poor correlation between economic systems and health care, and a few worst case scenario examples from America and a few best case scenarios from other countries. This is not good, or responsible, comparative analysis.

I wonder why we are so inclined to view Michael Moore's brand of documentary propaganda and receive it as truth or even accurate for that matter. I appreciate Michael Moore's subject matter but I neither appreciate his framing nor the way he chooses to intentionally mislead the viewing public. This sensationalism lines his pockets. I go no further than that for fear of being taken out of context and potentially insulting, which is one thing I would never intentionally want to do. Therefore, I will exercise the wisdom of discernment at this point.

I have seen most of Michael Moore's work and I will not view Sicko until after my local library purchases it with my tax money, where upon they will then loan it to me for seven days at the cost of one dollar. I would prefer my fourteen dollar ticket price for a show (dog and pony that is) to go to anything other than Michael Moore.

Comments (2)

Thom said:

... Bob, you are absolutely correct, this isn’t about health care as much as it is documentary filmmaking, and film watching in general. I don’t know how well versed I am in documentary film. I do enjoy them but it probably wouldn’t take much to put me in my place. I also think it is a reasonable statement to say, “If you haven’t seen the film you can’t comment about the film.” I am in and out of that camp a lot. I will see Sicko one day as I have seen almost everything Mr. Moore has made. I will view it with an openness to change my mind about his presentation. I will be sympathetic to his context. However, I have to have principles and for Michael Moore they begin at the box office. That being said, since I am addressing Michael Moore’s style of filmmaking I think a reasonable argument could be made that the presentation in Sicko will be much the same as his previous work minus Canadian Bacon. Yes, the claim on documentary as "truth" is a frustrating label. However, there are subdivisions of "documentary" that Moore fits into better, which would place the "truth" being presented in question. I am not certain how one is defining feature but this is certainly a feature length film and is marketed similarly. I will follow you to the forums.

August 23, 2007

Bob Davidson said:

not about health care This post is somewhat to Thom (hi Thom) and in some ways simply a response. I had both a big “ouch” and “grin” on my face as I read this post because I know the passion involved around the subject matter (this post is not really about health care – but about documentary films). What makes this post interesting to me is that I had this conversation (with Thom (and David)) before seeing Sicko this week and it really impacted me (the conversation). (For those reading - Thom is the most versed viewer of documentary films I know.) Anyway, although part of me wants to say – you can't commentate before seeing it – part of me can’t deny the reality of your frustration as I walked away more "in check" b/c of our conversation. Wouldn’t you say though the frustration is simply the “claim on documentary”? If Moore began claiming his films as "feature", would you feel the same? The public view “documentary” as truth – and it is obvious that “truth” (“as is”) can’t show up here, but it all reality – it can’t show up in any film – documentary or not. Too much for a “comment”… how about let’s move this one over to the forum… Click HERE for forum ;)

August 17, 2007

Name

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment