Credibility: What Moore is Lacking in Capitalism: A Love Story
A documentary is a film used to report some form of reality. This film genre is associated with the unaltered truth and as a result people often believe what they watch is fact, portrayed in a way for them to see all sides of a controversy where they can forge an opinion for themselves. However, Capitalism: A Love Story does not follow that structure. Moore believes that capitalism is a flawed system and incorporates his opinions into the film by only showing facts that will prove his point and by shaming those who support the system. At times Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story proves to be credible, but the integration of his opinions into the film as well as his hypocrisy …show more content…
Companies gain millions of dollars from the death of these “dead peasants”. The scene proves how capitalism could lead to immoral yet lawful theft, proving Moore’s point. However, Moore himself exploits the family in order to get his point across. Whilst his use of the family to prove his point has an arguably smaller impact on them, it is hypocritical to do what Walmart had done to them, albeit on a lesser level and it makes Moore a less credible source. Moore also tends to oversimplify complex problems. Near the end of the film he makes it clear that he believes capitalism is the opposite of a democracy, and does not support it. He uses many examples to get his point across and is very thorough at times. However, he does not recommend socialism and he does not think that Obama has brought significant change. Instead of stating what he wants to see changed, he shames corporations that he believes exploit Americans. Moore’s failure to address what he believes needs to be changed does not help prove his arguments and instead makes him seem less devoted to the problem and as a result, less credible. Similarly in the way Moore talks to spouses of dead peasants, he also talks about derivatives to validate his reasoning. When Moore asks experts what derivatives are they all fail to explain it. From what I saw in the film derivatives were portrayed as immoral gambling in which investors can bet …show more content…
I believe that the film’s title is an allusion to Arthur Hiller’s Love Story, the film that holds claim to the infamous quote “love means never having to say you’re sorry”. Through the film Moore clearly illustrates that he believes capitalism means never having to say you’re sorry because it is a system that leads to citizens’ homes, jobs, education, and health care being in jeopardy and no one is apologizing for it. However, throughout the film, Moore focuses on debasing capitalism instead of finding a better system for the population - which is supposedly what he wants. Moore may be right about the fact that capitalism is not the best option for the population as it favours the rich, yet his approach in the film is wrong. If anything Capitalism: A Love Story shows us what not to do - criticize a system and not offer anything better. Society, together, should be looking for a solution instead of doing nothing and condemning others for their own misfortune - whether or not it is
A documentary is a film used to report some form of reality. This film genre is associated with the unaltered truth and as a result people often believe what they watch is fact, portrayed in a way for them to see all sides of a controversy where they can forge an opinion for themselves. However, Capitalism: A Love Story does not follow that structure. Moore believes that capitalism is a flawed system and incorporates his opinions into the film by only showing facts that will prove his point and by shaming those who support the system. At times Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story proves to be credible, but the integration of his opinions into the film as well as his hypocrisy …show more content…
Companies gain millions of dollars from the death of these “dead peasants”. The scene proves how capitalism could lead to immoral yet lawful theft, proving Moore’s point. However, Moore himself exploits the family in order to get his point across. Whilst his use of the family to prove his point has an arguably smaller impact on them, it is hypocritical to do what Walmart had done to them, albeit on a lesser level and it makes Moore a less credible source. Moore also tends to oversimplify complex problems. Near the end of the film he makes it clear that he believes capitalism is the opposite of a democracy, and does not support it. He uses many examples to get his point across and is very thorough at times. However, he does not recommend socialism and he does not think that Obama has brought significant change. Instead of stating what he wants to see changed, he shames corporations that he believes exploit Americans. Moore’s failure to address what he believes needs to be changed does not help prove his arguments and instead makes him seem less devoted to the problem and as a result, less credible. Similarly in the way Moore talks to spouses of dead peasants, he also talks about derivatives to validate his reasoning. When Moore asks experts what derivatives are they all fail to explain it. From what I saw in the film derivatives were portrayed as immoral gambling in which investors can bet …show more content…
I believe that the film’s title is an allusion to Arthur Hiller’s Love Story, the film that holds claim to the infamous quote “love means never having to say you’re sorry”. Through the film Moore clearly illustrates that he believes capitalism means never having to say you’re sorry because it is a system that leads to citizens’ homes, jobs, education, and health care being in jeopardy and no one is apologizing for it. However, throughout the film, Moore focuses on debasing capitalism instead of finding a better system for the population - which is supposedly what he wants. Moore may be right about the fact that capitalism is not the best option for the population as it favours the rich, yet his approach in the film is wrong. If anything Capitalism: A Love Story shows us what not to do - criticize a system and not offer anything better. Society, together, should be looking for a solution instead of doing nothing and condemning others for their own misfortune - whether or not it is