August 01, 2007

Michael Moore Wants to Check Your Prostate

Is SiCKO the Future?

Occasionally, when I’m ranting idly about death of the American middle class, or the rise of corporate oligarchy, or media consolidation, or especially the exciting topic of primary campaign strategy, someone who is not well acquainted with me will declare something like, “Boy, you must really like politics.” “Like politics?” I might say. I hate politics. Makes my blood boil. In fact, my doctor has advised me that if I want to live past the age of 30 I should stop reading the newspaper altogether.

Well, anyway, that’s what I imagine a doctor might say if I had access to healthcare.

A few weeks ago Sicko opened to rave reviews (92% on the Tomatometer!), and for a documentary, a heaping purse at the box office. In the spirit of Michael Moore I’ve posted this in the news section of our humble blog and will devote the remainder of this post to convincing you of my personal views on the place of film in politics.

Sicko only reached number nine at the box office, but has had a permeating affect on the rest of the media. The film has sparked a huge backlash as those forces beholden to the likes of the behemoth healthcare industry hurry to smear the film. On Fox News, Neil Cavuto had on National Review Online columnist Jerry Bowyer who contortedly argued that universal healthcare is a breeding ground for terrorists. Citing the recent attacks in the U.K. which were committed by Islamic doctors, Bowyer hilariously theorized that it was precisely the National Health Service bureaucracy which made it so easy for the jihadist doctors to commit their crimes.

So a well placed leftist documentary is sure to incite gnashing of teeth on the right, but can it change the county? I say yes. The coverage of Sicko has been enormous. Even Americans who never saw the film have heard of it and have probably heard people (besides John Edwards) talking about the healthcare problems in this country for the first time since Hilarycare. Michael Moore himself has done a dozen interviews about the film and the crippled system. At the very least, the release of Sicko has sparked a renewal of the discussion of this vitally important issue. Even if it’s fleeting, I give it credit for that.

What interests me more is the reaction outside of the media, the reaction on the street. When I was walking out of that theater everyone was talking about how appalled they were with the healthcare system. Total strangers were conversing with disgust about HMOs and how good the rest of the industrialized world has it. Sure, I saw the movie in Seattle where Republicans know better than to leave their houses, but it happened everywhere. All across the country (all the stories I’ve read seem to focus on Texas for the impact) audiences have given standing ovations and stormed out of theaters to form impromptu town meetings in front of multiplexes. Unlike the largely divisive Farenheit 9/11, Moore’s Sicko has changed the minds of even the most conservative of audiences.

These people may very well go home and do nothing to fix the healthcare system in this country. On the other hand, I’m willing to bet that the best way to effect change in a democracy is to educate people and change minds. Sicko has most certainly achieved this and will likely continue to do so as the audience expands.

What we should ask ourselves is whether Moore has finally nailed down the documentary (should we call it “Persuasive Political Nonfiction”), and is it here to stay? Are commercially successful, effective, persuasive documentaries going to be a huge part of politics in film for the next generation? I would guess that they are. We have already seen an explosion of political, persuasion oriented documentaries in the last several years (Who Killed the Electric Car, Iraq For Sale, Why We Fight). With the exception of An Inconvenient Truth, none have had even near the commercial viability of Moore’s films, and many have gone strait to DVD. Whereas Fahrenheit was the starting gun for this new movement in film, I think the largely warm reception of Sicko and Truth will serve to legitimize it as a commercial form. We’re going to see more of these movies-with-a-message in the coming years. Now that it has been shown that people are willing to pay theater prices to learn and/or be preached at, it’s bound to become the biggest tool in politics.

I would not fault someone for worrying that this power can now just as easily fall into the wrong hands. I however, in accordance with my undying romance with democracy, am convinced that any forum which actively involves the public of a democracy in discussion of the issues is likely to be a force for good.

Politics in film is really nothing new though. Political and ideological ideas have often been communicated through film, for good and evil. For the most part this has been in the form of narrative fiction and non-fiction (everything from the allegory of Star Wars to the history of All the Presidents Men). I think this is a more artful way to impart or comment on basic values than the full frontal assault of persuasion films like Sicko. But for tackling the immediate logistical issues of what’s actually going on in America at any given moment, I think Mr. Moore is really on to something.