Aaron Reviews Michael Moore’s Sicko

By Aaron 7/9/2007

 
Michael Moore’s Sicko was a pleasant surprise. For once, Moore’s touch is perfect. Instead of politicking and engaging in ridiculous attacks on political officials, Moore makes a movie where his message isn’t lost amongst his liberalism. Bowling for Columbine was a great documentary that got swept away under the wave of conservatives who defended the NRA and the National Guard. And Fahrenheit 9/11 had many ideas that should have been heard, but weren’t because of Moore’s blatant political commentary. But with Sicko, Moore takes great pleasure in pointing out how politicians from both sides of the aisle (going so far as to call out Hillary Clinton) bowed under the weight of the HMO’s and opened their coffers to medical industry donations. Moore even preempts potential criticism from the right by interviewing individuals in foreign countries who are conservative but think universal health care is necessary. This political (I hesitate to say it) neutrality is quite becoming and helps the movie show that this is a problem for everyone, regardless of your party/political affiliation.

 
Sicko is about the inadequacies of the US health care industry and the gross financial inequalities left in the wake of health insurance. The movie begins with Moore’s narration of the stories of a few families whose lives have been shaken by their inability to cover their health costs. When the audience is sitting on the edge of their seats, shaking their heads in disgust at the medical system, Moore drops a big one – over fifty million Americans do not have health care or any way to get it. That is a harsh reality one in six people, of the three hundred million living in the United States, have to deal with. Moore does try to show how these people CAN get good health care through different channels than the legal ones currently available – going so far as to provide a link to a website where you can marry a Canadian to get Canadian health benefits. This type of humor is exactly what the movie needs – a comic solution to a serious problem and for once, some Moore humor without political strings.

 
Moore has a methodical way of showing how bad our system is comparatively, from showing the success of countries where health care is free (Canada, Britain, France) to talking to foreign doctors and US residents overseas who rave about how they could only live outside America – just for the health care. A lot of this is Moore going around having a great time debunking myths propagated by the health care industry. Moore goes to Canada and shows how the waiting periods are short, to Britain to show how the doctors are still highly qualified and living very well for themselves, and to France to show how the socialist health system is not a ridiculous tax burden. Finally, Moore sneaks into Cuba to show how a “backward country” can have a better system than we do – going so far as to show how health care is better at Guantanamo than in the states. These fast paced, almost montage style interviews are pretty entertaining and keep the movie moving quickly.

 
What sets Sicko apart from Moore’s other movies is the straightforward, mildly apolitical push for universal health care. Moore actually suggests a solution to the problem he presents instead of the conspiracy theories he advanced in Fahrenheit and Columbine. Columnists and politicians alike have criticized Moore’s “solutions”, but the solution is made to be self-evident – the government needs to do more. Critics are also quick to jump on Moore for exaggerating the problems with the US system while supporting a Canadian system that still has serious problems. Other critics harp on Moore for ignoring the fifty million without care that Moore describes in the beginning – glossing over the race and class barriers that prevent equal health care. In the end, it seems Moore is more right than wrong – our system needs to change, and change fast. Whether or not you agree with the solutions Moore presents, or like how he presents his arguments, this movie can be an important catalyst to jump start the health care debate. With the pile of small ticky-tack criticisms piling up, I’ll give the movie 8/10 salty stix – which is pretty damn good for a documentary.

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.