Moore Still Forgetting Less Is More
Michael Moore’s heavy-handedness almost bankrupts his new attack on corporate America. Also under review: The twangy Monsters of Folk, the new season of Dollhouse, and a brief interview with the not so hideous John Krasinski.
By Dylan Matthews, Daniel Strauss, Delaney Rohan, and Becca Russell-Einhorn
October 2, 2009
Moore’s dramatics almost ruin another film—almost. (Dog Eat Dog)
Capitalism: A Love Story
Directed by Michael Moore
Dog Eat Dog Films
Release Date: Oct. 15, 2009
Michael Moore’s obligatory take on the global financial implosion, Capitalism: A Love Story, includes roughly 60 percent of a truly excellent film. Real scandals are brought to light, such as the Wilkes-Barre judicial scandal, in which a juvenile detention corporation had two juvenile court judges send thousands of kids to jail in exchange for bribes.
Better still are Moore’s accounts of private citizens’ attempts to cope with the excesses of capitalism through formal mechanisms like worker ownership.
This would all be well and good if Moore didn’t insist upon being so much like, well, himself. Attempting to conduct citizen arrests of bank CEOs, in addition to not being clever, actively undermines Moore’s attempt to advocate for hard-working, low-income people. After all, the only Goldman Sachs employee he ends up interacting with—which is to say yell at—is the doorman. And quoting Wallace Shawn as an economic expert accomplishes the neat trick of making Moore seem simultaneously pretentious and unread. Was Paul Krugman really not available?
Then again, Krugman probably wouldn’t sign off on a film that makes as many basic errors as Capitalism does. Most egregiously, at one point the screen shows that during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, productivity increased 47 percent, which Moore interprets as “people working twice as hard.” In fact, a 47 percent increase is 1.47 times, not 2, and productivity gains result from all kinds of factors—technological improvements, more efficient management, etc.—other than “people working harder.” That Moore did not care to do even this rudimentary bit of fact checking is distressing to say the least.
Of course, to concentrate his efforts on what he does well—telling working class peoples’ stories, not his own or that of the economy or nation writ large—would be to deny Michael his essential Moore-dom. A Michael Moore who is not reliant on stunts and doesn’t fudge facts just doesn’t jibe with the image his viewers expect. Fair enough; people will buy what they buy. Some might even call it a failure of capitalism.
6 out of 10 self-involved populists.
- Dylan Matthews
This season, Echo’s got her work cut out for her. (Fox)
Dollhouse
Fox
Fridays at 9:00 p.m. EST
What’s the main difference between Dollhouse season two and Dollhouse season one? In a word, it’s heavier.
The sophomore premiere finds Echo attempting to bust an illegal arms dealer (played by Battlestar Galactica’s Jamie Lee Bamber) by marrying him. It’s a long-term engagement thought up by Paul Ballard, the mysterious FBI agent who isn’t exactly with the Dollhouse but isn’t exactly not. Initially, it’s a boring mission—but then! Echo starts “glitching” almost immediately, which is to say, having memories of past engagements, a big problem. For anyone nerdy enough to have watched every episode of this show multiple times (read: me), you’ll know that Echo always glitches, though this time it’s happening quicker than ever. But why?
Then there were the future flashes. Many viewers probably expected writer Joss Whedon to drag the series out for a while before those future flashes began to materialize; their early appearance speaks even more to the gravity of this new season. The rapidity of the new plotlines aren’t necessarily bad, they just take some getting used to. Dollhouse‘s greatest strength has always been the thriller aspect; this season it’s just ratcheted up.
One change nobody will complain about is that the acting is a notch above last season’s. In particular, watch out for excellent performances from Fran Kranz as Topher Brink and Amy Acker as Doctor Saunders.
7 out of 10 welcome returns.
-Daniel Strauss
Folking awesome. (Rough Trade)
Monsters of Folk
Monsters of Folk
Rough Trade
Release Date: Sept. 22, 2009
In Monsters of Folk’s self-titled debut album, M. Ward, Jim James of My Morning Jacket and Conor Oberst and Mike Mogis of Bright Eyes have combined talents to create an eclectic manifestation of musical inspiration. If you think you can predict what the mix sounds like, you’re probably wrong.
If it must be categorized, the record, released on Sept. 22, is more folk, country and bluegrass than anything, but certainly nothing like that terrible bastardization of country music currently puttering around the pop landscape, wrought with references to Budweiser, truckin’ and other stereotypical trappings of rural life.
No, no. The experience you get with Monsters of Folk is simultaneously spiritually dreamy, emotionally melancholic and joyously lighthearted. Finger-picked banjos, gospel-style choruses and lyrically descriptive, poetic depth merge with twangy guitars to produce 15 short but sweet songs.
The group’s collaborative approach allows each of their strengths to be highlighted amid the pastiche. Oberst’s power to convey emotive truth is palpable, M. Ward’s melancholic crescendos are evident and James’s effervescent, soothing vocals are dizzying.
In fact, perhaps the most provocative songs are those that stress James’s vocal prowess, a quality most evident in songs like “Dear God” (which has a harp!), “The Right Place,” “Losin’ Yo Head,” and “His Master’s Voice.” Throughout the album, Mogis’s dramatic and comprehensive production style prove invaluable.
In all, Monsters of Folk’s individual particularities blend harmoniously to produce an album of diverse beauty. Individual talents diffuse to form an alternate narrative for modern folk music, and though not every song is perfect, neither is anything out of place or absent.
8 out of 10 reasons why Pitchfork is too critical.
-Delaney Rohan
Where’s the hideousness? (IFC)
Brief Interviews with Hideous Men
Directed by John Krasinski
Based on the novel by David Foster Wallace
IFC Films
Release Date: Sept. 25, 2009
Thanks to a mistake only a freshman could make, I registered for the class “The Big Novel: Topics in Contemporary Literature” thinking it was about big topics; turns out it was about big novels. After being forced to read the late David Foster Wallace’s 1,079 page epic, Infinite Jest, I became hooked on his eccentric style, and I soon fell in love with another of his books: Brief Interviews with Hideous Men.
So it was with the hesitance of a loyal fan that I approached John Krasinksi’s (of The Office fame) recent screening of his film adaptation of Interviews for 250 Pomona College students, many of whom knew Wallace not only as a great author, but also a wonderful English professor, until his tragic suicide in 2008.
So, how was it? Unconventional is probably the best word to use. Like the book, the film doesn’t quite have a plot, but now there is a woman conducting the interviews for her dissertation (there is no interviewer in the book; this character is only represented by the letter Q). Overall, though, the movie is dominated by the interviewees, whose wild, profound, and heartrending stories range from having a father who gagged and bound himself for fear of abusing his family to a guy who yells, “Victory for the forces of democratic freedom!” as he climaxes. See? Unconventional.
Krasinski stayed after the screening and answered questions about his experience adapting Wallace’s novel. “I don’t care if you liked the film,” he passionately told the audience. “I made this film as a gateway drug for David’s work.”
9 out of 10 indescribably inimitable books converted into movies.
-Becca Russell-Einhorn
Dylan Matthews is a staff writer for Campus Progress and a sophomore at Harvard. Daniel Strauss is a staff writer for Campus Progress and a senior at the University of Michigan. Delaney Rohan is an editorial intern for Campus Progress and a grad student at American University. Becca Russell-Einhorn is a regular contributor to Campus Progress and a senior at Pomona College.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
!
