Healthcare and terrorism
Dec. 8th, 2007 11:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blodeueddI still have a few minutes? *looks at clock*
Since I'm all about the double features, and double features are so much more satisfying when they're thematically related, here are a couple of political movies:
Sicko:
Compared to the incessant, accusing voice-overs he made use of in Faranheit 9/11, I though Michael Moore demonstrated laudable restraint in his latest film. This isn't to say he remains silent; rather, he sticks to explaining facts, for the most part, letting his subjects and their stories ignite the viewers' sympathy. And after hearing those heartbreaking tales, how could we react otherwise? How could companies claiming to want to better their clients' lives try to find every possible way to deny them service, effectively leaving with a choice between bankruptcy or death?
Well, I shouldn't be so naive. It's a business, after all.
One objection I had to the film is Moore's rose-tinted view of other countries, namely my own. While it's clear that the director is simply trying to start a debate, I must point out that Sarnia is not representative of all of Canada! Nor is Windsor. And while I know that we're much better off in terms of healthcare than most of the planet, I still feel entitled to bitch about the fact that during my last few years in the Outaouais, I had to go over to Ontario to see a doctor, because there weren't enough on my side of the river. So for the American woman who was crossing the border to see a doctor and/or buy medication: I feel for you, but there's a reason we have universal (in theory) healthcare, and that's because we pay taxes for it (leaving aside all arguments over whether our provincial governments manage those programmes in the best possible way). Moreover, a look at France's economy and current social climate would hint that things are not as great as they might seem at first glance. The same goes for Britain and Cuba, I'd imagine, though I don't know enough about the situation there to comment.
Overall, I found Moore's voice in this movie much more restrained, yet also much angrier, as though he were holding himself back. In Bowling For Columbine and Faranheit 9/11, his targets were obvious and his side of the debate was clear, but in this movie, everyone and everything is fair game, from the healthcare companies to the politicians, no matter their party. His "ordinary guy from Michigan" schtick was toned down, as was his personality in general, but just enough to effectively convey his outrage without alienating those who prefer a more impartial view of things.
Final verdict: 8/10 -- I feel I've been maybe too generous with my marks up to now...
Death of a President:
What would I have thought of this movie if I'd heard nothing about it before watching it? If I'd been living in isolation, somewhere, without access to the news, and someone had told me, "Watch this documentary," how would I have reacted? As it was, we (I watched it with A-L) kept turning to each other and commenting on how realistically the scenario was presented, wondering what was actually staged and what was simply lifted from real footage.
As a "What if..." this movie works beautifully, presenting a completely plausible series of events and their consequences. I don't usually seek out "alternate reality" stories, but when done well, they can be quite thought-provoking: the movie suggests what would happen in the U.S., but what would it mean for the rest of the world? The U.S. have already been imposing their security measures in Canada when it comes to air traffic and official visits to Ottawa (closing most of downtown for the Defense Secretary!), but I imagine it's only the beginning... What a depressing thought.
Sadly, I've run out of inspiration for tonight, so I'll leave it at that. Perhaps writing a bit earlier would do the trick!
Final verdict: 8/10
Since I'm all about the double features, and double features are so much more satisfying when they're thematically related, here are a couple of political movies:
Sicko:
Compared to the incessant, accusing voice-overs he made use of in Faranheit 9/11, I though Michael Moore demonstrated laudable restraint in his latest film. This isn't to say he remains silent; rather, he sticks to explaining facts, for the most part, letting his subjects and their stories ignite the viewers' sympathy. And after hearing those heartbreaking tales, how could we react otherwise? How could companies claiming to want to better their clients' lives try to find every possible way to deny them service, effectively leaving with a choice between bankruptcy or death?
Well, I shouldn't be so naive. It's a business, after all.
One objection I had to the film is Moore's rose-tinted view of other countries, namely my own. While it's clear that the director is simply trying to start a debate, I must point out that Sarnia is not representative of all of Canada! Nor is Windsor. And while I know that we're much better off in terms of healthcare than most of the planet, I still feel entitled to bitch about the fact that during my last few years in the Outaouais, I had to go over to Ontario to see a doctor, because there weren't enough on my side of the river. So for the American woman who was crossing the border to see a doctor and/or buy medication: I feel for you, but there's a reason we have universal (in theory) healthcare, and that's because we pay taxes for it (leaving aside all arguments over whether our provincial governments manage those programmes in the best possible way). Moreover, a look at France's economy and current social climate would hint that things are not as great as they might seem at first glance. The same goes for Britain and Cuba, I'd imagine, though I don't know enough about the situation there to comment.
Overall, I found Moore's voice in this movie much more restrained, yet also much angrier, as though he were holding himself back. In Bowling For Columbine and Faranheit 9/11, his targets were obvious and his side of the debate was clear, but in this movie, everyone and everything is fair game, from the healthcare companies to the politicians, no matter their party. His "ordinary guy from Michigan" schtick was toned down, as was his personality in general, but just enough to effectively convey his outrage without alienating those who prefer a more impartial view of things.
Final verdict: 8/10 -- I feel I've been maybe too generous with my marks up to now...
Death of a President:
What would I have thought of this movie if I'd heard nothing about it before watching it? If I'd been living in isolation, somewhere, without access to the news, and someone had told me, "Watch this documentary," how would I have reacted? As it was, we (I watched it with A-L) kept turning to each other and commenting on how realistically the scenario was presented, wondering what was actually staged and what was simply lifted from real footage.
As a "What if..." this movie works beautifully, presenting a completely plausible series of events and their consequences. I don't usually seek out "alternate reality" stories, but when done well, they can be quite thought-provoking: the movie suggests what would happen in the U.S., but what would it mean for the rest of the world? The U.S. have already been imposing their security measures in Canada when it comes to air traffic and official visits to Ottawa (closing most of downtown for the Defense Secretary!), but I imagine it's only the beginning... What a depressing thought.
Sadly, I've run out of inspiration for tonight, so I'll leave it at that. Perhaps writing a bit earlier would do the trick!
Final verdict: 8/10
