Capitalism: A Love Story - Response

Earlier today, I watched Capitalism: A Love Story, a documentary about the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy, directed and produced by Michael Moore. I felt that Moore made many valid, reasonable arguments early in the film. He showed many middle-class people whose homes had recently been foreclosed by greedy banks, as they were unable to make their rapidly-rising payments. I can sympathize with them, personally knowing people who have dealt with the same thing. He then showed interviews with women whose husbands had recently passed away. In one case, the hospital had taken out life insurance against the husband, and in another case, Wal-Mart (the husband's workplace) had taken out a "dead peasant" policy against him. Both the hospital and Wal-Mart profited immensely from the deaths, and the widows (who both had children) received nothing in compensation. Again, I can sympathize, and I agree wholeheartedly that these women were taken advantage of in an extremely dishonest, inhumane way.

Though I believed that Moore was wrong to blame the system of capitalism as a whole for the corruption permeating the upper class, I had accepted most of what he said as credible. Having so far kept an open mind, the second half of the movie destroyed all credibility I had given it up to that point. The film degenerated from an expose to an immature rant. Clips were dramatized with zooms and music, voices of supporters of capitalism were distorted to sound demonic, Moore himself brought out his bullhorn on various security guards, and (perhaps my favorite) Bush's address on the state of the economy was given a cartoony horror film backdrop. I decided at that point I couldn't really take the film too seriously. As this reviewer puts it, "broke, tear-stained families sitting at a kitchen table, in a house they’re about to lose to a bank, aren’t best served by...pathos-dispensing musical score."

If nothing else, I learned from the film just how greedy some of the wealthier white-collar workers can be, and I can never look at banks and big corporations the same way again. I can also say that my sympathy for the hard-working lower- and middle-class citizens of America is strengthened, and that something must be done about the corruption of the higher-ups.

Who Killed the Electric Car preview

Wednesday, 7:00 P.M, in Bolt 220, there will be a viewing of Who Killed the Electric Car. This documentary discusses the creation and failure of the electric car in California in 1996. Within this documentary, director Chris Paine discusses the commercialization of the electric car in contrast to its opposition from the oil industry, competing car companies, and the US and Californian government. This film fared very well at the Sundance Film Festival and has received overall positive reviews from film critics.

Here is the official preview for Who Killed the Electric Car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmCwLHvAPhg

Here are the links to the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, which offer reviews from both professional film critics and user critics.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/who_killed_the_electric_car/

Here is also GM's rebuttal blog post, Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car

http://www.altfuels.org/misc/onlygm.pdf

Good Hair Response

Last night, I watched comedian Chris Rock's documentary Good Hair with some of my classmates. In this film, Chris Rock looks at the pressures put on African-American women to get their hair straightened or to get a weave, the high prices it cost African American women to get their hair straightened (sometimes even $5,000!), and the location where all these beautiful weaves come from (India). While I was watching this film, I found it funny, interesting, and informative. However, after reading Jeannette Catsoulis's review on the film, I realized that there may have been some other emotions that other viewers could have felt while watching this movie.

Like Ms. Catsoulis, I found this movie informative and hilarious, but there were elements in this film that I saw, but could not feel. Catsoulis states that this movie shows the psychological and physical harm that the hair business brings to the African-American community. However, being a Caucasian male, it was hard for me to relate to the stress and pain that these women were going through in the movie. It is a lot easier to watch someone get their hair "relaxed" than actually getting it done and a lot easier to hear how much money these women are paying for their hair than actually experiencing the work they had to go through to make their hair "beautiful." For this reason, I feel that while I still got a lot out of this movie, I was not able to relate to and appreciate it as much as African-American women, or even Caucasian women, can.

After watching this film, I am definitely going to try not to judge women on their looks. Just because a women has more resources to receive special hair treatments or the best make-up does not mean they are any better than the women who do not have these privileges. I am greatly appreciative that I was able to participate in this dorm film showing, and I hope this film will make me live in a way that lines up with what the "Kingdom" should be like.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/movies/09hair.html

Maxed Out and In Debt

Wednesday evening at 7:00pm sharp the James Manor (351 James Ave SE) will be hosting a screening of James Scurlock's documentary, Maxed Out. Scurlock, 34, originally intended for this flick to have a tongue-in-cheek tone to it, revealing ridiculous situations many Americans find themselves in when credit debt suffocates them. What Scurlock found though provoked little laughter. The documentary invites viewers to visit with a wide array of guests, from a canny Harvard financial professor to a savvy pawn shop owner to families living in the backwoods.

Get Rich Slowly, a personal finance organization online offers a balanced review of the documentary. While many reviews I've perused have offered much praise though neglecting to critique, this review aptly notes where they feel the documentary is lacking or drifting astray. Overall though, the positives and negatives balance out.

The New York Times review was as scathing on the film as the film was on the credit industry. Stephen Holden, the author, posits that Maxed Out fails to astutely convey the amalgam of facts, opinions, and anecdotes leaving the viewer in the shadow of a large issue without candles to illuminate the darkness.

To read an interview with Scurlock on the film, check out this Q&A organized by The Film Lot.

Below you can view the trailer for the film:

Reel Injun Reflections

Reel Injun follows Neil Diamond (not the singer) as he traces the history of Native American portrayal in film. My initial response was positive, although the high note at the end rang slightly false. Diamond’s quest to end positively left the declared salvation of Native American film feeling hasty, and required omitting any mention of reservation conditions, which were dropped after being discussed earlier in the film.

Since movies have existed for over a century, and Diamond includes many other historical events and background details, there is more content to cover than could be comfortably fit into an hour and a half documentary. A valiant effort is attempted, and indeed I hardly noticed the rush until further reflection prompted by Andrew Schenker’s review. In mentioning the hurried speed of the film, he touched on several car trip stops that I had forgotten even occurred. For example, he shows young Native American children a Western movie from his own childhood, wondering at their reactions, but then moves on before interviewing any of the children.

Overall, however, I was left with a strong sense of how poorly white Americans have portrayed Native Americans in film, swinging from stereotype to stereotype, infusing American society with the same perfunctory impressions. Through showing clips of old and new movies and then discussing or revealing their prejudiced assumptions, Diamond instilled in me an awareness of how erroneously different people groups are portrayed by Hollywood. A John Wayne film isn’t so harmless after all, and I can’t imagine Hollywood does a much better job accurately portraying Chinese or Indian people. Thus this documentary has stimulated me to more closely analyze multiethnic movies, distinguishing between the good and the bad, the Kingdom and the Empire, instead of just swallowing it all.

The Ides of March

The Ides of March is a thrilling movie that looks deeply into the nature of politics. In this movie, Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) is a successful campaign manager for presidential nominee Mike Morris (George Clooney). However, in the midst of Morris's campaign, Meyers discovers that Morris has cheated on his wife with one of his interns. After Meyers is fired for talking to the opposing presidential nominee's campaign manager in secret, he decides the one way to receive back his position is to threaten to reveal Morris's secret affair. After Meyers threatens the president, the film quickly takes on many twists and turns until it finally reveals a very suspenseful ending.

This movie displays how humans tend to let their greed and selfishness get the best of them as they strive for power and pleasure. This fact is evident when Stephen Meyers decides to threaten Morris to regain his status in Morris's presidential campaign. Although Meyers is rightfully fired, he still cannot take the dreadful news of his firing in stride. Because of his selfish desires, he eventually accidentally bring the intern to commit suicide and gets one of Morris's advisers fired from his beloved job. However, this is not the only example of how our human nature is corrupt. Morris also shows his true colors as he cheats on his supportive wife with one of his interns. Because of this act, Morris is eventually forced to be under Meyers' command throughout his campaign. These examples of a human's corrupt nature display how humans have been far from perfect ever since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It also portrays how humans struggle to live in a way that aligns with the Kingdom of God as they go throughout their daily lives. Although our purpose is to live in a way that is pleasing to God, this film, as well as our own lives, show that it is impossible to live that way on a daily basis.

Discussion Questions

1. What are some ways we can fight the selfish desires that are part of our human nature?

2. Do you believe that this film can help us correct our flaws as humans or does it just merely show us our flaws?

3. What do you think Meyers decides to do at the end of the movie (only applicable to those who watched this movie)?

America the Beautiful

On January 10 we are going to be watching the documentary "America the Beautiful." This film depicts America's obscene obsession with beauty and appearance. The director Darryl Roberts show clips from the past and interviews with everyday people. There is a great importance in getting answers from real people; it yields a response that causes the views to really think about the issues.

Roger Ebert gives his opinions on the film in this insightful review. He gives a bit of the background story to what makes this film what it is. This is a serious review that breaks down the pieces that make up the film

Here is another review that had some very positive things to say about the film. America the Beautiful was given 4.5 out of 5 stars on this review.

I just thought that I would include this Q&A with the director, Darryl Roberts to get some understanding about what the director was actually expecting when he came up with the idea for this film.

this is the preview for the film

Hair; We all have it

On January 9th we
will be watching Good Hair, a documentary by Chris Rock looking at the way
people, especially African-Americans, look at hair and the power it has over
people and the way we look at others.

Now Chris Rock is an actor and comedian, so he does have
some credibility on the big screen. However, he is only doing this documentary
in regards to a question his three year old daughter asked him, “daddy, why don’t
I have good hair?” so from there we can imagine that Mr. Rock probably has a
bit of a bias in telling the story of the hair industry.

There are two articles containing reviews of the movie Good
Hair, you can read the first by Stephen Cole of the Globe and Mail at this link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/good-hair/article1324904/
And a second by Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times at this link:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/09/entertainment/et-good-hair9



The Trailer for the movie you can watch by following this link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/good-hair/article1324904/

also feel free to take a look at some of the clips from the movie they have linked to the trailer. I took a lot from these clips to make the discussion questions, so watching them might be helpful.

Capitalism: A Love Story

On Tuesday, January 10th, we'll be watching Capitalism: A Love Story in the 1st VR lobby. Released in 2009, director Michael Moore invites us to explore the impact of corporate influence on the lives of Americans.

Mr. Moore, of course, is notorious for his polarizing opinions which almost always provoke mixed reviews. Manohla Dargis of The New York Times offers a critique of the film, exhaustively stating "in the end, what is to be done? After watching Capitalism, it beats me." You can find the article here.

Alternatively, Xan Brooks of The Guardian gave the film 4/5 stars in his review. Moore, he says "has done a fine job in ferreting out the human stories behind the headlines." For any more information on the film you can visit the official website here.



"There's got to be some kind of a rebellion between the people that have nothing and the people who have it all."

The Ides of March

George Clooney’s new political thriller The Ides of March follows staffer Stephen Meyers on his path from innocence. Meyers is working on the presidential campaign of governor Mike Morris, whom he starts the movie earnestly believing in as the last solution to America’s problems—the real deal president. Yet the film questions several virtues as Morris’s flaws are revealed, dragging down Meyers’s sincerity, so that the last true “savior” figures in politics descend to the masses of corruption.

This film broadcasts disillusionment with the human race as it tarnishes the figures it first asked the audience to love. While the Kingdom acknowledges that humans are corrupt, it also holds that humans are image-bearers of God, and so while everyone contains some shadow, everyone also contains some light. The Ides of March leaves no redeeming qualities or hint of goodness in the nature of man. Through showing the transformation of Meyer and disclosing the scandal of Morris, it is almost as if Clooney is shouting: “See! See! Even those individuals who you think are so angelic fail in the end.” The Ides of March ends at the pit of corruption from which a typical narrative would rise to conclude, paralleling Creation to the Fall, but abandoning the audience there instead of carrying them on to Redemption and Restoration.

The Empire would like you to believe one of two things: either the world isn’t so bad, or it’s terrible, but that’s the way things are, and it’s time for you to play the game. This drama shoots down the first option after initially inviting you to believe in it, but leaves the protagonist Meyer committed to the second view. My reaction to the movie however, is almost a resistance, and a desire to prove this wrong; thereby, The Ides of March promotes the Kingdom by inviting the audience to question the reality of human nature.

Discussion questions:

1) What do you think Clooney’s view of human nature is?

2) What are the parallels and distinctions between Meyer’s apocalypse (epiphany) and the apocalypse we are called to?