First thoughts on Sicko

[Proteus]

Saw the film last night, and was impressed by certain elements in it and certain elements not in it.

I was surprised and glad that the film avoided putting a rhetorical bull's-eye on the Bush administration. It must have been tempting for Moore to appease his base with broadsides, but the film was smart to take a longer view, and to appropriately blame instead:

Richard Nixon. Moore has shown a tendency in all his films to recognize the short and simple nature of the American memory, while also recognizing that Americans instinctually despise education. The understanding of an issue is helped enormously by historical examination, and Moore's brief forays in this direction anchor his films in a substantive way.

I was less thrilled with Moore's comparative approach, never really grounding his comparative points with facts, only with feelings - the immense frustrations of the American middle/working class struggling with health problems compared with the holistic and caring approach found in other countries. I think this will resonate with the American audience, because there is immense frustration with the American system, and it does fail more than it should. However, the comparative approach lacks substance, and accomodates the tendency of it audience to see things as black-or-white, good-or-bad. Moore's approach is a little sloppy here - although his points are, again, substantive and serious.

Sicko was perhaps the least comedic film Moore has ever made. It was more overwhelmingly direct than Bowling for Columbine and more analytical than Fahrenheit 9/11. It felt and seemed impersonal- Moore announced that he called for storied from the public, and then presented some of what he'd found, and later showed the effect of the US healthcare problem even on his opponents, and that was the extent of his direct involvement in this subject - with the exception of a brief bit featring his Canadian relatives.

I think this is an important film, but I go back to the sentiments I had after Fahrenheit 9/11 in thinking the subject needs the media glare and compassion that Moore provides, but needs the objectivity and analysis that Moore is too clumsy to provide very well. I think the film will have an impact on the 2008 presidential race, and will make an impact on American culture, but like the factual revelations of his earlier films, I think this new information is unlikely to have the invigorating effect it should in our political culture. It is, like Roger & Me a personal testimony which documents a critical American failure. As such, it will be disputed loudly and we can only hope that the debate this time will prove more useful and empowering than it has in the past.

I think this is Moore's best film in 10 years. It is certainly harder to watch than his previous 2, and the topic at hand is bigger and more complex than anything he's approached to date. The questions it raises are as difficult for one political party as they are for the other, and the questions it notably doesn't raise about the cost and ability of the country to provide what Moore believes we should are more vital and significant than who authorized the flights exporting the Bin Laden family, or which group is responsible for the "gun-show loophole." As such, I think the reception of this film will be more significant and interesting than anything we've seen before.

It is a great movie, and a significantly better movie than I'd anticipated. it is seriously flawed, but not in the predictable and cliched manner I'd expected. This is a film which should have cultural effects beyond the typical shouting-heads on TV.

Wa dika xajla.

[Duane Dibbley]

I see Sicko as a way to introduce people to the idea of universal health care and stimulate further discussion, rather than being the end-all-be-all documentary about health care. Viewed in that light, I think the film does a good job. As someone who plans to work for the adoption of universal health care in the US, I hope Sicko does have an impact.

[Tinderbox]

I have to say that I've avoided Michael Moore's films ever since the sloppy, misleading Roger and Me. He is not the source to go to for unbiased or clear discussion of anything.

[HGervais]

I have to say that I've avoided Michael Moore's films ever since the sloppy, misleading Roger and Me. He is not the source to go to for unbiased or clear discussion of anything.

And where does he advertise that he would be? Again, not a big Michael Moore fan here but where does this train of thought that documentaries are supposed to be unbiased & balanced discussions of issues comes from? By their nature documentaries are subjective animals and at least Moore doesn't try to hide behind some "fair & balanced" charade. As for sloppy, yeah I'd agree that his direction was sloppy in his earlier works but his films have been getting better on that end. If he has one fatal flaw for me, it's how he seems to try to get too cute by half with the points he tries to make. Instead of using the information as a razor, he uses it like a mallet.

[The Omen]

And where does he advertise that he would be?

The fact that the film is a 'documentary' is where the confusion begins, and where the very definition of documentary states that the viewpoint being shown is an objective one.

I actually liked Sicko more than any other of his docs, but it still doesn't come through as objective, that's for sure. Despite the fact that I fall on his side in this one.

[Proteus]

I hate the tendency of the debate on Moore to result in people redefining "documentary" to suit their purposes. It seems ludicrous to me. However, since the JR archives remain inaccessible, I suppose it may be necessary to do this all over again.

I think it is fair to say that Sicko is unlikely to win Moore an Academy Award for documentary filmmaking, albeit the strongest documentary and most objective film he's made to date. His winning film was deserving, but this is far stronger and more coherent, and amply displays his ability t o engage the public with issues of significance and complexity.

I have always been wary of Moore's gross-out footage - the off-camera segments of Terry Nichols holding a gun to his own head, or the infamous Pets-or-Meat scene in Roger & Me. In Sicko, we see people performing minor medicine on themselves to save money, and it induces a cringe, but I think it also provokes recognition - certainly most Americans question whether to take a situation that's non-life-threatening to the doctor, and there are many who attempt to self-medicate in spite of common sense.

His call to consider the pharmaceutical market the way we consider the library or the firehouse makes a lot of sense. His endorsement of a single-payer system to improve our longevity and infant mortality and discriminatory medicine was less detailed, and more important, but I think the evidence of failure is overwhelming enough that we are going to see substantial changes occurring soon.

Fæstædær fendzystæm.

[Adam Arseneau]

Sicko, for Michael Moore, is a fantastic film, probably his best, because he works hard at keeping himself out of it. He minimizes the three-ring circus stunts that makes his critics rage with fury and just lets the overall crumminess of the medical situation in America tell the tale. It has surprising appeal, even to those people who dislike his style of "documentary" making.

One complaint (from a Canadian perspective) is the rose-colored glasses Moore sees the Canadian health care system through, which are kind of... well, self-serving. For the purpose of making the American system looked messed up, he shows the Canadian system as utopic and idyllic, when it isn't really. It has its share of massive issues that keep the government screaming at each other all year round.

Would I trade it for the US system? HELL NO. I'm just sayin'.

[Tinderbox]

I have to say that I've avoided Michael Moore's films ever since the sloppy, misleading Roger and Me. He is not the source to go to for unbiased or clear discussion of anything.

And where does he advertise that he would be? Again, not a big Michael Moore fan here but where does this train of thought that documentaries are supposed to be unbiased & balanced discussions of issues comes from? By their nature documentaries are subjective animals and at least Moore doesn't try to hide behind some "fair & balanced" charade. As for sloppy, yeah I'd agree that his direction was sloppy in his earlier works but his films have been getting better on that end. If he has one fatal flaw for me, it's how he seems to try to get too cute by half with the points he tries to make. Instead of using the information as a razor, he uses it like a mallet.

I agree that documentaries aren't necessarily objective by nature, yet at some point if there is enough trickery and obfuscation then a documentary ceases to be clearly informative and instead becomes propaganda. Moore has a long track record of nonsense and cheap shot editing. True documentarians, as with photojournalists, strive for a certain amount of objective truth with the knowledge that they have the short-term power to sway a viewer any way they want. I will probably see Sicko eventually anyway as part of my rental queue, since such a large percentage of people seem to take him seriously as a commentator and therefore allow him influence and facetime on the political left, deserved or not.