I was going to move on but Tom Hall made a post about SiCKO that I have to respond to, as I fear my previous post may be misleading. (No worries Tom, debate is healthy and no offense taken…)

Tom writes, “What John Pierson and Agnes Varnum get wrong in their separate pieces on Moore and his work is this earnest belief that documentary is reportage, that the ultimate goal of making a film and telling a story by way of documentary is somehow beholden to a literal presentation of events as they happened.”

For the record, I don’t believe that documentary is reportage. There is an expansive history of films that are called documentaries that use an equally expansive toolbox of technique and form. This wide spectrum of possibility is at once the form’s strength and weakness, for each piece must be approached on its own terms, not by some predefined rules of the form.

I’ve expressed admiration for Werner Herzog who continually espouses Truth over form, and I find myself aligned to some degree with this thinking. There are some films, even ones marketed as narrative/fiction (American Splendor comes to mind) that to me are more true than many documentaries. If I have an earnest belief, it is in media literacy, as in, some way to tease out elements of the form and to understand the point of view as well as the larger Truth.

But, I know I’m not the only one who felt somehow cheated in finding out, for instance, that the scene at the bank in Bowling for Columbine where Moore walks out with a rifle for opening account, was not actually what would happen if I walked in and opened an account. According to Manufacturing Dissent, that scene took some 30 days of pre-production, arranging for the bank to have the gun on site (which they wouldn’t have) and all the hoop-jumping they had to go though that never appears on screen.

The point of the scene is that guns are ridiculously easy to obtain, right? So why not go to a gun show or a place where they are actually ridiculously easy to obtain? I presume the premise is true as there are hoodlums and psychos all over this country who possess guns, but in this instance, using this particular technique creates a wide hole in his argument because in fact, you can’t walk in to that bank and walk out with a gun. It took 30 days to make that happen. Where are the actual weaknesses in our system that allows crazys to obtain weapons?

Also referring to my post, Tom writes, “If he doesn’t stand front and center and promote direct action surrounding his subject matter (be it gun control, health care or NAFTA), he’s a profiteering asshole who doesn’t really care about his subjects.”

When I said he is an ass, I was not referring to the fact that Moore earns a profit from his films. I was referring to a quote by Moore when asked, “What can I do [about the healthcare problem],” he replied with a shoulder shrug. I do find it incredibly disingenuous for him to at once release a film intended to inform people about an issue and then to claim no knowledge of how we might go about putting empathy into action.

I care about the healthcare issue, as for several years of my adult life, I’ve been one of those uninsured millions. Even now, I live in fear that should anything happen to me like a serious accident or illness, I would die for lack of ability to pay bills. I have no confidence that the insurance I do have would protect me, as is illustrated in Moore’s film. My concern is that if he is really advocating for universal healthcare, why not speak to the press and audiences armed with a couple of talking points about possible places to put our energy?

At bare minimum, it is impossible to believe that in all the research he and his people must have done, that he never came upon some committed organizations or individuals who when armed with some political will from the people of this country, would be poised to make a real impact. I ended my post with a plea for people to at least vote. Moore couldn’t even come up with that? “Mr. Moore, what can I do to change the dismal situation with healthcare in this country?” He couldn’t muster, “Vote for representatives who support the right of people in a civilized country to not die while health-related corporations reap billions of dollars”?

Am I really expecting too much? I guess I am holding it against him that he makes millions piecing together the stories of people who will never see any of that dough, but they contributed to the project because they believed that telling their story in a Michael Moore film would help other people. Unfortunately, Moore’s megaphone only seems to have one message: “Go see my movie!”

I truly hope that they have not shared their stories in vain and that good things will come from SiCKO. I agree with reviewers that this is a film that is more accessible to a wider audience that his previous work, and I definitely believe in the message. So, with that, what are we going to do about healthcare? Ideas?