Last night, I attended a sneak preview of Michael Moore's new documentary/performance art piece/propoganda circus act/whatever you want to call it, Sicko. I find Moore to be an interesting filmmaker in the way he blends his showmanship with the Big Picture, but I seriously cannot stand most of his fanbase. Michael Moore obsessives are so willing to accept everything the man says as pure, untainted fact that they are just as sheepish as the people Moore ridicules in his films. Perhaps that's Moore's biggest flaw: He's definitely preaching to the converted. (The woman next to me literally groaned in disgust every time a Republican was shown in this film, even before they got a chance to open their mouths!) I would much rather have Moore's films be conversation pieces: Instead of using it to justify one's political outrage, they should open a dialogue between two contrasting viewpoints. Also, if a viewer is interested in one of the topics in this film, such as socialized medicine or medical insurance, I would highly suggest seeking out information apart from the big guy's movie.


Having said all that, Sicko is an interesting but probably not mind-blowing experience. Part of what holds it back is what makes it interesting: This is definitely Moore's most even-handed, unpolitical effort to date. Unless you're a medical insurance agent, most people in this country would probably agree that the United States health care system is in need of some serious reform, even if it doesn't go all the way to socialized medicine as Moore suggests. The basic argument of "people dying from insufficient care is bad" isn't nearly as contrversial as "George W. Bush is the worst president ever," so while it's interesting to see Moore try to tone things down, part of what was exciting about his earlier work was seeing people get riled up and what both sides had to say. Oh, but don't worry, there will be plenty of people disagreeing with him about the specific incidents in Sicko. The Utopian depiction of the medical systems in Europe and Cuba (yes, he actually take 9/11 rescue workers to Cuba) are bound to raise some complaints but this is the film's other main problem. Michael Moore's persona is certainly a schtick, and all schticks eventually get played out. You know he's going to do something crazy, like try to bring his health care casualties to Guantanamo Bay to receive better treatment. You know he's going to show at least a dozen people breaking down into tears. And yes, just like in Bowling for Columbine, you know he'll play the baffled American lost in the brilliance and perfection of Canada compared to our national state of fear, greed, and self-destruction. Sicko is oddly paced, with Moore not even coming in for quite awhile, choosing instead to show story after horror story from victims of our health care system. These stories really aren't powerful or different enough from one another to warrant the barrage, and the inclusion of some, y'know, facts amongst the drama would have strengthened Moore's argument.

Still, I would recommend Sicko for the ideas it raises. There is something to be said about why we are not willing to reach out and help our fellow countrymen when they are sick. And yes, even though he's basically following the same formula as ever, Moore still knows how to pull the right docu-drama strings to put a lump in your throat and tickle your funny bone. Will this movie acually make a difference? Are people sick of Michael Moore's shenanigans? Will there be repercussions to that little excursion to Cuba? And was that one public practice doctor in England with a million dollar home really the norm for doctors there? There's no way to know except to see the movie and draw your own conclusions.

__________________
Editor - www.hidef.com

"True adaptability involves changing ones self to meet ones environment, not changing ones environment to meet ones needs" - Species8472