Systemic failure
I
must say I’m finding Michael Moore’s films harder
to review as time goes on. On the one hand, he’s clearly
a skilled director, who can create excellent cinematic moments,
and make his non-fiction films as engaging as the best feature
films. On the other though, his penchant for argument over hard
facts and his deliberate manipulation of both his subjects and
his audience, are aspects of his work I find annoying, if not
outright frustrating.
You may note that I chose to call his work “non-fiction”
rather than “documentary”, because in my view –
at least since Bowling for Columbine – he hasn’t
been making documentaries. Fahrenheit 9/11 and now Sicko
are most certainly not documentaries in the way that say Errol
Morris makes documentaries. Moore’s films have descended
into polemics – arguing a particular stand and glossing
over contrary opinions.
That’s not to say that Sicko, his
expose of the (deep) flaws in America’s health care system,
isn’t eminently watchable – just that it’s not
in any way a documentary.
A sure sign of this is the structure of the film,
which uses classic debating techniques. First, Moore outlines
what he sees as the problems in America’s health care system;
then he compares it to other systems and finds it wanting; and
finally sets about demolishing the counter-arguments to his position.
Exposition, comparison, rebuttal – as I said, classic debating
techniques. If the film ended there, that would all be fine, but
Moore gives over the latter part of Sicko to some plainly manipulative
heart-tugging that would do Frank Capra proud.
The “exposition” part of the film is
excellent, as Moore highlights the abiding difficulties in the
US for-profit health care regime. In this section, he’s
entirely on the money, taking pot-shots at both sides of politics
for their failure to address both the structural and the human
issues in the system. These issues have an indirect but nonetheless
frank relevance in Australia, given our heavy reliance on the
private sector in meeting our own health care needs.
When Moore takes to comparing the US system to those
in Canada, the UK, France and Cuba however, things start looking
pretty shaky. As happened in Fahrenheit 9/11, he takes
a bit of a rose-coloured view of those other systems and, while
they may be superior in many ways to the US system, are hardly
the paragons of virtue he makes out. Anyone who’s had personal
or even secondary experience of Britain’s NHS will know
what I’m talking about.
In
the “rebuttal” sections of the film, Moore’s
skill as a filmmaker is most evident. He cleverly uses archival
footage and comic techniques to break down the arguments against
change. Whether he’s actually comparing “apples and
apples” is another matter, but you have to admire his craft
in dealing with the opposing point of view.
In the end, as with most of Moore’s films,
assessments of Sicko will come down to your particular
point of view. If you’re a fan of Moore’s work or
his politics, this will be right up your alley. If however you’re
opposed to him, no amount of persuasion is likely to change your
view.
For my part, being as objective as I can in the
circumstances, Sicko has to rate as a fine piece of filmmaking.
If this were a fictional film, you could easily praise its emotional
energy, its exciting use of imagery and its snappy pacing. Some
of the film’s more saccharine moments however feel manipulative,
if not downright forced.
Sicko won’t be for everyone. Let’s
face it, Moore is polarising enough as it is; but a movie about
health care won’t exactly get teenagers excited on a visit
to their local DVD parlour. If however you’re interested
in the topic, a fan of Moore, or even if you just care on the
most basic level about people’s wellbeing, there’s
some sobering food for thought in Sicko.
David Edwards
