Reviews: Capitalism & Bright Star

Capital Punishment

There are some figures throughout the world where the simplest way to describe them is their own name. Nothing seems to better sum up Michael Moore than the statement, "Michael Moore is Michael Moore." With that, you already know all the baggage that comes with that name: all the controversy, criticism, genius, entertainment and all the mixed emotions you can handle fall squarely in front of Moore's doorstep. His latest film is no different, and it is like most of his others. There's always some things you have to take with a grain of salt, but overall, Moore creates another compelling documentary that if any is bound to stir the conversation.

After tackling such big subjects as the GM Corporation, gun control, healthcare, and the entire Bush Administration, Moore now goes after a pretty broad topic, that of what the title blatantly tells is capitalism. Moore's thesis is that capitalism is an economic system that invites greed and corruption so easily that it is inherently evil and must be removed. What it is to be replaced with, Moore never really says, but gives examples such as numerous banking methods such as foreclosing on the homes of those barley making ends meet by jacking up monthly payments, taking life insurances out on employees so that when they die the bank inherits the payment, and cutting off final paychecks from a Chicago window making company that led to a famous sit-in and reversal of decision.

The one thing that has always clouded Moore throughout his career is that his documentaries have a difficult time being sincere, which is where they are the most effective. His first film, Roger & Me, still remains his best film because it wasn't about attacking partisan issues but more so about distinguishing between the social problems dealing with what is right and what is wrong. After getting muddled a bit with Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 (my least favorite of his documentaries), he seems to be getting back to that. Moore goes for more of a mouthpiece of mostly the poor, nearly bypassing the middle class. It is a move that shows a lot more compassion and credibility for Moore's arguments, and he continually presents thought provoking ideas usually dressed with really great comedic set ups (there's one involving Ronald Regan early in the film that is really funny).

However, the film isn't without the usual "Michael-Mooreisms" that detract from some of the film's credibility. Moore still paints his canvass with a far left brush, and his imbalanced attacks on Republicans versus Democrats don't give the biggest and fairest picture. Moore continues to be very manipulative in this piece, as his trademark moves of being shunned by security guards and getting close-ups on crying family members start popping up within the first ten minutes of the film. Also, Moore's coverage of that famous Chicago sit-in also has some shaky credibility because it seems a little too coincidental that Moore and his camera crew just happened to have insider access to this group just before they decided to protest. The film is still filled with Moore's usual tactics that often make him one of the most despised filmmakers working today, and sometimes this is justified.

Still, in the end, this is a wonderfully put together film that I would argue is Moore's best since his debut feature. The reason isn't really because of his message because, in the end, Moore doesn't really have a clear one to begin with. Eliminating capitalism won't solve what Moore's discussing, but that's a political conversation not needed here. What the film does offer is a plea that seems to be limited on partisan bias and even asks its own audience to join the revolution while more depressing economic tidbits run across the ending credits. It is true that, whether you love him or hate him, Michael Moore is Michael Moore. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Dead Poet's Society

I’ll admit that there are a few genres out there that I’m not the biggest fan of. The most notable for me is the modern romantic comedy, for which very few films have been made an exception. However, another genre that has difficulty in getting me invested would be the period piece, specifically the one set in Victoria England. There aren’t many films that take place during this time that I find fascinating or even willing to have be believe in their hollow characters that fill out the fluffy costumes. Even last year’s The Duchess had only one believable character (Ralph Fiennes). When it comes to this film, there seems to be a stronger emphasis on the characters, which is a huge plus concerning this often pretentious genre.

This is a tale of famous romantic poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw), who like all poets of his time was critically panned in life, but is now almost universally praised years after his death at the untimely age of twenty-five of tuberculosis. During his short time, he worked alongside a fellow poet named Brown (Paul Schneider) and struck a passionate love affair with an admirer, his neighbor Faye Brawne (Abbie Cornish). Their affair would last the final three years of Keats’s life.

What normally happens in these types of films is that there is more of an emphasis on the art design of the film and that leads to the films having very weakly developed characters that only pad the space between the sets and costumes. However, writer-director Jane Campion does something very different here. She keeps the scope rather limited and maintains a strong focus on Keats and Brawn. Because of this, there is time to flesh out the qualities of these characters, and they think and behave in believable ways. Campion’s script is witty, enthralling and passionate. While her direction is not quite as tight as her screenplay, she still does an admirable job at creating a world that feels real and credible enough for us to seek out the emotions in.

Whishaw is good enough in his part, although I do admit that it does seem like he’s striking the same chord with this character scene after scene. His speech or ideas never change and he seems like the caricature of the thin, pale, sickly looking writer. Still, he does present a charming character that we feel like is very easy to fall in love with. Beautifully opposite him, Schneider’s poet is crass and rude, but never feels forced to do so. His performance strikes all the right enough notes of a man frustrated with the conditions around him and the happier life that has been bestowed on his friend that has eluded him. He’s never totally nice, but you never believe him to be a cartoonish bully.

However, this movie really belongs to Cornish. She always presents a delicate amount of energy and passion when she moves across the screen. There is never a sense of overindulgence in her character, and she always strikes the right balance of forceful independence, love struck schoolgirl, and wildly depressed faux widow in equal proportion. Cornish is the key to the film’s success; she’s endearing and passionate, and hopefully that will translate into an Oscar nomination.

While there are many things to admire about this film, I would still point out some flaws that do hinder the picture a bit. Not every character is realized quite as well as Keats, Brawne and Brown. Faye’s younger sister, in particular, never quite seems necessary beyond her role as a comedic annoyance for Faye. I also think this movie on more than one occasion believes the word’s from Keats’s poetry are more powerful than the images, and a lingering shot of Faye’s funeral march for Keats loses some power when it drags for what seems to be as long as the third act itself is.

Still, this is a really remarkable film that genuinely surprised me at how much I ended up enjoying it. Cornish’s beautiful performance is the key ingredient here, but most of her co-stars and a very compassionate execution from Campion add to her contributions. I know there are many out there who have the same reservations toward this genre that I do. However, I urge you to take the chance because you’ll be pleasantly pleased. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+