My favourite moguls!

For no particular reason, I've been looking at videos of my favourite fictional (usually cigar-chomping) movie moguls and I'm sharing them with you here!

The 1986 John Landis comedy, 'The Three Amigos', which stars Steve Martin, Chevy Chase and Martin Short as the titular Amigos, features on of my all-time favourite fake movie moguls. Joe Mantegna is superb as Harry Flugleman. "Take the Amigo's clothes!" is my favourite line in the entire film and I really like how this scene seems to sum up the way stars were used in the old studio system days. Brilliant.


'Barton Fink', the Coen Brother's 1991 film about an East Coast Jewish, intellectual writer (John Turturro) struggling to write a screenplay in 1940s Hollywood, features another fine fake mogul. Here Michael Lerner is great as Jack Lipnick. I like how the image of the movie mogul in this 40s set film is not too dissimilar to the portrayal of the silent era mogul in 'Three Amigos'.


For some strange reason, I'm not allowed to embed this clip of 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?' here. However, go to this link and skip to the 5.35 mark to see Alan Tilvern as R.K. Maroon (pictured), the head of the fictional Maroon Cartoon studios. I love how he sort of looks like Nixon.

'Singing in the Rain' features Millard Mitchell as R.F. Simpson, an altogether different screen mogul from the rest shown here. Simpson (shown briefly in this trailer, heralding the end of silent pictures) is a kindly and withdrawn figure who generally acts in his star's interests and stands by them. I haven't really seen any other sympathetic film studio heads portrayed in the movies.


Finally, here is a clip of Preston Sturges classic 1941 movie 'Sullivan's Travels'. In this wonderful scene, the studio bosses keep insisting that the worthy movie Joel McCrea's character is trying to pitch contain "a little sex". Sturges is a big influence on the Coen Brothers ('The Hudsucker Proxy' is basically a love letter to him and Capra) and so it is interesting to see how this image of the mogul is similar in some ways to that shown in the Coen Brother's film above, especially as this film was made the same year as that one ('Barton Fink') is set. Jack Lipnick is much more brash than the two seen below, but equally crass.


Hope you enjoyed that! I did anyway...

On a seperate note: I have now seen 'Shutter Island' and I am still mulling it over. I'll post a review in the next couple of days...

Reasons to be cheerful - part 1

I haven't seen any new films since 'Alice in Wonderland' last week (though I may have to go and see 'Shutter Island' today), so I haven't really had anything to write here for since last Wednesday. So, to rectify this, I'll do what I always do when I have nothing to write about... I'll post up some trailers. So here are some trailers for upcoming films to look forward to this year, in no particular order:

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps: I'm not a huge Oliver Stone fan; however I am always interested in him as a chronicler of modern American history. Over his career he has made movies about American wars, presidents and sporting events, which (however flawed) will probably stand the test of time. He made ‘World Trade Center’ just five years after the tragedy, and made ‘W’ whilst George Bush was still in office. ‘Wall Street 2’ is doing the same thing with the recent (current?) economic crisis and, with Carey Mulligan in a supporting role, should be interesting at the very least. This trailer seems to focus on the family drama, but one hopes the film will be a little more about Wall Street.


Inception: I am a big Christopher Nolan fan, so this one is a no-brainer for me. I can't wait to see this movie. I have next to no idea what the hell is happening in this trailer, but I'm sure it's going to be good ('Memento', 'The Prestige' and 'The Dark Knight' weren't bad, afterall).


Tron Legacy: I love how faithful this film looks to be to the 1982 original,which simultaneously advanced computer effects whilst setting them back, due to its dissapointing box office. I can't wait to see Jeff Bridges return as Flynn (with CG work done to make him look like he did in the original!).


Toy Story 3: Another obvious one. I haven't seen a bad Pixar film yet, so I have complete faith in 'Toy Story 3', even though it is the first in the series not to be directed by John Lassester. I'm sure it's in good hands... even if this trailer suggests the humour maybe a little broader this time around.


Cemetery Junction: I still haven't seen Ricky Gervais directoral debut 'The Invention of Lying', which had quite average reviews. However, I am really keen on his second feature from what I've seen. I especially like that Ricky Gervais has seemingly (from the looks of the trailer) cast a lead who understands how to deliver his dialogue in the same way he would himself (much like Woody Allen has done in the past).


Greenberg: I'm not too sure about this from the trailer, but I am a huge fan of Noah Baumbach's 'The Squid and the Whale'. So I remain optimistic about 'Greenberg'.


Four Lions: One of my all-time heroes, Chris Morris (TVs 'BrassEye', 'The Day Today', and ‘Nathan Barley') has followed his frequent collaborator Armando Iannucci (who directed last year’s brilliant ‘In the Loop’) into cinemas, with this satirical comedy about British wannabe suicide bombers. I really, honestly, can’t wait. A friend of mine saw it at Sundance and liked it, so I expect it to live up to my (huge) expectations.


And finally... The Expendables: This looks stupid and will probably be politically offensive in about fifteen million different ways, but it also looks like a lot of 80s-esque action fun. I expect it to be a quotable load of tosh, and from the looks of this trailer it won't disappoint.


I am also looking forward to a number of films which don't seem to have trailers yet, so I'll give a few "shout outs" here: The Coen Brothers have a re-make of the classic Western 'True Grit' coming out this Christmas, staring Jeff Bridges in the role that won John Wayne an Oscar back in 1969. 'Let Me In' maybe interesting: it is the (inevitable) American re-make of the Swedish vampire film, 'Let the Right One In'. It could surprise people. Who knows? 'The Social Network' is also coming out this year. It is directed by David Fincher (who I don't really like) and written by Aaron Sorkin (whose TV work I like, but whose film work always stinks) and is about the founders of Facebook (which sounds like a stupid idea), but I am interested in it against my better judgement.

I'm sure the films which eventually feature on my top ten at the end of this year are ones which are unknown to me at the time of writing. A lot of the best films take you by surprise. But this lot will entertain me for sure.

Also, if you haven't already checked it out, there has been a new edition of the Splendor Cinema/Duke of Yorks podcast up since last week. Jon and I are joined by a special guest to analyse last weekend's Oscar results. Enjoy!

'Alice in Wonderland' review: Of with its head!

I would consider myself a Tim Burton fan. Not a massive fan, as he’s made a few films I’m not so keen on, such as the ‘Planet of the Apes’ re-make, ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’ and ‘Corpse Bride’. But he has also made some films that should be considered classic modern fairytales, such as ‘Beetlejuice’, ‘Edward Scissorhands’ and ‘Big Fish’. He is often dismissively referred to as a visual director, but I take issue with this criticism on two levels. The first is that film is a visual medium, and a director like Burton (or Terry Gilliam, or Guillermo Del Toro), who has a unique visual style and paints with ambition and on a large canvass, should be regarded more highly than they perhaps are. The second is that I usually feel Burton’s visual style is carefully considered and becomes part of the characterisation and emotion of the film. The set direction is part of the acting in Burton. For example, Selina Kyle’s apartment in ‘Batman Returns’ was specially designed to seem claustrophobic and restrictive, which was chosen, to reflect something about the character – and not simply because Burton is obsessed with the visual at the expense of the story.

However, I would agree that Tim Burton has not been at his best this past decade. Whilst his last film, ‘Sweeney Todd’, was by all accounts a sound screen adaptation of the source material, the rest of his output over the last ten years (with the exception of ‘Big Fish’) has been a shadow of his former glory, with most of his time being spent as a hired gun on a number of big studio projects. You could be forgiven for thinking that the interesting director of those early works had disappeared. Unfortunately, this decline has not been halted by his latest film, ‘Alice in Wonderland’, a sort of sequel to Lewis Carroll’s original tale (and possibly to the 1951 animation by Burton’s paymasters at Disney who produced this film).

What little of a plot there is a riddled with holes that I probably shouldn’t go into here (especially with regards to the film’s final act) and many of the action scenes feel shoehorned in and fail to excite in any way (well the film is in 3D, and I’m discovering that 3D loves chases!). The story concerns a young-adult version of Alice, portrayed by the interesting and engaging Mia Wasikowska, who is possibly the only positive thing in this mess of a film. Alice stumbles back into Wonderland (or Underland, as we are told it is really called) whilst trying to avoid making a crucial decision about her future. Once there, Alice again meets, and fails to remember, all the familiar characters from the original tale, among them the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry), Tweedledum and Tweedledee (Matt Lucas) and the Mad Hatter, portrayed by Johnny Deep at his most excruciating.

Since his star-making turn in ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’, this once interesting and versatile actor has become a self-parody and seems to restrict himself to increasingly miss-judged and wilfully bizarre character roles. Whilst he could once be justly considered an impressive emerging actor, he is now just an over actor, and his formerly fruitful partnership with Burton, which has seen him take some of his career best roles (in ‘Edward Scissorhands’, ‘Ed Wood’ and ‘Sleepy Hollow’), has now become a tiresome and predictable bore, with this latest performance being reminiscent of his turn as Willy Wonka in 2005s ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’.

Depp’s star power sees the Mad Hatter rise to an undue prominence in this telling of the story this time around and even sees him becoming an unlikely and uncomfortable love interest for Alice. He also switches from a slightly fey, camp accent, to a Scottish one, seemingly at random, throughout the film to my extreme irritation. To make matters worse he breaks into some kind of terrible dance at the films climax, which reminded me of the mid-battle wedding performed in the last ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ film, in that it was another moment where my jaw dropped and I was forced to ask the question “has this film just gotten worse?”. Helena Bonham Carter, who probably gave her best performance for her husband in ‘Sweeney Todd’, is as perplexing as she is embarrassing in ‘Alice’, as she blatantly steals Miranda Richardson’s “Queenie” character from the second series of TVs ‘Blackadder’ to distracting and unsettling effect. It is all as terrible as it sounds, I promise you.

The films main problem lies in its complete lack of engagement with the audience. It is extremely boring and a packed cinema didn’t laugh more than twice during the entire film. I suspect its record opening grosses will not lead to potential “highest grossing ever” figures, as poor word of mouth should sink this film after the first few weeks of business. Maybe this is part of Disney’s thought process behind trying to cut short its time in cinemas and hurry it onto DVD. Probably not, but it should be the reason. I wanted to leave with scarcely half an hour gone and I know I wasn’t the only one (as my girlfriend confirmed for me afterwards).

In Jan Švankmajer's 1988 part stop-frame animated version of the tale (video clip below) the characters and the setting are given an unsettling and dark edge which Burton, freed of the Disney brief, may well have sought to replicate (especially as he has often decried to the Disney original for lacking that same edge). However, the version we have been given in this latest adaptation has no weight to it, with its CGI characters and locations looking like so much visual bubblegum and lacking all required grandeur and wonder. Terry Gilliam had the same problem last year with ‘The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus’, which lacked the usual visceral quality of his work in its imagination sequences, and so Wonderland has the same problem here in terms of tangibility. The tone and feel of the movie is not dissimilar to some beloved 1980s family adventures, like ‘Labyrinth’ and ‘The Dark Crystal’, but without that visceral (almost dirty) quality, and without any charm, it is perhaps not destined to find the same cult audience. It is also the case that 3D, which has worked so well for ‘Up’ and ‘Avatar’, has not been kind of ‘Alice’, which adds an unpleasant eye-strain to the crushing boredom.

Worst of all, none of Carroll’s trademark wit and wordplay is evident in Burton’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’, which is an especially great shame, as that is clearly the highlight of the original stories. It seems that when Burton starts re-imaging older properties, such as Wonka, ‘Planet of the Apes’ and this ‘Alice’ film, he invariably diminishes them. I very much hope his next film is smaller in scale and harkens back to his earlier days, when he seemed like a relevant (possibly even great) filmmaker. For now we can only sit back and mourn his artistic decline, whilst he and Disney laugh all the way to the bank.




'Alice in Wonderland' is playing at multiplexes throughout the UK (despite weeks of grandstanding) and is rated 'PG' by the BBFC. If you want to hand Disney some money, check out 'The Princess and the Frog' which is far better.

'The Princess and the Frog' review:The triumphant return of the Disney animated musical

Not since 2004’s ‘Home on the Range’ has Disney theatrically released a traditional, hand-drawn animated film. You have to go even further back, to 1998’s ‘Mulan’, to find the last musical entry into the Disney “animated classic” canon. Recent years have seen Disney make their own, in-house computer animated films, with mixed results. These have included average films like ‘Chicken Little’ and ‘Meet the Robinsons’, as well as really awful films like ‘The Wild’ and last year’s ‘Bolt’. None of these have been able to match Pixar’s animations in terms of quality or box-office success and they have seen the studio, which of course pioneered the feature-length, animated motion picture, lose their position as the market leader for the first time in their history. As a fan of the classic Disney of yesteryear, and of animation in general, I take great pleasure in welcoming the old Disney back with the hand-drawn, animated, musical ‘The Princess and the Frog’.

‘The Princess and the Frog’ is directed by two heroes of renaissance-era Disney: Ron Clements and John Musker. These co-directors were key figures in a major reversal of fortunes for the Mouse House in the 1990s, with such films as ‘The Little Mermaid’, ‘Aladdin’ and ‘Hercules’. However, they also directed a film that would ultimately contribute to Disney abandoning hand-drawn animation: 2002s ‘Treasure Planet’, which failed to recoup its massive production budget and became a notorious flop. Happily, ‘The Princess and the Frog’ is closer to the folksy charm of those earlier films, than it is to the miss-judged, high-octane antics of that more recent, CG-heavy film.

Like many of the oldest Disney classics (‘Snow White’, ‘Sleeping Beauty’, ‘Cinderella’), ‘The Princess and the Frog’ is based on an old, European fairytale (The Frog Prince), which in this case finds itself relocated to New Orleans, probably in 1913 (judging by a newspaper declaring that Woodrow Wilson has been elected President), with a hint of ‘The Wizard of Oz’ about it in its depiction of a band of characters on missions of personal fulfilment. Much has been made of its lead character, Tiana, being the first African-American “Disney Princess”, with some commentators finding the film racist, whilst others have accused it of cashing in on fashionable African-American culture. In this area, Disney are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Make Tiana and her family too well-to-do and you’ve ignored centuries of black history, whilst making Tiana poorer than the average Disney “Princess” and you can be accused of reinforcing negative stereotypes. Understandably, Disney have choson to try placing the black characters somewhere between the two extremes, and for my money they have carried this off rather well.

The house in which Tiana’s family live is not squalid or impoverished, yet it is also markedly smaller than that of the wealthy white family for whom Tiana’s mother works as a seamstress. As Tiana and her mother leave that extravagant setting, they walk almost mournfully into the shadows, as the wealthy, white father showers his spoilt daughter with gifts. It is true that there is no obvious sign of racial tension, but the disparity of wealth is not ignored. It may have been sugar-coated, but this is a children’s fairytale and not social-realist drama, after all. My point is, the film does not ignore racial issues altogether.

In fact, some lines exist which do reference Tiana’s ethnic background, such as in the moment where the white realtors (who are denying her a property) tell Tiana that someone of her “background” might be better off staying where she is. There is also a playful line in one of Randy Newman’s excellent songs (and Newman has a history of lyrics which discuss racism, such as 'Rednecks' or 'Sail Away') in which the black voodoo villain, Dr. Facilier (pictured below), asks a white character whether he has a soul (an obvious reference to that black music in inherently soulful). Tiana is also demonstrated to be the hardest working Disney Princess, working two jobs, to save towards her dream of owning her own restaurant, she doesn’t have it easy, but at the same time, there is no explicit reference to underlying social-economic problems. In other words: ‘The Princess and the Frog’ doesn’t ignore social problems, even if it (understandably) chooses not to make a feature of them.



As mentioned, Randy Newman (a frequent Pixar collaborator with scores for ‘Toy Story’ and ‘Cars’) provides some excellent Jazzy songs into the mix, creating a delightful atmosphere reminiscent of ‘The Aristocats’ – a personal favourite of mine – rather than the Broadway-style popular songs that characterised the Ashmen/Menkin era. The fine music compliments the beautiful animation, influenced by the Disney films of the 1950s-era, specifically the look of ‘The Lady and the Tramp’, an influence which is felt most in the films depiction of New Orleans at night. The animation of all the characters (especially the male frog) is superb and performed with a charm and refreshing subtlety. The film also reminded me of Brad Bird’s superior 1999 Warner Bros animation, ‘The Iron Giant’, in the way it discloses the passing of Tiana’s father through the subtle detail of a bedside photo featuring him in military uniform (in Bird’s film you can suppose the father has fallen in Korea, whilst here it seems more likely that the father has been killed during the First World War – another nod in the direction of racial/social politics, as Tiana’s poor, black father is killed, whilst her friends wealthy white father is still very much alive).

There are some awkward moments, as I felt uncomfortable hearing Tiana’s father sermonise about the value of effort and hard work in achieving success (especially as we are told he works triple shifts whilst never achieving his dream), but whilst the film is a little too “American Dreamy” for my tastes, it is ultimately hard to fault the moral: that you have to work hard if you want to fulfil your dreams. In live-action, maybe I would dismiss this movie the way I have dismissed the last few Will Smith vehicles, about upwardly mobile, hardworking believers in the American way of life. But as a handsome 2D animation, with a fantastic score and a delightful cast of characters - who exist on just the right side of “wacky” – ‘The Princess and the Frog’ is a charming and essential new Disney film, and the studios best since ‘Lilo & Stitch’.

'The Princess and the Frog' is rated 'U' by the BBFC and can still be seen in cinema's nationwide, although it must be nearing the end of it's run. Watch this clip, that I'm not allowed to embed, to get a taste of the film. See it whilst you still can. The same goes for the equally terrific 'Ponyo'. If you are interested, below is a 2007 Goofy short Disney made in order to test paperless 2D animation techniques used to make 'The Princess and the Frog'.

'Exit Through the Gift Shop' review: A Wanksy Film (see what I did there!)

I won’t detail my feelings on the “urban artist” Banksy here, due to the fact that they are basically the same as those voiced (in a much funnier way) by Charlie Brooker about four years ago in his Guardian column. I will say that, for me, Banksy is perhaps the ultimate example of the contemporary culture as he exists in a state of ironic detachment, always unaccountable and with an emphasis on style, not simply over, but instead of substance. Banksy is also, paradoxically, famous for being anonymous (an anonymity which he has arguably sort to maintain in order to attract more publicity and greater renown to his art).

Therefore, it came as no surprise watching a documentary titled ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’, billed as “A Banksy Film”, to find a something so intent on being enigmatic, that it is in fact just totally narcissistic (Rhys Ifans narration frequently goes to great lengths to tell us just how vital Bansky is to modern culture). The notion of “A Banksy Film” is also a purposefully vague description as no director has been credited, either in the credits, or on the film’s IMDB entry. Is this satirical comment on the redundancy of auteur theory, or merely a post-modern pose? I suspect the latter, but then am I now falling into a trap by taking this film seriously? The level of detached insincerity on show, for me, constitutes the films major problem, whilst for others it will no doubt be the films crowning achievement.

The "story" is as follows: We learn early on, in a comic twist, that this is not going to be a film about Bansky. Rather we are given a look at an artless pretender to Bansky’s throne as ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ is, (at face value) a documentary chronicling the life and times of Thierry Guetta, a man (who we are told) is obsessed with recording every second of his life on camera. Thierry, from the outset something of a comic figure, somehow bumbles his way into being an insider on the urban art scene, where he eventually meets and befriends Bansky, before becoming an artist in his own right, under the pseudonym “Mr. Brainwash”. How seriously you take any of that is really up to you.

It seems convenient to me that everything "Mr. Brainwash" comes to represent in the film is thrown into stark contrast with the films version of Bansky: "Mr. Brainwash" is all about the money, whereas Bansky (if the mysterious hooded figure even is Bansky) tells us his art is not about money; "Mr. Brainwash" is an overnight sensation, whereas Bansky tells us that he spent years finding his style and perfecting his craft. Essentially the film seems to be telling us one thing: "Mr. Brainwash" is a sell-out and Banksy is not. The whole exercise seems cooked up to legitimise and further mythologize the Banksy business (and it is a business, whatever he says, with this film adding to the books and the Blur album cover). A great deal of time and effort is spent presenting Bansky as the genuine article alongside the delusional, faker that is Thierry Guetta.

However ‘Exit’ is frequently a funny and entertaining film if you are prepared to see it not as a documentary, but as this year’s ‘Le Donk’ or ‘Spinal Tap’. Afterall, the character of Thierry Guetta ticks all the classic mocumentary character boxes, the most obvious one being his lack of self-awareness. He says preposterous things with the appearance complete earnestness. When he begins to market himself as a street artist, it is with the delusions of grandeur common within that comic genre. Of course, reading it as a straight up comedy finds it lacking a little in the laughs department, but it is far more effective as a comedy than as a documentary: containing laughs but no solid documentary data, or even an accountable point of view.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film was its lampooning of art culture. In many scenes, those who think they are in the know demonstrate the vapidity and the falseness of modern art consumption by so-called experts (basically posers). ‘Exit’ shows similar people at Bansky’s own LA exhibition (which boasts celebrity fans and mass-media coverage) to the people it later ridicules at the "Mr. Brainwash" exhibit, prompting the film’s most interesting question: Is Bansky taking a pop at his own fame and his place within the art establishment? Is he bringing down the whole deck of cards with this film (if indeed it is even ‘his’ film)? But to read any of this into ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ may just be playing Banksy’s game. I feel that the truth is that the film, like Bansky’s art, says nothing but that which cultural commentators ascribe it. Maybe as an exercise that sort of thing is fine and valid, but it doesn’t work for me. I feel that for me to analyse this thing too hard is to in some way validate it. And I don’t want to do that because it’s a load of (quite entertaining) toss. Maybe I just don't get it, and he's a genius. But I doubt it.

'Exit Through the Gift Shop' is rated '15' by the BBFC and is currently playing at the Duke of York's Picturehouse in Brighton. Read my Splendor Podcast co-hosts impressions of the film from the Berlin film festival here, whilst another colleague looked at the film way back at Sundance. What glamorous lives they lead...

Up on the air...

Update: Due to illness the show didn't go out this Thursday. However, I have been told it will be going out next Thursday, and hopefully every Thursday from then on.

Just a quick post to plug my new radio show, which is airing on Thursday mornings at 11 o’clock on Radio Free Brighton starting tomorrow, and can be streamed online. I was very pleased to have two friends of mine as guests on the first show, which was recorded yesterday afternoon. I was lucky enough to be joined by my friends Arabella Stanger and Adam Whitehall (both of whom work with me at the Duke of York’s cinema), who joined me to discuss the 2006 film ‘Juno’, more specifically the idea that it contains conservative themes within the formal trappings of quirky indie comedy. I don’t know that we covered everything we wanted to on this topic within our 30 minute time slot, but we gave it a go and hopefully can provoke some more discussion!

The idea of the ‘Beames on Film’ radio programme is that people from the local community can come on and discuss anything film-related that they feel strongly about. I don’t want this to be a review programme, as I review films on this blog, as well as with Jon Barrenechea in our Splendor Cinema podcast. Rather, I want a forum for in-depth discussion on a range of topics. I have already had some suggestions for future program ideas and I encourage more. In fact I would urge people to visit the Radio Free Brighton facebook page (or e-mail me personally) and make comments on past episodes as well as making suggestions for the future, especially if anyone wants to come on air and dicsuss anything in person. I would love this show to involve the local community as much as possible.

In the mean time, I hope you listen to the show and leave comments here. As I say, the first episode was imperfect due having to get used to how fast a half-hour can go by. But the show will certainly find its feet in the coming weeks (with your help).

'Capitalism: A Love Story' Review: Michael Moore takes aim at the banks

There is a tendency in documentary criticism to laud the films which seem most honest and objective, the films which seem to show you the “truth” of a place or a person, seemingly from a distance, unedited and without judgement. Of course, this is always an illusion, as all film is manipulative to lesser and greater degrees, but films like last year’s mesmerising ‘Sleep Furiously’ do their level best to seem as though you have just been taken to a place and are having a nose around. The same cannot be said of the Michael Moore documentaries (which include ‘Roger & Me’, ‘Bowling for Columbine’, ‘Fahrenheit 911’ and ‘Sicko’), which clearly present a subjective argument and a point of view. This sort of documentary is usually more polarising and less well received, so it goes.

Over time I had allowed naysayers to lead me to doubt whether I had ever liked Michael Moore in the first place. I had seen (and enjoyed) his movies, but the popular feeling amongst my peers seemed to be that he was merely populist, simplistic and brash. There seems to be an embarrassment about Michael Moore, especially from people who share his politics but don’t like him as their spokesperson. It was with this feeling that I went into ‘Capitalism: A Love Story’, expecting to find fault with it. However, it completely sold me on Moore all over again.

‘Capitalism’ is at its strongest when it plays it straight, with most of the comedy falling a little flat, notably in one scene where a Bush speech is given a zany, animated background which just distracts from what is being said (maybe it is intended as a clever device to show literally how we are being distracted by fear... but I doubt it). However, to his credit Moore decides to play it straight most of the time with this film and with quite excellent results. Archive footage of FDR speaking about a planned “second bill of rights” is played in full without any voice-over or music, and is quite something when seen projected in a cinema. Likewise, statistical data is always presented entertainingly, yet delivered earnestly and with clear passion, which is refreshing to see in our increasingly apathetic culture.



The weakest element with ‘Capitalism’ is a familiar one from across the entire Moore filmography, as he has a tendency to allow his films to become quite mawkish. My favourite example of this is in ‘Bowling for Columbine’, as Moore feigns upset and indignation at Charlton Heston’s LA home, demanding he look at a picture of a young girl killed by a gun and *touchingly* placing said picture on the steps of Heston’s house so the camera can find just the right level of poignancy. In this latest film, Moore does seem to linger a little too long on weeping family members being evicted and in one ill-advised scene tells a window that her husband is referred to as a “dead peasant” in a legal document (what is the point here? It is obvious that the term is insulting when we first hear and we gain nothing from making a widow cry about it). Yet, despite a few such moments, ‘Capitalism’ is easily the least mawkish Moore has been and is therefore his most likeable and effective film to date.

However, to focus on this criticism of Moore, is really to sell the film short. There are so many bits where it completely works, and entertains whilst being really informative and persuasive. For example, the documents that Moore highlights relating to a corporate life-insurance scheme (relating to the aforementioned “dead peasants”) are astounding, as is the leaked memo from one giant corporation, which openly speaks of the US as a “plutonomy”, a nation controlled by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy (and suggests how to keep it that way). There is also a fantastic sequence that links the rise of Reagan to product placement and advertising, and suggests he was brought in (and controlled) by Wall Street after Jimmy Carter went off-message in regards to consumer culture. I’m sure there are a great many who would contest this theory, and I’m sure the truth is less simplistic, but Moore makes a really compelling case for his argument here. It is also a particular joy to see Moore take the two of the biggest tools in justifying the status quo in American politics – Christianity and patriotism – and to turn them against capitalism, interviewing a Bishop who sees capitalism as a sin, and looking at the constitution to show how un-American capitalism really is, and how the document seems socialist.

It is great to see a film like ‘Sleep Furiously’ (one of my favourite films of last year) and to be given an objective, patient and mannered look at a time and place. But it is equally good to see something this argumentative, which is clearly passionately engaged with its subject. I left the cinema feeling invigorated, feeling I should be more politically active (as with age the apathy has already slowly started to set in) and that must be a good thing. ‘Capitalism’ is a fiery essay, delivered by a master propagandist and manipulator, but it is never less than compelling and exciting, and is a skilful piece of documentary filmmaking. Even if you come away unconvinced or even angered by Moore’s opinions, I for one am very glad he is airing them in this way. Especially on this subject which usually goes un-discussed, yet has such total and invisible control over our everyday lives. The fact that Moore can turn this discussion into populist entertainment is his unique gift and I for one applaud him for it.

'Capitalism: A Love Story' is rated '12a' by the BBFC and can be seen at the Duke of York's Picturehouse in Brighton everyday up to Thursday the 4th of March.