Home » Articles » Film » Films Reviews »  Moore of the Same
Wednesday, September 23,2009

Moore of the Same

Soderbergh’s ‘smart and cynical’ Informant! should have switched titles with Michael Moore’s muckracking Capitalism: A Love Story

By Armond White
. . . . . . .

Capitalism: A Love Story

Directed by Michael Moore

Runtime: 105 min.

The Informant!

Directed by Steven Soderbergh

Runtime: 108 min.


“SMART” AND “CYNICAL” are not the same but, lately, film culture has confused the two—as proved by Steven Soderbergh’s The Informant! and Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story. Both films pretend to critique greed and corporate insensitivity through the filmmakers’ liberal-leaning scrutinies of the American way of life. Soderbergh dramatizes how an Archer Daniels Midland executive, Matt Whitacre (Matt Damon), swindled his company for over $10 million while Moore takes his usual scattershot, mockumentary approach to the banking industry and its connection to the recent economic collapse.

It’s the combination of “smart” (Soderbergh’s anti-hero rattles off interior monologues full of factoids and facetious observations) with “cynical” (Moore relates plant closures with private home foreclosures) that limits the insights either movie could offer. Instead of researching original information that might speak for itself, Moore editorializes. He pushes situations for gallows humor—which is merely a judgmental reflex. Instead of clear, dramatic presentation of Whitacre’s actual and psychological background, Soder bergh endorses the man’s warped, subjective point-of-view. (“So there,” goes the film’s opening disclaimer.) He forces the audience to share Whitacre’s self-delusion as if to implicate viewers in Whitacre’s crime. It’s the presumptuousness of Moore and Soderbergh’s approaches that is offensive. Neither film is as sophisticated as Next Day Air, where Mos Def joked, “This is America, steal something!”

Beneath the supposed satire of The Informant and Capitalism lay a smug satisfaction and secret admiration for American corruption.Where would Moore be without it? His tendency to sentimentalize economic plight (visiting the space that once housed the auto plant where his retired father worked) while demonizing those who enjoy economic benefits is too simplistic. It doesn’t risk understanding that losers and winners share the same dream based on a particular ideology—a love of wealth and materialism.That means Capitalism is useless as a guide to understanding what capitalism actually means to Americans.

Fidelity to capitalism wouldn’t necessarily scare off viewers; Soderbergh banks on it in his Oceans franchise—those embarrassingly popular celebrations of dishonesty, greed and thievery. But the “smartness” of The Informant! pretends disapproval of Whitacre’s fraudulence while making it feel like some kind of spree. (Marvin Hamlisch provides a cheery, mock-’70s score meant to evoke the con-game of The Sting. It’s the most sickening movie music since Juno.)

What’s really happening in these “smart” and “cynical” movies is class warfare: Enormously wealthy filmmakers take pious issue with how others make their money. Moore’s ambush-and-blame methods are bad journalism. His lack of moral, political context is as questionable as ever. Soderbergh’s jaundice is almost palpable. The Informant!’s color scheme—hotellobby beige and living-room orange, both video-blurry—is sarcastically bland.The film’s fake-neutral tone can’t disguise contempt for its Midwestern-American setting. Soderbergh thinks it’s funny to laugh at the mundane—even though a genuinely perceptive filmmaker like Mike Judge based Office Space’s rich observations in just such a setting.

It’s no coincidence that Matt Damon’s straight-faced buffoon characterization (girth, moustache and eyeglasses) resembles Stephen Root in Office Space. But Root’s anomic drone Milton Waddams was a loser, Damon’s smart-aleck Whitacre hits the jackpot like the Oceans gang. He simultaneously represents American crime and banality (constantly lying to his co-workers, the FBI, his wife, while stashing millions in loot). Equally banal is Whitacre’s “smartness”: a trained biochemist, he rattles off pieces of information like an overeducated idiot. He pathologically points out what’s wrong with America (“Basically everyone in this country is a victim of corporate crime before they finish breakfast.”) yet profits from it.

Like Moore’s more-of-the-same muckraking, Soderbergh is into some strange form of “smart and cynical” entertainment.There’s no humanity to relate to, no wit to laugh at, only chuckling at one’s own sense of superiority—if you can afford it. Both The Informant! and Capitalism: A Love Story would be a little less obnoxious had they switched titles.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Posted at 10/19/2009 
 
Interested in the NEW book by Armond White? It's called, "KEEP MOVING: The Michael Jackson Chronicles" and it's a collection of essays on the subject of King Of Pop, MICHAEL JACKSON. Written over the course of 25 years, the essays focus on the songs and music videos AFTER the Thriller album. If you are interested in more information, google the title OR visit the blog www.resistanceworks.blogspot.com

 

Posted at 09/27/2009 
 
It is a catch-22 that in a capitalist society money = equals having a voice that can be heard. It doesn't automatically makes one sanctimonious to criticize how others make their money while yourself making money. That's where morality enters the picture.//''It doesn’t risk understanding that losers and winners share the same dream based on a particular ideology—a love of wealth and materialism.'' Except that we are born into the ideology, fed the ideology and have to participate in order to exist in this society. There's not choice here. It's a not a dream, rather it's a situation. Only immigrants consciously choose to adopt the dream and play the game. For the natural born pulling out is emigration, which is not free and again requires participation in the societal game.// Anyway, I know where you're coming from in regards to Moore's style and tactics and I wholeheartedly agree on everything about Soderbergh. Sure, Moore editorializes and is a muckraker instead of being a documentary maker. But he doesn't ever pretend to be objective and isn't hypocritical in what he denounces whereas Soderbergh is, as you pointed out.

 

Posted at 09/25/2009 
 
Armond, glad to see you are sticking to your formula for success- trash the movie at hand while dropping names of others who you think did the same thing (or a different thing you think is the same) better. You made a small mistake this time, though. You're supposed to casually describe a ludicrously bad movie or filmmaker in unbelievably glowing terms, not reference a well-liked, successfully merchandised cult movie like Office Space. You're slipping, man.

 

Posted at 09/24/2009 
 
Great review Armond, I applaud your objectivity. It's very easy to fall into the overly sentimental herd that has dominated film and media lately, but you took the bolder step, the correct step, and decided to stay true to reason.

 

Posted at 09/25/2009 
It is! This smart/ cynical, I'd even go so for to say nihilistic jargon has got to pass soon. I hope!!!

 

Posted at 09/23/2009 
 
It's hard enough to read one of your reviews when you hurl your thoughts into these incoherent, blithering, tirades. Lets keep it one review...one movie. Also, the idea that Armond White uses the words "bad journalism" in an accusatory tone is the most hysterical irony I've heard all week. I just wish you could review chocolate or wine so your babble stops messing up the ratings on otherwise quality films.

 

 
 


  • Fri
    25
  • Sat
    26
  • Sun
    27
  • Mon
    28
  • Tue
    29
  • Wed
    30
  • Thu
    31

Search in Events

Sign up for the NYPress
e-newsletter for weekly updates
and exciting event info:





Join us on Facebook Follow Us
on Twitter








 User Profile (click to open)



New_York_300_60.gif

 
 
Close
Close