Documentary

I have a friend who walked out of the screening of Sicko and pronounced it the best film of the year.  I won’t go that far, but I will say Michael Moore’s latest documentary is an eye-opener and a sad commentary on the American healthcare system as it exposes the a truth many in power don’t want you to realize: socialized medicine just may not be as evil as we have been led to believe.  Moore’s documentary will make you astonished and ashamed at just how willing insurance companies and the US Government, are to let their citizens die without proper medical coverage, which they could receive in a number of other countries, simply to make a fast buck.  Go see Sicko and then get organized people; this problem is not going away.

Sicko
4 Stars

I like Michael Moore the filmmaker and respect him as a political advocate, but man can he get on my nerves!  Though I have enjoyed may of Moore’s films the one complaint I always come away disappointed with how he forces himself into the story and tends to showoff for the camera with crazy publicity stunts he forces into each film.  Sicko is no exception to that rule, though for the first time in a long time Moore takes on an important issue without clear-cut “heroes” and “villains” on either side of the political landscape.  The United States, he shows us, is one where Americans are guaranteed the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just not always the right to live.  Though he paints a dark view of the insurance industry, they aren’t the real villains in the film.  The villains, and the victims, it seems are both the American people who tolerate the broken healthcare system because for so long they’ve been sold a bill of goods that there’s nothing better available and have been made so fearful of the government they don’t dare demand something better.  Well, for those people especially, here’s a look at how healthcare systems are flourishing in other countries and the devastating effect of America’s poor healthcare on its citizens.

The documentary is straightforward as Moore establishes his premise of examining the healthcare industry and spends the film showcasing those who are left behind, either to lack of health insurance or to the insurance companies which cover them refusing coverage for necessary, and possibly life-saving, treatment for their medical conditions.

For me the most interesting parts of the film are the travels to other countries including Canada, England, France, and Cuba and examining how the healthcare systems in those countries work.

One of the biggest lies ever told in the history of this country is that socialized medicine could never work and that government run healthcare would be too expensive and less reliable that privatized healthcare.  Moore’s documentary proves this to be a bald-faced lie as he looks at the creation of the insurance industry and the reasoning behind it, and presents a refreshing realization that there may indeed be a better way.

One of the most intriguing moments is when Moore sits down for dinner with a group of Americans living and working in Paris.  Together they discuss the ease and high-level of medical care and wellness and sick prevention given to them by their companies.  It seems so implausible given the American system it will leave many Americans stunned.  Along with the sobering realization that Americans, due to its current broken system, are falling further and further behind in terms of health and life expectancy.  We’re getting sicker and dying as others are flourishing under systems deemed too expensive and impractical, and politicians still tout our healthcare system?  That takes some kind of nerve, or a great deal of stupidity.

Moore does stumble once or twice while trying to showboat by rounding up a large group of Americans in need of healthcare, all ignored by their own insurance companies for treatment they have paid premiums for, and renting boats to take them to Guantanamo Bay.  Why Guantanamo you ask?  Well, it seems the worst terrorists in the world get better healthcare than any average American citizen can ever hope to achieve, no matter the policy.  While it makes a good point, Moore, as he is often prone to do it these stunts, goes too far in showboating for the camera.  Thankfully it is one of the few moments where it occurs.  By comparison, taking a small group into a Cuban hospital to get the care they need is a remarkable and touching scene that shows both the level of competence and training in their doctors, but also the need and responsibility to help those who are sick which seems to be missing in many US hospitals.  Compared to the horror stories Moore relays from many thousands of Americans, including 9/11 workers denied benefits for years, it will leave you ashamed.

Let them eat asprin. Heh, heh, heh.

In a world where Republicans shout “No Child Left Behind” we are leaving millions of Americans, many who are children, at a terrible disadvantage by refusing them the proper medical treatment they need, and would receive in other countries.  Could socialized medicine work it this country?  Yes, though it would mean paying taxes which many are reluctant to do.  However, imagine the alternative of sending the money you currently spend on your health insurance directly to taxes, and then when you need medical care getting anything and everything you need free of charge.  No charge for the hospital stay.  No charge for aspirin or medication, no charge for test or surgery.  No charge for an emergency room visit or a ride in an ambulance.  No hassle of bargaining or threatening an insurance agency who refuses or balks to pay for treatment.  No hassle, just walk in, get the medical care you need and walk out.  So simple; it’s hard to believe we aren’t willing to give it a try.

Government run healthcare works in many developed countries around the world and their citizens are healthier and with longer life expectancies than current Americans.  The truth is that Americans have a guaranteed right not only to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but also to life and until they are willing to fight for the right to adequate health resources that citizens from other countries are given simply by paying taxes rather than putting our faith into an insurance industry that wants to bleed us dry and kill us without ever putting up money for expensive procedures, we will be a sick country for a long time.

The MPAA is a body of unparalleled power in Hollywood.  With a word it can destroy any chance of a film getting a marketing deal and being seen by the public.  You would think with that much power the group would be carefully controlled and rely on strict rules and regulations, would take the time to view films and compare them to other films containing similar content, and be respectful in measuring the content and meaning of a scene (whether gratuitous or integral to the plot).  You would think that would be true, but Kirby Dick’s new documentary provides a much different view of the MPAA that may shock you.

This Film is Not Yet Rated
4 Stars

In 1968 a former White House lobbyist and advisor to Lyndon B. Johnson, Jack Valenti, set-up the MPAA “voluntary” rating system.  Now almost forty-years later this group of individuals, whose identities are kept more secret than undercover C.I.A. operatives, exerts tremendous power and influence on the film industry that is neither truly govened or balanced.  Who are these people?  How does the rating system work?  Is the MPAA protecting the majority of Americans or bowing to the extremist conservative mobilized minority?  Why is it so confusing?  This is the subject of This Film is Not Yet Rated.

Kirby Dick‘s documentary asks many questions about the nature of the MPAA.  The film includes interviews from directors and actors, former members of the movie ratings board, and a private investigator’s attempts to hunt down the secret members who wield unchallenged power over the film industry.

At its best the film is insightful and instructive especially when it examines the short-comings of the rating and appeal process every film that wishes to be distributed in the United States must “voluntarily” go through.  Though the MPAA rating is voluntary any film without a rating will not be shown by the large theater chains or be allowed in large video stores such as Blockbuster.

The film has many points which to discuss but I’ll limit a few that I found particularly interesting.  Here are five of the most troubling tidbits Dick and his investigator were unable to uncover in the course of their investigation.  The film isn’t limited to these points, but it will give you a basic idea of its focus.

1. The Ratings Board – The board is made of of “ordinary” U.S. citizens with no training in child behavior or psychology.  The members undergo no training and are never given a crash course or standards or practices to follow.  Each earns $30,000 a year for his or her service for the board and must sign non-disclosure agreements against speaking about films or the board itself.  The chairperson, Joan Graves, was appointed by Valenti himself and personally hires all members of the board.  She lives in a multi-million dollar home, I guess it pays to be the chief.  It’s the only ratings board of its type that the members identities are kept secret, even from the filmmakers themselves.  The members have a limited time to serve on the board and must have at least one child between the ages of 5 and 17.  However the investigation showed that at least one member had served well past the mandatory period and several members had children who were fully grown and out of the house.

2. Violence is Moe Acceptable than Sex – Films with strong sexual themes, graphic or not, nudity or not, are four times as likely to be given a NC-17 rating over films with graphic violence (which at worse will get an R, and can often skate by with an PG-13).

3. What do They Have Against Homosexuals? – The film provides one of it’s clearest arguments here in presenting footage from straight sex scenes side-by-side with gay sex scenes that are shot in the same style and camera position.  Even if the gay scene is less explicit it earned a harsher rating.  So why does a masturbation scene from But I’m a Cheerleader get an NC-17 while a similar scene from American Beauty passes with an R?  Why does the sex scene from Boys Don’t Cry demand a cut to make an R-rating, but the same scene is permissable in Single White Female?  Henry & June vs. Sideways?  Mysterious Skin vs. Unfaithful?  The MPAA denies any such discrimination but the list goes on and on, and the facts do seem to tell the tale.

4. The Appeal Process is a Joke – If a director wants to fight a rating he feels is ill-deserved he can confront an appeal committee, again of nameless faces, which it turns out include priests and theater executives.  A director however cannot ask questions to the appeal board, cannot quote precedents, cannot compare other similar scenes from films given a different rating, and no tape or written record is allowed.  You are allowed to show up and beg for mercy.

5. Filmmakers Don’t Understand the Process – The film contains interviews from several directors including John Waters, Kevin Smith, Kimberly Peirce, Wayne Kramer, Matt Stone, Allison Anders, Mary Harron, Darren Aronofsky, and others.  Without an exception each individual was stunned and saddened by how the MPAA works and how their films were treated without context or precedent ever being considered.

Given that the standards for membership aren’t upheld, the members themselves aren’t trained or held to standards themselves, the group discriminates against same-sex relationships, the process confuses studios and filmmakers and favors big studio projects over independent films, and prefers men to shoot multiple holes in another guy than kiss the girl (let alone another guy), hides its members in secrecy, and has an appeal process that can only be considered a joke, it’s running just fine.  Good thing they don’t have any real power….oops.

The film covers quite a bit of ground.  There are small faults – the film gets a little too wrapped up in the private-eye and the investigation for its own good, but overall it’s a very educational and entertaining look at a big problem that lies at the heart of American filmmaking.  Will the film do any good, cause any changes to occur?  Who knows, but for 97 minutes it raises the issue and presents a compelling case.  That’s more, much more, than most films do these days.

The year of the documentary continues with this enaging film on the 1980’s drug trade in Miami.  In a film that is sure to enrage law enforcement officials, Cocaine Cowboys takes a look back at the mind-boggling business of the cocaine trade that began in the late 70’s, became the template for Miami Vice,  and ended in brutality and murder.

Cocaine Cowboys
4 Stars

Ronald Reagan won’t like this film.  It examines both sides of the drug war in Miami during the late 70’s and 80’s and, while amditing to the horrific consequences of the situation, doesn’t condemn drugs.  Instead the documentary simply follows the events and the people involved, and looks at the good and bad effects the cocaine business left as a legacy in Miami.

The documentary, presented by director Billy Corben (Raw Deal: A Question of Consent), looks back at the once sleepy retirement town of Miami, and how some seemingly harmless white powder would change everything overnight.  Miami became the happening hot spot and the center of an annual $20 billion dollar franchise – cocaine.

It’s a tale of astronomical numbers and mind-boggling profit.  The cocaine business changed Miami from top to bottom as the wealth came pouring in, but with it came the cocaine, and later violence that would shock a nation.  The film features interviews with drug dealers, trafficers, and law enforcement officers engaged in ending what would become a bloody snapshot of American history.

It didn’t start out that way of course.  The tale presented here is a tale of wealth, luxurity and fun, that except for the prescence of one insane drug lord whose paranoia and need for violence brought attention and an end to an largely unaware public.

The film works as a historical perspective and as a character study as it interviews the men and methods behind the drug trade in Miami.  What begins as amusing tale as the drug dealers discuss the ease at which they worked, becomes stark and menacing with the unchecked violence that ended the period in a bloody mess.

I was lucky enough to see the documentary at FilmFest KC this year and would recommend it to all who can stomach the subject matter.  The documentary does include violent scenes and footage as well as some material that would be unsuitable for young children.  As a film that presents the drug trade with a balanced eye, it’s very educational and will keep you in suspense throughout its near two-hour running time.