With "Sicko" I was hoping Moore and I might finally be able to find common ground on something...I'm kind of on the fence about socialized health care, so I was planning on seeing it with the intent of giving Moore a chance to perhaps both entertain me and convince me.
But Kurt Loder of MTV News got to me first, and he formulates a very convincing argument against Sicko's credentials as a documentary.
First and foremost, Moore rests most of his argument on the state of socialized medicine in countries that rely on it, in order to suggest that the same thing could happen here. Loder takes issue with that, citing not just anectdotes from the very countries Moore uses (Canada, England, and France), but Sicko reviews by film critics in those same countries, who themselves take issue with Moore's slanted treatment of their medical systems. Loder reports that 2-year wait times for even urgent procedures are not uncommon in countries with socialized medicine.
Here's the money quote:
After marveling at Moore's rosy view of the British health care system in "Sicko," Christopher [film critic of the Times of London] wrote, "What he hasn't done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have."
Loder's article is a very interesting read (and one I was frankly surprised to find on MTV.com). Contrast it with David Edelstein's gushing review in NY Mag, which he concludes with "How can we let our politicians feed us sugar pills?" Perhaps he never considered the idea that Sicko might be a placebo, too. I like Edelstein when he talks movies; when he gets into politics I can't stand him. It's hard to reconcile the genius film critic with the unquestioning idealogue, which he so often proves to be.
In any case, I'll still see the movie so I can draw my own conclusions, but I'll definitely be doing some fact checking of my own afterware
0 comments:
Post a Comment