In
Sicko (opening June 29 at select theaters), Michael Moore essentially asks the American health care system to bend over for an examination. And as the poster for the film promises, this might hurt a little.
Back in 1989, Michael Moores Roger and Me revitalized the documentary genre by proving it could be both entertaining and profitable. He continued this tradition with Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 (which I believe is the highest grossing documentary to date with some $220 million in worldwide box office receipts). In an era when most people get their news from Leno, Letterman or The Daily Show , Moore has tapped into a style of filmmaking that appeals to a mainstream audience. He has found a way to be funny and entertaining as he deals with serious issues. So when Michael Moore decides to take on an issue, that issue is bound to be talked about in the press.
Michael Moore explores the issue of healthcare in Sicko (Lions Gate)
This time out Moore takes on American health care. Although nearly 50 million Americans (almost a fifth of whom are children) are uninsured, Moore chooses to focus on people who actually have insurance but found their coverage severely lacking when they needed it most. This choice is a smart one because if he had focused on the hardships of the uninsured, many might have tuned out to his message, dismissing the problems of the uninsured as something that those people simply brought upon themselves. But by focusing on insured people who were denied care some of whom had been fully employed and had been paying into the system for decades Moore strikes a nerve. He suggests that people with insurance shouldnt feel overly safe, any of the horror stories he reveals could happen to you.
When Moore started his film, he put out a query to the general public asking them to tell him about any bad experiences they might have had with the health care system. In no time at all, he received tens of thousands of responses. For about the first 40 minutes of the film, Moore keeps himself off camera and narrates the stories of some of these people. Theres a couple who has gone bankrupt paying for care that their insurance denied, a woman whose husband was denied an operation that might have saved his life, and a number of people refused procedures that the insurance company called experimental.
We also hear from a physician named Linda Peeno who worked for Humana. At a government hearing, she stepped forward to make what she called a confession. She explained how she denied coverage to a man who subsequently died and yet no one has held her accountable for her actions. Instead, her company rewarded and promoted her because she saved the company money. That's powerful stuff.
All this sets the stage for the second half of the film in which Moore enters the scene to suggest some other ways to go about providing health care. He goes to Canada, France and England to see what national health care is like. He finds happy people with nothing but satisfied stories of the free care they have received. Of course its not entirely free, it has been paid for out of their taxes, and he never seeks out anyone who has even the most modest complaint. He also points out that doctors working for the government in England drive expensive cars and live in million dollar homes. He makes this point to prove that a nationalized system does not mean doctors with struggle to get by on government wages. But he doesn't examine if those high salaries are putting undue stress on England national health care. Moore also takes a group of 9/11 rescue workers who have failed to receive adequate care or coverage from their U.S. insurance for the health problems they experienced after 9/11. Moore takes the lot of them to Cuba and finds that the treatment they received from that third world country puts American health care to shame.
Moore assembles a lot of compelling footage and personal stories. He does not try to serve up a lot of statistics but rather tries to persuade through anecdotal evidence. This approach proves compelling because the personal tone of these individual stories invites our sympathy and compassion. But sometimes Moore undercuts his message and his impact by the way he chooses to present his material. His humorous (or as he would term it "satirical") approach to the subject matter is sometimes difficult to take when the people he is talking to are dying. Moore also tries to play average Joe America as he constantly expresses shock and awe at the stories he hears from those in national health care systems. But this surprise is forced and obviously fake, after all he has chosen to interview these people precisely because he knows they will support the claims his film is making. There are also very disingenuous moments as when he yells out from a boat to the guard tower at Guantanamo bay, asking to be let in so the 9/11 rescue workers can get medical treatment at the military base. The scene is an exercise in cinematic manipulation as Moore has no real intentions of making contact with anyone at Guantanamo.
Similarly its annoying when he arrives in Cuba and tells us that he told the Cubans to treat them just like anyone else. I guess that would be just like anyone else who arrives from America with cameras and a media celebrity like Michael Moore. Now Moore has made a point that one of those rescue workers (who spoke Spanish) snuck out of the hospital and then re-entered without any of the cameras or crew, and she claims she received the exact same treatment. Well maybe thats true or maybe the hospital that had just admitted her, recognized her again. Either way, Moore doesn't need to take this kind of approach. Why can't he respect the audience's intelligence more and simply be more direct in presenting his material.
A couple discusses their national healthcare in Sicko (Lions Gate)
My problem with the film is that I think Moore could have removed all these contrived and condescending elements and made a stronger film. He weakens the material he has by resorting to what has become his familiar schtick. When dealing with documentaries I sometimes find myself conflicted because I have to consider the film both for the merit of its content and the artistry with which that content is presented. An Inconvenient Truth , for example, is a film that everyone should see because it contains information people should know. Yet it was a badly made film in the sense that it was essentially a filmed lecture. Sicko is another film that people should see because its a catalyst for a very necessary discussion. Yet I also have to criticize Moore for some of the tactics he employs.
Also, Moores film leaves us in a bit of a quandary. He shows us that our health care system is broken. He shows us that corporations are greedy and ill-suited to a job that involves peoples well being. He condemns politicians as corrupt or at the very least tainted by their ties to the pharmaceutical and medical industries. He even reveals his disappointment in Hillary Clinton, by first showing her valiant attempts to create a national health care system in the U.S. but then ending with her selling out and taking money from those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. So with all these options looking so bleak where do we turn? Do we really want the government running a national health care system? What choices does Moore leave us with? What we leave the film thinking is that we need a major overhaul, but were not left with a real sense of what to do next.
But maybe Moore wants to leave with a bigger question, a question about who we are as a nation. What kind of people are we if we dont care for those in the greatest need? In some ways, Sicko is Moores least controversial film because it addresses an issue that cuts across a lot of lines. Most people regardless of political party, race, gender or religion will probably concede that health care is a problem. But no one seems willing to address that problem or offer a radical solution to fix it. Hopefully Sicko will put the issue in the spotlight and force decision makers, politicians and maybe the health care industry itself to come up with some new ideas.
Sicko (rated PG-13 for brief strong language) is not Moore's best made documentary but he deserves praise for forcing an issue to the forefront of national debate.
-- Listen to Beth Accomando and Scott Marks discus Sicko on the KPBS Film Club of the Air .
-- See the Full Focus TV segment about Sicko featuring Beth Accomando and nurse Gerry Jenkins.
Companion viewing: Roger and Me, Moores TV shows The Awful Truth and TV Nation , The Death of Mr. Lazarescu
