PrintOctober 2, 2009
How much Moore can we Take?
Michael Moore producing and selling a film on the detriments of capitalism is about as logical as Roman Polanski directing a feature on responsible child care. The fact that Michael Moore, one of the wealthiest men in America, feels comfortable criticizing rich people is laughable at best and disgusting at worst.
CNS News , after speaking with Moore at a recent red carpet event where he claimed that “Capitalism did nothing for me,” summarized some of Moore’s capitalistic successes:
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” earned over $200 million worldwide after he was paid a reported $21 million by Disney for making the film. He also personally made $25 million from the theatrical release of “Sicko” and has earned over $17 million in that film’s DVD sales.
Not bad for a guy who hates money.
Liberal hypocrisy researcher Peter Schweizer studied Moore for his book Do As I Say (Not As I Do), and the results are startling.
Moore often talks about his humble beginnings in Flint, Michigan, which adds to his man-of-the-people persona. But actually, Moore grew up not in the predominantly black, urban city of Flint, but in the mostly white, middle-class suburb of Davison. Even today, when he reminisces about going home to Flint, he actually means his sprawling home on Michigan’s Torch Lake, one of the most beautiful places in America.
Despite owning a penthouse in New York City, where he lived for over a decade, Moore changed his residency claims on his tax forms to Michigan once he started making the big bucks. Michigan’s taxes are only half of New York’s. Moore consistently flies in private jets and stays in the most luxurious hotels when traveling and reportedly demands the most expensive bottled water during his speaking engagements, for which he generally charges fees in the tens of thousands of dollars.
And don’t be fooled by his hatred for corporate America that dominates his new film. Moore has made plenty as a stockholder in evil big businesses like oil companies, media conglomerates, and defense contractors. And though he is a shrewder businessman than he wants to portray, at least he does donate a large portion of his earnings. Unfortunately, his donations go to various arts organizations and film festivals. He’s not exactly feeding the homeless or housing poor children. Apparently condemning others’ profits on camera is easy, but looking at his own checkbook isn’t relevant (39-59).
To be honest, I’m glad he’s making money. I’m glad he owns huge properties and invests wisely. I’m glad that in America we are free to spend as we choose and make films about whatever topic we want. What a great land we live in—a land made possible by that evil word, capitalism.
But I do have a problem with hypocrisy, and fortunately, there is a simple solution that would go miles in earning respect from Americans of all political persuasions. Put your money, Mr. Moore, where your very large mouth is: screen your film for free so the public is aware of the greed and corruption you are reporting.
If you are truly working for the common good, to root out the evils of our capitalistic system, then why worry about profiting from this film? You are already more rich than most anyone will ever become. Do you need more ticket receipts, or are you just as greedy as the CEOs you expose? Until my local cineplex marquee reads that your film is a free of charge public service, I think I’ll just stay home and save the ten bucks. After all, choosing not to spend money is what makes capitalism great.
