While the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" is simply another way of saying something is equivalent or similar, many people have expanded that as a put-down toward those who don't seem to realize that they're just as bad as someone or something they openly criticize. For instance, Charles Keating labeling Bernie Madoff as a corrupt man would normally get (at its politest) the "black kettle" response.
Accordingly, when documentary filmmaker Michael Moore states that the titular subject is evil in his latest offering, "Capitalism: A Love Story," many viewers -- particularly those who don't like his political leanings and/or finger-waving storytelling style -- may be quick to point out he's done quite well for himself in his country's current economic system.
In fact, and unless Ken Burns makes a financial killing creating documentaries for PBS (which seems unlikely) or Moore gives away all of his earnings (even less likely), the filmmaker has made some serious moola ever since "Roger & Me" put him on the map (his most successful offering, "Fahrenheit 9/11," made nearly $120 million in the U.S. alone back in 2004, not including DVD sales and related profits).
Of course, he doesn't bring that up in his latest film, nor do any critics or even just debaters of his various points mainly because, well, they're nowhere to be seen. Granted, like his other documentaries (and I use that term loosely as always with him since the definition of that word -- presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter -- is modified as he deems fit), he can and obviously did make it the way he wanted, and that's solely his prerogative.
It's just that he seems to be getting progressively too righteous with each subsequent film (the zenith being the terrific "Bowling for Columbine") and his desire to flame his and others' passions continues to grow while he does his best Howard Beale: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
Granted, parts of his points in this pic are extremely valid and particularly eye-opening. There's the shocking reality of big name corporations taking out secret life insurance policies on their employees (not so nicely labeled as "dead peasants" in one such instance) in the hopes that they'll be able to generate some extra income via some untimely deaths.
An internal corporate memo about "one person, one vote" being the only potential defeater of plutocracy is a bit chilling, while the state of airline pilots' wages is disheartening at best. And then there's footage I've never seen or heard of before where FDR proposes a second Bill of Rights to guarantee people various things (jobs, health care, etc.), but that never came to fruition due to his death not long afterwards.
As troubling as all of that might be, however, Moore is after bigger game. Namely, that's regarding all of the elements and basic outright greed that led to our current economic crisis. To the filmmaker's credit, he avoids the usual one-sided political bashing and has parties from both sides of the aisle in his sights, ranging from Reagan and Bush (the son) to Clinton and current U.S. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd.
And while he's correct that the mess we're now facing wasn't just a product of recent, corrupt activities on Wall Street (a person he interviews equates it to a dam with a small leak that goes unnoticed until it grows too big to stop), his belief (along with certain members of Congress) that this was a carefully orchestrated, financial coup d'etat -- with the $700 billion payout as the expected prize -- is a bit far-fetched and a little too conspiracy-minded to be taken seriously.
The fact that he heads to Wall Street to make both a citizens arrest of the guilty as well as take back the recent government bailout to the U.S. Treasury (in a rented armored truck, no less) only tempers such accusations and again proves part of his game is as a self-serving, muckraking provocateur (and blaming the recent regional airline crash in Buffalo on low pilot wages is obviously too simplistic of an argument -- with blinders on).
Then again, that's his usual modus operandi, along with the inclusion of all sort of funny archival clips (real and movie-based) to drive home his points. Yes, the medicine is supposed to go down better with some sugar, but he's now done this so many times that the effect -- while admittedly inducing some good laughs now and again -- is likely to induce cinematic diabetes in some or many viewers.
The nadir of the film comes when Moore states that capitalism should be axed and replaced with the now long displaced notion of democracy. I understand the point he's making (that everyday people's buying choices should "vote" on what makes it and what doesn't in the marketplace, rather than corporations and their cronies now entrenched in the political world calling all of the shots).
Yet, the inappropriate mixing of financial and political ideologies again shows that Moore, no matter how deep he might be digging, is really only scratching the surface of a matter that's far too complex to be covered in two-plus hours, let alone with lots of laughs and self-promotional grandstanding.
All of which goes back to the point that he's likely to make some serious green with this film. And while he'll likely argue that he hopes consumers will make the final decision about whether the film turns a profit, I'm guessing he wouldn't be happy if we all got to vote on how the money from this and his other films gets divvied up among all of us.
Occasionally entertaining and containing some valid points and finger-pointing, "Capitalism: A Love Story" is like listening to an opinionated, if sincere grandstander paraphrasing a CliffsNotes version of an economics class -- the simplified summaries don't do the subject matter the sort of justice it deserves. The film rates as a 5 out of 10.