Has Obama Hurt Michael Moore's New Film?

After seeing the U.S. premiere, I wrote that Michael Moore's Capitalism, A Love Story, is a must-see movie and his most powerful and politically fulfilled work. Moore thought so as well, and engaged in a media blitz to encourage a massive turnout to the 962 theater opening on the October 3-4 weekend. Moore argued that a top-grossing film critiquing capitalism would send a powerful message to Wall Street that the public is fed up with its greed.

But this expected rush to theaters did not materialize. In fact, Moore's new film did less than half as well per theater than Sicko, his previous movie. Overall, Capitalism, A Love Story finished a disappointing sixth in its opening week, tied with Drew Barrymore's roller derby film Whip It. This past weekend, Moore's film fell to ninth. There are many possible reasons for this. Did Moore overestimate the popular base for a movie that fundamentally critiques a system that most Americans support? Or has the popular anger that fueled attendance at Moore's anti-Bush administration films diminished with President Obama's election, so that the public no longer sees attending a Moore film as politically and psychologically necessary?

Michael Moore's new film opened in nearly 1000 theaters, the largest coverage in his history and more than double the venues that showed Sicko. But opening weekend revenue for Capitalism, A Love Story only slightly exceeded that generated by Sicko in only 441 theaters. And the film fell to ninth in its second week. Why did this powerful film that generated largely positive reviews not do better?

The Nature of Moore's Audience

First, Moore's primary audience is not teenagers eager to see the new date film on its opening weekend. Nor is it the under 12 crowd who packed theaters to see Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.

Moore's core crowd -- activists, progressives, union members -- are not the type of folks who feel compelled to see a movie the first weekend it opens. I spoke to several progressive activists last week, and none had yet seen the film though all intended to do so.

So Moore may have simply misread his audience's need to see his movie on opening weekend. He also overestimated his ability to get people to theaters by framing attendance as a political act.

Moore's Systemic, Rather than Targeted, Challenge

While Moore aptly describes his new film as the fruition of his prior works, there is a difference between a film attacking a nonsensical war (Fahrenheit 911) or the nation's health care system (Sicko) and one that directly attacks the capitalist system. Alex Vitale, a Brooklyn College sociologist, suggested to me that so many potential moviegoers are implicated in capitalism that they could feel less comfortable rushing out to see Moore's new film.

In contrast, few attendees of Moore's brilliant anti-Iraq war film felt they were part of the system that led to that nightmare, and in fact millions opposed the U.S. invasion from the start. Similarly, there is vast public anger at the nation's health care system, and people could rush out to see Sicko without feeling implicated by the outrages Moore depicts.

Moore tries to avoid this problem by attacking Wall Street and the ruthless exploiters of capitalism, rather than small capitalist businesses or even the large but more socially conscious corporations that created good, middle-class auto industry jobs for Moore's father and those of his generation. But Moore's provocative use of the term "capitalism" in the film's title may have left many who would agree with its message feeling less compelled to rush out and see the film.

The Obama Factor

The nature of Moore's audience and the systemic challenge to capitalism aside, President Obama's election is likely the biggest factor in the less than hoped for opening attendance. Few Democrats or independents feel the sense of hopelessness and rage that compelled them to spend a couple of hours watching Michael Moore tear President George W. Bush apart.

Moore did not have to hit the airwaves or the blogosphere to convince people that seeing Fahrenheit 911 or Sicko was a political act -- folks were already desperate for ways to show opposition to the Bush administration. But Capitalism, a Love Story is targeted not at the current President but at the more amorphous "Wall Street," so the link between movie attendance and social change activism is less clear.

The fact is that public anger at Wall Street has been obvious for some time. People could understandably question why this point had to be reconfirmed by attending Moore's film on opening weekend.

Moore Acts, Hollywood Escapes

While Michael Moore's efforts to dramatically increase his Sicko audience through a film critical of capitalism may fall short, his ambitions stand in sharp contrast to that of Hollywood's many other "liberal" filmmakers and actors. While these folks regularly pat themselves on the backs for their donations to one cause or another, even the most progressive -- such as George Clooney, Matt Damon, or Brad Pitt, each of whom can make whatever film they want -- are fostering a culture where films are largely escapist fantasies that avoid truly telling it like it is.

Many Hollywood actors, producers and directors may define themselves as political progressives, but, unlike Michael Moore, they do not use their films to make a difference.

So get out and see Capitalism, A Love Story to send a message not just to Wall Street, but to the movie industry. Michael Moore should not be the only filmmaker with a progressive message that can open a movie in nearly 1000 theaters, but unless this film does well, he could be the last.

Randy Shaw is the author of Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century.

 

 

Comments

[BillWest]

Perhaps the poor opening stems from the feeling that it seems strange, and perhaps hypocritical, for a man who has made tens of millions to make a movie decrying capitalism. After all, a film is the result of production, distribution and promotion - all fueled by risk-based capital.

[liberalsrheros]

you mis characterize, no doubt on purpose to trot out a talking point.

[jobecky20]

Yes, I agree. I like Michael Moore but how can he cry foul on capitalism when he benefits from capitalism himself? I think the movie title is a problem for the film because capitalism itself is not a problem...the problem is how the capitalist system is abused by so many greedy SOBs. I am a liberal and I am all for capitalism but I am also for Doing No Harm. Isn't there a happy medium?

[gaja]

I disagree - Moore has done quite a bit for working class people including distributing his movie for free and supporting charities in the hardest hit areas within the Midwest. And there's a big difference bet what documentary movie producers make & what Hollywood execs make w/ their endless "blockbusters." I doubt anyone would call people who work at pbs - greed mongers..
2nd, in the movie he discusses the endless greed that is promoted by our capitalistic system. In every biz school in America, this is exactly what is promoted - short term profits & the "illusion of profits" over long term sustainable gain. Accountants are taught - layoff millions, and "write off debts." Execs are taught to find ways to outsource everything - leaving the American worker in the dust. This is considered "success" in America. We need to change that! What he is promoting is that people (including Congress and Obama) to STAND UP and create the changes we seek... I for one applaud him...

[middleoftheroad]

"Did Moore overestimate the popular base for a movie that fundamentally critiques a system that most Americans support?"

That's one reason. If you leave the Huff/Kos/Org. For America world and talk to people, they are not for turning our system upside down and become Socialist. They dont love govt, they just hate the last administration and feel burned by the banking stystem, that includes many many Dems.

Also, people are living the nightmare, they might not want to spend 10 bucks on seeing Moore pontificate about it...maybe they want to forget about their troubles with a date movie, take the kids to Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, or Zombieland. And lastly, Moore is a star with a following, the Spielberg of these kinds of films, but to think that it should be on 1000 screens is just crazy!

On a side note as far as distribution, in the burbs where I live its playing at the three commercial multiplexes, but not at the indy theater that would cater to this market.

[getoffthecross]

I think the biggest obstacle to this film is (and will continue to be) a combination of willful ignorance and not-particularly impressive word-of-mouth.

I saw it with a friend on Sunday in a mostly empty theater. Unlike Farenheit, I didn't leave gushing and phoning people to tell them they needed to rush out and see the film. The historical points are compelling, but the slice-of-life pieces are a little too heavy handed. It felt like he had three different films jammed in. But, mostly, I just don't think people want to plop $10 down to be told that they've been gamed for decades...and that there's little that can be done about it. His suggestion to exchange Democracy for Capitalism is simplistic at best and untenable at worst.

People aren't staying away because they're still having some kind of hopegasm from Obama's election. They're staying away because they're spending their free time worrying about bills and food and their kids futures.Now, if he had actually been successful in making a citizen's arrest of bank executives? THEN you would have seen some butts in seats.

[RevBookburn]

I think you got it when you said that it was different than the types of films people rush to on the first weekend. Most people I know and myself consider it a must-see. All of us will get to it before the local run is over. This is one of the most important films of this century. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

[Alarmist]

The film didn't do as well because it wasn't as good, period.
While it was worth watching, it didn't present many facts or stats, and was basically a couple of sad stories. The movie didn't get more interesting or gripping. The movie moved at a lateral pace. I didn't find myself getting as angry as I should have, given the subject matter.

[honoursplendor]

I don't think Obama has had any impact on the film. Unlike Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, etc. Capitalism did not have the coherence of his earlier films. He focused on political corruption and the way it adds to all of our misery but in the film Moore is advocating that a political system (democracy) replace an economic system (capitalism). The argument is puzzling (I think I understand that he is trying to advocate more fairness and reform?) but the way he argues this is not as transparent as an argument for say, health care reform, gun control or further investigation into the events that led up to 9/11 and its aftermath. This was the first film I saw of Moore's that seemed to meander around rather than cut to the heart of the matter. I think that is because this subject is more complicated than the more easily black or white arguments that can be made about violence or health care. Capitalism cannot so easily be addressed as an "evil" per se -- as Moore himself indicates in the film. It is capitalism run amok and unrestrained that is the real issue.

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

I don't think the film has been hurt at all. It will easily become one of the ten-highest grossing documentaries of all time by next weekend. It will probably finish with $15-20 million, which will put it near the top-five. And that's despite the film being Moore's worst documentary ever as well as more or less bereft of new information. No documentary should be judged against the success of Fahrenheit 9/11. That's equivalent to wondering why a given smash-hit film didn't quite equal Titanic's record run back in 1997/1998. F911 was a perfect storm of content, timing, and media attention that turned it into a mainstream phenom (and remember, money aside, the film failed at its primary goal as Bush was reelected). Expecting every film from a given star or director to exceed personal bests is a constant recipe for failure. Capitalism is an enormously successful documentary. Frankly, the only mistake Moore made in terms of box office is not omitting the measly three "f-words" that took the film from a more teen-friendly PG-13 to an R.

[CaScientist]

Obama doesnt hurt Moores appeal...because the only thing that changed on Jan 20 was the PR. The american government (and the american citizenry below the top 5% of earnings) are still up for open auction (in some ways in an even grander scale than the last admin)....Obama has better advertising and a better ability to manipulate ideologies, but his actions are nearly identical. Corporate control of this nations public institutions is a giant, necrotic tumor, and all the makeup artists in the world arent going to cover that up.

[pricearizona]

I remember from my history classes that the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917 were also known as the Progressive Party, later of course being known as the Communist Party. After 70 years in power, and millions dead (executed, purges and gulags) finally collapsing in COMPLETE FAILURE. They were PROGRESSIVE all right...

[JohnFromCensornati]

I saw it on the 3rd. I loved this film. I think people should go out of their way to take their kids to see it.