Sicko

Whenever I bring up the film Sicko, people get riled up. They start going into this diatribe on how Michael Moore is so one-sided and that his documentaries are just thinly-veiled propaganda messages. I always wonder what else they were expecting. Most documentaries are one-sided. The filmmaker is trying to make a point, so they are probably going to avoid the counter-point as much as possible. I mean, you can’t tell me An Inconvenient Truth is fair and balanced. It’s a one-sided view on ending global warming. Do I think we should try and reduce global warming? Sure. Do I think Al Gore has all the facts correct? No. Do I think An Inconvenient Truth is a good documentary? Actually, no. I found it boring. Insightful but boring. This is where Michael Moore comes in. Say what you will about his one-sided views, but I find Moore’s documentaries far from boring.

I’ve always enjoyed Michael Moore’s in-your-face style of filmmaking. His work in Roger & Me and his television series TV Nation and The Awful Truth were fun and cutting at the same time. He loved to exploit the hypocrisy and greediness of corporate America. He was and is inventive in his style even though some of his “don’t you care” ambushes are a little hard to take. I loved his dissection of gun violence in Bowling for Columbine. Sure, his unlocked Canadian doors and Charlton Heston/Dick Clark ambushes were unfortunate, but he made up for it with insightful interviews with Marilyn Manson and showing us the animated History of America. Michael Moore’s documentaries (much like Morgan “Super Size Me” Spurlock’s) are entertaining but also spark discussion. I’ll grant that Fahrenheit 9/11 was less fun and I got sick of his hypothetical “maybe he was thinking” stuff but it still got people talking. I find that Sicko is similar in this vein; it’s not as ‘entertaining’ as Bowling for Columbine, but it does make you think.

In Sicko, Moore thankfully spends some time behind the camera as he bashes the American health system. With a scary look at insurance practices and hospital costs, Moore definitely wants his audience to question their government. To show the glaring inadequacies of American health care, Moore travels around the world to explore how other countries treat their sick. As we all know, Moore is in love with Canada so he comes here first to feign shock at our ‘free’ health care. Of course, Moore always goes to smaller Canadian suburbs instead of Toronto or Vancouver, just so he can showcase the quick waiting room service and ‘free’ hospital stays. The Canadian citizens he interviews always seem to forget that they pay taxes, which in turn provides them with ‘free’ healthcare.

What I found interesting was the healthcare in England and France. I like what England does with their medication prices and France appears to be a birthing heaven with its free nannies who make you dinner and do your laundry. Of course, this is from Moore’s point of view so I take it with a grain of salt. Again, people and Moore seem to ignore the taxes that they pay and where that money goes. But regardless, it is still interesting to see how it’s done in other countries without having to do all the research. Moore lays it on thick when he brings 9/11 volunteers to Cuba but it’s what I’ve come to expect. He ends on a high note with a response to a damaging website and even includes a way for Americans to hook up with Canadians to benefit from our healthcare system.

I think you should watch this film even if it’ll make you angry. Just ignore the Michael Moore aspect and look at the state of health care. Sure it’s one-sided but I bet you’ll be talking about it as soon as you leave the theatre. And I think that’s all he’s hoping for, starting the discussion.