Schwarz writes: "Where to Invade Next is the most profoundly subversive thing he's ever done. It's so sneaky that you may not even notice exactly what it's subverting."
Screen Shot from Michael Moore's film 'Where to Invade Next.' (photo: Dog Eat Dog Films)
'Where to Invade Next' Is the Most Subversive Movie Michael Moore Has Ever Made
11 February 16
can't claim this is a neutral review of Where to Invade Next, Michael Moore�s latest movie. Beyond the fact that I worked for Moore for six years, including on his previous documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, I may literally owe my life to the high-quality, zero-deductible health insurance he provides employees.
What I�ve lost in objectivity, I�ve gained in knowledge of Moore�s career. I even know his darkest, most closely guarded secret: the original name of the 1970s alternative newspaper he started in Flint, Michigan. So I can say this for sure: Where to Invade Next is the most profoundly subversive thing he�s ever done. It�s so sneaky that you may not even notice exactly what it�s subverting.
On its surface, Where to Invade Next seems to be a cheerful travelogue as Moore enjoys an extended vacation, �invading� a passel of European countries plus Tunisia to steal their best ideas and bring them back home to America. For instance, French public schools have chefs who serve students hour-long, multi-course lunches on china, featuring dishes like scallops in curry sauce. I haven�t laughed harder at any movie this year than when the French 8-year-olds stare in perplexed horror at photos of American school lunches.
It�s all so upbeat in such an un-Michael Moore way that he considered calling it Mike�s Happy Movie. Certainly it�s the only time I�ve walked out of one of his documentaries and said, �Wow, everything is fantastic!� But what made me feel this way is the secret message hidden in Where to Invade Next � and if you see it, you�ll feel that way too.
Moore�s biggest foe ever
To understand what I�m talking about, look at the trajectory of Moore�s major films, and how he consistently became more ambitious. With every movie he�s raised the stakes, each time aiming at a bigger institution and its claims that it knows best and is totally serious and in control and definitely nobody should laugh at it. Here�s the progression:
- Roger & Me in 1989 was an attack on General Motors when it was the largest corporation on earth, and suggested that GM�s decision to brutalize its workers, customers, and hometown might not be the greatest long-term strategy. (You�ve probably noticed this turned out to be true.)
- Bowling for Columbine�s target in 2002 was even larger than GM: It wasn�t just about America�s constant gun massacres, but our omnipresent culture of fear that makes us hostile to any possible solutions.
- Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004 aimed higher again: It was about the reality that the president of the United States might be illegitimate, definitely had no idea what he was doing, and everyone was terrified to point any of this out.
- In 2007 Sicko critiqued something even more important than the presidency: healthcare, America�s biggest, cruelest industry.
- Finally, in 2009, Moore reached what seemed like the logical summit of his career with Capitalism: A Love Story, pointing out that our entire economic system seems to be broken.
So where could anyone go from there? Once you�ve done capitalism, it�s hard to imagine there�s any larger nemesis. But as Where to Invade Next demonstrates, there is.
America�s real ideology
About halfway through Where to Invade Next, Moore visits an island prison in Norway that houses inmates who�ve committed violent crimes but are being rewarded for good behavior. It looks less like Oz and more like a frugal resort, with prisoners in regular clothes doing wheelies on bikes, fishing, and sunbathing.
In the prison�s kitchen, Moore talks to Trond, a convicted murderer with a huge tattoo on his face. Looking past him, Moore says: �Uh, I can�t help but notice that behind you are a whole bunch of very sharp knives.� And in fact there are a dozen of them, including a gigantic cleaver.
There also appear to be zero guards. Trond explains how many guards are at the prison on weekends: four. That�s for a prison population of 115. Plus, he says, the guards generally all stay in another building, leaving the prisoners to supervise themselves.
For most Americans, including me, this looks completely insane. But the prison warden, sitting at a park bench with birds chirping in the background, explains: �I don�t understand why you think this is a strange idea. � The main idea is just to take away their freedom. That�s the only punishment we are giving them. We are trying to help them back to society.�
The Norwegian philosophy is to create a normal environment with as few external controls as possible so that when prisoners get out, they know how to control themselves. It works so well that Norway has one of the world�s lowest murder rates, and its recidivism rate is about 20 percent, two to three times lower than in the U.S. (Moore also visits a standard Norwegian maximum security prison that�s less spa-like but totally free of the brutality and spiritual darkness of U.S. prisons.)
Moore�s visit to Portugal is also about its prison system, or rather its lack of one comparable to the U.S., thanks to its total decriminalization of drugs in 2001. Dr. Nuno Capaz, the Portuguese minister of health, classifies himself as a drug user: �Mostly alcohol, internet, a lot of coffee, some sugar.� When Moore points out that drug abuse may bring a lot of sadness to someone�s marriage, Capaz responds, �So? So does Facebook. Are we going to illegalize it?� The results in Portugal have been just as counterintuitive for Americans as Norway�s results, with drug use actually falling now that you can�t get arrested for it.
By the end of Where to Invade Next � after seeing working-class Italians with two months paid vacation, Finnish schools with no homework and the world�s best test scores, Slovenians going to college for free, and women seizing unprecedented power in Tunisia and Iceland � you may realize that the entire movie is about how other countries have dismantled the prisons in which Americans live: prison-like schools and workplaces, debtor�s prisons in order to pay for college, prisons of social roles for women, and the mental prison of refusing to face our own history.
You�ll also perceive clearly why we�ve built these prisons. It�s because the core ideology of the United States isn�t capitalism, or American exceptionalism, but something even deeper: People are bad. People are so bad that they have to be constantly controlled and threatened with punishment, and if they get a moment of freedom they�ll go crazy and ruin everything.
The secret message of Where to Invade Next is that America�s had it wrong all along about human beings. You and I aren�t bad. All the people around us aren�t bad. It�s okay to get high, or get sick, or for teenagers to spend every waking moment trying to figure out how to bonk each other. If regular people get control over their own lives, they�ll use it wisely rather than burning the country down in a festival of mindless debauchery.
Where to Invade Next is all the more powerful because it doesn�t tell you this, it simply shows you. It�s not speculation about how human nature will be transformed after the revolution so we�ll all be happy to share our ration of grass soup with The People. It�s all happening right now, with imperfect human beings just like us.
The movie ends with Moore visiting the remnants of the Berlin Wall, and remembering how he�d been there in 1989 and joined with all the German chiseling away at it. When he was growing up during the Cold War, he says, the one certain thing was that �This wall would never come down. Built to stand forever. Impenetrable.� But less than 30 years later it was gone. What America�s President of Documentaries is saying now is: Tear down these walls. We will be much better off without them.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
1. Her campaign officially launched in February of 2015 and this dinner occurred in December of that year. She's prohibited by law from interacting with a foreign govt. official. I don't care if she said one word to Putin or talked to him for an hour.
2. Laying out foreign affairs proposals? Wait until you're elected, THEN you contact foreign leaders
3. Based off the photo, she seems quite comfortable sitting at the same table as a despotic tyrant who's imprisoned dissidents, quashed free speech, nullified an independent media, and more transgressions. That doesn't sound like someone "concerned by belligerence".
4. Liberals are justified maligning her. She served as a vote diluting candidate because, in many states Trump barely won (Wisconsin, Michigan for example), Stein's total eclipsed his margin of victory. There's no doubt that, had she not been the female Ralph Nader, HRC would've snagged enough of her votes and thus earn a victory
5. Stein is overrated and unqualified for any office. On a YT link where she discusses Hillary, much of her criticisms either were lies (i.e. that HRC lowered Haiti's minimum wage. Independent fact checking sites classified said claim as "false"), oversimplified and flat out ignorant. She shouldn't be entrusted to be dog catcher. Others on the left might excuse her for dining with a 21st Century Mussolini incarnate: this left wing guy will not.
My two cents.
ensuing nonsense would have been of a higher caliber than what we are
now getting with Trump!
MUST BE BECAUSE SHE WAS A RUSSIAN PLANT.
SO WHAT !
GIVEN WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE FULL SPECTRUM ANTI-RUSSIA PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN, THIS IS REALLY GARBAGE.
I voted for Stein and her trip to Russia, like Tulsi's to Syria, were the responsible acts of future national leaders.
Jill Stein should be president. She didn't put Trump* in office* - Hillary did and you did by voting for her. I voted for Jill, as any person with a conscience and a heart did, but we coulda' written in Bernie.
But who were the other "peace advocates" she alludes to?
And Democrats have to wonder further whether Stein's entry as a 3rd party candidate into the 2016 election - not her first foray - did not cost Hillary Clinton the election. I believe Clinton herself said as much - had something to do with Wisconsin in particular, as I recall.
- still beating dead horse jillie?
pray that hillary is as dead as jillie in 2016 and 2020
folks got over ralph by 2004 - after 8 years of bush2cheney and now at least 4 years of rump, have we learned nothing? do we elect repukes every 16 years, just to see if dead horses, like spoilt milk, still stink?
Dr Stein couldn't be elected alderman in any Lakefront ward in Chicago, and she wouldn't earn a ballot slot in most of the others. And with very good reason. Politics ain't beanbag and she's a dilettante par excellence.