The Daily caught up with director Michael Moore to discuss his latest film "Capitalism: A Love Story," which delivers a stinging critique of America's economic system and corporate practices.
"Capitalism: A Love Story" is Moore's most ambitious documentary to date. Where he previously focused on the auto industry ("Roger & Me," 1989), the arms industry ("Bowling for Columbine," 2002), the oil industry ("Fahrenheit 911," 2004) and the healthcare industry ("Sicko," 2007), here he goes for the jugular — the overarching system of capitalism itself.
Question: You began this film with the intention of it being a sequel to "Fahrenheit 911" … when did you decide to make it an original film?
Michael Moore: That's what I told the studio because I knew they wouldn't give me any money for it if I told them it was about capitalism, about the thing that they are part of. They didn't see the film until about six weeks ago. So for the past year-and-a-half they just kept sending me checks, and it's sort of like a sequel. If you just tell them it's a sequel then they like it.
Q: Would you say all of your films could be titled "Capitalism: A Love Story?"
MM: Yes.
Q: Throughout the course of making the film, did your view on capitalism change at all? Or did it just reaffirm views you already had?
MM: Well, when the crash happened I was looking at capitalism in terms of its lack of democracy and morality. But I hadn't really considered the third element which ended up being in the film, which is [that] capitalism doesn't work. Then they proved that when the crash happened, when they went for the bailout it was against everything they taught us they believe in — that the free market is to determine these things, that the hand of government is not supposed to be there to catch you — and there they were, asking for a bailout, asking for socialism. So it really ripped the clothes off the emperor, and that I did not expect to have.
Q: In your film you talk a lot about how the current financial crisis stemmed from irresponsible lending practices by major banks and financial institutions. Although irresponsible lending is a big problem, surely irresponsible borrowing was a big problem as well, and there is a lot to be said for individual responsibility and people taking responsibility for their actions. And if irresponsible borrowing had not been so widespread then financial crisis would not have reached the catastrophic proportions that it did. So I was wondering how much you felt individual people were to blame for this crisis as opposed to the banks.
MM: That is the official storyline. That is exactly what they put out there immediately after the crash, that there were all these people living beyond their means, taking out loans they couldn't afford etc … Then as I point out in the film, and as the FBI points out, 80 percent of mortgage fraud was committed by the banks and the lending institutions, not the people coming to the bank. The banks and the companies themselves used a lot of predatory lending. [For example], Elizabeth Warrens, she teaches at Harvard. She took a mortgage refinance contract and asked the law students, "What's the interest rate?" and an hour later they couldn't figure it out. It's purposely written in such a screwy way that you don't really know what balloon payments are going to be. So there is a lot of trickery involved and the FBI noticed this epidemic.
There are always people living beyond their means, but that's nothing new. That's been around for hundreds of years. Those people don't cause a crash because there are enough of us smart people who don't do that. I don't want to blame the victim here, and in general, I believe people have been victimized by these banks and these mortgage companies. It's why I don't tell you in the movie why those families are being evicted, and I don't care why, because I don't think anyone should be thrown out of their home. If people are not paying the banks then there are other ways of getting your money from them than kicking them to the curb. These people were victimized. I'm not going to blame them because they couldn't understand the 50-page contract.
