Cannes 2007 - a review of Michael Moore's 'Sicko'

Dave Calhoun reviews Moore's controversial attack on America's health care system.

May 21 2007

It's at least 45 minutes before the big man himself wades into view in Michael Moore's new film, 'Sicko', which had its world premiere here in Cannes at the weekend and is a strong attack on the fundamentals of health-care provision in America. Moore parades a host of victims of private medical insurance - the only health cover available to US citizens - and himself appears on camera for much less time than in his three earlier films. There's a sense with 'Sicko' that Moore is reacting to some of the more negative responses to 'Fahrenheit 9/11' (which won the Palme d'Or here in 2004) by allowing his well-researched material and hard-won case studies to speak for themselves and so there are none of Moore's familiar door-stepping or aggressive interviewing techniques. The overall style is immediately recognisable though, and it's not long before some populist tactics recognisable from both 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Fahrenheit 9/11' make their presence felt, not least when Moore escorts a group of sick 9/11 rescue-workers to receive exemplary medical care in Cuba of all places, for decades the focus of so many American right-wing fears. If you admire Moore already, 'Sicko' is familiar enough to please; if you're a doubter, 'Sicko' may be just different enough to convince you otherwise.

'Sicko' offers more focus than 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and is a damning attack on the relationship between private health insurance and medical care in the United States. If that doesn't sound like an entertaining prospect for a movie then Moore does everything in his power over two hours, from gags to stunts to hysteria, to convince you otherwise. It's a powerful film and one that's also unexpectedly moving. Moore begins by explaining that his concern is not reserved for the 50 million Americans without health insurance but for the 250 million others who are covered but who still risk not receiving adequate care because of the insurance companies' desire and need to maximise their profits. 'I always thought the health insurance companies were there to help us,' deadpans Moore in a style of voiceover that feigns an ignorance and naivety that couldn't be further from his actual stance. It's a style that grates a little, yet as he introduces person after person who have all suffered from the health insurance system, the cumulative effect is to anger and move. Tales of illness, poverty and death are sobering and forceful. We don't even need to trust Moore as we did with some of his wilder claims in 'Fahrenheit 9/11': these people are right before our eyes and testify directly.

A large part of the film is given over to trips to Canada, Britain and France, where Moore seeks to compare those countries' health care systems to that of America. (This presumably surmounts the fact that he's persona non grata now in the US and most potential interviewees would run a mile from him. There's not one combative interview in the film: all his witnesses are for the plaintiff.) Unsurprisingly, Moore's analysis of the NHS feels simplistic from a British perspective, but he succeeds in eliciting a swell of national pride as he celebrates the post-war achievement of free health care for all in Britain and announces to his American audience that it's an inalienable right that they're being denied. He wanders around Hammersmith hospital and asks amused and proud staff to direct him to the non-existent cash desk where patients must pay for their care. When he discovers a desk marked 'cashier', he discovers that it's a service to provide needy patients with cash to pay for a taxi home. He bolsters this celebratory tour of the NHS with a substantial interview with Tony Benn who outlines its history and political basis. After hearing so many horror stories from the other side of the Atlantic, it's enough to make you forget MRSA, waiting-times and health funding for two hours at least. New Labour owe Moore a massive favour; it's top-dollar free publicity for the NHS.

A better documentary-maker or journalist could craft a far more detailed and balanced work on this subject. Moore's style is unashamedly emotive and his argument unstintingly self-assured. There are many holes in the film - for example his comparison of the Cuban health system with the American one is flawed because it refuses to take into account other relevant social, economic and political factors. Yet he succeeds in covering complex ideas with flair and comedy. Most pleasing is how Moore roots these different national approaches to healthcare in broader ideas about how lives should be lived and how governments should govern. His examination of healthcare essentially becomes an argument for more socialist ideals. 'Is there a reason our government and our media want us to hate the French?' he asks after waving the flag for French culture. One thing's for sure: only Moore could make a film like this: one that has the potential to draw mainstream audiences into the cinema and convince them of his argument. For that, he can be forgiven his broad sweeps and bombast.

• 
•