The Big One

I'm alright, Jack

In 1997, Michael Moore set off on a nationwide tour to promote his book "Downsize this", which chronicles the habit of corporate America of re-locating production facilities to Mexico or Asia, where labour costs are cheaper, and the factory owners are far less concerned about the welfare of their workers. He decides to bring a film crew with him, since he intends to use the tour to meet ordinary, working-class Americans, and find out how they are are faring, particularly in an election year.

Michael Moore became famous with his low-budget documentary film Roger and Me (1989), which narrates Moore's attempts to confront the chairman of General Motors, Roger Smith. General Motors had just decided to close their auto factory in Flint, Michigan (Moore's home town), making 40,000 workers unemployed. His film captured the spirit of dissatisfaction amongst Americans which would dominate the 1992 presidential campaign, when Bill Clinton (promising a more caring America), dislodged George Bush, while Ross Perot ranted on against NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).

Moore and his crew (The Big One the title refers to the U.S.) discovers a familiar pattern as they cross America. Corporation after corporation, despite making huge profits, have decided to move south of the border to Mexico, or to the Far East. Since many smaller cities are apparently reliant on a small number of big employers, the loss of one or more have devastating effects on the economic and social infrastructure. In turn, the remaining companies use this situation to pay low-wages, offer minimum benefits and restrict trade union membership. In each state that he visits, he presents a "DownSizer" award to the company he reckons has shafted their employees the most (usually to a hapless PR representative).

It seems strange that Moore absolutely neglects to place the 'state of the nation' in any context whatsoever. He makes no attempt to examine the impact of NAFTA, or any other government policy, on the economy , or why the United States (as one of the world's biggest exporters) was so enthusiastic to open up it's borders for free trade. He seems content to march up to the headquarters of yet another departing corporation, attempt to see the chairman, and get evicted by stern-looking security guards. After a while, this charade gets tiresome (and ignores that fact that security guards are part of the minimum wage community that Moore has pledged to defend). Despite commenting ruefully on the low turn-out during the election, he makes no attempt to contact any of the candidates or their associates (perhaps they have better security guards).

Moore is a witty and clever commentator, and his stand-up routines at his book-signings are both funny and pointed. He also uncovers some startling facts. For example, he discovers that many big companies, including TWA, use prisoners to process orders over the phone (during a conversation with a rather disturbing, tattooed ex-con). He also manages to get a face-to-face interview with Phil Knight, the chairman of Nike. Moore and others (including the cartoonist Doonesbury) have frequently criticised Nike for their use of child labour in Indonesia, a country with a poor human rights record. Knight had received Moore's book as a present from his wife (Moore devotes a page to Knight), so he sportingly agreed to be questioned by Moore on camera. However, Phil does himself (and Nike) no favours whatsoever with his performance. Pressed by Moore to justify using twelve-year-old girls to work in his Indonesian factories, Knight replies that the girls are at least fourteen. Way to go, Phil.

However, for all his charm, the whole exercise rings a bit hollow. When asked how he can justify working for a corporation himself (Random House publish his book and sponser the tour), Moore evades the question with a glib reply. There is no doubt that Moore can connect with people, but his spiel is a bit reminiscint of another figure which remains out of sight in this film - Clinton himself. Moore doen't offer any solutions, or even imply that there are solutions. This simplistic and somewhat egotistical pice of agitprop, while showing Moore in a favorable light, will do little or nothing for the people whose problems he claims to highlight.

Directed by Michael Moore.

.Back to the top

.

.

© 1999 Stockholm Film Review. All Rights Reserved.