Sicko, the NHS and where are the UK documentary makers?

[dogstar]

If you haven't seen Michael Moore's latest film Sicko you might like to do so, both as a reminder of how lucky we are to have the National Health Service and to illustrate that in the UK we have never really produced a documentary maker who can be populist in approach whilst producing polemical and challenging work.



Sicko does a marvellous job in showing up the American private health care industry as a cravenly immoral and thinly-disguised licence for greedy companies to make shed loads of money at the expense ( frequently fatal ) of its clients who are routinely denied the care they need. Testimony from ex-employees chills the blood as they describe the underhand methods used by the companies to find loopholes which will help them dodge their responsibilities. Most chilling of all is archive film which shows the man responsible for giving the initial green light for this appalling system was none other than tricky Dicky Nixon himself, who on the basis of this evidence alone shows himself unfit for any kind of office let alone the Oval one. On Capitol Hill, senators are routinely bought off by the health-care ( sic ) companies who have the comfort of knowing their friends in high places will always look after their interests.



Heroes of 911, now with long-term aillments as a result of their exposure to the debris of the bombings are refused treatment because they were not official employees of the city at the time or otherwise fall victim to the ludicrous conditions imposed. I won't spoil the denoument which plays an ironic joke on America itself.



So far so outrageous. But for the UK viewer it does give us much food for thought. The UK, France and Canada are invoked as models of a healthcare system which, for all their undoubted flaws, provide a fundamentally excellent level of service based on the humanitarian principal that care is provided on the basis of what the patient needs, not what they can afford. And we should be endlessly grateful for that because as Sicko so eloquently demonstrates, the alternatives do not bear thinking about.



It would be nice to think the UK could produce films like Sicko or indeed a documentary film-maker with the same profile as Michael Moore. Yes we have the likes of Nick Broomfield and John Pilger and way out on left-field the late Kenneth Griffith, but no-one has emerged who can take the documentary format and use it both as a means of both mass entertainment and as a powerful, thought-provoking dark mirror. Its easy to see why Michael Moore gets up so many people's noses - he can come across as arrogant and patronising ( though much less so in Sicko ) and he is not above the odd publicity stunt, albeit in the service of the usually laudable point he is trying to make. But whatever your opinion of him he provides a service in some ways as valuable as the dear old NHS - he makes films which open our eyes and make us think about real issues. And what's more he does it for a multiplex audience who seem keen to listen. More power to him.

[DB7]

The problem with Michael Moore is that much of the dialogue is polemic, frequent stage-managed confrontations, and some crafty editing to back up his point. He doesn't seek to give both sides of a story and whilst it's entertaining I personally wouldn't call it 'documentary'. It's nearer the stand-up political activism of the Mark Thomas Project.



As for the Brits, there's Paul Greengrass' semi-doc United 93 and one of the Grierson nominees, Deep Water, is on CH4 on Monday.

[orpheum]

I saw it yesterday.My view is that whilst the NHS has a lot of unresolved problems i would much prefer it to what goes on in the USA.the film is a bit relentless and also rather repetative but it is none the less absorbing.

[DB7]

I don't think I actually want a polemic British documentary given the collapse in trust in British television and the recent staged death in ITV's Alzheimer's documentary. Moore's work would be similarly investigated and factual editing flaws discovered.

[dogstar]

Fair comments all but I think the point to bear in mind is that, stage-managed confrontations and all his films raise issues that are not normally addressed in a high-profile movie and have made debate and criticism part of the 'entertainment' landscape which seems to me both exciting and important. As to whether they count as documentaries, if they are not then there isn't really a more appropriate label to put on them ( though his detractors can doubtless think of many ). Personally I don't think the issue of telling both sides of the story is especially relevant to Sicko since there doesn't really seem to be any platform from which an alternative argument could be launched.



However many satisfied customers of the US private health care industry there may be - and I would venture to guess that the majority would be those whose health cover is provided by their employers - the basic crux of the matter would still seem to hold true even though suspension of disbelief should definitely be employed occasionally as in the final fifteen minutes.



We know enough about the NHS to know that it is riddled with flaws and doubtless those of France and Canada are as well but in none of them would a child be allowed to die simply because it was taken to a hospital not approved by the mother's insurance company.



I agree that the fake death in the Alzheimer's programme undermined the integrity of the BBC and will make it harder in the future for audiences to know what they can and can't believe but hopefully that does not preclude future British film makers from tackling documentary ( for want of a better word ) subjects in an accessible and thought-provoking manner. Maybe they don't need to be polemical - though I don't think a bit of polemics would come amiss occasionally - but it would be nice to see someone making films that raised issues and entertained at the same time. Anyway, I'm off to pick up my partner's prescription which at under seven quid seems pretty good value to me :-)

[Moor Larkin]

You're taking health advice from him? .....







There was an interesting polemic in the press the other week (probably the Daily Mail) that pointed out that with all the criticism of the US in the world currently, it is still Americans who rip their country to shreds the best..... How awfully British I thought.

[Marky B]

I think documentary making should be even sided,unlike Michael "I'm right and you're wrong" Moore. What put me off Moore,was his speech at the Oscars (for Bowling For Columbine?) where he had a go at "the fictitious President" (GW and "the fictitious war" (Iraq). Don't get me wrong,I'm no fan of Dubya,I have doubts about the war in Iraq,but I don't think a ceremony such as the Oscars,should be used as a platform for political statements.

Ta Ta

Marky B

[DB7]

name='dogstar']As to whether they count as documentaries, if they are not then there isn't really a more appropriate label to put on them ( though his detractors can doubtless think of many ).

I'd view it as falling between documentary and political satire. The famous golf scene is pure slight of hand for a gag, Moore cleverly edits a clip of Dubya talking about Hamas to make it appear a reference to 911 and Al Queda. Throughout his films there are such techniques designed merely to ridicule people.



If a British broadcaster pulled that stunt on the PM they'd rightly get toasted. You only have to look at the damage done to the BBC by Andrew Gilligan 'sexing up' a report.

[Steve Crook]

name='dogstar']If you haven't seen Michael Moore's latest film Sicko you might like to do so, both as a reminder of how lucky we are to have the National Health Service and to illustrate that in the UK we have never really produced a documentary maker who can be populist in approach whilst producing polemical and challenging work.

Didn't you see One Day in September (1999) ?

That won an Oscar for Kevin Macdonald and was certainly populist whilst still being polemical and challenging. Many of his other documentaries are very good as well, like Touching the Void (2003) and although he went into feature films with The Last King of Scotland (2006) he's now back doing documentaries like My Enemy's Enemy (2007) about Klaus Barbie.



Steve

[orpheum]

The Mail On Sunday gave the film a rotten review based on political rather than cinematic considerations.I work on the basis that any thing that rag not fit for the gutter says is no good i will go and see.I enjoyed it even if their critic did not.

[DB7]

name='Steve Crook']Didn't you see One Day in September (1999) ?

That won an Oscar for Kevin Macdonald and was certainly populist whilst still being polemical and challenging.

I wouldn't class it as polemical, he charted events from its celebratory opening to tragic conclusion and never takes sides during the narrative. Pretty much nobody comes out of it looking good and Macdonald allows the talking heads of those involved to drive the story. Whilst Moore opens up his 911 film to prattle on about Texan oilfields and asking senators to sign their kids up for military service, Macdonald rarely allows the history of the Palestinian conflict to impact on his film. I suppose this removes some of the background as to the terrorists motive, but also means the murders can't be some how legitimised as politically expedient.

[eric7885]

Having lived in the U.S. for a few years,i had to go through their health system. It is expensive,private health care. It is estimated that around 43 million working american families have no health care at all. The U.S. can spend billions of dollars on this Iracq war,yet have no health care for its citizens. Here in Canada,we have universal health coverage. And americans have discovered this. In 1994 or 1995,over two thousand americans were caught using our health care system with either stolen,borrowed,or somehow obtained canadian health cards. Prscription prices,here in Canada,are about half the cost,what they pay in America. Many Americans,those who live close to Canada,come to Canada for their prescriptions. Many Americans buy their medications through online chemists in Canada by using the internet. Yes we do have flaws in our health care system,but I am thankful it is here.

[Moor Larkin]

name='ron7885'] It is expensive,private health care.

'Public' health care must be just as 'expensive'. It's just that we pay for it whether we use it or not, so the 'actual' user pays less. It's state-run insurance, same as America but we're all in it. The British NHS is also supposedly ram-raided....... by some Europeans........ but who knows what to believe..............



Is it true that the British NHS is the single biggest employer in the whole world outside of the Chinese Red Army? Or is that just another myth.







When Patrick McGoohan appeared in a hospital-based theatre drama in 1956, some critic or other commented that the aseptic conditions of a National Health ward was no place for the setting of human drama........... They had obviously not watched Holby City...... .........

[Fellwanderer]

name='orpheum']The Mail On Sunday gave the film a rotten review based on political rather than cinematic considerations.I work on the basis that any thing that rag not fit for the gutter says is no good i will go and see.I enjoyed it even if their critic did not.

Well, we might be divided over football but we're certainly united on that point

[batman]

name='Moor Larkin']

Is it true that the British NHS is the single biggest employer in the whole world outside of the Chinese Red Army? Or is that just another myth.

I believe that is true.



Bats.

[Steve Crook]

name='DB7']I wouldn't class it as polemical, he charted events from its celebratory opening to tragic conclusion and never takes sides during the narrative. Pretty much nobody comes out of it looking good and Macdonald allows the talking heads of those involved to drive the story. Whilst Moore opens up his 911 film to prattle on about Texan oilfields and asking senators to sign their kids up for military service, Macdonald rarely allows the history of the Palestinian conflict to impact on his film. I suppose this removes some of the background as to the terrorists motive, but also means the murders can't be some how legitimised as politically expedient.

I was thinking more of the "convenient" way that Al Gashey was allowed to be returned. And the way that they made everyone, but mainly the Germans, to look like total idiots. He didn't have to try too hard to do that, they did a lot of it themselves. Not only shooting each other at the airport but also the way they tried to break into the compound - with policemen "disguised" as athletes in track suits, but still wearing bullet-proof vests and coal-scuttle helmets!



Maybe not exactly polemical



But Kevin Macdonald is still a great documentary maker which was one of the original questions in this thread.



Steve

[DB7]

name='Steve Crook']And the way that they made everyone, but mainly the Germans, to look like total idiots. He didn't have to try too hard to do that, they did a lot of it themselves.

The Germans messed up but imho this was one of the first acts of terrorism as we've come to know it and the required specialist training probably wasn't in place.



As for Brits. Greengrass is currently filming a British production called "Imperial Life in the Emerald City", based on true accounts of life inside Baghdad's green zone.

[Redstar]

If a small impoverished island like Cuba can manage a free health service that is amongst the best in Latin America why can't the rich US do the same for its people? Films like these (although I dont care for Michael Moores style) do open peoples eyes. The Australian documentary maker John Pilger has made a few good films.

I think the best British documentaries were made before during and after the second world war. Albeit they were mostly shorts about the Railways, Post Office, Seamen and other working communities they displayed a realism lost to modern British cinema

[orpheum]

One interesting thought.How is it that an american moviemaker can get his films shown in cinemas here when this never to my recent knowledge happens with british moviemakers

[Steve Crook]

name='orpheum']One interesting thought.How is it that an american moviemaker can get his films shown in cinemas here when this never to my recent knowledge happens with british moviemakers

Because of the way that most cinemas sign up with deals to block book. They have to do that to get the American blockbusters screened, and they have to show them to pay the rent. But that means that they often have to sign up to show lots of other American films as well.



It's not a new problem, it's been happening since the 1940s or even earlier



Steve