Sicko Reviews in This Series

Sicko Reviews

In this series of reviews of Michael Moore's newest film Sicko, authors express their various opinions about Michael Moore's film and the arguments that he makes. To introduce the reviews, the editor proves that Sicko is one of Michael Moore's unique films, making use of all of the techniques of documentaries -- to record, reveal, persuade, interrogate, and to express. The editor says that Moore's new film has received both criticism and praise for his film from unlikely sources, and implies that the film has important implications for both documentary filmmaking and political ideologies. The suite of reviews contained after this introduction present this controversy.

In the first review, penned by Mick LaSalle, Michael Moore's movie is pared down to two major arguments -- that the U.S. health system "isn't working," and that the U.S. needs a single-payer system like those used in England (381). LaSalle calls the first argument "persuasive," and the second "at least intriguing" (381). In this generally positive review, LaSalle does criticize Moore for being more biased than investigative when it comes to making the second argument. Kyle Smith, however, calls Moore's film "silliness" in the second review, taking a position opposite that of LaSalle's. Smith argues that Moore's first argument is obvious while his second is unfounded. The author states that France, England, and Britain's health care systems are not all that Moore cracks them up to be. In the third and final review, Mahar points out that Moore's film fulfilled its purpose of revealing, or educating, in that it both shows the problems with the U.S. health care system and the differences between U.S. health care and that of other countries. Mahar, however, argues that Moore's criticisms have left out the important problem of money in the U.S. system.

In light of these reviews, it is clear that the editor of these suit of articles made a true statement regarding the versatile nature of Moore's documentary, and the fact that it accomplishes many purposes. I believe that Moore's film was well executed and accomplished its primary goal -- to persuade. That the film makes omissions is not a fault against it, as it would be impossible and boring to list ever argument or component implied in the healthcare crisis. In addition, while some may believe Moore's film to point out the obvious, it addresses an issue that many do not want to think about.

Question Two

It is the job of reviewers to make a rhetorically persuasive case for their opinion about a book or a movie. While reviewers have made me think more deeply about a particular film, and perhaps even consider other opinions, a review has never changed my opinion about a film. This is primarily because reviewers of films typically discuss areas of the film that were not responsible for forming my opinion.

For instance, when I viewed the film Sicko, I found it to be a well put-together film that underscored my preexisting belief that healthcare in the United States is suffering. What most convinced me to form a favorable opinion of the film was the explanation of healthcare in Canada, especially the woman who pretended to live in Canada in order to get care. In addition, the testimonies of former healthcare workers convinced me to accept them film. But the reviews I read barely addressed these issues. The issues that they brought up were certainly interesting, and the caused me to think more deeply about the film, they did not address those issues that convinced me to agree with Moore.