Sicko Documentary: Psychology Behind Moore's Persuasion

Introduction: Moore's Approach to Documentary Filmmaking

Michael Moore is an American filmmaker who has created a body of work and a niche market for hard-hitting documentaries about issues critical to American culture. In 2007, he directed, produced, wrote, and starred in a documentary called Sicko, about the American healthcare system. Moore's films have a habit of polarizing audiences — viewers have been known to strongly agree with him and equally known to vehemently disagree. Moore's success comes from his approach to addressing tough issues that routinely provoke debate. He is additionally successful because his early work attracted the attention of major film figures such as the Weinsteins, who, through one of their several production companies, produced Sicko.

Michael Moore knows his audience. He knows the people who will agree with him immediately and require no convincing regarding his ideas. More importantly, he knows his critics. Moore is one of a few directors who consistently and intentionally produces films with his critics in mind throughout the production process. Psychologically, this is a position of power, and he reaches it with subtlety. Moore presents counterarguments to his critics within the film itself, leaving those critics little room to attack it. Moreover, he presents these counterarguments in such a way that there is, again, little room for effective criticism.

Exposing Flaws in the American Healthcare System

Michael Moore contends that the American healthcare system is itself sick and contributes directly to the lack of health in the country. He makes this argument through the strategic use of examples. For instance, Moore made an announcement online inviting Americans to share their horror stories within the American healthcare system as context for the film. Within a day, he received thousands of stories. Within a week, the number had grown to the tens of thousands.

Moore exposes the defects in the American healthcare system through numerous examples and publicly accessible research, which is his usual approach. Notably, he shows very few examples of people who lack health insurance. Most of the examples of mistreatment come from people who have insurance and, in several cases, from former employees of the insurance industry itself. Moore includes an interview with a former claims reviewer whose sole professional objective was to comb through approved claims for any minute detail that could be used to overturn an approval — thereby saving the company money.

There is also a compelling example of a medical doctor who testified before a congressional committee, confessing her direct contribution to the death of a patient by denying him a procedure that could have saved his life. She further confessed that she was never held accountable for this action; instead, she was rewarded for using her medical expertise to deny people claims. These are powerful examples drawn from voices within the very industry the film puts on trial. They are just as powerful and moving as the accounts from individuals who had health insurance and were denied care. Some of the people interviewed died before the film was completed. Their stories are stark and affecting because the health insurance industry — which Moore demonstrates has clear ties to the highest levels of government — literally cost them their lives.

Moore's suggestions for improving healthcare are mostly indirect. He makes few direct pejorative comments about the healthcare and health insurance industries. Instead, proposed improvements to the system emerge through the voices of those he interviews — whether they have insurance or not, or whether they are current or former employees of insurance companies. Moore also references the experiences of Americans who have traveled abroad, as well as the perspectives of residents of other countries.

International Comparisons and Implied Reforms

Moore implies the problems with the American system and proposes improvements through the voices of those he interviews. He speaks, for example, with employees of pharmacies and medical centers in countries such as the United Kingdom. Their answers to his questions reveal where the American system is faulty without requiring Moore to state it directly. Their reactions to his questions are often more revealing than their answers. They laugh out of astonishment; they are stunned because they have never had to answer such questions, as they participate in systems where the conditions necessary for those problems simply do not exist.

More than merely suggesting a better form of healthcare, Sicko makes very transparent what is wrong with American healthcare and how it compares to systems across the developed world. This comparative approach allows Moore to critique the American system by contrast rather than by direct accusation — a rhetorically sophisticated and psychologically effective strategy.

Conclusion: Film as a Lesson in Applied Psychology

If one constructs an opposing argument from the same perspective and resources as are natural to the opponent, it becomes very hard for that opposing party to disagree. It becomes hard for them to dismiss the ideas outright, and hard for them not to at least minimally relate to those ideas. Moore demonstrates his knowledge and skill in applied persuasion by structuring his film and arguments in precisely this way. People may still disagree with him or find him irritating, yet despite personal feelings, the effectiveness of his methods is difficult to contest.

The film is, in this respect, a lesson in the use of psychology. As Moore's work illustrates, psychology can be used to support and motivate those who already agree with us, to inform those who are undecided about an issue, and to reach and open the minds of those who are in opposition. Sicko achieves all three simultaneously — and that is precisely what makes it a powerful and enduring documentary.