MovieChat Forums > Where to Invade Next (2016) Discussion > From a French viewer's perspective, Moor...

From a French viewer's perspective, Moore doesn't tell everything...

posted 8 years ago by Guildion
9 replies | jump to latest

First of all I started watching this film thinking that it was going to be a socialist propaganda like we're used to in France, because I know Michael Moore I've seen 2 of his previous documentary.

At first I was surprised, because the documentary starts fairly well, many points stands, and I have nothing to say against this :
- 5 weeks of paid holidays per year are good
- 13th month paid in some companies is good
- our representatives in townhalls or region hq care about what is served in cantinas for children and it's good
- pregnant women have months of paid holidays, and in some euro countries, husbands too, it's good
- prevention and education for sexual relation is better than abstinence
etc...

But, and here I have to say Michael Moore hasn't been completely honest in my opinion :

- I'm French and trust me you don't want to pay the amount of taxes we have to pay here. We're number 1 worldwide in the amount of money the state takes in our pockets (yes Moore lied). We're the worst bureaucracy ever, everything is complicated when it comes to papers (making a company is easy, but everything else is a nightmare). Our money isn't always used like the majority of the people would like. Yes we have free healthcare, free schools and many more advantages. But all that free things are costly, and not always good. Nowadays the general feeling is that our money is not used well. And France is in debt ! Despite we didn't suffered the crisis the way USA or Spain did, and despite here historicaly, households prefer/can save money instead of contracting loans.
Heavy taxes can be good if the money is well used, but they're not if the money isn't.

- Drugs in western Europe, France and I think Portugal too, aren't as dangerous as in USA. Here we have cannabis, of course, it's cheap and widespread. Then we have cocaine, and chemical pills, ecstasy, LSD, but it's much more expensive here than in the USA, and we don't have to deal with the same quantities in our streets. We don't have horrible heroine, meth and that kind of super addictive and dangerous substances, affordable, and easy to get. If we had to face the amount of hard drug there is in USA, and their addictive power, and their level of dangerosity for health, and their low prices, of course consumers would be arrested, put in hospitals and prisons, and a war would be led to try to stop the spreading.
In the end of the sequence in Portugal, where the people were interviewed, they were singing the soviet union anthem, "the internationale", the communist political official song worldwide. Of course these people are for the use of drugs, because "man it's progressive you know... it's good for health look at the Netherlands they legalized cannabis and it's cool"

- Prisons in Norway are like this it's true, but this country is very rich thanks to oil, they can afford it, and they aren't a 66 millions people country like France with numerous big urban areas. Norway is small and rich and it's an exception. And I'm sure if you ask other parents who lost their children on the island, they certainly wouldn't all be so "progressive" like the father we could hear. Remember, his children were in a socialist gather. Other families surely wonder why this mass murderer is allowed to play xbox in his confortable "cell" with Internet. Personal shower in Norway's prison cells is affordable, oil is a blessing.

- Prisons in France are the worst of the western world, because our socialists can't stop the rise of criminality, and because their ideology prevent them from building more prisons. So our prisons are overcrowded with extra european foreigners, and the criminality is in constant augmentation. I won't even talk about the islamic spread inside our prison... which increase the problem even more.

- The suppression of death penalty combined with the massive immigration and the constant rise of criminality have the effect that the ladder of penalties collapsed. Sentenced delivered by our judges don't make sense anymore. For the same crime, 2 persons will get completely different sentences, and this isn't related to the effectiveness of your lawyer, here lawyers are free (paid by tax payers). We have thousands of recidivists with dozens of lines written on their criminal background without a single day of prison ! They're free because socialist judges believe that "man you know prison is not human...", because our socialist leaders' ideology make them reluctant to build more prisons, and because they want always more mass immigration coming from countries where "a woman in skirt is a whore free to rape".

- Tunisia is the only arab/muslim country among the lot that rebelled against their leaders that seem to genuinely become democratic and free for it's people. It's a long process, it's not over yet, islamist are threatening to take power. We'll see in the long term. Other countries which experienced the "arab spring" all fell into "islamic winter" or chaos.
You can't compare the current USA with the former Tunisia of Ben Ali. When Ben Ali ruled, corruption was everywhere, censorship was everywhere, torture, political prisoners, etc... I don't think in USA the cops stop you in the street and ask you money so you can cross a road, or sell fruits.
It's true you have a problem with some banksters and some of your political figures, but you can't compare it with the Ben Ali's family.
I believe if Tunisia is succeeding, it could be related to the close ties the country kept with France. Democracy, Freedom, women's rights and such western concepts are more understanded in Tunisia than in Egypt or Lybia or Syria, because lot of Tunisians speak French, watch French tv, studied in France and became familiar with occidental concepts.
Of course Tunisians managed by themselves to get rid of Ben Ali and to gain their new freedom, and congratulations to them !

- Perpetual and systematic repent for every wrong things done in a country in the past combined with socialism lead to the loss of self-esteem, national unity, patriotism, and the constant bashing of your own country, by your own countrymen, and by the people who come from other countries to live in your country.
Then comes identity problems, problem to keep your traditions, your values, your way of life, etc...
Patriotism is an important thing in USA, it keeps your country united, you don't have an old country. Think twice before adopting socialism, which ideology is to "eradicate borders, nations, cultures, bourgeoisie, etc... in order to create one new race free from roots and history".

Everything I quoted with ", I heard it for real, several times, in my own socialist country.

[–] wendycscott9 8 years ago

This movie wasn't a defense of everything they do in Europe, just some good things, as you also point out, the punch line being that these were originally American ideas, and perhaps it would be good if we adopted them, too. It would have been impossible to point out all the flaws you mentioned in all the countries you mentioned in a two-hour documentary. And as Michael Moore himself points out, that wasn't the purpose of this film. They went looking to see what other countries are doing and found some things. Just because none of those countries are perfect (which countries are?) shouldn't preclude pointing out what works.

Check out this video where Lawrence O'Donnell interviews Michael Moore about how and why he made this film. Fast forward 15 minutes into it to see the interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_QpBFQqjO0

—
"How was the war, sir?"
"As any war, ma'am, a waste of good men." (Poldark)

[–] MarcoPalo 8 years ago

You make a lot of good points, and I could comment on several, but I'll just mention one about the prisons in Norway. They have so few guards and they aren't run by people who make a profit off of keeping people in prison. Decades ago the state of Missouri looked to California (my state) for how to deal with juvenile delinquents. Their recidivism rate was in the high 70s, the same as California's, So they decided that they would try something different.

They got rid of all their juvenile prisons and created a bunch of small group home like compounds that only housed an average of 5 to 10 teens. When a child arrived they were assigned a small stuffed animal as a buddy. If the teen destroyed or lost it, they were always given another until they learned to keep it. They wouldn't let them eat junk food, only wholesome real food. They had gardens and had the teens work in the gardens to grow much of it themselves. They had therapists of various kinds working with them every day and they helped them with their learning and skills.

After several years of this, the recidivism rate dropped to the high teens, like 17%. So, from 77% down to 17%. Those teens were then out working and paying taxes instead of being a burden on taxes. They were breaking the cycle of family problems that got them there (most kids in juvenile prison are from broken families and are also victims of abuse from a very early age).

Here, in adult prison, most, even if they're not run by for profit companies, have profit centers, like high telephone calls out and high fees in their little stores. These profits offset the cost of the prison. But they lead to disconnecting the prisoners from their families and communities and making them more resentful to a system that they see as abusive, and one that takes away their voices by, in many states not letting them ever vote again even when they are out and off probation.

In the movie Michael Moore shows what our tax itemization should look like, and he sites the military as (I think) 68% of where our taxes go. I don't know if it's that high, but no number I've ever seen has ever been below 50%. That's crazy. Other countries should share the costs, the policing and the decisions as to how the world adjudicates disputes or responds to aggression.

Moore only had so much time in the movie, and he was trying to make a point that there are more successful models available. In the USA we just hear about US exceptionalism and that we are the best. And if you question it you are often shouted down as unpatriotic and told "you should leave the country if you don't like it." Most Americans are told and believe that we have the best of everything, but if you look at the international standings we are no where near the top in many areas, and i think we're almost last in education.

Sorry for going on so long. You see why I picked just one topic.
m

[–] [email protected] 8 years ago

In the movie Michael Moore shows what our tax itemization should look like, and he sites the military as (I think) 68% of where our taxes go. I don't know if it's that high, but no number I've ever seen has ever been below 50%. That's crazy. Other countries should share the costs, the policing and the decisions as to how the world adjudicates disputes or responds to aggression.

In point of fact the entire military budget is about 15 percent of Federal expenditures. What fools you (and apparently Michael Moore) is that most social spending is "off budget"--the military is a little over half of the "on budget" spending. When you look at both "on-budget" and "off-budget" items it works out to about 60 percent of Federal expenditures are social programs--Social Security, Medicaid, etc.

[–] wendycscott9 8 years ago

Social Security is paid for by FICA taxes. It's not part of the budget. So is Medicaid. Whatever the percentage is, we spend far too much on our military, especially considering there are no standing armies at our borders trying to invade us. I just heard we're planning on spending $1 trillion over several decades to improve our nuclear weapons. Is that stupid or what? We couldn't possibly use even one of those bombs without destroying everyone on this planet, if not immediately, over time with the radiation. We should be dismantling them, not improving them. And they should everywhere else, too. When I think what that money could be used for, it breaks my heart. Think how many people could be educated, have their healthcare needs met, how many roads could be improved, bridges rebuilt, Superfund sites cleaned up, etc. It's just a shame.

—
"How was the war, sir?"
"As any war, ma'am, a waste of good men." (Poldark)

[–] venusthrow 7 years ago

In the movie Michael Moore shows what our tax itemization should look like, and he sites the military as (I think) 68% of where our taxes go. I don't know if it's that high, but no number I've ever seen has ever been below 50%. That's crazy. Other countries should share the costs, the policing and the decisions as to how the world adjudicates disputes or responds to aggression.

In point of fact the entire military budget is about 15 percent of Federal expenditures. What fools you (and apparently Michael Moore) is that most social spending is "off budget"--the military is a little over half of the "on budget" spending. When you look at both "on-budget" and "off-budget" items it works out to about 60 percent of Federal expenditures are social programs--Social Security, Medicaid, etc.

While I do not agree with your figures, I would think that showing where exactly your taxes went to (including if something is off vs on budget), would produce transparency in government.

I am guessing Michael Moore's simplification of a complicated budget was used to prove a point. Personally I think it would be great to see exactly where our paycheck goes to, especially at the time we get paid.

[–] evilcookiepixie 8 years ago

While I think you raise some valid points I think you miss the point of what he was saying. He never tried to claim that all this is perfect, he was only trying to argue against some phalacies that are used in the US. For example the Norway prisons. Yes, a lot of countries could not afford that. And yes in the US has a huge problem with people being stuck in poverty stricken dangerous areas and most will turn to crime (personally I can't blame them), much like in ghetos in France. But the prisons are so dangerous and uneffective, there is huge room for improvement. The point is that prisoners don't have to be beaten down, humiliated, raped etc. And shouldn't be! The American people accept this as reality because they completely dehumanise prisoners instead of trying to rehabilitate them. With the Norway segment Moore shows them as people and shows a different attitude toward them.

Also, I checked many statistics on taxes and none listed France as having the highest taxes.

[–] timroth 8 years ago

Even if you are correct about the type of drugs in Europe vs America, we in the U.S. Can't even legalize marijuanna, which is far less dangerous than booze or cigarettes, which can be bought at any corner store. And even if our drugs are more dangerous, how is putting users in jail solving the problem??? We spend billions arresting, convicting and incarcerating drug users, and it has little or no effect. We from prohibition how this method of substance control fails, and yet we still believe it will work with drugs.

[–] cinema-23561 8 years ago

Norway is NOT just about Oil it is about turning their oil profits into a green energy model for the world. The oil is temporary they are leaders in green energy. You don't get Moore's point in the USA the corporate privatisation of almost everything means that those things are not called taxes but they are taxes without democratic representation and Americans pay the most for everything. A simply ointment you can buy for twenty Euros can cost $200 in the USA. That is taxation by corporations. Your French prisons are full precisely because France is a reactionary country that does not adhere to Norwegian principles. Most prisoners in most countries should not be in prison. France is like the USA when it comes to prisons the Justice system is totally racist.

[–] stephaniiehallberg 8 years ago

I bet 99% Americans after this documentarty thinks United States should invade Norway next.. because of the oil =)