However, if we take a closer look at this film, we find that Mike compares the United States with Europe and Japan, and does not use the most powerful socialist country. He is not as "left" as we expected. Moreover, at the end of the film, he also said: "I will never leave the United States!"
As a shrewd director, Mike knows how to attract everyone's attention, is good at digging out hot spots, and inciting emotions. However, I believe he is very clear in his heart that his so-called solution is actually not reliable.
Because this world is not black and white, and the entanglement of interest relations is not limited to labor-management antagonism. Take the house that lost the house in the opening film, for example. They have lived there all their lives. Why were they driven away? If it is an ancestral property, it should not be cut off because of high housing prices. It can be reasonably predicted that the couple originally had a very low fixed monthly payment (15 to 30 years. Or they did not have a monthly payment because they inherited from their elders. The reason for not getting the loan is because they took the house. The latest valuation reapplied for the loan, and the most likely one was a floating rate loan that only paid interest but not the principal in the previous two years. Only then did the male host say that the monthly bills were rising until they could not be paid. What Mike didn’t ask was: why they want the loan and the purpose of the new loan. The BBC has a movie called "Free Fall", which has a more detailed description of the parties involved in the subprime mortgage. http://i.mtime.com/1375117/ blog/2983041/ . We often say that almost everyone who is deceived on the street is greedy for petty and cheap. If there is no greed of its own, Wall Street is also very difficult to succeed. There is no free lunch in the world. As a senior producer, I really shouldn’t So taken out of context.
There is also praise and criticism for several presidents. Except for Roosevelt, everyone else is basically a clown. Mike has his own prejudices and is happy to emphasize this prejudice in the film, but the person watching the film needs to know that he is biased before he can draw his own analysis from the information he provides. Here, I think everyone should read "Details of Democracy" written by Liu Yu and refer to the perspective of a true sociological scholar. She wrote an article about Mike's "Sicko", in which she used one sentence as a rhetorical question from Mike's outrageous question: Who will pay the bill? It is always easier to ask questions than to solve them. It is Mike's value to ask questions, but he doesn't have a solution. In a sense, Mike is an opportunist. He proposes a seemingly straightforward solution by simplifying the problem. If we follow him exactly, it will definitely be messy. For example, he praised the scientist who invented a new drug instead of patenting it, but at the same time was aggrieved at the low wages of pilots and McDonald's managers. He probably didn't figure out what standard the value of knowledge is.
Is there an absolutely perfect system in our world? Are freedom and equality always unified? As a scholar with a deep understanding of politics and social structure, Liu Yu did not try to give us simple solutions, but gave us as much information as possible through small examples, emphasizing the necessity of looking at problems from different angles. Take watching Mike's movie, she will look for her own data to verify the feasibility of Mike's suggestion. It is easy to win sympathy with a few tragic figures, and understanding the various contradictions under the social framework is the prerequisite for the ultimate rationale for the direction of social development. Similarly, she bluntly said that she would not elect Obama as president, but McCain. When most people focus on a star who can speak slogans and mobilize the masses, how many truly rational people will pay attention to the true value and performance of politicians?
The significance of Mike is that he is aware of the situation of disadvantaged groups and uses his own talents to make a sound for these groups. He makes you excited. Liu Yu's meaning is to tell us why things are like this. Democracy is embodied in a small matter every day, not an empty concept or a cure for all diseases. She makes you think.
Obama has been in power for a long time, but the changes he claimed have not met the expectations of his followers. I think Mike is also one of the disappointed people. It's easy to say but hard to do. Massachusetts, the home of the Democratic Party, recently made a Republican governor. It is also a sign of voters returning to rationality. As Mike said in the film, everyone has a vote, and this vote represents their rights and powers. If Republicans are really useless, then this can only be said that the people are ignorant.
Watching movies against books is a new experience, this is the first one.
View more about Capitalism: A Love Story reviews
