[IMG:L]Notorious filmmaker Michael Moore is the epitome of controversy. The opinionated, erudite enfant terrible loves to ruffle feathers, while voicing his social and political concerns by the means of his documentary films. Met with dizzying criticism and praise, his films Fahrenheit 911 and Bowling For Columbine were born of his pressing need to share his overpowering views. Call him egotistical…call him cerebral–either way, his presence can’t be suppressed.
Although he’s one of the most contested directors, the Oscar-winner takes another stab at stirring-up controversy with his upcoming Cannes premiere Sicko. In the film Moore challenges the American health care system comparing it to that of other countries. Undoubtedly, the film will generate plenty of debate and animosity, not unlike his previous films.
Undeniably sharp, Moore knows exactly how to use his resources and most powerful weapon–his mouth–to his advantageal. The stalwart director exercises his freedom of speech by taking yet another swing at the U.S. government to voice his concerns.
Moore was more than happy to sit down for an exclusive with us at the Cannes Film Festival to defend himself, his filmmaking and address his complaints based on his extensive research of different health care systems, governing different countries.
Hollywood.com: Did you make specific arrangements with Cuba before your arrival in the country?
Michael Moore: First of all, I want to say that I read in the New York Post yesterday that the Bush administration is investigating the 9/11 rescue workers [from my film] who we took to Guantanamo Bay. If what the Post is saying is true, I am stunned that they would go after these rescue workers. I think that it is really shameful and it’s not fair what the Bush administration is doing. Go after me, go after the film–but leave these people alone, who the government has refused to help! And go after them because they have gone to get help? I find that shameful.
HW: Understandable.
MM: In terms of going into Cuba, when we cut out the part about getting in there, that was the satirical portion of the movie. There was no homeland security issue involved here. We first approached the Bush administration last October about wanting to go down there, and they kept stalling. By March, we decided we were going to go down as journalists. They didn’t know that we were coming on the boat.
[IMG:R]HW: In getting the 9/11 rescue workers medical treatment, did you ever think that you were making a positive marketing piece for what is essentially ‘dictatorship’?
MM: While we were there and turned away from Guantanamo Bay, we would have gone to wherever they had sent the al Qaeda prisoners, so that these rescue workers could get the same medical attention as they were getting. No more, no less. We would have gone to whichever country the prisoners were being kept, but it was just Cuba because that’s where the Bush administration decided to build the camp. So, that’s where we ended up. As for the health care, they received the same treatment as all the other patients in the room. It’s not just me saying this. All the health organizations around the world have documented the fact that the health system in Cuba is probably the best system in the third world as far as health care goes.
HW: Can you give us a specific instance?
MM: One of the lady rescue workers [I took to Cuba with me for medical attention] stayed around a little longer and said she wanted to find out if the Cubans were doing this only because the cameras were around or whether they would do this for anyone. She went back downstairs, reentered the hospital, and went to another window to check. She said that they did the exact same thing with her as they did when she first came in. They asked her name, date of birth and the nature of her health problem. Whether the cameras were on or not, everyone foreigner or not was getting the same medical attention. It was incredible to see the kind of healthcare everyone was getting. If you interview these rescues workers, they will tell you how grateful they are to have received the medical attention.
HW: Is it that in America, the problem stems from the desire to pay less and less in taxes, whereas the French, for example, pay a lot of taxes?
MM: I did say in the film that the French are “drowning in taxes.” Yes, Americans don’t want to pay taxes because they never see the results. We pay all these taxes and they can’t even get potholes fixed. Nothing works! In France, in Britain and in other places, they actually see tangible results for the money they pay in taxes. We don’t see that. That’s where the difference is.
HW: So how could this tax issue be solved?
MM: If Americans actually saw tangible results in the amount of taxes we pay, then we would probably pay even more if we were covered. In regards to personal changes, we as Americans need to restructure our thinking and believe that it is important to share and re-state the law, so that everyone is covered. Are we wiling to do that? No. People are always complaining that they don’t want to stand in line, and that they want a doctor right away. I don’t think that that kind of mentality has done us well. I think we need to learn to share and start behaving as they call us…a Christian country. I’d like to see that.
HW: Why do you do oversimplify things—doesn’t it just attract more criticism?
MM: I’m making a movie. I’m not writing a book. I have a 98- to 120-minute time frame. What you call over simplification, I call a rocking’ good way to tell a story!
HW: How has the Cannes Film Festival helped you to market your movies?
MM: It is the most prestigious festival in the world, so it’s an honor to be asked to come here–and there’s a lot of good movies that are shown. There is nothing to sell because the movie’s [Sicko has] already been sold. It’s so hard making these films, that we work hard until the last minute…it was just important to come to the south of France here, and be treated nicely.
HW: Can you suggest any immediate solutions for the U.S. government to implement?
MM: One thing we need to do is get the money out of politics and reform [things] so that we can’t buy our congress. If we took the money out, we’d have a better chance of getting the bills passed, and have this health care and find the solutions that we need.
HW: What do you want viewers to take away from Sicko?
MM: I hope that people who watch this film will become participants. I’m a filmmaker and I never talk about the process of movie making, or what I think about movies. I’m only equipped to answer political questions so far. I’m not writing a book, I’m making a movie and I’m very careful about the facts of my film. The facts in my film are accurate and correct. The fact is a fact. If I say there are nearly 50 million people without health insurance, that’s a fact. If I say other health insurance is better than ours, that’s a conclusion I’ve reached from the fact that I’ve seen it.
[IMG:L]HW: But people always question your process…
MM: I feel that my crew and I do such a good job and go through such an extenuating process on this film that it goes way above and beyond than any other publication [does]. I rarely get into a lawsuit. I only got into one suit from Bowling for Columbine, and there was one suit for Fahrenheit 9/11. If I said things that were wrong, people would be coming at me in all direction–but they don’t because the things that are said “are true” are actually true. The conclusions and opinions I reach are mine. So the only way the critics can come at me is to have a dispute on my opinions, or it has to with themselves and me.
HW: How do doctors feel about all socialized health care?
MM: Doctors did not want free healthcare for the elderly, and then came Medicaid. Doctors have been on the wrong side of this issue for a long time. They supported the HMO’s at first. They thought they would make more money through insurance companies and managed care, and they didn’t realize that insurance companies would be a lot smarter. Doctors are demoralized, and [yet] I think they will be the biggest supporters of this film.
HW: Comparatively, the Canadian health care system isn’t necessarily better. You don’t always get immediate attention.
MM: The things they do right in the Canadian health care system show that in an emergency situation, they are going to take care of you–and very quickly, and very well. If you need surgery and it’s not life threatening–but could make your life better–that kind of surgery will take a lot longer; because anytime you decide to share a pie with a table and if there is someone who is a bit hungrier than others at the table, wouldn’t the general feeling be to let them eat first? So for someone who is having an aneurism, you have to be in Canada for something like that.
HW: How many people did you take with you to Cuba for medical attention?
MM: We had close to a dozen people roughly.
HW: Did Jim, who runs the ‘anti-Michael Moore’ Web site [Moorewatch.com], ever find out that you were his mysterious donor?
MM: I left him a message recently to let him know that I was the person who sent him the money[to meet his wife’s medical bills], because I wanted him to know before the premiere of my film. I received a very gracious note from him thanking me and wishing the film well. I hope it turns out ok.
HW: Have you ever thought about moving to Canada?
MM: Yes, I have during the draft years. Otherwise, I would not live anywhere else other than the U.S. I’d like to bring more of Canada or France to the U.S. than to run away.
HW: What will be the focus of your next film?
MM: I got asked that [question] a few years ago here in Cannes and the insurance companies right away issued letters to their employees forbidding them to talk with me–and instructing them on how to avoid the topic by using other topics of discussion like weight loss [laughs]. So, I decided this time not to talk about my next film, because it’s hard as is for me. I can say, my subject matter for the next film has already been researched.
