David Weigel | July 9, 2007
Roger Hickey argues that SiCKO is "building a movement."
Now breaking box office records in its second week in theaters, SiCKO conveys powerfully emotional stories of Americans trapped in a system controlled by insurance and drug companies that deny care and destroy lives in order to maintain their profits.
Except... it's not breaking any records. None at all. It came in 9th at the box office this weekend and made less money than last weekend despite expanding from 441 to 702 screens. Its per-screen average was $5,199. Not awful, but not as good as Rescue Dawn, Transformers, or Joshua, and only marginally better than Live Free or Die Hard. It's only the 8th highest-grossing documentary of all time, and the way things are going it's unlikely it'll do more than knock Madonna: Truth or Dare out of the 5th spot. Adjust for inflation and it wouldn't even do that.
Michael C. Moynihan gave SiCKO a pan in our pages. Last week I noticed that the movie was stiffing rather badly.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
I saw Transformers this weekend.
20 minutes in I was thinking that even Sicko would have been a
better choice.
That isn't intended as praise for Sicko.
Oh, I'm sure it's breaking some box office records like largest
opening by a documentary in the history of Alaska.
Having the 9th highest gross of the week while being on 742 screens
doesn't sound all that bad for a documentary, nor does pushing
Madonna out of the 5th spot. If only he'd found a way to put a
penguin on the poster.
I'm sure somewhere Michael Moore is dreaming of the day when he can acheive the popular influence and monetary success of Reason magazine.
If only he'd found a way to put a penguin on the
poster.
Right. A Penguin marriage and you've got box office gold,
Baby!
thoreau, I am so very, deeply sorry. I hoped you punched anyone who made you go right in the throat.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, the numbers still
don't prove much. Yes, SiCKO almost doubled the number of
screens but fell off 19% (a very low 2nd week fall-off, btw,
probably due to the increase in screens). But let's see what the
numbers look like by the end of the summer when the damned thing is
still playing.
BTW, Transformers had a mind boggling budget of $150
million and opened on 4,011 screens. Do you really think
that's a fair comparison?
"I saw Transformers this weekend."
why?
that's a far better question than i could come up with about
sicko.
I'm sure somewhere Michael Moore is dreaming of the day when
he can acheive the popular influence and monetary success of Reason
magazine.
Oh, Moore's making off OK. The movie's turning a profit and he
might even win another Oscar. I'm not knocking him as much as I'm
knocking the people who think "box office numbers on low end of
expectations" = "launching a movement."
David, I think the idea is that Moore has tapped into an idea that already existed among the majority of Americans; namely, with all our resources, we could be doing better. Even if Sicko doesn't sell one more ticket, it's hard to deny that the film has not successfully thrust our lousy health-care system into mainstream national debate. That's what's important, box office numbers aside.
dhex-
When I was a kid I absolutely loved those toys. So of course I had
to see the movie.
Man, what a mistake that was.
One of the guys who worked on the script for Transformers is
matching charitable donations this month. You give a buck to the
charity, he also gives a buck. This is our chance to bankrupt
him.
Details here:
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/07/charity-of-month-fisher-house.html
from the article another quote:
We walk into the movie house individuals with our particular
gripes about the health care system. And we walk out wanting to be
part of a national movement for health care for all.
I may be mistaken, haven't most people going to see Sicko
made up their minds already about the need for universal health
care in this country? Or does the author really think that this
film is going to jumpstart a grassroots campaign? That to me is
wishful thinking and a bit naive to think that Americans today are
able to organize anything close to what is need to achieve such a
lofty goal.
Are big-budget summer blockbusters really the proper yardstick
for measuring the success of a political documentary?
Ah, Reason - where the Ron Paul campaign is catching on like
wildfire, but SICKO is a failure because on its second weekend in
release, it is only in the top ten all time of a very generously
stretched definition of its genre.
I may be mistaken, haven't most people going to see Sicko
made up their minds already about the need for universal health
care in this country?
No, you're not mistaken, at least not regarding the movie's
audience so far. The fact is, however, that we are inching toward
some form of government controlled national "health-care system"
and one could just as easily argue that Moore's film is effect
rather than cause in that shift.
Are big-budget summer blockbusters really the proper
yardstick for measuring the success of a political
documentary?
I mean Goering's box office returns couldn't hold a candle to
Moore's even adjusting for inflation.
We walk into the movie house individuals with our particular
gripes about the health care system. And we walk out wanting to be
part of a national movement for health care for all.
Reminds me of the type of person who will blame a movie whenever
some kid commits a crime.
Thanks to the series of tubes and a hash, I had opportunity yo
download and watched Sicko before it even hit theaters.
Not a good movie. Moore's an illogical nanny stater.... A rich one
at that...the worst kind!
I mean Goering's box office returns couldn't hold a candle
to Moore's even adjusting for inflation.
I think you mean Goebbels, and I'll bet Leni Riefenstahl's
Triumph des Willens did boffo boxoffice back in '35.
it's hard to deny that the film has not successfully thrust
our lousy health-care system into mainstream national
debate
"Mainstream" debate? If politicians talking at each other is
mainstream, if policy wonks debating other policy wonks is
mainstream, then yes. But I don't see or hear any friends or
coworkers debating healthcare. I work at a normal company with
normal people who have typical health issues. It just isn't being
talked about, much less "debated." But then again, we're not very
smart.
I think you mean Goebbels, . .
Two weeks ago I couldn't spell historian . . . now I are one
Hey, gang, let's play "Spot Danny McTroll!"
Who wants to go first?
Oh, you all already know, huh. Shoot.
a very generously stretched definition of its
genre.
And never is the definition of "documentary" stretched farther than
when it includes a Moore film.
It's obviously not doing well because of the medical-pharmaceutical complex that stole the movie and leaked it online to subvert Moore's message.
And never is the definition of "documentary" stretched
farther than when it includes a Moore film.
Ya know, uncomfortable as I am in the role of Michael Moore
defender here, that's not really true, either. Documentaries from
Nanook of the North on have been staged or presented
biased POVs in the guise of objectivity. Moore just found a way to
commercialize the genre by extending 60 Minutes style ambush
journalism with an entertaining narrative.
it's hard to deny that the film has not successfully thrust
our lousy health-care system into mainstream national
debate.
Awkward double-negative notwithstanding, it isn't hard to deny at
all. The health-care system has been a subject of "mainstream
national debate" for more than two decades.
A couple weeks ago NPR's movie guy reviewed the weekend's three new releases. Actually, he reviewed two. Here's how the six and a half minute segment broke down: one minute each for Die Hard and Ratatouille, in which he told us what he liked or didn't like about those films; the remaining four and a half minutes were spent canonizing Michael Moore. It's okay to like the movie, but jeez. OTOH, Moore's appearance on Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me was actually very engaging. The stories about the insurance companies preparing for his arrival were priceless.
"When I was a kid I absolutely loved those toys. So of course I
had to see the movie."
you know what, i know i had a lot of those toys and saw the
cartoons and whatnot, but i don't remember a fucking thing about
them. that's the weirdest shit, isn't it? there are huge gaps in my
memories from childhood that all of my friends can remember and i'm
left with a vague wistfulness. i remember a lot of the shit i read,
and i remember a fair amount about the video games i played, and
the sports and the usual triumphs and (mostly) tragedies, but when
it comes to cartoons and toys...nothing.
like the other day i had no idea he man had an alter ego who was
like clark kent wussy. i figured he wandered about like a
hypersexualized barbarian all the time. but i had all those toys,
so i should have remembered this stuff. gone. totally gone. which
isn't really a bad thing, mind you, but i do wonder where all this
shit went.
in lighter news i heard an interesting theory this weekend that
moore is a propagandist for the un. that would actually give me
hope, cause if he's the best the superstate can come up with maybe
things won't be so bad, but uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no.
Yeah, but "Truth or Dare" rocked! I mean, it ROCKED!
I won't be seeing SICKO because I'm too tight to give MM a dime,
but as propaganda I think it's going to work better than a lot of U
of Chi school economists want to admit. Because people are weak,
damn it! They're weak! Frankly, they don't deserve to survive!
You know what would be a quick and easy way to determine whether
SiCKO had helped launch a major national debate about the health
care system?
Take a look at media outlets, like Hit & Run for instance, and
see if they've been running more pieces on the subject since SiCKO
hit the national media.
Documentaries from Nanook of the North on have been staged
or presented biased POVs in the guise of objectivity.
But how many are as deliberately deceptive as a MM production? Take
a look at the top 100 grossing documentaries
Now I'd say Inconvenient Truth and Super Size Me are pure Agitprop
but no one is as shameless in their construction of false reality
as MM.
Oh, I don't know, Warren. I'd say No. 89, Inside Deep Throat was pretty hard to swallow, too.
I agree with joe. The best thing we can do is just ignore Moore until he goes away.
I agree Alan Vanneman, people are weak. I think a lot of times
we confuse how the film will affect our social circles with how it
will affect the masses.
Joe - I don't think threads where everyone talks about SICKO and
how much they can't stand MM count as "major national debate about
the health care system." I'm not even sure that most people
understand what a "debate" is, or what good such a national debate
would do if nobody knows wtf they're talking about.
I'm not even sure that most people understand what a
"debate" is, or what good such a national debate would do if nobody
knows wtf they're talking about.
Right. Debating isn't the same as complaining. Lots of Americans
complain about their health and other things, but we're too stupid
(most of us) to do it intelligently. It's mostly emotional and
ineffectual whining. Too bad, as it will require courage and
intellect to steer us away from the disaster of socialized
medicine.
I think "It's a bad thing that the ignorant general public is discussing health care because of SiCKO" is a pretty good fallback position from "No one is discussing health care because of SiCKO."
Take a look at media outlets, like Hit & Run for instance, and see if they've been running more pieces on the subject since SiCKO hit the national media.
I know you were thinking "Snap! Gotcha!", but really Hit & Run
talks about health care insessantly long before SiCKO.
We *ARE* talking about SiCKO more since the release of SiCKO.
Hey, joe, I have an idea.
I'm going to start a major national debate about our urban
development system and how it's broken! The focus of it will be
that we need more zoning for single-use structures spaced farther
apart, and without those nasty little sidewalks that nobody uses
because it costs a lot of money for something nobody uses. Then the
entire f'ing country will weigh in on this "debate" and we'll come
up with some lovely federal policy that completely upends anything
you want to do. They'll do so with good intentions,
thinking it will improve their quality of life.
Bring it on, Reinmoose.
We'll kick your ass. As with health care, the left gives voice to
the majority's dissatisfaction with the status quo in urban
development and sprawl, and the right can only play defense against
their criticisms.
"""and the way things are going it's unlikely it'll do more than
knock Madonna: Truth or Dare out of the 5th spot."""
I'd rather watch Madonna deep throat a water bottle over Moore
bitching about health care any day.
My contempt for Michael Moore is second to none, but this gloating over Sicko's alleged box office failure is pathetic. It's on pace to make around $25 million, right around what Bowling for Columbine and An Inconvenient Truth made. This is phenomenal business. How many political documentaries make even $1 million in theatrical release?
the left gives voice to the majority's dissatisfaction with
the status quo in urban development and sprawl, and the right can
only play defense against their criticisms.
Ah, but which one is better suited for masturbation? I would say
both.
joe -
It never ceases to amaze me how after ages at H&R you still
think everyone understands this "left/right" bullshit you pull.
jimmydageek,
There is nothing masturbatory about urban planning. Nothing. At
all.
I was just combing my hair.
I'm sorry. I stopped reading after the half-assed attempt against Michael Moore's patriotism.
blues,
"That to me is wishful thinking and a bit naive to think that
Americans today are able to organize anything close to what is need
to achieve such a lofty goal."
Americans today can't even organize their own closets, much less a
health plan. Nothing will ultimately come of this, except that
we'll all end up paying more taxes for something that works worse
for the majority of us.
I doubt Moore would have made this move had he not thought that
this was an issue the average American worried about. And look at
it--ok, you don't get insurance, when something goes wrong you have
to pay your own medical expenses. Everyone understands that, and
will admit to a certain "fairness" even while bitching about the
cost of medical treatment.
But after you've gone ahead, virtuously trimmed your budget to pay
for that very important health insurance, and then discover you're
in the hands of an entity which will deny, deny, deny payment on
the slightest terms? Accusations of "pre-existing conditions",
insistance that "you have to get permission to use an ambulance
first" (what am I, a foreteller?), denial of anything can be
possibly interpreted as "experimental" (never mind that the
standard treatment isn't working.) No wonder Moore hit a
nerve.
When people in health insurance companies get bonuses based on the
number of claims they turn down, that's just totally insane.
If Moore's film ends up forcing insurance companies to straighten
up and stop screwing the people who have signed contracts with
them, then more power to him. Maybe he being the boogeyman to the
insurance companies, rattling the bones of Socialized Medicine in
their faces is the best way to get them to shape up.
Face it--the US health system feels broken to more and more
Americans. If private industry doesn't fix their problems, there
WILL be a push for government to step in and try to solve the
problem. If Libertarians don't like that prospect, they should be
screaming bloody murder at the insurance companies and pushing as
hard as possible for them to fix things. Moore is just a chip
riding on the surface of the flood.
Fans of nationalization want to hype the movie as part of their
agenda. Opponents would like to make it seem irrelevant so that
there is no sense of a national movement.
There is a national movement, at least in the form of the grey
horde known as the AARP, and they all vote. Opponents of a national
program will lose. Innovation will clang to a halt for a number of
years and people will die and suffer as a result. No one will blame
Moore or his advocates for constructing a system that doesn't
incentivize innovation.
Simultaneously, the costs of existing national health programs will
climb at a greater rate without the US market subsidizing costs and
providing an outlet for people who want to pay for quality. It will
be seen as the cost of doing business, and no one will blame Moore
or his advocates for pushing a system that was so obviously cost
effective only a few years earlier.
My only hope is that either the costs of the system will rise to
intolerable levels and market incentives will be reintroduced, or
the old cohort all die and the remaining younger folk vote for more
innovation.
In the mean time, though, it is going to suck.
Pardon my bitterness. I just see a bunch of people trying to ensure I wind up with untreatable Altzheimers on or about by 70th year.
Perhaps the headline should have read, "Doctor, I've had a box office for more than four hours."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245