Goldman Sachs Helped Moore’s ‘Capitalism’ Film

Published by Jeff Leins on September 30, 2009

Michael Moore’s latest film Capitalism: A Love Story is expanding its locations this weekend and is poised (ironically) as yet another financial success for the critical documentarian.

In between slices of smug voice over, Moore takes more than a few shots at the bank holding organization Goldman Sachs.  He shows a rhetorical question by Dennis Kucinich on the House of Representatives floor asking, “Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?”  This is followed up by a bit involving an armored car at their headquarters in New York City’s Financial District (pictured above).

What he doesn’t show you and what Ira Stoll at the Future of Capitalism brilliantly points out is Goldman Sachs helped make Moore’s two hour rant on American capitalism possible.  Right up front the film reads, “in association with the Weinstein Company,” a production company whose equity holders include none other than Goldman Sachs.  Andrew Metcalfe, an Advisory Director of Goldman, Sachs & Co. sits on their board and the financial establishment advised on the $490 million transaction that formed TWC in 2005.  At that time, a Goldman Sachs spokesperson said: “We are very pleased to be a part of this exciting new venture and look forward to an ongoing relationship with The Weinstein Company.” Not exactly the poster boy for full disclosure, Michael Moore conveniently leaves this little tidbit out.

This on top of the more obvious hypocrisy of a multi-millionaire director shooting a film campaigning against capitalism.  He’s content with pointing the finger at over-paid CEOs, but what about the ringleader of a slanted cinematic venture?  (Much of this is covered in my review of the film, so I apologize if you’ve already read it.)  Ultimately it boils down to insulting our intelligence by hoping assuming we won’t make these connections.

The Sachs stunts are along the same lines.  Moore’s clownish Wall Street theatrics accomplish nothing more than to segment what might have been a thought-provoking analysis of America’s economy.  Instead it serves attention spans the length between TV commercial breaks and waters down any remaining socio-political message.  Mass appeal and… well, laziness are the factors here, which will prove unfulfilling for anyone expecting (for whatever reason) high-minded arguments.  After all, why should Moore invest time fact-finding or truth-seeking when he could fill time with footage from pestering security guards and driving an armored car?

Rachel Beck, a national business columnist for the Associated Press, has more on the facts behind the film.