Just a mere love story?
February 23, 2010 12:52 AM Subscribe
Capitalism: A Love Story (the meaning of "a love story")
So I'm translating this social science essay written by a Japanese professor of sociology and he gets to a point where he talks about America's reaction to the financial crisis. He gives an example of Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story. He then goes to explain (to his Japanese readers) that the subtitle "A Love Story" means "to love not only your own money, but also the money of others to the point of stealing it". Now, I haven't seen the movie myself but I get the feeling that this guy is REALLY overanalysing the title of the movie. So my question is, was there some obvious underlying theme in the movie which caused Moore to give it the subtitle "a love story", or was Moore just being ironic and nothing more?
Many thanks in advance!
So I'm translating this social science essay written by a Japanese professor of sociology and he gets to a point where he talks about America's reaction to the financial crisis. He gives an example of Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story. He then goes to explain (to his Japanese readers) that the subtitle "A Love Story" means "to love not only your own money, but also the money of others to the point of stealing it". Now, I haven't seen the movie myself but I get the feeling that this guy is REALLY overanalysing the title of the movie. So my question is, was there some obvious underlying theme in the movie which caused Moore to give it the subtitle "a love story", or was Moore just being ironic and nothing more?
Many thanks in advance!
Whether somebody is overanalysing something or just analysing it is pretty subjective. For example, molecicco glosses the title as 'America is in love with Capitalism, here are the results and they are not so lovely' but is that really that different from saying that it refers to the fact that American capitalism means "to love not only your own money, but also the money of others to the point of stealing it"? One is goign further than the other but not that much further than the other.
Moore probably is just using it as a general piece of irony. However, that doesn't mean that the professor is overanalysing the title. It is less about Moore's intent and more about the professor's argument.
posted by ninebelow at 3:08 AM on February 23, 2010
Moore probably is just using it as a general piece of irony. However, that doesn't mean that the professor is overanalysing the title. It is less about Moore's intent and more about the professor's argument.
posted by ninebelow at 3:08 AM on February 23, 2010
I thought that the subtitle ": A Love Story" was an ironic pop reference to another film or play but I can't recall what it was.
Also to me it brings to mind a kind of blind self abaseing love. ie that the USA (and even workers) who are 'in love' with Capitalism even though it is capitalism that is killing them... like one loves an abusive husband.
posted by mary8nne at 3:45 AM on February 23, 2010 [1 favorite]
Also to me it brings to mind a kind of blind self abaseing love. ie that the USA (and even workers) who are 'in love' with Capitalism even though it is capitalism that is killing them... like one loves an abusive husband.
posted by mary8nne at 3:45 AM on February 23, 2010 [1 favorite]
mary8anne: I thought that the subtitle ": A Love Story" was an ironic pop reference to another film or play but I can't recall what it was.
Enemies, a Love Story is a novel by Isaac Bashevis Singer that was made into a film in 1989.
posted by Kattullus at 4:31 AM on February 23, 2010
Enemies, a Love Story is a novel by Isaac Bashevis Singer that was made into a film in 1989.
posted by Kattullus at 4:31 AM on February 23, 2010
Hmm, my impression was that the "love story" just referred to a love of capitalism. Not necessarily the money itself, but rather the Ideal
posted by delmoi at 5:07 AM on February 23, 2010
posted by delmoi at 5:07 AM on February 23, 2010
I think it is a reference to money, that it refers to "the love for money is the root of all evil."
posted by Kattullus at 5:44 AM on February 23, 2010
posted by Kattullus at 5:44 AM on February 23, 2010
Best answer: Michael Moore may be alluding to the commodity fetish of Karl Marx, or the fetish-character of our mode of production, in which "the essence of this 'economy' is unrecognized in principle"".
posted by ts;dr at 6:09 AM on February 23, 2010
Marx's use of the term fetish can be interpreted as an ironic comment on the "rational", "scientific" mindset of industrial capitalist societies. In Marx's day, the word was primarily used in the study of primitive religions; Marx's "fetishism of commodities" might be seen as proposing that just such primitive belief systems exist at the heart of modern society.While back then the term was "used in the study of primitive religions", these days "fetish" usually has sexual connotations, so with the "love-story" he might be explaining our relationship with capitalism as an unrational and fetishistic (love-)affair.
posted by ts;dr at 6:09 AM on February 23, 2010
Well known quote from Love Story: "Love means never having to say you're sorry". Just like capitalism?
posted by iviken at 6:10 AM on February 23, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by iviken at 6:10 AM on February 23, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Just watched the movie yesterday so it's fresh in my mind. In the early part of the movie he definitely shows that we've had a love affair with Capitalism & especially Consumerism since the Fifties, one that's gone sour. But he never explicitly makes the professor's point that Wall Street was in love with other peoples' money; even with the the Dead Peasant life insurance policies & Condo Vultures stories it was more about making money off the misery of others, not loving their money.
I think mostly he just wanted to make a jarring juxtoposition between the two seemingly diametric ideas of money & love. A more accurate title might be Capitalism: A Morality Tale because the point of the movie is that unfettered capitalism is immoral, but that's not as funny.
posted by scalefree at 7:03 AM on February 23, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think mostly he just wanted to make a jarring juxtoposition between the two seemingly diametric ideas of money & love. A more accurate title might be Capitalism: A Morality Tale because the point of the movie is that unfettered capitalism is immoral, but that's not as funny.
posted by scalefree at 7:03 AM on February 23, 2010 [1 favorite]
I thought that he was using A Love Story to refer to the relationship that America has had with the ideal of capitalism, and highlighting the good and the bad that came with it (just as one would the ups and downs of a relationship). I'm not sure that this guy's point really stretches that far past my interpretation.
posted by amicamentis at 7:38 AM on February 23, 2010
posted by amicamentis at 7:38 AM on February 23, 2010
Best answer: The Google tells me that Moore explained the title of his film on the Tonight Show on September 15, 2009:
"Yes, it's Capitalism: A Love Story. The love refers to how the wealthy love their money except this has a new twist. They not only love their money now, they love our money. "
Looks like your professor was pretty much right.
posted by washburn at 7:43 AM on February 23, 2010 [3 favorites]
"Yes, it's Capitalism: A Love Story. The love refers to how the wealthy love their money except this has a new twist. They not only love their money now, they love our money. "
Looks like your professor was pretty much right.
posted by washburn at 7:43 AM on February 23, 2010 [3 favorites]
Best answer: I think it's a sarcastic joke on the most basic level possible: Moore does not like capitalism and will attack it in this movie, so he says the opposite. See here for further explanation.
What Moore said on the Tonight Show sounds like an after-the-fact rationalization to me. I think 90% of the population would have interpreted the title as I did, and he must have known that.
I liked the movie, but it really doesn't say much about capitalism. What he's really angry about (and rightly so) is corruption. But he keeps saying "capitalism" instead in a way that makes it clear he either doesn't understand what it is, or more likely just doesn't care and wants to use the word for rhetorical effect. For example, at the end he says something like "the cure for capitalism is its opposite, democracy," which is kind of like saying "the cure for physics is volleyball" in terms of logic or coherence. So I think a lot of the other answers are giving him too much credit ...he's using "capitalism" for its general emotional resonance and associations, not commenting on capitalism itself.
posted by pete_22 at 8:31 AM on February 23, 2010
What Moore said on the Tonight Show sounds like an after-the-fact rationalization to me. I think 90% of the population would have interpreted the title as I did, and he must have known that.
I liked the movie, but it really doesn't say much about capitalism. What he's really angry about (and rightly so) is corruption. But he keeps saying "capitalism" instead in a way that makes it clear he either doesn't understand what it is, or more likely just doesn't care and wants to use the word for rhetorical effect. For example, at the end he says something like "the cure for capitalism is its opposite, democracy," which is kind of like saying "the cure for physics is volleyball" in terms of logic or coherence. So I think a lot of the other answers are giving him too much credit ...he's using "capitalism" for its general emotional resonance and associations, not commenting on capitalism itself.
posted by pete_22 at 8:31 AM on February 23, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by molecicco at 1:26 AM on February 23, 2010 [2 favorites]