"Fahrenheit 9/11" WINS Cannes' Palme d'Or

[Jon-M]

Weekenders wrote: "Even the ultra-libs at the NY Times pointed out that the movie is that of a polemicist, not a historian or documentarian."
This requires a response because it is a textbook case of distortion by not considering the context within which a comment was made. While Rich is conceding Moore's bias, his larger point is that Moore "implicitly raises the issue that much of what we've seen elsewhere during this war, often under the label of "news," has been just as subjectively edited." And the main point of the piece is that "Subtleties and fine distinctions are not [Moore's] thing. That matters very little, it turns out, when you have a story this ugly and this powerful to tell." The reason it is ugly and powerful, apparently (I haven't seen it) is because of the presence of facts and footage that, while not presented in a balanced context, are still difficult to ignore and must be addressed (unless you simply don't want to deal with unpleasant truths).
As for the NY Times being "ultra-liberal," that kind of labeling is an "ultra-cheap" way of discrediting (read "smearing") an ideological opponent without substantively addressing the issues they raise. The Times is actually a moderately liberal publication that gives a voice and precious space to such conservative (no, they're not "ultra") as David Brooks and William Safire; how many conservative publications do the same? That's a genuine question because I honestly don't know. There may be some but if there aren't, well, that says something too. In any case as a bona fide ultra-liberal myself, I know what is and isn't ultra-liberal, and the Times ain't it.
As for Moore, he may operate with a sledgehammer, but the moderate left allowed itself to be slandered for too long by the right and responded with mild, reasoned arguments, assuming, despite all evidence to the contrary, that their opponents--the McCarthys, the Tafts, the Nixons, the Reagans, the Limbaughs of the world--were civilized people who would also use reason and respect the differences of people who, right or wrong, genuinely had the well-being of the country and the world as their top priority. Instead, even the mild-mannered Reagan sought to attack liberalism by starting to refer to it as the "L" word, as though it were an obscenity. So, I'm glad to see liberals hitting back hard at last, and find it somewhat amusing to see how the right squeals when they get back a little of their own medicine.

[Dale]

I was thinking that maybe I'd just wait and see the movie rather than passing judgment on it at this juncture.

[Jon-M]

I was thinking that maybe I'd just wait and see the movie rather than passing judgment on it at this juncture."

Wise advice (though very discreetly not phrased as advice), and I, for one, will take it. I'm out of this for now.

[sturob]

I'm happy to pass judgment before seeing it; we've had no evidence that Moore has anything BUT bias . . . if there's a way for me to see it that's free and doesn't benefit Moore at all, then I'll maybe give it a shot. But I wouldn't want anything I do to support him monetarily.

Stuart

[Azalin]

And its too bad that you can't see the difference. As of last look, approximately half of US Americans (or did you folks move off the Continent?) share your disgust for Dubya and his merry crew.

I personally make distinction between Bush and the americans. I know that many of you are against his policies, but you are still responsible for what's happening in your country. People in general will end up mixing leader and country because, after all, we're talking "democracy" (or a race for who can raise the most money for his campaing) and a leader will usually reflect the will of the people.

I think the USA are a major threat to the world, but I don't directly blame the americans. I think it's human nature, and when you got the influence and power the americans have, when you live a life where the only things you have to worry about are how big your new house will be, how many cars you can afford, and what size your next TV is going to be, you end up indifferent to the sufferings of others, wanting things your way, exploiting the poor to get more money, etc etc. Canada does the same, to a different degree.

[Azalin]

I'd also like at add another reason why this movie, for me and I'm sure for many of us, is going to be very interesting is that most movies cinema hungry people like me end up seeing are american/hollywood movies. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm not forced to get to the movies. In most of those movies, we are brainwashed with the american way of life, the american flags, the american morals, etc.

On my favorite TV show, "24", and I said favorite, the president is a black man who has high moral values.

At the end of the day, we're not fools, and we know it's all fake. C'mon, an american president who doesnt think about money first? It's impossible. A black president in the states? Maybe in 2522. But we know it, and we know how to handle this "fakeness" in american movies without jumping off the roof.

A movie/documentary/whatever like Fahrenheit is going to be really refreshing. It's going to be propaganda, but the other way around. We will take pleasure in having the american culture criticized, we're going to enjoy every second of it, even if the documentary sucks. Because for once, we won't have american flags proudly stucked in our face, with "america is great" every 6 frames.

We're going to love Fahrenheit, but there's more to it than just anti-bush or anti-american sentiments.

[sturob]

You probably like those Molson "I AM CANADIAN" ads, too.

Stuart

[Azalin]

When you're a french canadian in Montreal city you end up in a weird and tricky situation. We actually think that Ontario is an american state, and don't really like Toronto. Many people in Quebec city think the same of people who live in Montreal. It's complicated. So, yeah, I'm proud to be canadian as long as canadian doesnt mean Ontario It's hard to keep a list of who you're supposed to like or dislike in here! But no matter what, I'm no racist and always judge someone for who he/she is, but it's always fun to have some friendly "competition" between different cultures.

K SORRY FOR THE HIJACK BACK TO THE DOCUMENTARY NOW

[Zubivka]

Funny.

I post about an American movie. I understand the movie is a pamphlet, and obviously biased against the current administration of the Americans. I don't consider it as a "documentary" since it doesn't even try and pretend to be objective. It's biased, and very openly so.
However, it's still produced by an American company, and got elected as the Movie of the Year by a jury with an American majority...

Well, when MASH won the Palme d'Or back when... I was young, I read the same about Altman. Since it was Vietnam war years, if one ridiculed one aspect of the US army THEN one was anti-American.

No matter how ridiculous it is to call anti-American a product of the American industry by an America author who never said he's not proud to be an American.

The reference to the Anti-American Horde (sorry Weeks, but seriously) I call paranoia. I'm no specialist, but it has many similar symptoms... "Everyone hates us", etc.

Next thing you know, one revives the Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)?

If you really believe the world to be anti-American, then don't worry--do it, and the world won't care: after all, it's only Americans bashing other Americans... Actually, a revived HUAC could be the shrewdest anti-American plot ever, especially with the new police methods.

The bottomline of what I believe is that this movie, and its election, and all the other Americans who give another image of America than the official one, may do a better job of fighting anti-Americanism in the world than those who call for escalation.

Now, if the opposite idea is that the half of Americans which disagrees with the current American government are traitors (because they don't march orderly), then I'm afraid of this:
Some of the same "good Americans" could have made very good Soviets just as well.
True, if the current Prez had been elected by 98% votes, I may well become anti-American just as much as I was anti-Soviet.

[Dale]

I'm happy to pass judgment before seeing it; we've had no evidence that Moore has anything BUT bias . . . if there's a way for me to see it that's free and doesn't benefit Moore at all, then I'll maybe give it a shot. But I wouldn't want anything I do to support him monetarily.

Stuart

You got a deal. Email me when the DVD hits the stores and I'll loan you my copy.

[brewerpaul]

I'm not sure, but Michael Moore may be the first ever to have won the prize with a non-fiction movie.

According to CNN, the last non-fiction to win the Palm D'Or was Jacques Cousteau: in the mid 1950's!

[Zubivka]

Back to Cannes, and the obviously arguable Palme d'Or.

Cinema is not only the modern Hollywood, or good old European low-budget farces.

There is such a thing as the engagé cinema.

When Eisenstaedt made his movies, most were obvious Communist propaganda. That doesn't make a lesser film from "Alexandr Nevskiy" or "Potemkine", or does it? Potemkine was a pamphlet, though.

When Charles Chaplin made The Dictator, it was an engagé movie too, and it was meant to shift part of the American opinion.

When Cannes prized Tarkovsky's anti-Soviet movie Andreï Rublev, just as it prized "official" movies like Bondartchuk's War and Peace before, did it make the Festival pro-Soviet, then anti-Soviet? Well there were voices to this, then that effect, true...

When it prized the first Iranian, or African movies to get international recognition, all engagé movies, about famine, or women's rights, it meant:

Cannes Festival is not restricted to a "pretty" or "entertaining" cinema, but to cinema generally.

It has given recently prizes to a very diverse scopes of movies: political, cartoons, musicals, and avant-garde things--some I just can't get into let alone dig... So what's the consistency? Just that every Palme d'Or and Grand Prix of the Jury was thought to be a new brick to pick for the story of cinema, or the closest thing to it in the given year.

Sometimes, Cannes did elect blatantly commercial blockbusters, just because the jury believed they were also good movies. Same way, Troy and Shrek 2 and Tarantino's last karate thing sequel were present this year too.

Those who believe cinema should remain and restrict itself to an entertainment industry, disconnected from the social and political con,cerns of their time, have the Hollywood Awards and Walt Disney studios for them. Although I don't believe the latter ever was politically neutral.

Now, if Cannes does show a consistent bias compared to the Awards is that, yes, it tends to lean towards the movies who could not get recognition if the cinema industry was only ruled by how many dollars a movie will make, and if the producers could be alone to tell you what to watch.

[OnTheMoor]

Keep in mind that Azalin is from Quebec, where opinions on America/Bush are almost uniformly bad. They attacked a bus of American kids who had gone there for a hockey tournament because there was an American flag on the bus. Another province (New Brunswick) later invited the team to THEIR province just to show that not all Canadians were idiots. No offense to you Azalin, but Quebec is by no means a great example of Canadian opinion.

It is a funny country we have here and I'm sure you'll agree Stuart that it defies generalizations more than most countries.... unless we're talking hockey. Good luck getting this back on topic, Canadians love talking about themselves.

[janice]

Let me start out by saying that I was absolutely thrilled to see Moore win the Palme D'or (now maybe Eisner and Company at Disney will be forced to distrubute it).

Stuart-although I'm sure there must be somebody up here who likes him, but I have yet to meet any Canadians who admit to liking Bush, and he's generally universally reviled except in that far right rag, the Sun...and I have a very difficult time believing that anyone in urban TO (home of my personal NDP hero Jack Layton, and from which no conservative seats were won in the last three provincial elections, even in the far right Harris regime) would express an admiration for him. And let me just add that I have dual American and Canadian citizenship (and grew up in Texas-almost a third citizenship there)so this is just not another "foriegn slag."

Sorry you think Ontario's just another American state Az! Maybe the Bloc will win in Quebec....

[The Weekenders]

Good points, Zub, about the history of the films and Cannes judges, and Jon, about NYTimes (I do read the op-eds everyday and yet consider Rich as an apologist in that particular argument). I admit, I went over the top this am because I am sick to death of Michael Moore. To me, he's just another celeb rich guy, laughing all the way to the bank while he @#$s on his own country and culture. I see little in that guy of constructive solutions. It's easy to just sneer and act superior when you are not in actual positions of responsibility. From other thread, most of the commentators, including the rightwingers, have the same luxury.

As for Az' comment that "when you live a life where the only things you have to worry about are how big your new house will be, how many cars you can afford, and what size your next TV is going to be, you end up indifferent to the sufferings of others, wanting things your way, exploiting the poor to get more money, etc etc." Sure doesn't describe my life. No doubt that we have the creature comforts and security that most don't but it does not justify that characterization.

That's a nice comfortable fantasy to support your position but hardly the truth. Between religion, volunteerism, military service, and unemployment, to name a few, we do think of other things in the USA.