"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11&

[nobbie]

Michael Moore's new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" has just won the main prize, the "Palme D'Or" award, at this year's film festival in Cannes.

More infos at http://www.michaelmoore.com .

Congratulations, Mike, and keep up the good work! ;)

[TaiDaishar]

:blink:

[Haider]

As long as he doesn't label it 'Documentary'...
Well, let the flaming of him begin. At least he inspires controversy, and this is more than most film makers can say.

[Sir_Die_alot]

No doubt he has once again short sightedly blamed guns, big business, and America for the worlds problems. And once again like thinking people have said "Wow Mike you are a genius! Here have this shiny new statue!"

This is like a Ronald Regan foundation awarding Rush Limbaugh an award, respectable in his own circles but just an eye roller for everyone else. Maybe if he earns something that comes close to resembling real, rather than friends and like minded people patting him on the back he deserves some congratulations. <_<

[[wcip]Angel]

Michael Moore's new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" has just won the main prize, the "Palme D'Or" award, at this year's film festival in Cannes.

More infos at http://www.michaelmoore.com .

Congratulations, Mike, and keep up the good work! ;)

Did you hear he was nominated for an academy award for best science fiction? :)

I think most people see him as an agitator (like Jesus) but without the wisdom ;) I like his films. They're entertaining and show me why fundamentalist people are screwed in the head, no matter what they're zealous about.

[Rhydderch Hael]

The news has been making a stink about Micheal Moore making a stink about Disney making a stink about Farenheit 9/11. What is the deal going on there?

Is Moore complaining about Disney censoring him on the grace that they won't pick up his film for distrubution (which in that case, go look for another distrubutor, you fat troll!).

Or is it that Disney bought or controls the distribution rights to the film (presumably for the express purpose of...) refusing to have it released on a wide scale (which in that case, damnation to the Mouse!).

[Sir_Die_alot]

Disney owns the movie already, but decided the movie was too controversial and didn't want the potential customer backlash. (something about customers from all political persuasions) If they didn't want controversy I have no idea why they would even get involved with Moore though.

From what I understand his stink is about a decision made over a year ago about not releasing his movie. He just hasn't finalized a new distributer who will buy the rights to his movie and distribute it. Personally I think he is just making a lot of noise so people will see his movie when it finally does come out, just to see what the noise is about. :P

[nobbie]

Angel,May 22 2004, 10:40 PM]I think most people see him as an agitator (like Jesus) but without the wisdom ;) I like his films. They're entertaining and show me why fundamentalist people are screwed in the head, no matter what they're zealous about.

Michael Moore's films and books are always both documentary and (political) satire, and because satire is personal and subjective, I always take his (and anyone else's) satirical works with "a grain of salt". Nevertheless, Michael Moore is actually able to move something, and I like that. I could see some bits of "Fahrenheit 9/11", and - albeit the theme is serious - they were well done pieces of film (speaking of documentary/satire film-making as art and craft here). Many other films of that category appear rather pale and dull compared to his films. His "The Big One (Downsize This)" and "Bowling for Columbine" were already good films, but I guess "Fahrenheit 9/11" will top them by a wide margin, not only commercially ;)

[BigGrim]

Disney is the parent company of Miramax that financed the film after Mel Gibson's Icon Productions backed out two weeks into production. I think that Disney is probably just protecting their business from potential backlashes, and that Fahrenheit 9/11 will eventually be widely distributed since with the media coverage it is getting now it will do what a lot of people in the business think is the bottom line. It'll make people money.

-Grim-

[Rhydderch Hael]

Thank you for the clarification. When I first read the news story, it never made mention that Disney (through Miramax) already had controlling interest on distrubution, and the article instead implied that Moore was complaining that Disney refused to become a customer, as it were, and buy his film for distribution purposes.

I had to approach that slant with healthy, sensible skepticism and assume that the news article wasn't giving a full picture of the situation.

[Jester]

"Maybe if he earns something that comes close to resembling real, rather than friends and like minded people patting him on the back he deserves some congratulations."

Might I inquire what, exactly, is a more "real" award for a filmmaker than the Palme d'Or? While the art-film world tends to the left, this was not an award given to him by COMINTERN. This is Cannes, and last I checked, they hand out awards for filmmaking. The juries are selected from filmmakers for their filmmaking, not for their fit into some ideological clique. Maybe you don't like his message, obviously you don't like his movies, but this statement is ridiculous. This is most certainly a "real" award, probably the most "real" he could win.

Jester

[Sir_Die_alot]

Maybe I'm just not as impressed by someone who makes movies about stereotypes and suddenly people call it a work of art. Pleeeeease. :wacko: It's a liberal comedy, calling it anything else is giving him too much credit. All this is, is people getting excited about the other side of the Rush Limbaugh coin. Conservatives like Rush and *gasp* liberals like Mike! As you said the art-film world leans left so SURPRISE they hold it in high regard. :P

[BigGrim]

Well, perhaps you should clarify what the merits of earning the reward that Rush Limbaugh won entailed. Although I might be considered one of those liberal-leaning minded persons, I feel that I'm very open to opposing viewpoints. I don't see how labeling Fahrenheit 9/11 as a liberal comedy instantly discounts it from being considered a work of art.

If you've seen it then you probably could argue it. However, as it stands, genre does not discount a piece of work from being considered art. After taking numerous film classes, I was taught that there were numerous aspects in making a film that had to be taken in consideration to keep audience interest besides the subject material. Angles, lighting, color, editing, balance when it comes to objects and people on the screen. Those aspects that make a shot visually appealing are not restricted by genre.

I'm not saying anything about Fahrenheit 9/11 in terms of it deserving the award on its artistic merits, but obviously it is something worth watching and interpreting as to whether both the message and the delivery make it a good film or not. By the reaction of the audience, it seems to have been received well so I believe it to be at least worth considering as recommended viewing material.

"[Festival artistic director] Thierry Fremaux has confirmed that it was the longest standing ovation in the history of the film festival!" gloated Miramax chief Harvey Weinstein at a seaside party for the movie. Entertainment Weekly reports the ovation at having lasted 25 minutes after the showing.

No arguments about liberals versus conservatives here, people. It's a film. The subject might be controversial, but if you want to have an opinion of it as a piece of art, why not go see it for yourself first?

-Grim-

[eppie]

No doubt he has once again short sightedly blamed guns, big business, and America for the worlds problems. And once again like thinking people have said "Wow Mike you are a genius! Here have this shiny new statue!"

This is like a Ronald Regan foundation awarding Rush Limbaugh an award, respectable in his own circles but just an eye roller for everyone else. Maybe if he earns something that comes close to resembling real, rather than friends and like minded people patting him on the back he deserves some congratulations.&nbsp;

So I'm sure that this "movie full of lies" will be played around the US in all cinemas without any problem.
So that everybody can see what kind of liar Moore is.

Or wont it............

[Jester]

Well, first, I might point out that while Mike is well thought of all over the world, Rush is a guilty pleasure more or less restricted to the American Right, and maybe a few castoff Thatcherites. That alone might say something about the equivalence of their messages.

Second, Mike's films deal in facts and events. No question, they're arranged for polemical effect, and no question that this is not the holy grail of impartiality. But they are not simply fabricated polemics (a "liberal comedy"; if you want to see something in that mould, there are enough examples in "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth", although mixed with more substantial criticisms.)

Third, this is not, nor were any of Mike's previous movies, about stereotypes. Roger and Me was specific; this town, this company, these people. He could point to them. That's not stereotyping. Bowling for Columbine was certainly about perceptions, but deliberately rejects blanket notions like "Gunz R Bad". I obviously haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet, but again, a single instance, a couple of families who you can point to without much difficulty. Maybe you don't like it, but it's not stereotyping.

Rush on the other hand... Rush is Rush. Maybe it doesn't seem like he's completely fruit loops where you live, but up here in Canada, it didn't come as much of a surprise that he was on a pretty high dosage of painkillers.

Jester

[Sir_Die_alot]

Rush has won no award I am aware of (though it would not surprise me if he has won something similar to what I stated) that was just an example to show my point. This kind of back patting reminds me of some movies that just suck but still have quotes on the front of their cases that say "Astounding" and "A must see" quoted from movie critics or papers owned by the movie's distributor. :blink:

Calling it not a work of art was a bad choice on my part because obviously people do enjoy his movies. As I said, he does liberal comedy so pawning his movies off as documentaries rather than the editorial comedies they are and even awarding them as such is a little much for me. I mean let's be real here, no documentary wins this award for almost 50 years and now in the height of anti-Bush sentiment in a country where it is very popular he gets it? Oh yeah this really had to do with its quality as a documentary and not politics. :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm wrong, nobody here has seen it including me. But If his movie is anything like ones he has done in the past I don't think I am. :P

[Rhydderch Hael]

"[Festival artistic director] Thierry Fremaux has confirmed that it was the longest standing ovation in the history of the film festival!" gloated Miramax chief Harvey Weinstein at a seaside party for the movie. Entertainment Weekly reports the ovation at having lasted 25 minutes after the showing.

What the hell is going on with ovations? To what end and purpose lay in a crowd of people standing and clapping for time longer than it takes to bake two batches of cookies!? That's nuts.

[kandrathe]

... position on the issues, rather than a nod to his film making prowess. To me these "documentary films", either right or left, seem ridiculous. This is the type of film that is so overtly biased that it only preaches to his own troop of politicized sycophants. I'm in that middle area that refuses to be swayed by either extreme.

To me, good art has a subtle message that does not try to coldcock you between the eyes with a two-by-four. But, that is the way I like it. To each his own.

I guess "Best Political Ad", "Best Propaganda", or "Most Obnoxious, Pompous, Egotistical, America Bashing American" would be too crass an award.

[Sir_Die_alot]

Well, first, I might point out that while Mike is well thought of all over the world, Rush is a guilty pleasure more or less restricted to the American Right, and maybe a few castoff Thatcherites. That alone might say something about the equivalence of their messages.

I think it speaks more to western politics and America's differing politics from other English speaking nations, as well as the international community's view of America. Haven't you noticed that it is usually Canadians who sight him as a source and come to his defense? But those issues are for another thread.

Second, Mike's films deal in facts and events. No question, they're arranged for polemical effect, and no question that this is not the holy grail of impartiality. But they are not simply fabricated polemics (a "liberal comedy"; if you want to see something in that mould, there are enough examples in "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth", although mixed with more substantial criticisms.)

Maybe you don't wach a lot of comics but when jokes come out about politics I've never heard them make up people or events. Usually they take real events and spin them. Who does this sound like? Moore is just better at it.

Third, this is not, nor were any of Mike's previous movies, about stereotypes. Roger and Me was specific; this town, this company, these people. He could point to them. That's not stereotyping. Bowling for Columbine was certainly about perceptions, but deliberately rejects blanket notions like "Gunz R Bad". I obviously haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet, but again, a single instance, a couple of families who you can point to without much difficulty. Maybe you don't like it, but it's not stereotyping.

I think you should go look up "stereotype". I haven't seen Roger and Me but Bowling for Columbine was one huge stereotype. That and his personal views almost totally obliterated the violence he was suppose to be "documenting".

[yangman]

No doubt he has once again short sightedly blamed guns, big business, and America for the worlds problems.

I have finally watched Bowling for Columbine last night, and I do not see how he was blaming guns or corporations (the latter is debatable, since few of them are involved in stregthening the real problem) for causing America's problems, much less the world's. In fact, when in the film does he spend a non-trivial amount of time discussion world problems at all?

I started the film not knowing what to expect. I've seen glimps of it here and there, but never enough to know what it was truely about. And, being the hermit that I am when it comes to "popular media culture", all I knew about the film was that it's a documentary about the Columbine incident, apparently "anti-gun" and rather controversial.

Well, it sure was about the shootings, but also much more. And anti-gun? For goodness sakes, the man is even a life-time member of the NRA.

Obviously, I've never seen Fahrenhiet 911 since movie outlets in Canada are basically American controled, but when it comes to Bowling for Columbine, IMO, Moore has touched on what the real problem of America is, and you don't have to read between the lines to get it. The only short-sighted people I see are those who are doing the true stereotyping by passing off the film just as another piece of liberal propaganda.