Arguably, thats a good point. However, I am not sure how much difference it would have made. He got a 15 minute standing ovation from the crowd when receiving the prize. Not a common occurance, so I would say there is more to it than just the friendship between Tarantino and Moore. Fahrenheit 9/11 is becomming a hit, and sooner or later, I am sure an American distributor pops up to squeze the $$ orange.That was a no brainer...Tarantino was the head of the jury and Moore are good friends.
No. It's a no brainer because Moore's opinions speaks to the huge majority of the rest Of the World who detests Bush. You are at a French film festival, in amongst a hot bed of people who loathe the present administration. Moore's opinion piece (and lets get that one right, Moore isnt a documentary maker, these are his opinions, right or wrong) speaks exactly what they wanted to hear and then some.Originally posted by CMJ
That was a no brainer...Tarantino was the head of the jury and Moore are good friends.
Fahrenheit 9/11 will have big audiences around the world, where it will simply reinforce opinions. what this win does is now guarenttee US audiences will get to see it. Somewhere and somehow.
Moore's stated aim is to vote Bush out. I'm expecting a highly bias movie, with no regard to the other side of the story. If you remember that it's Moore's opinion, that's fine by me.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...?from=storylhs
Article on this very subject.
I don't care how many french people laud Moore's diatribes for whatever they're worth. He's a rather unsavory and unscrupulous "documentary" maker, and every ticket or DVD he sells should come with a grain of rock salt to balance it out.
This is something else that will drag on for weeks. I've read reports that there's actual video of the wedding and the celebration. There's hours worth of the video. There's also photos of graves containing women and children. Other reports cite that destroyed musical instruments were found at the site as well. Bottom line, however this incident plays out, it's another massive PR disaster in the region. Even if U.S. forces are cleared, many Iraqis will simply believe it's a cover-up. If it turns out it was a wedding party then it's just another nail on the coffin.
The Moore documentary is going to be enormously successful. It'll probably top BFC and set more documentary B.O. records. I've read a few reviews and it looks like Moore spends far less time on screen then he has in his previous films. It looks like he's trying to let the material speak for itself more. There's some damning footage in there. He's probably going to keep making additions and changes right up until the release. It's a pretty sad story that some of his worst footage has been outdone by the Abu-Graid scandal and the above mentioned wedding debacle.
Who's goign to believe it? Unless it's a independant investigation, no one Intl is going to beleive a word that comes out of the Administration and their propaganda sources - their cedibility is in the toilet.Even if U.S. forces are cleared
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...250870734.html
More signs the stink of prisioner abuse goes right to the top.
I'll make a call on this one now - some very senior chickenhawks are going to be forced otuto save the Bush electroal chances. Rumsfield for one. He's a dead duck and serious political liability now. Now that some journalists smell blood, you watch what else comes out.
watch also for how FOX goes with this. Murdoch wants to make sure he's in deep with whomever is in power. If FOX shifts, then Murdoch is sure the Presidency will change
Marcus I have no doubt Moore's politics helped it to win, but Tarantino is also a close friend. I'm sure he also shares Moore's views, in fact most folks think it was a very political victory.
I think their PERSONAL friendship played a big part in the decision though. Also, this film was going to be seen regardless. It was a non-issue raised by Moore to get the film a higher profile.
To be honest, I was expecting F9/11 to win stuff, even before I knew who was judging. I really dont think it would have mattered. F9/11 gave the fesival what they expected to hear and they lapped it up.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=540&ncid=716
I'd say that the wedding story may... MAY have some validity.
Retired General Anthony Zinni ripped the Pentagon and the Administration a new one yesterday.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in618896.shtmlIn the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."
“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”
Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”
But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.
Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.
Clancy co-wrote the book with Zinni. There's so much bad press out there that I wonder if this will make much noise. If the election were held today Bush wouldn't stand a chance.
Why can't they just admit the truth? He was drunk and he fell down! It's happened to the best of us!
My favorite entertainment journalist David Poland(I used to love the guy, don't read him as often anymore, though I still recommend his stuff) on Moore in today's column.
*****************************
May 24, 2004
To call Michael Moore a pathological liar is just too easy…
I have been as guilty as anyone of simplifying him, both in praise and scorn. I don't really care about the lies that littered Bowling for Columbine since I saw it as a true P.O.V. documentary that effectively presented an argument about America's culture of fear. To repeat "facts" from the film or from Moore's interview screeds would make a fool of me as a journalist. But ultimately that responsibility is mine (and ours), not his.
In my personal experience, back at the 2002 Toronto Film Festival, Moore was selling the idea that Bowling For Columbine would not play in significant portions of America because right-winger Phil Anchutz and the various exhibition outlets he owned would not play the film for political reasons. But he was pissed not only at Anchutz & Co., but the many journalists whom he had told the story to who failed to print the accusation.
As a journalist without a corporation to answer to, a fan of Moore's and the film's, and as a First Amendment absolutist, I was excited by the prospect of beating that drum and beating it hard. Unfortunately, it took just a few hours to get rather detailed denials of the story. A deal with Regal (Anchutz' primary exhibition chain) was in place and Bowling For Columbine would play in his theaters. Within 24 hours, I watched Moore burn his last bridge to the financier of Bowling, Alliance Atlantis, and start down that same road with UA, if not Bingham Ray, who I have not called to ask, but who would never diss a filmmaker publicly even if I did.
Still, I supported Bowling For Columbine as the great film experience it was and was pleased at its success and recognition. But two things happened as the film hit the awards circuit 18 months ago or so. America was in a hyperbolic whirlwind as the Bush Administration and the Congress prepared for war in Iraq and Michael Moore took the next step. He got himself a very specific target and he also took a deep, deep gulp of his own Kool-Aid.
Launching off of his very successful, Oscar-winning film, Moore decided to make a documentary in a lightening-fast eight months, with a documentary-large budget of $6 million, with the specific stated goal of assisting in the removal of George Bush from office.
The arrogance of the idea is a bit eye-popping. So be it. I didn't vote for Bush the first time. I won't vote for Bush the next time. (I didn't vote for dad either.) But I would have been equally supportive of any filmmaker who chose to make a film about their own beliefs, even if I heartily disagreed with those beliefs.
Where Mel Gibson and Michael Moore both lost me - and if you don't think their filmic crusades are analogous, you're wearing leftie-colored glasses - is in that blurry place that is about selling the films, not making them. And in both cases, the onus is on the journalists and the editors of the journalists who decide how to handle the spin being offered by the filmmaker, as well as the spin of those who are against him or her.
The problem is that journalists, like real people, are susceptible to spinning themselves. So, when Frank Rich goes on the attack against right-wing Christian Mel Gibson for making a manipulative movie that he considers dangerous, and just months later can't wait to spread Michael Moore's easily verifiable media manipulation - some of which Moore himself has spun both ways in the press - much less the factual question marks in the film itself, tells you a lot more about Frank Rich than Michael Moore. (Note that Moore showed the film to various liberal media outlets before Cannes in very much the same way and with the same purpose that Gibson showed his film to the O'Reillys of the world.)
I was horrified to hear Tammy Bruce on L.A. righty radio (Air America is not on the radio here, so I only listen to it on my computer) ripping into Moore for being fat, therefore being self-destructive, therefore wanting to take us all down with him. How this lesbian former Femi-Nazi (and Rush Limbaugh's abusive term fit her unlike most… she was an unyielding inflexible automaton) who would have spent hours screaming down anyone who judged anyone based on their physical attributes ended up in this place, I do not know. It also made me a little sick when another radio show host compared Moore's movie to Nazi propaganda.
But as a journalist, it isn't supposed to matter what side you are on personally. And when it does, as it must given our status as human beings, we must be doubly vigilant.
Whether it is intended or not, the methodology of propaganda is to repeat a lie enough times to make it into perceived truth. And as with all the best lies, the higher the percentage of truth you can get into the mix, the more successful the lie. Unfortunately, the newly added element (which has probably always been a part of the process, but with which I have never had so much clear and direct contact) is the clarion call to journalists who want to believe the lie and therefore fail to challenge it, even when the facts are right in front of them. "The coalition of the willing," when confronted with their failure to do their jobs, will offer up many reasons why the lies they have embraced are not as bad as other lies that have been told on the other side of the aisle. But while that is all well and good after a few beers at the pub, it is not journalism.
Before I list the key lies surrounding the selling of Fahrenheit 911, let me make clear once again, I am not attacking or questioning the personal or professional opinions about the film itself. I am an unflinching supporter of Moore's right to make whatever film with whatever beliefs and goals he so chooses. I support the right of film critics to embrace the film or as Todd McCarthy has, to reject the film.
The big problem is, the people who embrace the film have a strong tendency to write off anyone who rejects the film as a kook or being politically motivated… unlike their pure selves. When there is no room for dissent when discussing art, that is effective fascism, no matter the side of the political spectrum in which you live.
On the flip side of this issue, I would argue that the distinction between civil union and marriage for gay Americans is very much the same. If you claim you believe in gay rights, but have some indefinable belief that the word "marriage" is sacred and cannot take on a new line of definition in the dictionary, you are wiling to void someone else's right to something that will make them happy because it disconnects from your personal feelings… not your logic.
The challenge of freedom is not when you agree, but when you disagree. And in today's media universe, the trend is isolate anyone who dares to question the "right" point of view. It is also the challenge on the west side of Los Angeles in general.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain political power deserve neither liberty nor power.
Moore himself told the Cannes audience, ""There was a great Republican president who said, 'If you give the American people the truth, the Republic will be safe.' "
Unfortunately, Moore is as loose with the truth as any president has been.
And now, the List Of Media Lies -
MOORE AND MIRAMAX THOUGHT THAT DISNEY WOULD CHANGE ITS MIND ABOUT DISTRIBUTING THE FILM AFTER SEEING IT COMPLETED
"Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film." Michael Moore, May 7
"Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine." Michael Moore, May 7
"Last month, Walt Disney, the distributor of the movie through its Miramax division, had blocked the release of the documentary, citing its politically divisive content." Desson Thomson, Washington Post, May 23 (And a million other "journalists" in recent weeks)
When this all hit the fan, Moore's agent Ari Emmanuel acknowledged that his conversations with Disney in which they were trying to persuade him to look elsewhere for financing came before the deal with Miramax was signed. Moore has, in some interviews, acknowledged the same, albeit consistently pointing out that the film was already in production when he got the word from Disney. There has never been any indication that any signal came from Disney suggesting in any way that there was a change of heart forthcoming nor has there even been an indication of such from Moore, Miramax or any of their representatives.
The content of the film certainly was no less inflammatory than it was a year before. But Moore has pointed out that Eisner decided against distribution without any specific knowledge about the film at all. And indeed, as of the last time Moore publicly addressed the issue, Michael Eisner and the Disney board made this decision without making any specific judgment of the film itself.
THERE WAS A SCHEDULED JULY 2 RELEASE DATE.
"(Disney's decision not to distribute) left Fahrenheit 9/11 high and dry as it approached its scheduled July 2 opening date." Desson Thomson, Washington Post
There has never been a publicly announced release date for this film, from Miramax or anyone else. Michael Moore has said that he wanted the film released on July 4/July 2. But there has been nothing remotely official.
On a side note, Miramax has in the last week shifted Zatoichi to July 4 (which is, oddly for an opening, a Sunday), which seems far more likely to be an effort to hold space available for Fahrenheit 911 while exhibitors will still entertain the idea rather than waiting a few more weeks for a deal to be done only to find that there are no screens that haven't been obligated.
Of course, for those of us who love Hero, the next question will be whether Zatoichi moves into Hero's August slots, pushing Hero into fall or if Zatoichi moves into fall. Of course, it is always possible that Zatoichi actually opens on a symbolic American holiday that falls on a Sunday.
THE PALM D'OR GOING TO FAHRENHEIT 911 HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS.
"We all agreed that Fahrenheit 9/11 was the best movie of the competition totally independent of all the politics crap." Quentin Tarantino, May 23, 2004
Unlike some, I would not accuse Quentin Tarantino of pushing his home studio's hot product into a Palm d'Or. But the notion that a deeply political movie being awarded is not a political statement is nothing but marketing <smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont>. The telltale sign was the consistency and ferocity of this "it's not politics" message… starting with Saturday's win.
As Moore said himself, people will try to paint this as a "French thing." It is fair to say that it is not a French thing at all. Any anti-war movie that wins in the midst of that war and not as a film that is reflective of another war (see: M*A*S*H or Dr. Strangelove) must be seen as a political choice… and those two examples… them too.
The mere fact that Moore and Tarantino are selling this "it's not a political thing" bull is kind of horrifying really. But the urge to sell this political lie was so strong that Tarantino and his jury held an unprecedented post-awards press conference to explain their selection to the press. And that I will attribute to Harvey Weinstein and his zeal to sell this movie to an audience beyond the pre-sold anti-Bush-ites.
You can make the argument that Roger & Me and Bowling For Columbine are political, but are more sociological studies. Certainly, both films are against the callousness of American wealth. But neither film serves as a direct call to political action. (That is much like my argument earlier this year that although I believe The Passion of The Christ to be anti-Semetic, I do not see it as a call to rage against Jews in this era.)
When the filmmaker repeatedly states his artistic goal as the removal of a president and makes good on that promise in the film from all accounts, it is political. And I don't think anyone interested in the truth will argue that.
MOORE DID NOT INTEND THE FILM AS A POLITICAL ARGUMENT
"If I wanted to make a political speech, I'd run for office. I'm a filmmaker, and I wanted to make a movie for people to go see it." Michael Moore
When Moore told this to an AP reporter in a phone interview, how the journalist managed not to laugh out loud is beyond me. (Maybe the reporter did laugh at him.) Moreover, all you have to do is to go back in the clippings a few weeks, when Moore was still telling everyone that the film was intended exclusively to influence the election and the lie is crystal clear.
This is the new spin. And any outlet that prints it without referring back to Moore's comments in recent weeks, not one but dozens, is failing in their responsibility to their readers/viewers.
THE PALM D'OR WILL HAVE ONE IOTA OF AN EFFECT ON ANYONE IN THE U.S. SEEING FAHRENHEIT 911
"You will ensure that the American people will see this movie." Michael Moore
The hype leading up to this festival defined the film and generated as much public awareness as the film will ever have. There is zero indication that the Palm d'Or has more than a couple million dollar effect on the domestic box office success of its winners. In the decade since Pulp Fiction ("You know what they call a mutha<smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont>in' Golden Palm in France?"), The Pianist is the only film to have any real box office success here at home after winning the award, less than 25% of which came before the film was nominated for Best Picture and 6 other Academy Awards.
Fahrenheit 911 needs to open as soon as possible, while the hype is still hot. The Palm d'Or will not sell a single ticket in the U.S. or help close an alternative distribution deal.
MOORE AND MIRAMAX ARE HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING AN ALTERNATE DISTRIBUTOR.
"I'd give it about one more day (if that) before we have someone brave enough (and smart enough) to show Americans what the world can already see." Michael Moore, On His Website
"I would be surprised within the next 24 hours if we don't have somebody. Miramax has been fielding calls all day." Michael Moore At A Press Conference
I am surprised that they haven't made a deal already. I had some good sourcing that said they were very close. But the idea that the phone rang even once (except with congratulations) because of the Palm d'Or is absurd.
Certainly, the same political issues that kept every single major studio from financing this film and some of their arthouse arms from wanting to as well are still in play. However, the primary thing keeping a deal from closing with a distributor now seems to be the terms that Moore and Miramax are demanding for their new "partner."
I cannot swear by the factuality of Jeff Wells' report of a distributor who told him that Miramax was looking for a better deal than Mel Gibson got for The Passion of the Christ. (I believe Wells was told this, but cannot confirm that he wasn't being played.) But it sounds right in principle and it jibes with the behavior of all the usual suspects.
Miramax has been, from early on, pushing the notion that they were trying to put together a group of studios to unite behind this film, much as they gathered together to fight the screener ban. Admirable. But not if you want total control, all the credit, all but a tiny slice of the financial pie and an enforced release date within six weeks of signing on the line that is dotted.
What is the upside for Lion's Gate or Newmarket, both of whom are trying to build their profile up to the level of the studio dependents and, of course, Miramax itself? What Dependent would submit to being bossed around by Harvey and Bob and Michael and receive all the political heat, from politicians and the American consumers who also lean to the right, without much financial upside or even much credit from the left-leaning supporters of the film.
Miramax will find another distributor as soon as they want to make a deal that someone can live with.
FINAL THOUGHTS
I was deeply disturbed by Moore's comment upon receiving the Palm d'Or that, "I want to make sure if I do nothing else for the rest of this year that those who died in Iraq have not died in vain."
What does that mean? If you believe the war was a horrible decision by the Bush Administration, then you must believe that every life that has been lost in the process has been in vain, no? Is there an upside to any of those deaths if you see no viable goal in having the war in the first place?
Now, the way I read the comment - and you will correct me if you disagree - is that somehow getting Bush out of office will mean that those who have died in Iraq have not died in vain… that somehow, if this film has that effect, there is a win.
Moore cannot, clearly, make that argument in public and will not. But I believe that it is what he means and he is a man who is willing to invoke the dead to give testimony, even if he is the puppeteer.
When Moore dedicates his award "to all the children in America and in Iraq, and throughout the world who suffer as a result of our actions," no one seems concerned that it is not a sincere dedication. Michael Moore clearly does not see himself as some sort of overriding American "us." That American "us" is also responsible for children in America and in Iraq and throughout the world who are better off as a result of "our" actions. But none of that counts, so long as there is a Republican in office. He has also been unable to call for an end to America's occupation of Iraq because John Kerry is out talking about increasing troop numbers… but Moore's not saying that we should get more troops over there to close this thing out. He wants us all focused on W choking on a pretzel, as mockery is much easier than answers.
None of this means that I am calling for anyone to support the war or to overlook the damage the United States is doing, has done and will do in the future. It just means that I wish that entertainment journalists - the least closely edited of all journos - would slap some cold water on their faces and seek truth instead of bandwagonning, repeating everything they are told by people they like or agree with in principle. It is a terrible failure of our responsibilities.
Everyone who has died in Iraq has died in vain. They have died in a failure of statesmanship… of leadership… and of humanity. The choice that we all must make for ourselves is where we draw the line between wasting human life in war and not doing so. Not everyone who is for the war is a moron or a dupe and not everyone who is against it has a realistic grip on the political reality of the world.
I have nothing against Michael Moore's position about Bush or the Iraq Occupation or the creation of a powerful film to illustrate the same. But the only lie in which honor lies - especially for someone who claims they are an absolute truth teller - is one of kindness. "Your <smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont> doesn't look big in those jeans." Do I care whether Albania is really the only country on the planet besides the U.S. that does not have a distribution agreement for this film? No. But it is clearly hyperbole. And it should not be blindly repeated by the media, though it will be. But it is the big lies that scare me. I don't care which side the come from. Journalists, if no one else, must stay above them. Or we become nothing but another <smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont>ing marketing tool.
We must not forget that every nations' leaders thought they were doing the right thing when they did it. They may have been horribly wrong or manipulative in their route to what they thought was right. Fighting fire with fire only assures one thing… a lot of burning crap.
So true.The big problem is, the people who embrace the film have a strong tendency to write off anyone who rejects the film as a kook or being politically motivated… unlike their pure selves. When there is no room for dissent when discussing art, that is effective fascism, no matter the side of the political spectrum in which you live.
The New York Times really took some hits this week.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html
I wasn't really all that impressed with BFC. I enjoyed Roger & Me much more. What really did it for me was the Heston interview. I'm not a NRA member, I support gun control, banning assualt weapons, etc. But the Heston interview was just cheap. I'm not even interested in looking up all of the false claims the film makes, the interview was enough for me. It made me think that Moore will do just about anything to drive his message or point of view home. I'll see F9/11 when it's released. If it hurts Bush, then that's gravy. But Moore should be more honest about the film. It's a political attack. Some of it will be accurate, some will be twisted. Just be straight about it..
Yesterday I watched an item on TV about a small village that lost 5 soldiers in the war. A kindergarden teacher told her children: "He died for us".
Is that really how people look at it? That soldiers die for the USA? In the beginning, when they were still looking for WMD's and preventing for them to get launched to the States it was pretty much true, but after that appeared to be bogus and the war was all about deliberating the Iraqi people, I'd say that soldiers die for them.
Right now, though, I'm not sure what soldiers are dying for in Iraq. Pretty much in vain, or so it seems.
US halts quest for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
I'd hate to see this spoil Darth Viscera watching his war DVD collection.WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (news - web sites) -- one of its key reasons for invading the country -- and a report saying there are no such weapons to find there will likely stand, the White House confirmed.
Iraqi insurgents kidnapped a Roman Catholic Arch Bishop today in Mosul. He is a native born Iraqi.
Here is the CNN.com link
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...raq/index.html
Ah nothing like a good Holy War to start the day off right.
Where is everyone anyway? What happened to the tough language from almost 2 years ago?
How does everyone look at the current Iraq situation?
We're burned out. It's bad and it's not going to get better anytime soon. Hell, even Bush admits now that there will still be violence after the elections. I'm tired of ranting about it. It's his mess to clean up now, let him sink in it.
I see civil war after we leave and if that is the case. Iran will have a puppet leader in there. This is exactly what they wanted they are grateful we took out Saddam for them. Speaking of Iran, you think we would actually have the gall to attack them? Surgical strikes might not work we might have to go in, if that happens we would have to have a draft. Iran has a larger population than Iraq it would be a much tougher fight.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks