Slashdot Mirror
Cannes' Palme d'Or goes to Michael Moore
An anonymous reader writes "The Palme d'Or of the Festival de Cannes was presented this year by Charlize Theron to Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. I don't know if it's the first time this prize is awarded to a documentary, but I guess it's rare enough to be mentioned, especially given the problems this film encounters."
Its the second documentary to get it...
Jaques Coustau got one to.
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
four of the nine jurors were American: Mr. Tarantino, Kathleen Turner, the director Jerry Schatzberg, and the Haitian-born novelist Edwidge Danticat. one juror, the actress Emanuelle Béart, is a French citizen, British actress Tilda Swinton, Benoit Poelvoode, a Belgian actor; Peter von Bagh, a Finnish critic; and the Hong Kong director Tsui Hark made up the rest of the jury. taken from here
Tarentino told Moore exactly the opposite: "It's not only for the message: it's a good movie".
Michael Moore
In particular,
Agreed.
... Far from [being] the political hot potato ... Fahrenheit 9/11 is more like a lot of hot air."
Check these out (my emphasis added):
Hollywood Reporter commented that the film offers "no debate, no analysis of facts or search for historical context. Moore simply wants to blame one man and his family for the mess we are now in."
Lou Lumenick in the New York Post described the film as an "incredibly superficial and misleading treatment.
Peter Bradshaw commented in Britain's Guardian newspaper: "It was strident, passionate, sometimes outrageously manipulative and often bafflingly selective in its material, but Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was a barnstorming anti-war/anti-Bush polemic tossed like an incendiary device into the crowded Cannes festival."
From a newsletter I subscribe to @ ShowBizData.com
He selectively chooses material to illustrate his extreme leftist views (don't forget what radical politics has brought the world) and then works to use his position to spew propaganda.
In no way could anyone with a proper measure of critical thinking call this a documentary...
/me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
You may want to read:
Michael Moore responds to the wacko attackos , in which he debunks most of this nonsense.
Even if Moore wanted to release the film for free online it's by no means certain that he could, given that it's owned by Miramax, not Moore himself.
While it's made by Moore's company, Dog Eat Dog Productions, the actual copyright resides with Miramax who are effectively paying Moore to produce a film for them.
He does?
Here's a quote from his website:
"Fahrenheit 9/11 is the first documentary to win the Palme since Jacques Cousteau's "The Silent World" in 1956."
Hmmm... next.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Here you go (again):
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
A few years ago, Moore had an ex-employee arrested, when said employee tried to get an interview with him.
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/regio nal/061700ny-col-tierney.html
Well, Riefenstahl made films that glorified Nazism. Among other things, Nazism was responsible for mass murder on an industrial scale and attacking most of Western Europe. I'd be interested to hear which group that Moore glorifies has done anything on that scale?
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
google: fox news bias
Turns up numerous pages with examples of Fox bias.
The classsic:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html
More current:
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm
Staged in what way? Michael Moore writes on his site that the bank was indeed a licensed arms dealer, and had all the necessaries on-site to do background-checks and issue firearms.
Moore also claims that the only prior arrangement with the bank was phoning to ask permission to film. Do you have anything to suggest it wasn't so? From what I understand, you're saying that the bank was somehow used as a film-set, where they convinced the people in the bank to do something highly irregular (if they normally give a voucher, why would they hand over a weapon on-site) just because Moore asks them to?
Now, most of the documentation about that film is fairly clear and easy to read, and I didn't notice anything suspicious about it. So it will take more than a claim of "but it was staged" if your ideas are to carry more weight than the film-maker involved. Perhaps some evidence would be a good start?
Oh yeah? from the horse's mouth.
You can't take the sky from me...
Fox went to court over the issue of whether a news organization had the right to lie or distort news stories under the First Amendment. Fox won in the end, at the third or fourth attempt. This blew up over a reporter Jane Akre, who argued that her bosses at Fox had pressured her to change a story about the effect of some hormone treatment on cattle - her report was to say that milk from these cows was dangerous for humans. There is a link to the story here. This is why people say that Fox isn't about news.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Read his book 'Stupid White Men', he doesn't think the Democrats are much better than the current crew.
As I posted in another thread for a slightly different reason:
"80% of misinformed Americans get thier information from FOX news" (Link to Google cache of same article, since the original seems to randomly require registration...)
Political bias is a matter of debate, but they certaintly don't seem to be "fair and balanced" do they?
=Smidge=
Most the article is discussing issues not even raised on the page I linked. He only addresses two issues from that page, near the end of the article.
The first is regarding the Heston/NRA speech in Colorado after columbine. I have tried to see it from his perspective has described here, but I just can't. He claims "Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was."
How can he think anyone that can think critically will buy this explanation?
View the speech as presented by Moore in the movie, and then read the actual speech. He's as creative as a plastic surgeon, nipping and tucking, here and there, until all meaning is replaced with Moore's agenda.
He left out the opening of his speech which explains that the NRA meeting was shortened, festivities cancelled, out of respect. Heston said, "As you know, we've canceled the festivities and fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. I apologize for that. But it's fitting and proper that we should do this
FYI, the NRA is required to hold an annual meeting, and it was decided it would be held in that location long before Columbine happened. Moore cut out this part of the speech, did not bother informing anyone of the logistics ore requirements of the NRA annual meeting, presented it almost as if the NRA decided to come there and have this fire-breathing meeting in order to piss off Columbine mourners. Moore also started out this section of film with a snippet from a speech that happened long ago, far away. The "cold, dead hands" outtake. Incidentally, that was not a fire-breathing speech about gun rights, but was Heston saying thanks for the antique, collectable gun that was just presented to him.
Anyway, the extend of this colorful editing job by Moore is covered very well in the link I provided above, and you can verify everything for yourself.
He then goes on to address the statistics game, but I don't hold much stock in the statistics presented by anyone, including Moore and the guy that wrote the page on hardylaw.net.
I did enjoy, near the end of this article, where Moore states, "I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true."
A mere three paragraphs later, he then states:
Well, at least he can admit when he's wrong... uhh.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
His movies would be more credible if he didn't try to present them as documentaries. They're not documentaries. They're commentaries.
Unless, of course, they know the definition of documentary:
Does his movie employ documentation (film clips)?
Yes?
You can't take the sky from me...
Here is the Kuro5him link referred to.
When the story broke about the bomb going off that was hooked up to a sarin gas shell (Sarin is a nerve agent, a weapon of mass destruction), for that day and the next, you could find no news story on CNN.com about it. Not one. It was covered on FOX News and MSNBC's websites. Nothing on cnn.com. On the third day, I did manage to find an article that was discussing something else about the war, and at the bottom it mentioned the sarin bomb found.
I have seen several stories about WMD being found in Iraq since the war began (or ended if you like sticking your head in the ground)and so far not one has turned out to be actual WMD. Still these stories played prominantly on the 24 hour news cycle. Invariably, several days later, the true identitiy of the "WMD" is found and oubviously not as widely publicized, especially on fox. Ever since the WMD mobile lab with canvas sides (that sounds like a sterile environment) which was paraded around as "proof" of WMD, I have taken every such story with a large grain of salt. Especially when it comes from fox. WOLF!
I can't say for sure that this "sarin" is not real, but I can say that so far 100% of the WMD news stories have been fabrications by either the government or the "news" media.
bit trollent
I'll assume you're being serious, although it seems more likely you're trolling.
...) to people who had comitted a felony, but were felony-free themselves. That's illegal, and it made the difference in deciding who became president. And guess what, They (Jeb Bush's cabinet) are doing it again for the 2004 elections.
First things first: paragraphs. Learn what they are, use them, more people will read what you type and actually take you seriously.
Secondly, go read mediamatters.org and see how biased towards the neocon view all of the mainstream tv is. The reality is that neocons are not just plain wrong on many issues (their economic theories, like trickle-down economics, have long since been disproven, and their military policies are outright failures, e.g. the war in iraq). Yet somehow they manage to get their voice not just mentioned on mainstream news, but presented as having equal value to the truth. It's not biased when you don't report lies. Take a skeptical look at the actual facts that people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Anne Coulter say (go look up the actual quotes and the actual statistics they cite), and you'll see they lie and distort to serve their own wrongheaded worldview.
Additionally, the reality is that the "liberal" voices you hear on mainstream tv are people cherry-picked to make a poor argument, like Alan Colmes. The left has much better arguments, but the good arguments don't end up on the tv screen. It's a well known strategy to discredit your political opponent, and the right has practiced it with much success.
Now, as for specific responses to what you typed:
Their idea of "balance" is to have a commetator, 3 panelist (all of which spout liberal garbage), and one somewhat moderate conservative. That is their idea of balance. Air America, the so far disappointing attempt by the left to "get their message out" will fail. Why? simple. They are not entertaining. I listened to it a few times on XM, and all it was was whinning, name calling about what is wrong with the conservatives. Did they offer any constructive ideas? No.
You should read your own post. First you accuse the mainstream media of left-wing bias, then you say air america is the left's attempt to get their message out. Why would the left need air america if the mainstream media was biased towards the liberal view? Additionally, I have listened to air america, and I've heard a lot of constructive ideas. My guess is you haven't listened for more than a few hours at best. Try listening for a week.
Why do you think they are working to allow convicted felons, and prisoners the "right" to vote?
Are you talking about the scrubbing of the voter rolls in the 2000 florida elections? You should read up on that. They didn't just remove people who had comitted a felony, they removed people with similarities (names, locations,
It's a valid point to say that people convicted of a felony shouldn't be allowed to vote. But you should look into how racist the US judicial system is. Black people get convicted of a lot more crimes, and sent away for much longer terms. That by the very definition is racism, and the only way you can say it is fair is by taking the position that black people are subhuman (naturally commit more and worse crimes than white people). As a result, the system is rigged to ensure people who would vote democratic (the disenfranchised and the poor) don't get to vote because they get locked away more than middle-class white people.
I also invite you to follow the money. Look at how the entire media industry has been making record profits from bush being in the whitehouse (and the matching media deregulation), and how they donate primarily to the right. If they really had a liberal bias, why would they be republican donors, and why would they be biting the hand that feeds them?
Mind you, I'm not opposed to the classical conservative worldview, of small government, sane fiscal policies, and maintaining t
Please investigate your sources more carefully.
The study you are quoting (which speaks highly of NPR) was conducted by The Program on International Policy Attitudes, which has many of the same funders as NPR. The director of PIPA is a well-known liberal. (Check the 'About us' link from the front page). This is obviously an attempt to create an appearance that NPR is a better news source.
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
No it wasn't. If you had read both with a critical eye, you'd realize that the K5 article was a weak apologist ranting. Everything is passed off as "regular film editing." Documentaries should not do "regular film editing" if such editing would lead the public to believe something decidedly different had actually occurred.
The best example of this is the Heston speech in Colorado after the Columbine shootings. How a reasonable person could look at the actual speech delivered and then what Moore did to it and not conclude this was extremely dishonest "film editing" of a documentary escapes me.
Another great example was buying ammo in the Canadian Wal-Mart. Moore wasn't just "a regular citizen", he's a regular citizen who obtained a firearms importation license in Canada. Through "regular film editing," that part was never mentioned by Moore.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5013506/ http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/news/2004/0
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Mockmentaries refers to those scripted comedy films that take documentary style (handheld, talking-head interviews, bad lighting/framing). Many of Christopher Guest's films are good examples:
Spinal Tap
Waiting for Guffman
" A Mighty Wind"
See the difference. These are all staged and scripted(act/performance). Moore's films are anything but mockumentaries. They are neither staged nor scripted!!! (except for narrations, which is necessary)
The parent post is rated completely wrong and/or overrated. I can't belive that people are swallowing this horse sh*t without a doubt...
LIAR!
> Oh, you won't hear anything from moore about Comrade Clinton. He's a saint in the eyes of the left.
Then, you clearly haven't read Stupid White Men.
Unfortunately Amazon won't let us search inside of that book.
But from Dude, Where's My Country:
p27: "During one of their visits there, in May 1998, two Taliban members-this time in the U.S. sponsored by Clinton's State Department-took in some more sites"
Backmatter: "If you'd like to know more about the forty-seven people President Clinton had 'killed,' simply check your favorite Internet search engine and type in the words, 'Clinton Body Count.'"
There's more in Stupid White Men.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Why do you think they are working to allow convicted felons, and prisoners the "right" to vote? Are you talking about the scrubbing of the voter rolls in the 2000 florida elections? You should read up on that. They didn't just remove people who had comitted a felony, they removed people with similarities (names, locations, ...) to people who had comitted a felony, but were
felony-free themselves. That's illegal, and it made the difference in deciding who became president. And guess what, They (Jeb Bush's cabinet) are doing it again for the 2004 elections.
NO, I'm talking about allowing people who are in prison to vote.
Expand you horizons a bit and watch PBS. There's The Newhour, Frontline, Now, etc.
"Bill Clinton lied under oath in his testimony when charged with sexual harassment, denying the accuser her day in court."
The accuser was not denied her day in court. He lied when he was being asked about having sex with somebody else not the accuser. You should do some basic research before posting.
"The issue was always about whether he used his office as governor to engage in a pattern of illegal sexual harassment of NON-consenting partners,"
"Lied? Or believed the reports of the intelligence community that Sadam had NOT destroyed his weapons and was making more"
He was duped by Ahmed Chalabi who was working for the iranian intelligence. He got pwoned by the inranians. He did their bidding by getting rid of saddam hussein.
It was very easy to do because all you had to do was to tell GW anything that he already believed. If you told him Saddam Hussein ate babies for lunch he would have taken that the truth because he already believed it. It's a great way to haxor anybody of limited intelligence who does not read or keep up on current events. Just present him with lies that he is likely to believe and he won't question you.
"The world is now on notice that if knock the chip off the shoulder of the USA you just MIGHT find it accepts the challenge and you get pounded into the ground."
Who did we pound into the ground and why? It was osama who attacked us and iraq got pounded into the ground. This tells the world that they should strike at the US wnever possible because we are unable to keep focus on our enemies and attack random targets who have oil instead.
"And that if its troops screw up and start oppressing those under they control, the US will ADMIT it, INVESTIGATE it, REMOVE them from their posts and TRY them for crimes."
That's just a joke. First of all only 6 people will get tried even though the use of torture and rape of prisoners was widespread in cuba, afghanistan, kuwait and iraq. Secondly the punishment is a joke. One guy just got the maximum punishment which was a year in prison. A year for raping somebody. Is that punishment? Will anybody be tried for murder in the case of the 9 people who died in US prisons. Will they also get a year in prison for beating a guy to death? Who will go to jail for dripping 500 pound bombs into a crowded city like falujah and will they be tried ourside the mass grave that sits in what used to be a soccer field?
"I wish that were true. It would be a MAJOR improvement to the way we've been treated in the past."
Arabs in my town are afraid to go out. One has already been killed. Others have been threatened. Lots of property has been destroyed. How are they doing in your town?
evil is as evil does
"If Bill Clinton had been doing something on his watch BESIDES getting a blowjob, the war and half trillion dollars would not have been necessary. 9/11 might not have happened."
Maybe the whole impeachment thing did turn out to be a distraction huh? I mean if he had a blow job it probably distracted him for like 10 minutes but the impeachment that's another story isn't it?
I also think that 9/11 would have been averted if bush hadn't told the palestenians to go fuck themselves but that's another story altogether. Bill Clinton was actually not hated by the arabs who felt that he at least tried to be fair with them.
"George Bush is one of the worst public speakers I've ever seen (for a President)."
My dog can speak better then him.
" But at least he's doing something."
Doing awful and wrong things is not better then doing nothing. He has fucked up this thing beyond all belief. All he can say now is. "I know it sucks, it's going to suck for a long time, don't look for things to get any better soon". I'd rather he did nothing.
"He's not stupid, much as a lot of you would like to make him out to be."
Oh yes he is. He got duped by the iranian intelligence. How much stupider do you have to be?
"You don't get to be President by being stupid."
Sure you, if your daddy was the president and the republican party backed you up and the corporations give you 200 million dollars.
'That will virutally guarantee that radical fundamentalist Islam does the same thing in Iraq that it did to Iran."
Saddam Hussein was a secular socialist you dumbfuck. He was hated by all religous fundamentalists. Osama referred to him as "the communist". Before the war did you ever see a picture of him in fundamentalist garb? Did you ever see a picture of him praying? Did you ever see him with a beard that all muslim fundamentalists wear? We deposed a secular socialist leader. Before the war Iraqi women were the most educated and highest paid women of all arab kingdoms.
"You figure out the consequences to the stability of our world if a major piece of the energy supply is suddenly controlled by a culture who would just as soon (and actively tries to) kill you as look at you. "
Saddam Hussein never attacked america. He had nothing to do with 9/11. He had no intention of ever attacking america. He was no threat to america even if he wanted to attack us.
"I would vote libertarian or someone independent, but a vote for anyone else is a vote for Kerry, and I can stand that less than I can Bush. OK"
Please don't vote until you do more research. You are woefully uninformed.
evil is as evil does