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."
Is it a "documentary" like Bowling for Columbine?
His movies would be more credible if he didn't try to present them as documentaries. They're not documentaries. They're commentaries.
Nothing wrong with that at all, but let's just be clear about it. Up front.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Aside from pushing somebody's political agenda ... why is this being posted on Slashdot? It doesn't seem to fit into the normal type of news that gets accepted to the site. Your site, your rules ... it just seems out of place.
I haven't seen the thing and I am sure it is politically biased, but certainly I would like to make that determination myself rather then seeing Buena Vista kiss presidential ass and decide that it is not gonna distribute it for fear of losing tax breaks in Florida...
--- "I didn't think anyone would understand it" -Prof. Bob Muller
Exactly how is this news for nerds? I understand that the prevailing opinion on Slashdot is hatred for the Bush administration, but I fail to see the 'nerd' aspect to this story. Politics aside, if it was a sci/fi or fantasy movie, I could understand, but this was simply a politically charged documentary about 9/11 and the Iraq war. What is next? Reviews of campaign ads?
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
What gives you the impression that he expects you to not independently verify his content? I haven't seen bowling for columbine yet, but I have roger & me on laserdisc and I don't remember being told not to go double check on the guy. Was there an extra note after the FBI warning on BfC that warns you that any attempts to verify moore's veracity will result in your wife leaving you, your truck breaking down, and your dog being hit by a train?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm sorry, but that second link completely turned me off to reading further.
Any website which needs to mock the physical appearance of someone to make a point shouldn't really be trusted.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Gosh, how do you post to this thread without looking like a troll?
I know the topic of censorship is near and dear to the Slashdot community. I hope people can see that the right wing has a history of using money to censor media outlets in this country. This is a good example of that as is the holy war the FCC has declared on broadcasters.
The liberals in this country want open and free discussion. the conservatives think that they can get away with censoring the liberals by labeling everything opposed to them as indecent.
Want more information on the republican campaign to quiet the liberal voice check out howardstern.com. (warning, site may be offensive to compassionate conservatives).
Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=
Michael Moore is personally getting very, very rich [mooreexposed.com] out of September 11th?
So are Bush's best buddies.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I really hope that this is a good documentary, because I'd really hate it if the Cannes festival has become nothing more than a vehicle for politics.
Fuck that. Until the rest of the 150 million or so people who haven't been utterly brainwashed by this administration find the gonads to say something more than, "But, he has no exit plan..", Moore is the mouthpiece of the home of the brave, as far as I'm concerned.
Just curious, have you seen the film?
I don't have to do a damn thing to verify his movie - I just sit back and see who sues him. I mean, the gun lobby alone is very, very large, and determined... if there was a single thing in Bowling that could even be remotely picked apart by a lawyer, it would happen. But it hasn't.
By the way, I'd like to make another point to the Slashdot crowd at large - Documentaries are NOT supposed to be "objective". News reporting is supposed to be objective. You have never, ever seen an 'objective' documentary that wasn't trying to inform you of some plight, or problem, or point of view. Ever.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Hopefully this movie will open in the US and will cause some people to open their eyes.
But even more than Moore's documentary, I hope more and more images and video keeps coming out of Iraq in regards to the abuse, torture, rape and slaughter of Iraqi citizens, most of whom are guilty of no crime. That more than anything is Bush's legacy, his mark upon the world and truly the images that best define our Fascist Leader and his doctrines.
The truth is a very scary place in a world run by Bush and the big end of the US war machine. I welcome MM's film.
Trouble with Michael Moore's films is that they hit close to home, and people don't like it. Just because it's uncomfortable, doesn't mean we should ignore it.
Mike.
I don't thing Michael Moore has been behind the actions of the Bush administration so setting it up is a bit far fetched....
Both only show you what they wanted you to see, one wanted you to see a beautifull ocean and a story about great explorers on a great ship... the other wanted you to see a bad Bush & co.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
What gives you the impression that he expects you to not independently verify his content?
That he presents his work as documentary. That is a word with a specific meaning. Take the getting a free gun at the bank scene. In fact, the bank would give you a voucher that could be used at a gun store, once all the regular checks were done. The scene was completely staged - that makes it fiction, not documentary. Moore's films take place in an America that doesn't, and never, existed - it's no more real than a sci-fi or fantasy movie.
Well, he's kind of like SCO. He makes a claim, has no real evidence to back it up, and then twists facts to make it seem like he was right all along
Now that sounds like WMD and Iraq.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
As a non-US citizen I even have to wonder what people in the states gets so worked up over in the first place, he's just a reporter who wants to illuminate problems in the society and he happens to have a real knack for storytelling and presentation.
But maby it's just that truth hurts...
/greger
Alot of americans hate american politics and love the idea of Bush bashing....
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Movies, by nature, are not scholarly works. The power of movies is that they can appeal to a wider audience and more directly manipulate emotions. How often do you see citations in a movie? It's just not common practice.
:::did::: raise a number of excellent questions.
That being said, I'd say bowling for columbine was rather good. Yes parts of it exploited sensationalism and there were some factual errors, but it
Also...give one of Moore's books a skim sometimes. I wouldn't have expected it, but Moore does a better job providing evidence for his claims then the supposedly more prestigious Noam Chomsky. Noam likes to make wild claims while assuming you'll take his word for it...Moore at least cites his sources.
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
yes, art almost never mixes with politics.
moron.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
If you're gonna post links to sites that attack him, you should at least try to find something other than republican smear sites.
(Come on, someone calling Wes Clarke "slimy"?!?!?)
First, as much as I like Stern, he only is qualified to discuss the proper techniques for tossing bologna at a stripper's butt. His political views are based on whatever pads his pocketbook.
Second, there is not an active "campaign" to censor or quiet Michael Moore -- or at least I didn't get the e-mail or fax. He could only wish that the US Government would try to censor him. It would be even more $$$ in his pocket. Moore and his slavish followers claim that disagreeing with him is the same as trying to silence him.As a part of my civil liberties, I have the freedom to not pay to watch his "documentaries", buy his books, view his TV shows or wear his t-shirts. Or do I have to spend my money supporting the companies that support him. That's not an effort to quiet him, its an effort to make sure my money doesn't make it into his pocket. He is already a rich, union busting fat cat.
The liberals in this country want open and free discussion.
As long as you ignore all the campaigns against Fox News and talk radio hosts plus speech codes on college campuses, I would agree.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
actually michael moore has requested that people question everything - including what he says. i saw him speak in dublin and while i didn't agree with many things he said, he was very upfront that people should research and learn.
in fact in one interview his main complaint was that a lot of the stuff in f.9/11 which people say is "new" is not new at all - he just asked around to find it. essentially he said, "i'm just a schmuck who only graduated from high school with no training in journalism - how is it that i found this stuff and "real" journalists didn't?"
as a person who has followed tech "journalism" for years, i can actually answer his question. but like him, i don't much like the answer.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
and, by God, America needs more of them.
Michael Moore is what Opensource means against Microsoft (or any closed source giant)
Good crap people. Why does everybody feel this incessant fucking need to classify everything as an EPIC FUCKING STRUGGLE. Guess what?
Open source is a damn ideology. Not an attack.
You are not an insurgent for using linux. You are not sticking it to the man when you release an OSS program.
You are not. And I repeat -- you are not -- keeping Bill Gates awake at night.
ARGH!
thanks for the spin mr orielly
your suggestion that releasing the movie for free on the net is moot as (although ianal) he would likely face serious legal issues as he had to borrow money to make the film in the first place (i wont bother going on about how disney/miramax funded then retracted)
click here for some insight on war profiteering
Bush's verbal gaffes cost us all something; respect in the eyes of the world. At one time we had a lot of it, and we have since squandered it and everyone hates us. Is Bush's plan for keeping Americans in line to make it so bad out there for us that we never leave home, so we never find out just how fucked up our nation has become compared to many genuinely civilized countries?
His monkey faces, well, they're just fun to laugh at.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"News For Nerds"?
I visit slashdot for geek news, when I want bias and or political commentary, I'll watch CNN or Fox News. Political banter on slashdot, especially Michael Moore, who is quite divisive, only serves to inflame tempers.
I'm not exactly a fan, but what worries me in Bowling for Columbine is not his misuse of facts (it's not a factual documentary, its perspective is far wider than something that is documentable in a 2hr flick), but rather that the actual theme of the film always is backgrounded by its critics.
The fact that Charlton Heston didn't say "From my cold, dead hands!" at the Denver meeting has absolutely nothing to do with what the film says by showing Heston say that in the context. Bowling for Columbine is not about Heston, it's about American culture. Heston is part of the American culture, and his fondness for weapons is definately a very American fondness for weapons.
But is Moore's depiction of Heston right? No, Heston is quoted out of context in a very dishonest way. It's dishonest towards Heston, and that's not nice. But Moore's critics don't claim to defend Heston and other people who have been misused in the movie, they claim the movie is a poor documentary: It's factually wrong. But the way they make their claims, is by not talking about what the film is about. They have to ignore its theme to criticize it, and treat it like a documentary about Heston, Lockheed Martin and K-Mart.
Bowling for Columbine is a poor documentary, not because it's factually wrong, but because discussion of it will always be discussion of two different films. Noone will learn much from it, because those who disagree with it will always see it in a way that never challenge their views, and those who already agree will not learn anything because it's factually imprecise.
Personally, I place Moore in the same category as Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
A lot of people claimed that movie was very anti-gun, but it was hard for me to conclude that. I'm basically kind of neutral on guns, and I didn't feel like the movie really said anything one way or the other on that part of it. I think it did try to make the point that Americans were too violent, even fond of violence, and that guns allow for more serious consequences, but I think we all know that. He clearly didn't like the NRA's political activism, but he didn't really go after the Second Amendment. At least I didn't notice it, and I certainly should have. (I think the Second Amendment was exactly what the Civil War was about--and it lost. Thanks and a tip of the hat to that great Republican Abraham Lincoln.)
It's going to be interesting to see how BushCo tries to spin their way out of this one. It sounds like he's just collected the facts and shown them in an ugly light--but very artistically. Dubya was probably not amused. Maybe it contributed to his little accident over the weekend? If so, BushCo better watch out for the klutz label. It certainly didn't help Ford in his campaign. (Interestingly enough, I never bought it at the time, and still don't. I don't know how a couple of clumsy stumbles got taken so far out of proportion.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Disney made a decision as a private company and business that they will not produce and distribute a film.
The film is obviously already produced and they are ordering a company they bought to not distribute it. Their decision is motivated by political pressure, and they are willing to abandon profit in order to appease their Bush overlords (Jeb and Dubya).
a private company should not be able to pick and chose what it stands behind
Miramax picked it, Buena Vista, who bought Miramax some time ago, told 'em no.
I wonder what the shareholders will think of this. They invested in a company who decides to refuse profits, that isn't kosher. Of course, Eisner might be doing the only profitable thing: Protecting the theme park tax credits, in which case this is an instance of political censorship.
Either way, it is censorship, because no matter what your deficient education led you to believe, censorship is not something that only governments can do, nor is it only evil when governments do it.
You can't take the sky from me...
From what I read (http://www.moorewatch.com/, http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/, etc.), Michael Moore is utterly unencumbered by honesty or ethics.
Bush & Co are certainly to be blamed for the appalling lack of planning of this entire operation. The behavior in the prison is a direct result of the intense pressure the Bush administration is under to "solve" the Iraqi problem; it's basically trickled down to military intelligence to get as much out of the prisoners as possible, using whatever means necessary.
As bad as the stuff in prison was, at least we don't resort to live decapitations, like Bergs or Pearl's in Pakistan. There's something about ANY political or religious movement that can endorse that kind of medieval behavior that's sickening, in the same way Nazism is.
I agree this (sic). I want to believe that Moore wants to crusade for the little guy, but he seems to benifit quite a bit from the corrupt system that he says he hates.
Yeah, his message has always been "its wrong to get paid for work you did", it sure wasn't "its wrong to destroy people's lives to make more money".
He also conviently forgets about the places he's exploited, like Flynt Michigan.
And its also wrong to move.
You should never move to another town, especially not if your hometown is an economic wasteland ever since the company that employed most people moved out. Also, never ever go live near where you will find the talent you need for your company. New York is no place for a filmaker to live, Flint has plenty of cameramen and editors and everything a film company needs...
Sheesh.
You can't take the sky from me...
The real issue here is that companies get special tax breaks if the government likes them!? and you all think thats perfectly normal?!? WTF IS EVERYONE SMOKING??
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
See how the left can NEVER offer anything constructive? The only thing they know how to do is start with name calling. I heard one a few weeks ago that called Rush a big fatso. I asked them have you ever listened to him? No they didn't. Then how could you base your OPINION on something you've never listened to? Because of what others said about him. LOL....typical. I listen to BOTH sides. I listend to Air America a few hours of the "O Franken factor" to see what it was about. Unlike those on the left, I form my opinion AFTER I listen to something, not before....
Read the whole thing. It's not just "News for Nerds" but also "Stuff that matters".
What a coincidence. Louis Malle was definitely no less radical and left-leaning than Michael Moore. His movies were full of political or social satire, given in a lighthearted and pleasant manner, yet they were also insightful and generally true to the historical fact. How unlike Michael Moore, who is unable to do anything but cashing his alleged ideals. Sorry, I consider myself a leftwinger, I am all against Bush and the whole Iraq invasion, but I think I'm too old school for Michael Moore. When Karl Marx wanted to launch a revolutionary movement, he went to a library to study the facts. FACTS. Ef - ah - cee - tee - es. Something you won't find in a flashy mockumentary by Michael Moore.
Yeah, I know. Here goes my karma bonus. Well, I won't post it as an AC.
Besides, if you think that there is _any_ documentary that doesn't have a bias you're naiive.
I've got no problem with bias - but Moore is way beyond bias and into making stuff up that supports his prejudices but no basis in reality.
He selectively chooses material to illustrate his extreme leftist views
You mean just like you selectively choose comments to illustrate YOUR extreme anti-moore views? How about this line from the Washington Post?
What's remarkable here isn't Moore's political animosity or ticklish wit. It's the well-argued, heartfelt power of his persuasion. Even though there are many things here that we have already learned, Moore puts it all together.
Its real easy to point fingers, isn't it?
This is history in the making. I'm really curious to see what the American public is going to make of this movie and what they will do next.
You think Moore was booed at the Oscars because the people in that crowd disagreed with him? Hardly. It was the equivalent of modding his rant off-topic.
As with any other over-the-top commentary made in the US, the movie will be revered by the extremists on his side, reviled by extremist opponents, and tuned out by thinking people who would rather shed light than heat on a controversial topic.
This is not censorship; it's moderation.
As Michael Eisner has said before, we are a company that is founded on ideals of the American family backbone
Not "is founded", but only was founded. Huge Corporations are driven by the bottom line and dreams of ultimate control. Disney has recently been behind so many things that undermine the rights and values of the American Family, this is simply no longer a credible position for Disney.
It is not just groups at one end of the spectrum that feel that Disney is the enemy.
And for slashdot context, what does Disney have against free software that I should be forbidden from playing the DVDs I purchase using free software? And why do they think their shallow mutations of the rich public domain from which they drew their stories should never fall back into public domain, as it was supposed to occur in American society. Is control of all computing and content by monopoly corporations a Disney value, too? How is it not censorship? Most corporations have done something from time to time to show they actually are aware of community and consumer issues and concerns, but clearly not Disney. Why acknowledge the consumer when you can control the market?
I've met many Americans and they are all nice people. However its American introspectiveness that's the problem. How can America expect the rest of the world to like it when it only take an interest when it is thretened ? For instance, the coverage on the accession of 10 new states to the European Union barely got a mention on the American news sites - despite this affecting millions of people and making the EU the world biggest economic entity. Would you expect you husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend to like you if you decided to ignore them As for WWI & WWII thanks - truly, I guess Americans in their 70's and older get it. But the younger ones don't.
If you try saying that Alan Colmes isn't liberal (besides brilliant), then you either have your head up your ass, have never heard of Alan Colmes, or simply have blind hatred of Fox News
Alan Colmes is the Sean Hannity's equivalent of the Washington Generals. He's a punching bag who's put up there to make it look like a contest. Al Franken skewered Colmes in his book Lie and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. I suggest that you read that before trotting out Colmes as evidence that Fox is not biased.
Good, finally someone else who understands this. The first Michael Moore film I saw was Roger and Me, in a Contemporary Issues class in HS (yes, it sounds like a blow-off class, but believe me six 5-7 page papers per semester is not blow-off). The teacher told us not to take the film at face value, but rather to write down questions we had during it, and then do some research and answer our own questions.
People are confusing documentaries and nature films. Of course a documentary has an agenda - it has to, it's primarily an answer to a question the filmmaker has. The director is not going to spend millions of dollars to prove himself wrong.
If anyone takes his films as fact, they're stupid. His films (and documentaries in general) are designed to make you think. You have to approach them with an open mind, but not an impressionable one. Bowling for Columbine did not make me think "My god, the gun industry is evil and Charlton Heston should be put to sleep". It instead raised questions (not the least of which was "Was Moore fair in his filmmaking?"). I then went and did some reading afterwards, and formed my own views on the gun situation in America. And I expect Fahrenheit 911 (assuming I ever get to see it) will do the same.
You cannot hope to understand an issue unless you look at both sides, and then form your own opinion for yourself. Go to see his movies to be entertained (entertainment != comedy, remember - I'm not saying gun control or 9/11 were funny) and to have your views challenged and to raise questions of your own. Do not go to see them to get told what to believe.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
This may not be tech news, but there are movie geeks out there as well. That makes this interesting for some of the /.-readers. As we can also see by the number of comments anyway. Not everyone cares about the SCO-case either, but they don't complain about it being off-topic.
... how about saying something constructive or moving along?
So
This is enormous. This is politics going inside the Cannes palmares. A political move to ensure americans will talk about the movie and release it. Not saying that this is not a great movie, I'm very much looking forward to seing it ; but they were fantastic movies featured in Cannes.
This is really an important move from Cannes, the cinema culture, or the society in general.
Even Moore said "Jesus, what have you done ?" to the Jury when he came to receive his prize.
Cannes, the most pedantic cinema club, gave the Palme to a movie that is mostly a work made to make sure Bush won't be president anymore.
This is one of the most important socio-political event this year !
theefer
It's retards like you that make me glad I don't believe in this society.
Once convicted of a felony, you have LOST your right to vote. Period
Let me tell you something, you fucking retard. The government decides what is and isn't a felony. The government decides what laws are and aren't enforced and who to investigate. By disenfranchising felons, the government decides who can't remove them from power.
Lets put it to example. Tomorrow, fair use is overturned, copyright becomes (even more) criminalized penalty-wise and the government finds an effective means of identifying any and all copyright infringers.
Bang. Instantly, we're looking at the ability to arrest anyone (75%+ of the populous) and charge them with a felony. As already pointed out, selective enforcement is a reality, so the government will only round up the people unlikely to vote for them in the future. Felons can't vote, and will never again be able to change the path of government.
Before I go any further, I want to say that both the Left and the Right would abuse this, depending on who was in power.
Now, to put it in more realistic terms, look at the Farce, er, War on Drugs. Millions of Americans go to jail for having a fucking joint. Many of them will never be able to effectively change the laws that they don't agree with. You lay it out like the Law of Man == the Law of God.
"We live by the rules". What naivety. I am willing to wager that you don't know the rules of the land you live in. Every rule, from city to county to state to nation. And they accuse the leftys of being politically naive..
Do you have any facts to back up your accusations?
I can't believe how many slashdotters are crying foul (or fowl!) over the Mike Moore story. This is not just a story about Moore's take on Bush, but a story on Disneys attempt at shutting the movie down; you know that censorship topic!
e ff erson_quotes.html
As an American, a poli sci major, and a history freak, what Bush & friends are doing is unprecedented. Sure we have started false wars, or adventures as bombastic William Buckley callously refers to them, but never on this scale.
Bush & friends are at war not just profiteering in Afghanistan and Iraq, but are celebrating major victories on their war on people. Health care, over time, education, pollution and the environment, civil liberties, have all taken major blows by this oligarchy.
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
--Thomas Jefferson to W. Jarvis, 1820.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6529/notebook/j
The previous poster who brought up Operation Northwoods should be acknowledged too. At the same time we have the Gulf of Tonkin, the burning of the Reichstag etc. etc.
Well I feel better now. What Bush is doing is truly the "stuff that matters" and considering how little opposition we have to his reign of terror, Mike Moore's movie will be something I will watch, even if I have to fly to China to see it!
Unfortunately though, the only way to get people's attention these days is to be outrageous or funny, or whatever appeals to the lowest instincts.
There probably are people out there who do a serious and thorough job of analyzing and discussing facts, but can you name one?
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
You know, the land of the free, home of the brave, etc.
GeeDubya, just keep repeating to yourself: "It's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's...."
So much of the disucssion about this new movie is about left this or right that, that I have to reply to the main topic and not individual threads. What is it about left vs right? Each side treats the other like it has the plague. But afterall, we all know that 'left' in other languages is sinister or gauche while 'right' is adroit. Why is liberal equated with the left? I think there are, or at least must be, liberal righties. The Bush administration has definately taken us to where we haven't been before. This was kind of liberal interpretations of the constitution. But wasn't this country founded on some very liberal, forward thinking ideas? Lets wake up and engage in real discussion and debate rather name name calling or labeling.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
Oh nevermind... if you think "BBC" when you think "unbiased" then you're in a different universe anyway.
*ALL* news sources have a bias. You're simply doomed if you can't see the bias in whatever your favorite source happens to be.
I used to read the People's Daily World everyday (before the Soviet Union collapsed and it became the People's Weekly World..heh) but I was quite aware I was reading Soviet/communist propaganda.
I shall repeat: *all* news is biased and it is a requirement of thinking people to recognise that bias and take it into account. Not just in what they say and report but what they don't say and don't report.
IIRC, the reason the film is not being released is because Disney refused to release it in an election year (a move I agree with) - not with the distributors. The timing on the attempted release by Moore of this movie is as politically suspect as the timing and direction of the 9-11 commission.
If I also recall correctly, Moore was told as early as the summer of 2003 that the movie was not going to be released by Disney. He waited until the election year to scream 'censorship'.
While I've got your eye here, I want to take a moment to bitch about Michael Moore's use of the word 'censorship'. The guy repeatedly complains that Disney is 'censoring' his work. It seems to me, anyway, that Disney should have final say in what they do and don't release - they're not a government agency, they're a freakin company. Moore has the right to say what he wants to say, but where does he get the idea that he can force companies into distributing his ideas for him? I might as well call the Today show and demand that Katie Couric interview me so that I can go off on her about her liberal bias! Why can't some people (yes, read: liberals) tell the difference between the government telling you that you can't say something and a company telling you they're not going to spend their money to broadcast your ideas?
(Yeah, I have Karma to burn)
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
FYI, if you read through the responses below, you'll find that four of the nine jurors were Americans. Only one was French.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Of course, the overriding truth is that this man's ideas have been the direct cause of over a century of misery and death.
:-)
Well, in Europe this man's ideas were also the direct cause of the foundation of the powerful social-democratic parties in Western Europe, like the German SPD, French SFIO or the Swedish SDAP. Marx is as much responsible for Gulag and Stalin as he is responsible for the fact that in Denmark there is simply no such thing as poverty - while the unemployment rate is lower than in the good ol' US of A.
I'm glad you mentioned that and gave me some opportunity to write something leftist for a change
Persons outside the U.S. regularly try to influence U.S. politics. Kerry even publicly acknowledged his support outside the U.S. (note to Kerry: you need support inside the U.S. to win the election). And I can understand why, seeing as we're the current lone superpower. Check out this site, for example.
It does remind me, though, of Cringely's article on "how to compete with Microsoft." Other countries should turn their focus to living their own lives and improving their own nations, rather than focusing on America. Hating America, blaming America, trying to influence American elections, killing Americans, financing folks who kill Americans, toadying to America, etc. won't improve their lives. And it puts the U.S. in a catch-22. We get blamed for everything: for fixing it, for not fixing it, for ignoring it, for not ignoring it, etc. The U.S. is a convenient distraction for many countries' and movements' leaders. Think how much they could accomplish if they focused on being for something, rather than against America.
I didn't vote for Bush in the last election. I would rather vote for Lieberman or Hillary than Kerry. Dean was a disaster. Why? Hillary and Joe are for something, and have specific ideas and goals in mind. Dean was only against Bush. Kerry is a pathetic waffler, and is primarily anti-Bush, rather than pro-anything.
So, maybe this is "one of the most important socio-political events this yeat" -- but the Euros politicizing a film festival to influence U.S. elections is... pathetic.
Come on! No one needs America to fail in order for them to succeed. That's such horrible, negative, zero-sum, defeatist thinking!
Succeed! Form a new, powerful EU nation! We Americans will be cheering you!
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Oh, wait, we can't show the torture and murders that went on back then, that's not fair.
Once a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein becomes your moral compass, you have lost. Completely. Finito.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
I try to follow the policy of that anytime I see anyone using the words "liberal", "conservative", "left" or "right" in anything but an incredibly clearly defined context, I just stop paying attention to the person using them. The words just don't mean anything. And yet people try to reason about them like they're the key to understanding everything that happens in politics.
The problem is that since there's no commonly defined clear demarcation for "left" or "right", this means that people can play the neat trick of constantly reassigning those words to whatever is most convenient at the moment. A favorite tactic seems to be to "prove" something in a piece where you mostly talk about "left" vs "right" while constantly tweaking the definitions of both terms. For example, in one paragraph the word "right" might be used to refer to the current presidential administrators and its followers, in the next paragraph the Coulter/Limbaugh set, in the next libertarians; or in one paragraph the word "left" might refer to extremist feminists, in the next paragraph people who oppose the WTO, in the next current congressional Democrats. The neat thing about this trick is that if you're careful about how you skew your use of these terms, you can (for example) make a flat-out statement about separatist lesbian feminists and then trick the reader into thinking you've shown it applies to Bill Clinton.
Another favorite tactic, and the most common one, seems to be to define "conservative" to be "anyone I agree with" and "liberal" to be "anyone I disagree with", or vice versa...
I personally suspect that anyone that I can catch playing these linguistic games doesn't have anything worthwhile to say, since they're hiding behind ambiguous labels rather than actually arguing in concrete terms. So I try to ignore anyone who talks about "left" vs "right" without clearly identifying which groups they mean by those labels.
Unfortunately the false "liberal"/"conservative" dichotomy has saturated our culture so completely that this policy is very difficult to follow.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Hollywood? Why? This is the Canne film festival. What does Hollywood have to do with it? Did you even read the article?
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
While Michael Moore may be guilty of "creatively editing" various bits for his films (and yes, I agree with someone else who said his films were commentaries, and not documentaries), I think it's still important to recognize that his films do invoke discussion about some serious issues. He brings to light things that some would rather us not bother ourselves with, and gets the debate going. And he does it in an entertaining way.
I agree with what most of you seem to say: Michael Moore speaks alot of BS, but so does anybody else that says anything at all. It's just that too many people say the one side and not the other side of the story, Michael Moore says what nobody else has the balls to say, and people like him are needed to balance out the political system:
For example, in Switzerland, there are about 5 main political parties, two left-wing parties, one central, and two right-wing parties. This leads to a balanced system. In the states, all the news reporters and government officials are all saying the same thing (doesn't it get boring?), and thank god the Michael Moore gets up and says the other side of the story, I would go as far as saying that there should be many more M. Moore's in the US.
Luckily M. Moore is quite a vociferous man!!
Prison abuse sucks, yes. But here's why Abu Ghraib is on the front page, and those stories are not: They're Americans.
What was becoming known as the Iraqi Prisoner Torture Scandal is now known as the Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Scandal, or even the Iraqi Prisoner Mistreatment Scandal. The word Torture is quickly becoming the elephant in the middle of the room. We all know that those people in those photographs are being tortured. What else can one call it when a jailer pours acid on a prisoner's head?
We're all accustomed to seeing torture in movies, or on the news. But in these situations, the torturer is always an alien figure, usually over-the-top, characterized in broad strokes. The great cinematic torturers, such as Laurence Olivier in Marathon Man, or the captors in The Deer Hunter, have one thing in common: They're not Americans. The Vietnamese soldier photographed shooting his prisoner in the head: Not American. Lynndie England: American.
An American torturer is repellent, alien to our cultural mindset. We're so unaccustomed to the sight that it's doubly disgusting. The racist undercurrent of our popular media feeds back on us in this situation, and tells us that Americans, white Americans, don't do this. They're the good guys. But these soldiers are just average Joe and Jane America, and they did do this. We are they, and they are us, and that means that as a country, we are ashamed.
People in general don't deal with shame very well. We all of us, naturally, try to take shameful moments and acts and deal with them by softening the blow in our minds. One deals with the memory of keen embarrassment by finding the humor inherent in the situation. One deals with a past infidelity by rationalizing that since nobody will ever know, nobody will ever be hurt. The word adultery becomes fling, fling becomes indiscretion. These rationalized lies may even be necessary for us to move on with our lives, and not be locked into paralysis by our inability to deal with our darker natures. Certainly the press were quick to jump upon language which allowed them to lessen the shock. As anyone who's regularly read a newspaper in their lives knows, this is not something journalists are wont to do.
It is not yet time to move on. Let's at least agree in this instance to call it like it is: Torture. Americans, acting on behalf of America, tortured the hell out of these people.
Read it again. Say it out loud, hear it, listen to it, accept it. If you are a patriot, as I am, feel the way it hits your stomach and stays there, destroys your appetite, knocks down the straightness of your shoulders. Americans, acting on behalf of America, tortured the hell out of people. Don't let the words change for you, and slide the full truth of what has happened away. As one who loves this country, it's maybe too painful to look directly into the truth of this matter for too long. As one who loves this country, being seared by the shame our countrymen have brought down on us is a necessary step toward making things right. Gaze full-on into it, and let it make you humble again.
Stop your apologist comparison of the wrong thing we did in one situation to the wrong things other people do in similar situations, as if their abhorrent behavior somehow justifies or lessens the severity of our own.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
In looking around at various web sites concerning Michael Moore, I found this interesting account. If you follow it, you'll note that the author is very definitely of the left-wing "progressive" persuasion, and the tone is "more in sorrow than in anger."
Why should I think that Mr. Moore's films are any more accurate than his version of the events that the web page's author recounts?
I give a rat's ass as well.
These days politics has more of an impact over technology than anything else.
If more people were politically active and aware, instead of playing computer games all day, maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.
Who the hell cares? A liberal guy makes a liberal movie that uber-liberals vote #1 because they don't like the current political establishment. Is anyone really surprised by that?
I'm not a flaming liberal that thinks Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky necessarily have their finger on the dynamics of our society by any means. But if anything, the unbridaled vitriol he elicits from factions of the populace should warrant careful consideration of his work.
I have seen all his movies and some parts I think are incredibly illuminating and others are obviously embellished or distorted, but one thing is for sure: Debate on these issues is productive and there aren't enough outlets for the types of messages he's promoting in our media today, and even if you don't like what he stands for, it's probably incredibly important, even if you disagree with him, that you support his right to express himself. That you recognize that he is passionate about what he believes in and shouldn't be cut down by pedantic, ignorant, sweeping judgements. Otherwise, you will inevitably find at some point, you'll be in his situation as well.
The fact of the matter is that Moore documents his work exponentially better than his ideological rivals in most cases. His underdog status necessitates this, and that's good for everybody. It's also worth noting that the majority of Moore's critics prefer to criticize Moore, the fallible, sometimes-inconsistent MAN (as if any of us are standards by which others should be judged), and completely disregard his work and the issues he raises.
To dismiss him is to bury your head in the sand whether you agree with his agenda or not.
I think this just prove how truly corrupt Hollywood has become that a person like that could win an award for simply being a fat, hypocritical, low life, scum bag, with a camera. I'm guessing he has about 5 years left on that cholesterol train before his heart explodes like refried beans left in a microwave to long. I can't wait for Mr. Moore to be making those headlines.
CLASSIC ignorant, mean-spirited response.
Don't address the issues he raises. He's FAT, therefore his work has abstolutely no integrity or relevance.
If anything, Moore is a litmus test to identify the free thinkers from the brain dead. Thank you for so efficiently demonstrating this.
Seriously, does anyone believe this movie received the Palm d'Or on its merits? The judges at Cannes were making a slap at Bush, nothing more.
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
(Finally got a dang account in 2004)
No, the campaign to censor dissenting views is not overt, it's very much sub-rosa. And it has a great deal more to do with the carrot than the stick.
Large US media companies have billions, even hundreds of billions, riding on various expansion efforts that must be approved by government regulators-- government regulators who are currently under the control of a conservative administration and Congress. It's difficult for you and I to appreciate the sheer pressure that those billions put on corporate executives, but a dispassionate view of the situation should make it apparent: as the leader of a large media corporation, you can't afford to make enemies of the people who determine your company's financial future. You don't have the liberty to think about what's right and wrong, or care about free speech-- your mandate is simply to insure your investors the highest possible return.
So what are you supposed to do when some tiny, insignificant portion of your corporate empire puts the entire company at risk? You do exactly what Disney has done to Moore's film: you squash it like a bug. Not because the film is bad, incorrect, or unlikely to sell tickets. You do it because, as Disney has said up front, it's simply not worth it to piss off the people who will be ruling on your next merger or expansion plan. The very fact that Disney has admitted this and cited it as the reason for ditching the film takes these sentiments out of the hypothetical. This really is happening, and a firm as large as Disney is actually concerned that publishing this film will cause them political difficulties.
And in the end, that's the issue here. All your talk about not paying to watch Moore is irrelevant-- you won't even get the opportunity to protest his film, because the decision has already been made. For you, for me, for all of us. And it's entirely and unabashedly political.
One more thing: I do personally believe that the Democratic party is less likely to operate in this fashion than the Republicans are, if only due to disogranization and the lingering presence of a few idealists. But when one side plays dirty, it's only a matter of time before their opponents learn the game too. So by looking the other way now, you insure that the next slimy liberal president will be the one determining what's ok for you to read, see and hear.
Having seen this film it was obvious that Moore was implying that public policy sending the single mother to work and public policy making firearms readily available were the cause of or significant contributing factors to the shooting. People who disagree with Moore point to other contributing environmental factors, like running an illegal-drugs business and poor parenting. It is likely that a more thorough analysis could show several troubling factors in this kid's life that all contributed to him shooting another child. I don't see any evidence that a single change in welfare laws, gun laws, drug laws, or parenting laws could have guaranteed that this shooting never would have occurred. Many of us seem to suffer from the fallacy that we can prevent every tragedy with a new law or government program. Whether these laws or programs are conservative or liberal in nature, it doesn't seem to matter. Not every social problem can be solved with law. Some have to be solved by society.
Stuart Eichert
I haven't seen the thing and I am sure it is politically biased
:)
Everything you see is biased. From the choice of what to put in and leave out, the angles the subjects are shot at, the way they're lit, the juxtapositions they use.
At least Moore is OBVIOUS about it. He's not changing ads in the background and making the goal of so many movies to obtain financial and a hot girlfriend that you don't even think about it any more.
Moore generates DEBATES, just like this one. Which in the end is much more valuable than a boring movie that no one sees or talks about. Trolls are annoying when they bring up the same argument, but NOT when they incite debate on topics that people really NEED TO THINK ABOUT. Voter apathy is at an all time high. The candidates all try to sound alike to avoid offending anybody. We NEED blatantly biased opinions back in our society, so people can have real discussions about real issues.
But I agree that we should have the chance to see it before we argue any more.
Bush and his team, with his isolationist, imperial attitude squandered all that.
The is not such a thing as anti-US sentiment anywhere, it is simply that the US is too unruly to just sit down and say nothing about it.
Heck, surely you would say that somebody complaining because you are beating him with a baseball bat harbours unfounded anti-you sentiments....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
They don't hate our freedom, they don't hate our religion, they wouldn't care at all about us if we weren't a.) Screwing them over continually, and b.) bragging about what Champions of Justice we are.
Look at our record, in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South America. How many freely elected governments have we toppled in the last 30 years? Dozens. How many corrupt dictators have we installed? Dozens. How many evil bastards have we ignored because they were our 'friends?' Dozens again. If anyone is really misinformed enough to debate the facts on this, I'll find some links, it's not hard to do.
Fear will never solve the problem. Aggression leads to aggresion, always. That is the primary reason we still have war and the primary reason most religions teach tolerance and forgivness.
You can't bully humanity into not producing bullies.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
To continue with debunking "eloquence", the American crime rate grew during the 60s and 70s, peaking in 1980, declining until the mid 80s and peaking once again in 1991, then declining until 2001.
American foreign policy has zero correlation with the crime rates in the US; our interventions during the 50s and early 60s did not cause the crime rate to shoot up, but Prohibition did during the 20s and early 30s. The end of vietnam did not result in a decline in crime but the Gulf War on TV marked the peak of violence in the US and saw 12 years of declining murder rates. Wars fought in Bosnia, Gulf war 2, sporading bombings of southeast europe and Iraq did nothing to stem the decrease in violence.
"Americans cheer the killing of children, yet wonder why their own children grow up to be more violent than those in other nations."
1 american does this and "Eloquence" feels the need to present the views of that blogger as the views of all 290 million of us. I can find countless more examples of non Americans cheering the murder of children that he chooses to ignore.
"Oh, before some fat ice cream eating micheal moore's ass kissing life flunky..."
Because he's fat he doesnt know what hes talking about?
Instead of modding crap like this 'interesting' i think what you meant to put it to was -1 flamebait. Thanks.
I watched Michael Moore's "Roger and Me" about the devastation of Flint, Michigan because of General Motors closure of factories.
It was a good movie, raising very valid points.
However, from what I read in the media about Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore used the wrong tactics.
For example, he emphasizes the Bush Family / Bin Laden Family business connections. So what? Bin Laden's family are big time construction businessmen, with huge projects all over the region. Bin Laden's father established this business a long time before Osama was born.
Bin Laden's family disowned him a long time ago (early 90s). This is not like Bush was a friend of Osama or something.
The throwing of irrelevant but sensational bits of data into the debate never helps, and if the neo-cons and their apologists do it, there is no need for those trying to be objectives to mimic this tactic.
This is very much like the other "quasi facts" that are drummed up against Saudi Arabia for example, and etched into the collective psyche of Americans. For example: the allegations that the royal family or officials or the people knowingly funded Bin Laden. Or that Bin Laden was paid "protection money" by the Saudi government (nice Mafia reference there!). These are presented to the American people as undisputed facts. The fact is: the Saudis stripped him of his citizenship very early in the 90s, before he declared any kind of war on America! As for the alleged "funding", it is never stated that this was mismanagement by some charity officials that lead to some money making its way to Bin Laden, and not that royal family/officials/Saudis intentionally funded him against America. Nor does it mention when this happened. It may have happened in the 80s when he was in a jihad against the USSR, something that America wholeheartedly supported.
I am against Bush's ill conceived policies all the way, but using these tactics will not help confront those stupid policies.
Nevertheless, it raises some good points that Americans need to think about.
P.S. Another good documentary that features Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and others, is "The Corporation". Really worth a look by all readers of Slashdot.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Thats what he does in all his movies.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Moore is a clown, granted. There is a difference between a clown and a fool, however. One "who wouldn't know a fact..." you refer to would be a fool. And, in the context of Fahrenheit 911, I would leave naming the examples of wilful and persistent ignorance of facts to the reader.
I'll agre it's important to maintain his right to continue to make his films. I do not agree that all his films are important, nor do I believe he backs up his claims with unbiased research or good sources.
Roger and Me was funny, but in the end, Moore was taking potshots at a CEO for killing his home town's economy, not because of his care for the noble common worker. He destroys that image of nobility by finding the most embarassing people in the town and editing them to look like idiots.
Every corporation has the right to do their business as they see fit. Hacking at GM won't fix Ford, Mercedes, Chrysler, Honda , Toyota, or any other car maker deciding to outsource.
Columbine completely ignored the responsible gun owner. It completely ignored the real 2nd amendment debate. It completely ignored the REAL reasons behind Columbine. All it did was make fun of rural folks and make trite commentary about the 2nd Amendment. Here's a hint, you can't sum up this issue in an hour if the framers and Supreme Court have been analyzing it for 200 years without a conclusion.
Now, of course, we have 9/11. Where Moore takes many disparate bits of half-truths and puts them together to form a path to a delusional conclusion that Bush knew about, and aided and abetted those that caused 9/11. When I got to watch this in rough cut, it felt like the psuedo-science used on Fox for their Moon Landing hoax and their Alien Autopsy "documentaries".Using Occham's razor, consider this RATIONALLY....What is more likely;
A: President and his staff miscalculate the determination of some Islamic radicals and get caught with their pants down in a modern Pearl Harbor. After the fact, they do some favors for their closest Arabic Middle East ally to get their help in tracking down the bad guys. They also kick out bin Laden's extended family because they may become targets of hatred, and the bin Laden family is close to the Saud Royals.
or B: The President decided that there is no way American citizens would ever discover his hand in a huge plot requiring 100+ operatives to pull off and KNOWINGLY decides to kill 10,000 + (remember, he would have had NO idea how many would die in a structure holding 40k) Americans so he could go to war in Iraq. In addition, he rewards the peple who helped him. Even though everyone would KNOW he helped them and it would increase his chances of being caught. Further, this President would have to assume these terrorists would only hit the targets they promise to hit, and that the terrorists would still do this if Bush asked them.
Yeah, B does sound a lot more like f-ing fiction when you put it in context. Moore is a once- entertaining filmmaker who has become angry and bitter. I would vigorously defend his right to make and show his films, but I won't go see them in theaters. They aren't MUST SEE, and he certainly isn't making "important" work anymore. He's a Netflix rental for me. One of about 20 programs I will see in a month. That's about the respect and value he deserves.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
> For that alone what a great movie.
And that while nobody here has actually seen it yet.