Interestingly, the president of the 2004 Jury was not Jean-Luc Godard or some other European crypto-communist, but… Quentin Tarantino.
I’m not sure, but Michael Moore may be the first ever to have won the prize with a non-fiction movie.
More?
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901040531-641112,00.html
Of course there’s also the author’s site http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-21
That a definate MUST SEE film,for me.
I rated ‘bowling for Columbine’ so highly that I went out and bought it.
My late father was a BIG Mike Moore fan,and he really enjoyed that film and several of Mike’s books that he borrowed from me.
I had to laugh when my bro. in law saw my Dad reading a Moore book,and accused Pa of being a COMMUNIST! 
Even the ultra-libs at the NY Times pointed out that the movie is that of a polemicist, not a historian or documentarian. Give me a break. He is just serving up more anti-Americanism to the hungry Euro hordes, who can’t see Uncle Sam whipped hard enough. I wonder if there is anybody left in Cannes who wanted a good European movie to win. I bet there were plenty of other contenders because of the great filmmaking traditions there.
It’s pushing it to call anything by Michael Moore “nonfiction.”
I’m so glad to know that Tarantino can be swept up in the current anti-Americanism so popular in Europe. I work with a bunch of Europeans, and the prevailing themes seem to be that 1, Americans are bombarded with so much propaganda that they have no idea what’s going on in the world; 2, Europeans seem to have a clear line on the truth and are not subject to bias since their information is all from wholly unbiased sources.
Makes me not want to waste the money on Kill Bill Vol. 2.
(Nice going, Zoob, this is SURELY one of those wonderful loving threads full of pats on the back and virtual hugs.) (Oooh, and wait until Andrew sees it! Then we’ll get some really useful information about the US and Bush.)
Stuart
Stuart,
Most canadians, and many of them in Toronto, also dislike Bush, this is not only a European thing. Actually, the whole world, beside the states and Tony Blair, share the same feelings about Bush and americans.
I can hardly wait to see this movie…
You know, Azalin, that’s not exactly true. I’ve been here 11 months and haven’t seen a lot of anti-Americanism. In fact, I’ve met more Canadians who like Bush than I know Americans who like Bush.
For the record, I’m not a Bush fan. But you’ve got to separate Bush from Americans at large. We don’t all support him. If we painted the world with this brush, then we’d hate the Brits because we don’t like Blair.
So why do most Canadians “share the same feelings” about Bush and Americans? Are you all that stupid? It doesn’t seem like it to me. The Canadians that I know tend to say things like, “Your country has done _____, or your President is a moron because ______.” They don’t act like they dislike us as a people . . . but perhaps you do?
If you take this as a personal attack, understand that you’ve just said most Canadians that the whole world dislike Bush and Americans. I have absolutely no problem with their dislike or even hatred of Bush, but why Americans? I take offense at that, and I don’t even think it’s true. Is that really what you’re saying?
Stuart
Perhaps it would be good to remember that all of the citizens of a country may not be thoroughly enchanted with the actions of the county?
It might also be noted that, earlier in America’s history, disagreement with the actions of if the country was not considered un-American!
Denny
Thanking the jury headed by cult director Quentin Tarantino, Moore said: “You will ensure that the American people will see this movie.”
Like there was ever any doubt his movie was going to be distributed in the US. Poor downtrodden Michael Moore. Give me a break.
Here’s who fed “anti-Americanism”, i.e. the jury:
This makes four Americans including the President, one from UK, three from Euroland, and one from Asia. Ok you may resent he was born in Vietnam…
As for the European movies, right: Cannes never favored Europe (or France for that matter) any more than USA or USSR.
This year:
A World-Wide Wild bunch it may be, but I don’t see your Hungry Heuros Horde :roll:
I like that expression, Weeks. It sounds so scary.
Here’s who fed “anti-Americanism”, i.e. the jury:
quote]
Thus proving that mindless hatred is very fashionable nowadays.
And its too bad that you can’t see the difference. As of last look, approximately half of US Americans (or did you folks move off the Continent?) share your disgust for Dubya and his merry crew.
It amazes me to find that every other country is so monolithic that there is no distinction between a leader, his policies, and the populace of that nation. FWIW, I doubt that even all Iraquis are so monolitically united in their beliefs as you picture canadians to be.
Maybe you’re right. But then this fashion has been created in Washington.
I never even in the slightest beleved that the “marketing controversy” betwee Disney/Eisner on one side and Miramark/Moore on the other was anything but a publicity hype much like the antisemitism brouhaha over Gibsons “Passion”.
Folks can rant all they want about politics and similarly juvenile pursuits, but the only god known to the entertainment industry is cold, hard cash. Never doubt it.
Weekenders wrote: “Even the ultra-libs at the NY Times pointed out that the movie is that of a polemicist, not a historian or documentarian.”
This requires a response because it is a textbook case of distortion by not considering the context within which a comment was made. While Rich is conceding Moore’s bias, his larger point is that Moore “implicitly raises the issue that much of what we’ve seen elsewhere during this war, often under the label of “news,” has been just as subjectively edited.” And the main point of the piece is that “Subtleties and fine distinctions are not [Moore’s] thing. That matters very little, it turns out, when you have a story this ugly and this powerful to tell.” The reason it is ugly and powerful, apparently (I haven’t seen it) is because of the presence of facts and footage that, while not presented in a balanced context, are still difficult to ignore and must be addressed (unless you simply don’t want to deal with unpleasant truths).
As for the NY Times being “ultra-liberal,” that kind of labeling is an “ultra-cheap” way of discrediting (read “smearing”) an ideological opponent without substantively addressing the issues they raise. The Times is actually a moderately liberal publication that gives a voice and precious space to such conservative (no, they’re not “ultra”) as David Brooks and William Safire; how many conservative publications do the same? That’s a genuine question because I honestly don’t know. There may be some but if there aren’t, well, that says something too. In any case as a bona fide ultra-liberal myself, I know what is and isn’t ultra-liberal, and the Times ain’t it.
As for Moore, he may operate with a sledgehammer, but the moderate left allowed itself to be slandered for too long by the right and responded with mild, reasoned arguments, assuming, despite all evidence to the contrary, that their opponents–the McCarthys, the Tafts, the Nixons, the Reagans, the Limbaughs of the world–were civilized people who would also use reason and respect the differences of people who, right or wrong, genuinely had the well-being of the country and the world as their top priority. Instead, even the mild-mannered Reagan sought to attack liberalism by starting to refer to it as the “L” word, as though it were an obscenity. So, I’m glad to see liberals hitting back hard at last, and find it somewhat amusing to see how the right squeals when they get back a little of their own medicine.
I was thinking that maybe I’d just wait and see the movie rather than passing judgment on it at this juncture.
Wise advice (though very discreetly not phrased as advice), and I, for one, will take it. I’m out of this for now.
I’m happy to pass judgment before seeing it; we’ve had no evidence that Moore has anything BUT bias . . . if there’s a way for me to see it that’s free and doesn’t benefit Moore at all, then I’ll maybe give it a shot. But I wouldn’t want anything I do to support him monetarily. 
Stuart
I personally make distinction between Bush and the americans. I know that many of you are against his policies, but you are still responsible for what’s happening in your country. People in general will end up mixing leader and country because, after all, we’re talking “democracy” (or a race for who can raise the most money for his campaing) and a leader will usually reflect the will of the people.
I think the USA are a major threat to the world, but I don’t directly blame the americans. I think it’s human nature, and when you got the influence and power the americans have, when you live a life where the only things you have to worry about are how big your new house will be, how many cars you can afford, and what size your next TV is going to be, you end up indifferent to the sufferings of others, wanting things your way, exploiting the poor to get more money, etc etc. Canada does the same, to a different degree.