"Fahrenheit 9/11" WINS Cannes' Palme d'Or

Poststructural Pub
21

I’d also like at add another reason why this movie, for me and I’m sure for many of us, is going to be very interesting is that most movies cinema hungry people like me end up seeing are american/hollywood movies. There’s nothing wrong with that, I’m not forced to get to the movies. In most of those movies, we are brainwashed with the american way of life, the american flags, the american morals, etc.

On my favorite TV show, “24”, and I said favorite, the president is a black man who has high moral values.

At the end of the day, we’re not fools, and we know it’s all fake. C’mon, an american president who doesnt think about money first? It’s impossible. A black president in the states? Maybe in 2522. But we know it, and we know how to handle this “fakeness” in american movies without jumping off the roof.

A movie/documentary/whatever like Fahrenheit is going to be really refreshing. It’s going to be propaganda, but the other way around. We will take pleasure in having the american culture criticized, we’re going to enjoy every second of it, even if the documentary sucks. Because for once, we won’t have american flags proudly stucked in our face, with “america is great” every 6 frames.

We’re going to love Fahrenheit, but there’s more to it than just anti-bush or anti-american sentiments.

22

You probably like those Molson “I AM CANADIAN” ads, too. :slight_smile:

Stuart

23

When you’re a french canadian in Montreal city you end up in a weird and tricky situation. We actually think that Ontario is an american state, and don’t really like Toronto. Many people in Quebec city think the same of people who live in Montreal. It’s complicated. So, yeah, I’m proud to be canadian as long as canadian doesnt mean Ontario :slight_smile: It’s hard to keep a list of who you’re supposed to like or dislike in here! But no matter what, I’m no racist and always judge someone for who he/she is, but it’s always fun to have some friendly “competition” between different cultures.

K SORRY FOR THE HIJACK BACK TO THE DOCUMENTARY NOW

24

Funny.

I post about an American movie. I understand the movie is a pamphlet, and obviously biased against the current administration of the Americans. I don’t consider it as a “documentary” since it doesn’t even try and pretend to be objective. It’s biased, and very openly so.
However, it’s still produced by an American company, and got elected as the Movie of the Year by a jury with an American majority…

Well, when MASH won the Palme d’Or back when… I was young, I read the same about Altman. Since it was Vietnam war years, if one ridiculed one aspect of the US army THEN one was anti-American.

No matter how ridiculous it is to call anti-American a product of the American industry by an America author who never said he’s not proud to be an American.

The reference to the Anti-American Horde (sorry Weeks, but seriously) I call paranoia. I’m no specialist, but it has many similar symptoms… “Everyone hates us”, etc.

Next thing you know, one revives the Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)?

If you really believe the world to be anti-American, then don’t worry–do it, and the world won’t care: after all, it’s only Americans bashing other Americans… Actually, a revived HUAC could be the shrewdest anti-American plot ever, especially with the new police methods.

The bottomline of what I believe is that this movie, and its election, and all the other Americans who give another image of America than the official one, may do a better job of fighting anti-Americanism in the world than those who call for escalation.

Now, if the opposite idea is that the half of Americans which disagrees with the current American government are traitors (because they don’t march orderly), then I’m afraid of this:
Some of the same “good Americans” could have made very good Soviets just as well.
True, if the current Prez had been elected by 98% votes, I may well become anti-American just as much as I was anti-Soviet.

25

You got a deal. Email me when the DVD hits the stores and I’ll loan you my copy.

26

According to CNN, the last non-fiction to win the Palm D’Or was Jacques Cousteau: in the mid 1950’s!

27

Back to Cannes, and the obviously arguable Palme d’Or.

Cinema is not only the modern Hollywood, or good old European low-budget farces.

There is such a thing as the engagé cinema.

When Eisenstaedt made his movies, most were obvious Communist propaganda. That doesn’t make a lesser film from “Alexandr Nevskiy” or “Potemkine”, or does it? Potemkine was a pamphlet, though.

When Charles Chaplin made The Dictator, it was an engagé movie too, and it was meant to shift part of the American opinion.

When Cannes prized Tarkovsky’s anti-Soviet movie Andreï Rublev, just as it prized “official” movies like Bondartchuk’s War and Peace before, did it make the Festival pro-Soviet, then anti-Soviet? Well there were voices to this, then that effect, true…

When it prized the first Iranian, or African movies to get international recognition, all engagé movies, about famine, or women’s rights, it meant:

Cannes Festival is not restricted to a “pretty” or “entertaining” cinema, but to cinema generally.

It has given recently prizes to a very diverse scopes of movies: political, cartoons, musicals, and avant-garde things–some I just can’t get into let alone dig… So what’s the consistency? Just that every Palme d’Or and Grand Prix of the Jury was thought to be a new brick to pick for the story of cinema, or the closest thing to it in the given year.

Sometimes, Cannes did elect blatantly commercial blockbusters, just because the jury believed they were also good movies. Same way, Troy and Shrek 2 and Tarantino’s last karate thing sequel were present this year too.

Those who believe cinema should remain and restrict itself to an entertainment industry, disconnected from the social and political con,cerns of their time, have the Hollywood Awards and Walt Disney studios for them. Although I don’t believe the latter ever was politically neutral.

Now, if Cannes does show a consistent bias compared to the Awards is that, yes, it tends to lean towards the movies who could not get recognition if the cinema industry was only ruled by how many dollars a movie will make, and if the producers could be alone to tell you what to watch.

28

Keep in mind that Azalin is from Quebec, where opinions on America/Bush are almost uniformly bad. They attacked a bus of American kids who had gone there for a hockey tournament because there was an American flag on the bus. Another province (New Brunswick) later invited the team to THEIR province just to show that not all Canadians were idiots. No offense to you Azalin, but Quebec is by no means a great example of Canadian opinion.

It is a funny country we have here and I’m sure you’ll agree Stuart that it defies generalizations more than most countries… unless we’re talking hockey. Good luck getting this back on topic, Canadians love talking about themselves. :smiley:

29

Let me start out by saying that I was absolutely thrilled to see Moore win the Palme D’or (now maybe Eisner and Company at Disney will be forced to distrubute it).

Stuart-although I’m sure there must be somebody up here who likes him, but I have yet to meet any Canadians who admit to liking Bush, and he’s generally universally reviled except in that far right rag, the Sun…and I have a very difficult time believing that anyone in urban TO (home of my personal NDP hero Jack Layton, and from which no conservative seats were won in the last three provincial elections, even in the far right Harris regime) would express an admiration for him. And let me just add that I have dual American and Canadian citizenship (and grew up in Texas-almost a third citizenship there)so this is just not another “foriegn slag.”

Sorry you think Ontario’s just another American state Az! Maybe the Bloc will win in Quebec… :wink:

30

Good points, Zub, about the history of the films and Cannes judges, and Jon, about NYTimes (I do read the op-eds everyday and yet consider Rich as an apologist in that particular argument). I admit, I went over the top this am because I am sick to death of Michael Moore. To me, he’s just another celeb rich guy, laughing all the way to the bank while he @#$s on his own country and culture. I see little in that guy of constructive solutions. It’s easy to just sneer and act superior when you are not in actual positions of responsibility. From other thread, most of the commentators, including the rightwingers, have the same luxury.

As for Az’ comment that “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.” Sure doesn’t describe my life. No doubt that we have the creature comforts and security that most don’t but it does not justify that characterization.

That’s a nice comfortable fantasy to support your position but hardly the truth. Between religion, volunteerism, military service, and unemployment, to name a few, we do think of other things in the USA.

31

There’s been too many Star Trek posts lately, I think. When I first read this, I was wondering why there was a reference to “Jean-Luc Picard”. Speed-reading can get you into trouble.
I have read that unfortunately the movie is not as creative as Bowling For Coloumbine (of course that is just one critic’s opinion), but I am curious to see it.

32

The lack of understanding here amazes me…

First, there is a big difference between anger and hate. Many, many people are angry at Bush and what his administration have done. That does not mean they hate Bush, his administration or America, but that they are very angry, and justifiably so, about the enormous amount of damage Bush and his adminstration have wreaked upon the US and the rest of the world. To call that anger “hate” is an unfair and dishonest way to deligitimize it, to portray it as something bad and ugly, which it is not.

Second, some people continue to portray those who are angry at Bush and his administration as some sort of crazy, minority fringe group. It must be understood that a major percentage of US citizens are very angry with Bush, his administration and his policies. On top of that almost the entire world can hardly wait to see him go. In the last 5 years I have lived in the US, Ghana, Ireland, Scotland, Mexico and Costa Rica (I’ve travelled to about three times that number of counries during that time). The change I have seen has been tragic. Five years ago the great majority of the people I met in other countries admired the US and expressed considerable support for the US, though even then many people did express very reasonable concerns about US policy. During the last three years, and now more than ever, nearly everyone I meet while abroad expresses tremendous frustration, disappointment, anger and sorrow at what Bush and his administration have done to the US and to the world. The world is not “anti-American” - they are anti-Bush and his policies. The many, many Americans critical of Bush are not “anti-American” - they are pro-American and they recognize that Bush is destroying the America we believe in and we are proud of - a country that leads by example as a true beacon of freedom, democracy, truth, kindness and charity - not an America that says one thing and does another, obscuring lies with more lies and those with even more lies; not an America that places the wealth of a few over the wellbeing of the majority; not an America that acts like a playground bully, using tactics of fear to scare its own citizens and the citizens of other countries into submission. The most patriotic thing an American can do is to raise his or her voice, to criticize that which he or she believes to be wrong and to try and change it. It is a sad, sad time we live in where those who raise their voices for positive change are labeled “traitors” while those who stay silent or tow the party line are “patriots”. Have we forgotten where this country came from? I raise my voice, as do millions of others, because I love America and all the good it stands for and I refuse to silently watch it destroyed.

Chris

33

Howdy folks!

Just got back from a few weeks up in Canada. Now, I’m not one to get embroiled in political threads, but I thought I might bring up that there was a CTV/Globe and Mail poll that came out about…two weeks ago, I think, stating that 82% of Canadians disapprove of President Bush and believe he is “no friend of Canada.” Disapproval was highest in BC, where I was staying (87%), and lowest in the Maritimes (somewhere around the mid-70s mark, I can’t remember now).

Funnily enough, those wacky pranksters at CTV did a special segment in the same broadcast where they posted pictures of PM Paul Martin around near the capitol building and other locales of political and/or commercial importance in Washington DC (this was on the eve of Martin’s recent meeting with Bush… ho-hum). They then proceeded to interview about a dozen passers-by and SURPRISE! None of 'em could name the dude in the picture.

I for one did get tired of my Canadian pals and their constant Bush slagging, although it would usually stop once they figured out that my own opinions on the matter were further to the left of their own…It was also a bit tiring the way many Canadians that I met in my age group (mid-twenties) would either consciously or unconsciously try to suss out whether I was an “enlightened”, well-informed American, or one of the “ignorant” (i.e. pro-Bush/pro-Iraq war) variety. I got so tired of this exchange that I essentially wound up preparing a little speech to use whenever this sort of thing came up: “Look, I’m not the least bit satisfied with the current American leadership, I never supported the Iraq war and think it has gone completely awry …and by the way, yes, I know the metric system, I can speak French, and I can name more that five Canadian prime ministers.” The last two were things that even some of my Canadian friends couldn’t do…

For the record, I enjoy Michael Moore’s films, polemecized though they may be, in part because Moore just has such a gift for making his interviewees so damned uncomfortable and provoking them to say and do incredibly stupid things. Apparently, I’ve heard that Moore got a camera crew embedded with troops in Iraq without the US Army being aware that it was his crew. That ought to make for some interesting footage…(also check out some of the “Letters from the Troops” on his website). I don’t always agree with the man, but thank God he’s there…Modern political discourse wounldn’t be as much fun otherwise…

And by the way Stuart, I think those Molson I AM CANADIAN ads are f****n’ hilarious…

-CD

PS–Ontario like an American state?! C’est de la poutine!

34

I don’t have a problem with Moore’s making a lot of money, that’s US capitalism in action. He certainly has a right to his opinion and if he can find ways to finance his movies, that’s fine.

Where I have trouble with Moore gets into the same reasons I don’t care for Michael Savage, O’Reilly, etc. Merely having a good story to tell doesn’t justify rudeness or belittling people who are only periphally involved (secretaries, low-level management, etc.). Running up to people, sticking a microphone in their face and acting surprised when they lack eloquence isn’t journalism and is unfair to your subject. He also frequently uses quotes out of context (he certainly isn’t alone in this area).

Jon-M’s reasoning, which is basically the left has to sink to the level of the right in order to compete, seems pretty weak. I don’t like to see my “side” sink to the level of the other in order to win. Maybe I would feel differently if I were on the left.

On the subject of Montreal, our school choir (including my oldest daughter) is going there in a couple of weeks. Hopefully there won’t be any incidents.

35

Well, if we ever meet, I’ll pretend I’m friendly to aliens k? :wink: There’s good sessions sometimes here, and I’m leading one on wednesday evenings, if you’re around on that evening.

36

I thought about Moore further and add that I think he could go into any country (where it was allowed) and use his “methods” and make anybody look foolish, inconsistent and awkward. Since when do you win at Cannes for updating “Candid Camera?”

And really, that clown in the wig, Howard Stern, has some kind of stuttering interview guy who goes around poking mics in the faces of celebs and asking them ridiculous questions until they crack…kinda the same thing only not focused on one topic.

In other words, I would hope that someone who does something exceptional is lauded, not somebody who has found a cheap formula to poke fun, look self-righteous, and capitalize on universal human weakness. I guess my own answer is that he does it exceptionally well and makes money at it, to the delight of film distributors, publishing industry et al. He is a corporate phenomena.

I look forward to his new book: “Stupid Brown Men” where he goes to Sudan and explores enslavement and genocide of African animists and Christians by the Muslim majority. Boy, he’ll really get 'em! Think I should hold my breath?

He is supposedly going to get his own medicine according to an editorial in the UK Daily Telegraph. A young filmmaker, named Mike Wilson, is producing a documentary called “Michael Moore Hates America” in which the “slob in the baseball cap will fin his techniques turned on himself,” said the article.

37

Rando,

You make a good point about rudeness. I don’t mind that Savage, Limbaugh, O’Reilly think what they think. What I do mind is how they treat people - their guests, listeners, callers, the people they talk about… they are so rude and meanspirited towards them. I don’t think Michael Moore comes close to their level of rudeness but he does sometimes stray in that direction. I think he, like Savage, Limbaugh, et al, would be much more respected and actually make his point more clearly if he did so more kindly.

I was actually really disappointed with AirAmerica radio. As I’ve said, the thing that makes me really disgusted with Fox News, Rush, Savage, and the rest of that gang is how just pathetically rude they are to everyone they deal with - they constantly tell people to shut up, insult them, call people names, cut mikes, end interviews, interrupt, etc. It’s a disgrace. I hoped that Air America would provide good, spirited, discussion of issues from a liberal perspective while treating guests, listeners, callers and the people they were discussing with respect. I was really disappointed to hear that they’d followed the example of the conservative radio and tv, being rude and obnoxious, the only major difference was that they were discussing things from a liberal perspective. It wasn’t as bad as Fox but it was close. I haven’t listened for about a month, so perhaps it has changed.
I know people have differing opinions - that’s fantastic and I wouldn’t have it any other way - I just wish we could treat eachother with decency and respect so we could have a real discussion.

Best,
Chris

38

I am a dirty communist.

39

[quote=“vomitbunny”]I am a dirty communist.

Well, then take a bath for heaven’s sake.

40

In order to illustrate my point from a couple of posts above - that most US citizens are actually against Bush and his policies I’ve posted the most recent poll results and a link to the article discussing them.

Here’s a little excerpt… just to reassure the rest of the world that we in the US haven’t lost our minds completely.

Evaluations of the way Mr. Bush is handling the war in Iraq, how he is handling foreign policy, and how he is handling his job overall are now at their lowest levels ever in his presidency.

Mr. Bush’s overall job approval rating has continued to decline. Forty-one percent approve of the job he is doing as president, while 52 percent disapprove — the lowest overall job rating of his presidency. Two weeks ago, 44 percent approved. A year ago, two-thirds did.

Sixty-one percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Mr. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while just 34 percent approve.

As concern about the situation in Iraq grows, 65 percent now say the country is on the wrong track — matching the highest number ever recorded in CBS News Polls, which began asking this question in the mid-1980’s. Only 30 percent currently say things in this country are headed in the right direction. One year ago, in April 2003, 56 percent of Americans said the country was headed in the right direction.