Moore takes top Cannes prize

[FlaSoxxJim]

Kudos to Mike, and to all in the Jury for chosing the film. I smell box office smash... once they figure out how to get it shown here.

 

Moore takes top Cannes prize

From correspondents in Cannes, France

May 23, 2004

 

A DOCUMENTARY fiercely critical of US President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq won the Cannes film festival's prestigious Palme d'Or today.

 

 

Moral victory... Moore takes the top gong in Cannes

 

 

Fahrenheit 9/11, by US writer/director Michael Moore, was chosen from a field of 19 films.

 

The jury was led by Kill Bill director Quentin Tarantino.

 

It is the first time a documentary has won the top Cannes award.

 

Fahrenheit 9/11 spans the changes in the United States under Mr Bush since the 2000 US elections, through the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington and the subsequent US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

It is savage to Mr Bush, showing footage that portrays the US president as often out of his depth and keen to further his family's close ties to Saudi families grown rich from oil - including the relatives of Osama bin Laden.

 

Mr Moore, who won an Oscar last year for his previous documentary Bowling for Columbine, said during the Cannes festival that he believed his new film could help deliver a crushing defeat to Mr Bush in November's presidential election.

 

He has alleged the White House has brought pressure to bear to stop the movie from being seen in US cinemas before voters go to the polls.

 

Disney, the parent group of the film's production company, Miramax, has refused to distribute the film, prompting Mr Moore and his backers to search for a new deal.

 

The director has vowed to get the film out in the United States within weeks.

 

Agence France-Presse

[CubKilla]

There's a shock!

 

Moore=Hates Bush

France=Hates Bush and, more to the point, hates the US

Hollywood=Hates Bush

 

I smell another boring MM film snoozefest in the same vein as "Columbine" sucking all common sense and good taste out of the movie theater in which his incredibly amateurish directorial style is viewed.

 

But it will probably do well at the box office. I'm sure it will live up to all of the anti-Bush propaganda leveled by liberal Hollywood.

[EvilMonkey]

When Michael Moore foots the bill for his 'documentaries' HIMSELF, he can determine when they get released. As long as a studio pays the way, THEY own the film.

 

Note: "He has alleged the White House has brought pressure to bear to stop the movie from being seen in US cinemas before voters go to the polls." Yeah, that's right. NO PROOF. But all he has to do is open his yap and say it, and it hits the papers as gospel.

 

Note: "Disney, the parent group of the film's production company, Miramax, has refused to distribute the film, prompting Mr Moore and his backers to search for a new deal." Disney is on record as saying they were exploring one of their smaller studios for the release, even letting Moore know this during shooting. All the while, he acts like this is some big suprise thrown at him by the big, bad corporate giant. He should be carefull, if he bites that hand too hard, that will be one less studio to 'feed' him. He might actually have to work.

 

Note: "Moral victory... Moore takes the top gong in Cannes" Moral victory? Did anyone have a doubt that it would win? Let's see. He is a liberal, the movie is anti-Bush, the judges are also liberal and anti-Bush. Hmmmm. Yeah, I bet the vote was a close one.

 

Maybe he could do a documentary on the UN oil-for-food program, and how that was the biggest reason for all the starvation in Iraq pre-invasion, while the French, Germans and UN leadership themselves all looked the other way and enriched themselves, while the very people they professed to want to help, starved before the world's eyes. I bet he doesn't have enough balls to do that one. No Republicans involved.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Yes, CK...the board of the jury was chaired by Quentin Tarantino and had a bunch of UK and Americans on it and not many French at all. But obviously it was a French move against the United States.

 

Facts...they make or break an argument.

[CubKilla]

Yes, CK...the board of the jury was chaired by Quentin Tarantino and had a bunch of UK and Americans on it and not many French at all.  But obviously it was a French move against the United States.

 

Facts...they make or break an argument.

Nice try. But I merely mentioned France because it is the venue for the Cannes Film Festival. Are you saying that Moore and, more to the point here, the majority of Hollywood are pro-Bush and that their personal biases had absolutely nothing to do with what film they voted for?

 

Common sense is something you lack.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

When Michael Moore foots the bill for his 'documentaries' HIMSELF, he can determine when they get released.  As long as a studio pays the way, THEY own the film. 

 

Note: "He has alleged the White House has brought pressure to bear to stop the movie from being seen in US cinemas before voters go to the polls."  Yeah, that's right.  NO PROOF.  But all he has to do is open his yap and say it, and it hits the papers as gospel.

 

Note: "Disney, the parent group of the film's production company, Miramax, has refused to distribute the film, prompting Mr Moore and his backers to search for a new deal."  Disney is on record as saying they were exploring one of their smaller studios for the release, even letting Moore know this during shooting.  All the while, he acts like this is some big suprise thrown at him by the big, bad corporate giant.  He should be carefull, if he bites that hand too hard, that will be one less studio to 'feed' him.  He might actually have to work.

 

Note: "Moral victory... Moore takes the top gong in Cannes"  Moral victory?  Did anyone have a doubt that it would win?  Let's see.  He is a liberal, the movie is anti-Bush, the judges are also liberal and anti-Bush.  Hmmmm.  Yeah, I bet the vote was a close one.

 

Maybe he could do a documentary on the UN oil-for-food program, and how that was the biggest reason for all the starvation in Iraq pre-invasion, while the French, Germans and UN leadership themselves all looked the other way and enriched themselves, while the very people they professed to want to help, starved before the world's eyes.  I bet he doesn't have enough balls to do that one.  No Republicans involved.

I guess I missed the day of school where they said "Two wrongs make a right." Moore is an asshat when it comes to a lot of things. He's sort of like the Washington Times (although his stuff is not owned by a S. Korean cult leader who wants to believe that he is the messiah)...take it with a grain of salt.

 

Actually the biggest reason for starvation pre-invasion in my discussions with a lot of people from Voices in the Wilderness (a humanitarian group who defied sanctions and brought in food and medical supplies to Iraq) was the destruction of the refrigeration plants, water purification plants etc. so any food the Iraqis did have was destroyed because they could not keep it. Bi-weekly bombing campaigns by US and UK forces from 1991-right before this war didn't help things either. And if you paid attention the UN sanctions in Iraq actually sparked a cavalcade of resignations (most resignations in UN history citing a single cause) saying that the fact that nobody (US, France, Germany et al.) gave a f*** about the Iraqi people.

[EvilMonkey]

And if you paid attention the UN sanctions in Iraq actually sparked a cavalcade of resignations (most resignations in UN history citing a single cause) saying that the fact that nobody (US, France, Germany et al.) gave a f*** about the Iraqi people.

Which ended up leaving the wolves guarding the henhouse. However, it would probably make a good ducumentary, don't you think? Maybe Michael can help us out and show us what really went on there.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

From everything I've heard about that film it was archival footage of the period with a voice over.

 

Michael Moore is anything but objective & his stated goal is "to destroy President Bush". It doesn't surprise me one little bit that the leftist film industry elite were fawning over this nonsense.

 

It's really easy for all these armchair leaders to go back with their 20-20 hindsight & point out every petty flaw they percieved with how Bush handled 9-11 but I dont think anybody could have handled the situation any better than he did. People were saturated with coverage of where the President was and what he was doing during the crisis & they gave their resounding approval of him.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Which ended up leaving the wolves guarding the henhouse.  However, it would probably make a good ducumentary, don't you think?  Maybe Michael can help us out and show us what really went on there.

I dont think you'll ever see Michael Moore make a movie about how Saddam Hussein spent money from the U.N. oil for food program on illegal weapons from France & Russia.

 

I dont think you'll see Michael Moore make a movie about how the U.N. & Kofi Annan were complicit in the fraud & graft that was rampant in that program & how now the U.N. is trying to schush anybody who knew what was going on & prevent them from talking about it.

 

He wont be doing that because he's too busy pursuing his personal vendetta against the President to give any hint of objectivity.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Actually the biggest reason for starvation pre-invasion in my discussions with a lot of people from Voices in the Wilderness (a humanitarian group who defied sanctions and brought in food and medical supplies to Iraq) was the destruction of the refrigeration plants, water purification plants etc.

Nobel Peace prize Nominee Kathy Kelly, a major player and one of the founders of Voices in the Wilderness, was a theology teacher of mine in high school. She is probebely the single most amazing person I have ever met and has thrust herself completely in harm's way to be a presence and a voice for the iraqis. I wish I had the conviction to dedicate a 10th of myself to a higer purpose the way she has. No words to describe her.

[FlaSoxxJim]

When Michael Moore foots the bill for his 'documentaries' HIMSELF, he can determine when they get released.  As long as a studio pays the way, THEY own the film.

When you're right, you're right. I wish Moore had not relied on Mirimax money to get it done, because the film would not be in limbo now if he hadn't. The truth is that he had to do it because his original backers had dropped out of the project and apparently he didn't have the $6 million to put up himself. Although he did indeed know from the start that Disney was likely to balk in the end, he had the complete convictions of the Mirimax heads that the film would get distributed, so he went with the plan. I wish he had not.

[Texsox]

I dont think you'll ever see Michael Moore make a movie about how Saddam Hussein spent money from the U.N. oil for food program on illegal weapons from France & Russia.

 

I dont think you'll see Michael Moore make a movie about how the U.N. & Kofi Annan were complicit in the fraud & graft that was rampant in that program & how now the U.N. is trying to schush anybody who knew what was going on & prevent them from talking about it.

 

He wont be doing that because he's too busy pursuing his personal vendetta against the President to give any hint of objectivity.

I don't think we will see Bush talk about all the good Democrates and Liberals do, while he pursures his personal vendetta against liberals.

 

Doh Nuke. Why don't you tell all the great things Clinton did? All the great things liberals have done?

[FlaSoxxJim]

From everything I've heard about that film it was archival footage of the period with a voice over. 

 

Michael Moore is anything but objective & his stated goal is "to destroy President Bush".  It doesn't surprise me one little bit that the leftist film industry elite were fawning over this nonsense. 

 

It's really easy for all these armchair leaders to go back with their 20-20 hindsight & point out every petty flaw they percieved with how Bush handled 9-11 but I dont think anybody could have handled the situation any better than he did.  People were saturated with coverage of where the President was and what he was doing during the crisis & they gave their resounding approval of him.

Most of the very damning footage is NOT archival footage. Most of it was shot by Moore's crew while imbedded in Coalition units. Of course, they never indicated they were shooting on behalf of Moore, or that the footage was intended to be used to tell a side of the story that would be unflatttering to the Administration or the execution of the war.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I dont think you'll ever see Michael Moore make a movie about how Saddam Hussein spent money from the U.N. oil for food program on illegal weapons from France & Russia.

 

I dont think you'll see Michael Moore make a movie about how the U.N. & Kofi Annan were complicit in the fraud & graft that was rampant in that program & how now the U.N. is trying to schush anybody who knew what was going on & prevent them from talking about it.

 

He wont be doing that because he's too busy pursuing his personal vendetta against the President to give any hint of objectivity.

The great thing about being a filmmaker is that you can decide what story you want to tell. I think the topics you mention are monumentally important avenues of inquiry that someone should try to follow up on. It won't be Michael Moore, because he has his own axes to grind.

 

Moore will be first and foremost in telling you he is not interested in being unbiased. At the same time, the paucity of libel suits against him tells you that he's not making up his facts, he's just using them very selectively in support of his own viewpoints. He would be a very bad scientist, but he's a very good documentary storyteller and that's what he has chosen to be.

[Texsox]

Given a camera, I'll bet Rush could make a wonderful film about the successes of the Clinton Whitehouse and be totally objective, because he's a republican.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

And FYI, Mike has gone after Democrats and their ilk before to on his TV show "The Awful Truth". He's gone after them when he brought a pimp to Congress and demanded that these "b****es and ho's" start working on behalf of the pimp.

 

They went to the Dem. and Republican National Committees, interviewed Congressmen etc. It's some pretty hilarious stuff. And also, on his TV show which is most of his work, he's gone after corporate criminals that most people refuse to prosecute or companies that have been found criminally guilty yet have not had the guilty parties within the company serve any time in jail. That's the one thing you can't fault him for.

 

Most people are ready to throw the guy who steals $60 out of a woman's purse in prison for years yet a guy who steals $60 million in an executive suite gets a slap on the wrist (maybe) and gets treated like he walks on water.