Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War

[primitive]

Originally posted by Grauzone:

.
.
if you talking in this way, you can append norway very fast to the axis of evil. be carefully with your words

Ssssh,
Don't give Bush any fancy ideas. There are too many implications already.

We got the oil, we got a religious leader as head of goverment (a priest) and we don't show anyone any WMD's so we must be hiding them.

GP:
Don't worry

[Slynky]

I think Rex makes a good point that the French didn't give the award. Of course, as I allow for American "private agendas", I will allow for the fact that foreign countries voted for this film in order to further their private agenda...make America look bad. Obviously, it's a political film and votes could surely be cast accordingly.

I'm not here to say America is perfect and other countries are full of faults. I believe all countries spin things the way they want them based (in part) on how it helps themselves.

I think, and I'm glad I'm in a country where I am allowed to, that enough of the movie is based on fact to allow the rest of the movie to draw conclusions and make "suggestions".

As to the war? The US public was "bombarded" with B&W photos of all the places where WMDs were located...yet, when we got there, nothing could be found. I wonder, being of a free mind, if I was lied to (to gain public support) or if Iraq was really great at hiding all of them.

Problem is, a lot of people in the US haven't had the opportunity to work in the classified areas I have worked in. Even working in the government is enough to give one a glimpse of how facts get distorted.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Moore is a jerk and only the French would give him an award for an anti-Bush movie.

If Moore was this great documentary film maker, then why doen't he do a movie on things other than what he has done them on? Simple, he is a jerk out to cause as much controversy as his warped mind can produce.

The guy is a jerk, and obviously Disney thought so to.

I say it again. Moore is a jerk who feeds off of causing controversy with half truths, speculation, and out right lies. He bends the truth, fact, and situations to his own twisted view. I do not believe him. Moore is leech and he always will be!

[AMF]

The eternal wonder of the closed mind: When one makes up one's mind about something beforehand, why consult data?

Here is list of all the films that have been awarded a Palme d'Or since 1946:

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/...Film_Festival/

I haven't seen all of the american ones, and certainly not many of the foreign ones, but the only one I have seen that might be said to have an "anti-US" bias would be Apocalypse Now in 1979. But, really, that's a stretch - it's more of an anti-war/"how nasty is human nature" movie. The Lars von Trier one (Dancer in the Dark) might also qualify as "anti-american" but from what I know he's more of a commentator on human nature too.

Elephant (2003)
Pianist, The (2002)
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
Secrets & Lies (1996)
Underground (1995)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Piano, The (1993)
Barton Fink (1991)
Wild at Heart (1990)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
Mission, The (1986)
Paris, Texas (1984)
All That Jazz (1979)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Conversation, The (1974)
MASH (1970)

etc....

Now, as an admitted amateur and not running the statistics, I would hazard a guess to say that when the french pick english language movies for a golden palm they pick ones that get at human nature, the nature of violence or relationships, and...pianos.

But that's just me. Perhaps I;m wrong. But in any case, making up one's mind before looking at data is only useful if one is not willing to have one;s mind changed. In which case, conversation or debate is likewise pointless.

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Basically any movie that attacks the culture of America with suffient enough lies and mistruths can win a palme d'or.

This is regretable, but true.

This is a statement that is unsupportable.

[Atrocities]

Rant to follow read at own risk. No offense intended so if you take offense, I am sorry.

Moore uses film as if it were a weapon. He yeilds it against those whom he does not like and he does this with dilibrate deception in mind.

I place no faith in any of his work as it is one sided and without counter point. So much so that even Disney decided after seening it to say enough is enough and ordered the distributer of the movie to pull it. Moore cries political involvment, but the truth is, his movie is simply not a documentary but rather a weapon designed to harm.

ONLY the French and those who love to hate America would consider this movie and the manusha that it shovels to be worthy of an award. That says a hell of a lot about them.

If Moore were a true film maker he would have made a documentary and not a one sided film designed to promote his own political agenda.

Shame on you Mr. Moore, shame on you!

I do not like the man, I do not like the mans movies, and I do not like the mans politics. He has done nothing in my opinion to redeem himself as a movie maker, and he has only promoted his movies as a tool to stir controversy and cause harm. He is a jerk, and I do sincerely hope that on the way home he decides to not come home.

EDIT:

The only reason Moore received the Palme d'Or was because his movie attacked Bush. I could give a rats arse about the other movies that have been given the Palme d'Or. Moores movie only received it because the French who chose to give the award did so as a political statement and for that they can take their award and sit on it as far as I am concerned!

They cheapend the award in my opinion, for little more than to make a political statement. Shame on the French!

[ May 23, 2004, 23:55: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[geoschmo]

The thing about Moore is he is so single-mindedly one-sided in his philosophy that it probably isn't that he is intentionally presenting only one side of the argument, he just simply can't accept any reasonable counter opinion to his own as being worthy of even consideration, much less give it time in one of hsi mockumentaries. He's the other side of the coin that is Rush Limbaugh and the other right-wing infotainment types. It's all free speech though. It doesn't have to be intelligent.

[rextorres]

What's funny is most of the people who attack Moore attack his politics but conveniently ignore the content.

From what I've read (especially in this thread) - the tone of some anti-Moore people is so strong that it suggests to me that they are more afraid that he might be telling the truth than that he might be lying.

[ May 24, 2004, 07:02: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[trooper]

Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Moore is a jerk and only the French would give him an award for an anti-Bush movie.

Actually that's another mistruth.

The jury committee (the ones who choose the winner) is made up of 3 Americans, 1 Brit, 1 Chinese, 1 Finn, 1 Haitian and only 1 French person. 1 French Jury Member does not constitute as the "French" giving Moore an award. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

I suppose it's a credit - and a lack of bigotry -on the French to choose mostly foreigners. I can't imagine an American organization allowing mostly foreigners to pick an award for anything much less the most prestigious film award.

---

Moreover, the Jury president is Quentin Tarantino, a typical french film maker...

"french" have not given Moore the price. The Jury did, but most of them are not french people, and they are completly free of their choices.

Most of french people admire American way of life, wealth and Culture, and remember all European countries have a debt of gratitude to pay to the USA since WWII.

What many people in europe (and the rest of world) dislike when dealing with American politics is war operations for business, lack of interest about pollution issues, business around weapons (including personal mines) , industrial spying (Echelon and so on), and journalists forced "blindness" about all things that the US shouldn't be proud of.

[ May 24, 2004, 07:45: Message edited by: trooper ]

[Atrocities]

Thanks for the info Trooper.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by rextorres:
What's funny is most of the people who attack Moore attack his politics but conveniently ignore the content.

From what I've read (especially in this thread) - the tone of some anti-Moore people is so strong that it suggests to me that they are more afraid that he might be telling the truth than that he might be lying.

Rex you make a good point, but the truth is simply that we all know Mr. Moores tactics so well that we don't have to see his documentary to know the man. We already know the man, and there is nothing in his documentary that scares us except that people might believe his one sided - no room for counter point - political views.

Relying on his documentary and him as a source of factual evidence is like trusting Hitler when he says that the Jews are being well cared for. Now I am not comparing Mr. Moore to Hitler so please don't shoot me. I am just saying that his truth should be taken with skeptasism.