This IS a French (aka European film festival ) last time I checked. Therefore I would assume that the Europeans SHOULD have the right to crown the film they deem most deserving of the Gand prize. I dont see how this skews things a bit....if there is anything that I could think of as being "skewed" then that should be the American Academy Awards-Oscar- which never EVER ONCE in all its history found a foreign film worthy of being called "best picture". Obviously the rest of the world, in the opinion of the Americans is not capable of producing worthy films. This I WOULD call "skewed".


How about we stay away from the "other" way of duscussion??


Pro-B

um, I was only making reference to the standing ovation and how our response might be different from theirs, as I have yet to see a standing ovation at a movie theater that was more than 30 seconds long. I would never judge a movie worthy (or unworthy) without having at least seen it first...

yes it did, and i am not sure if a different makeup of the jury would've acknowledged that fact, Tarantino being the president certainly helped here. I just had the chance to see it today and it definetely made an impression. Strong film!!

Anyone who is not happy or questions the motives of the festival in awarding the Palme D'Or to Micheal Moore should note that it's not the French academy which selects the winners like the 5000 + Academy contingent does for the Oscars, it's the eight(i think) jury members who selected the winners and 3 of them this year were Americans.

- it should also be noted that the jury prize which was a tie was not awarded to the film THE LADYKILLERS but to the lead actress (the old woman) Irma P. Hall, who is apparently in a hospital. Hopefully she'll get to enjoy her award.

And neither was I judging the film unworthy. I haven't seen it. I Loved Roger and Me, thought the Big One was okay, but thought Bowling for Columbine was way too manipulative and less powerful as a result.

I was not saying anything about THE FILM. Just that its winning was obviously based on politics more than merit. As I said, it is widely regarded by critics(not right wing types) as Moore's weakest film, it got so-so reviews compared to others in the festival, and according to every Cannes article written it didn't have Palm D'or buzz at all in the way that other films in the festival did.

Yet it still won the top prize.

I was simply saying that judging from the insane reaction to a film that is reported as not being "all that"(and even if it WAS "all that", it's still a pretty insane reaction - and I say that knowing how "plastic" an estimation of a standing ovation can be), it's quite clear that the people at this festival were rabidly wanting this film to be Messianic in its importance. Even before they saw it.

No other film had a chance.

I'm aware of the makeup of the jury, and I'm saying nothing more than that the award was quite obviously political - Americans or not, filmmakers are notoriously very left on the political spectrum. Based on the evidence at hand, it seems overwhelmingly obvious that the award was given for political reasons instead of artistic ones - so much so that the jury was, for the first time ever, having to defend their decision to the French Press and assert that they gave the award for the artistic merit of the film.

What reviews are you reading? According to Rotten Tomatoes, it has a 75% positive rating, and this quote from the NY Times review seems a bit more than "so-so":




"Fahrenheit 9/11," his most disciplined and powerful movie to date, suggests that he is also, arguably, a great filmmaker. Using interviews and archival video clips (including a tape made by the staff at the Florida elementary school Mr. Bush was visiting on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001), he has assembled a moving and invigorating documentary.

Which proves my point exactly. I said it has been called and is widely regarded critically as Moore's weakest film. Look at the Tomatometer rating for his other movies:

Roger and Me - 100%
The Big One - 89%
Bowling for Columbine - 96%.

Farenheit 9/11 - 75% - so far his lowest rating, by far(and I expect this will go even lower when more critics get to weigh in on it during wide release).

You have to look at totality - not just "one review". If you want to play that game, I can pull plenty of quotes from other reviews for you, such as:

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER SAYS...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/...=1&rid=1281788

AND

And the NY Post:

I also invite you to go back a page in this very thread and look at the critics compilation for all the films screened at Cannes - these are worldwide critics. Farenheit 9/11 is rated by these worldwide critics, most likely no friends to the U.S. or Bush, at 2.7 stars out of 4 - in fourth place overall, but also very close to the rest of the middle of the pack with 2.5 ratings, etc.

Again, that doesn't mean it shouldn't have won the Palm D'or, but considering that the buzz from those there was firmly with other films, and this film is not getting overwhelming glowing reviews, combined with the excessive reaction to the film when showed, that pretty much illustrates how bad these people WANTED this film to be a "bombshell"(because I contend that NO film can be that "earthshattering" as to warrant that kind of response unless the viewer was so actively invested in WANTING the film to be that), it's pretty clear what happened here.

I'm not the one who made a sweeping generalization ......

The last few posts here are exactly the reason why i stay away from posting certain reviews/charts etc., lets all wait for the documentary to be released here (possibly july 4th weekend) and then make the judgement ourselves

Also the decision to have the jury explain their decison was made prior to the start of the festival, and hopefully this procedure will continue.

I remember reading that Tarantino told Moore that his was the best "Film" and that politics had nothing to do with it. Some might not believe this, but I would certainly believe this to be true. Indeed, this is a film I have to see...

I will certainly make up my mind about the film when I see it. I was just expressing an opinion about why I think this film would have won the Palm D'Or no matter what it was up against.

I think it's very important to see the film and judge for oneself how it is as a FILM, and then get a balanced viewpoint from the other side to reference that to how it relates to politics.

Bowling for Columbine was a good "film", for instance, but as a political statement or investigation it was very weak - it simply played too fast and loose with the "facts" and often engaged in deliberate deception in many examples, which by now have been widely documented. That level of trickery actually sabotages the political point, because if the point was a good one to begin with, you wouldn't have to make things up and twist things around, would you?

I agree with your overall assessment of BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, at certain points in the doc Moore seemed to be just spinning in his wheels (segments involving welfare moms having to work at Dick Clark owned restaurants and the Canadians not locking their doors, just to name two). Although from what i've been told from people who saw the doc, Moore is less visible in Fahreinheit 911 than his previous efforts, but still there are instances like repeated showing of footage involving U.S. and Saudi delegates where he just reads a bit too much into it without providing facts.

All this being said, Roger and Me still stands as a classic of the form - even though he "played with events" and took them out of sequence, the manipulation was far less than in his later films, and the tone less shrill and more involving as a result. It was novel and unique. A light touch to a heavy subject - just perfect. But Bowling had out and out deception running through its running time - implying that a factory made "weapons of mass destruction" when it did nothing of the sort, and implying with a visual that the Klan turned into the NRA, when in actuality, the NRA rose partially as a response to the Klan, actually "cleaning the movement" out of the South and stopping Klan activities in their tracks. There are dozens of examples of this kind of thing in that film.

It's this shrill simplicity and bending over backwards to make a point that requires the facts to be reworked to do so which is really hurting Moore's current work.