Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" Wins Palme d'Or at Cannes

What did he make up? Don't post all those links by those who are ranting and raving ten times louder than Moore, I've already been there. It's a given than Moore sometimes overkills but trying to counter it with even more overkill doesn't work.

0 Replies

The main objection being the Lockheed WMD comment again clouds up the semantics of what is a WMD.

0 Replies

(Incidentally, I concede that Moore utilizes the sin of omission to good effect. It's visual pundantry and not any worse than what you can find in the media every day).

0 Replies

The French? The Cannes Film Festival is not just attended by the French.

0 Replies

Yes, sin of omission, for example. What I've been saying from the beginning is that I usually agree with his principles, I think he's great at rabble rousing, and since I usually agree with his principles I'm happy with the rabble rousing. But en route to rabble rousing, he uses... techniques... that are not completely 100% factual. That bothers me.

Again, as I already said, if this one is completely 100% factual -- no sins of omission, no misleading conflations, no overstatements -- and is also rabble-rousing, great. I think there is plenty of factual material that is plenty rabble-rousing for this particular subject.

0 Replies

This is what I said before, how I feel now as well:

a year ago, sozobe wrote:

I know what you're saying, Flatted 5th. I have no problem at all with the rough around the edges part; I like that aspect, in fact. It's the "tells the truth" part. He tells a lot of fundamental truths by fudging details in one way or another, and that opens him up to being discredited. I'd like it if he were absolutely 100% impeccably truthful at all times, and he's not. But what I'm saying is that I doubt an absolutely 100% impeccably truthful, shades of gray, nuanced type would get the kind of attention MM does, and since MM gets attention for genuine issues, I come down more on the side of loving him than hating him. But I'm ambivalent.

0 Replies

It's satire and you get out of it what you get out of it.

0 Replies

His point, for instance, that it was almost ludicrous for Lockheed to be in charge of that program -- the missles are for the delivery of WMD, since qualified recently in many of the definitions as not inclusive of WMD. I find that ludicrous as WMD don't become WMD unless one can deliver them.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

(Incidentally, I concede that Moore utilizes the sin of omission to good effect. It's visual pundantry and not any worse than what you can find in the media every day).

And between his "sins of ommission" and taking clips from totally unrelated events and putting them together to make the veiwer believe things happened that never did he left the realm of "documentary" and crossed over into "fiction".

That may be art but it isn't a "documentary".

0 Replies

That's a argument over semantics as well. What clips were "put together" to make the viewer believe things happened that never did?

0 Replies

Moore's work gets classified as documentary because the majority of it is -- there's a lot of nitpicking over the impressions he desires to give by clever editing but it's still classified as documentary. He does go to the edge in pushing out the envelope but I don't find he isn't ultimately succesful with it. It's those who hate his success that have to examine what their motives are.

0 Replies

So I'm only ambivalent because I hate his success?

Oh kaaaaaay...

0 Replies

The Washington Post:

'Fahrenheit 9/11': Connecting With a Hard Left

By Desson Thomson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 18, 2004; Page C01

CANNES, France -- "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore's most powerful film since "Roger & Me," slices and dices President Bush's presidency into a thousand satirical pieces. It's a wonder the chief executive -- at least, the one portrayed in this movie -- doesn't scatter to the four winds like Texas dust.

Judging by the spirited pandemonium that has greeted this documentary at the Cannes Film Festival, "Fahrenheit 9/11" not only is the film to beat in the competition for the Golden Palm, it also has the makings of a cultural juggernaut -- a film for these troubling times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34917-2004May17?language=printer

0 Replies

It's only a matter of semantics if one is so blinded by idealogy that they can't think for themselves. Two main components of a documentary are that they are supposed to be factual and objective - his films are neither. You, yourself, in this very thread have mention "satire" and "fiction" in relation to Moore's work. If that's what they are then that's what he should tell people they are seeing. Trying to play his work off as any type of documentary is probably his biggest lie of them all.

Even Moore himself admits that he took clips from over a two year period and sequenced them to make them look like they all came from the NRA Annual Meeting in Denver after Columbine.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

It's those who hate his success that have to examine what their motives are.

Or maybe those who defend his tactics need to examine theirs.

0 Replies

Now whose taking two seperate statements and putting them together?

0 Replies

Lightwiz:

The French venue has a lot to do with the film's reception....it can make the difference in how the press handles the story...you know the USA vs France. This will be big in the press because of Iraq and the conflict between the European counties and the USA.

In my earlier posting I was not making any subtile complaints about the film. I figure if 2/3's of the film rings true then it is going to be successful because the subject is pregnant and overdue. If the other side tries to nitpick the film, they will expose their concern plus it will give it more publicity. (Both will happen.)

I respect Moore because he moves with deep conviction. He stands out because we have an abundance of complaisant people in our country.

You can count on one thing in relation to "Farenheint 911", the press is going to run with it all the way to the election.

0 Replies

Satire isn't necessarily fictional, it is trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.

0 Replies

I was just poking fun, couzz -- if the film does win a prize at Cannes, it could easily shoo it into winning other awards -- yes, even a second Oscar two years in a row (and that's an American venue).

The judges at Cannes are from many different countries including the US.

0 Replies

Incidentally, this is a discussion of "Farenheint 911," not a venue for ad hominem attacks on Moore. That's been done to death on this forum including commentary on his weight -- he's in good company with Pavarotti.

0 Replies

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" Wins Palme d'Or at Cannes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know