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

Ahh, me. There is much truth in what Fishin' says. The whole thing is, I think, that the critics like the film as a fine film. They have no problem with the fact that it is, in essence, a satire (something which Moore himself has said for publication). They have no need or desire to quibble over fine distinctions betwen satire and documentary. It doesn't matter. In their view, it is simply a well-made tongue-in-cheek film.

Unfortunately, the average movie-goer is more literal-minded. And thus Sozobe laments the "factual lapses" in Bowling for Columbine, for example. Moore has admitted that he spliced unrelated scenes into the NRA convention sequence to get a specific visual effect. But the average movie-goer notes that this is not, in fact, a journalistically accurate portrayal of the NRA convention and cries, "Foul! This ain't no legit documentary."

I can't comment on Fahrenheit 9/11 since I, obvioulsy, haven't seen it. I'm not in Cannes. I do admire Moore as a movie-maker, an artist. One has to look at his work from that point of view, as a work of art. If one seeks journalistic accuracy, one is going to be disappointed. This sort of separation of aesthetic and philosophical outlook is not at all hard, really. I do not, generally, agree with Jane Fonda's political stance at all. This does not keep me from recognizing that she is a very fine actress. And so with Moore.

Perhaps this is easier for me than for some others because I never expect objective truth from any film. Everybody -- but everybody -- has some sort of an axe to grind. Art consists in picking and choosing what you will include, what leave out, and how to juxtapose the images you do include. (For the record, and in the interests of full disclosure, I am not a gun-control supporter and so I had to be extra objective to find the worthwhile things in Columbine. I am an anti-Bushite so I will probably have less of a problem with Fahrenheit.)

Sorry if I've gone somewhat off-topic, LW, but others had set the precedent and I felt I should respond. Good thread.

fishin'

I agree with Wizard.
I think the burden of proof does rely on you for
"clips put together" etc. You're the accuser. The ball is in your court.

Not really much of a "burden" then is it? It's well known that he took various clips from over a two year period and sequenced them together. There are a few thousand WWW sites that all discuss it and even Moore's own web site says he did so.

Here's a good synopsis of why BFC is NOT a documentary:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I have always approached Moore with the assumption that he has a point of view, which I can either accept or not. That does not preclude his works from being documentaries, we allow a similar latitude in print. What does irritate me about Moore it that he gets hold of a point and beats it to death, which ultimately gets in the way of the statement he is trying to make.

Here we go again with the conspiracy theories on Moore's films. There's just as much disingenuous fabrication, summarily pronouncing the entire film as fiction, on amateur sites as Moore is being accused of. Anyone with a brain can figure out where he has used documentary shots and edited them together to make a point. Get over it. Otherwise, you'll place yourself in the same category as those who dispute we actually went to the moon. There is so much fear that someone who can't what is satire will be swayed to hating guns. Polly Paranoia's all.

Yes. Of course. No one else is allowed to have an opinion on any film unless of course YOU happen to agree with it. Methinks it is you that needs to get over it.

Who says you aren't allowed to have an opinion? I just don't agree with it and I am also allowed my opinion.

BTW, the amateurs pronouncing it "not a documentary" but the professionals putting it in that category does not impress. If one hates Michael Moore, they'll trying anything but their attempt at rebuttal is humorless and ignorant of the satire.

Although this is a thread on "Farenheit 911" which is also getting critical accolades, this is Ebert's review of BFC:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2002/10/101803.html

And Rotten Tomatoes, with a 95% favorable rating:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/BowlingforColumbine-1117183/

Michael Wilmington, the Chicago Tribune:



Movie review, 'Bowling for Columbine'
By Michael Wilmington


Sometimes the best tool for probing a social malady is humor - which is exactly what Michael Moore does in "Bowling for Columbine."

At the last Cannes Film Festival, "Bowling for Columbine," a shattering and hilarious documentary about gun violence in America, received one of longest standing ovations in the fest's history - almost 20 minutes by my watch count - and that says something about both America and the ways we're perceived abroad.

The news isn't all bad. I don't think the hand Moore got was an outburst of anti-American sentiment. But it was obviously an expression of solidarity with his homespun radicalism, sardonic humor, underlying humanism and, most of all, with his unflinching portrayal of the epidemic of violence in our country - how bad it is and how we got there.

"If you want to tell people the truth," someone once said, "you better make them laugh or they'll kill you." "Bowling for Columbine," like all Moore's film and TV work since "Roger and Me," uses that strategy. It's a fiercely opinionated film. But it's also a fiercely funny one, and the humor is what makes it so effective.

Not here to convince anyone who's made up their mind that this is a bad movie but they are in a small minority.

May 11th, 2004 4:01 pm
Wacko Attacko, Response #1


While my new film Fahrenheit 9/11 has not been seen yet, it seems to have already generated a wee bit of interest.

Here's the latest. This morning, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal - who has not seen the film - has decided, instead, to review a "synopsis" of the film. That's right, a "synopsis" from a fax of an early version of a press release someone gave him from the studio. Based on this, he accuses the film of being inaccurate. But guess what? Everything he says about the film in his column is completely false. I mean, seriously, NOTHING of what he describes is in the film!

Most real journalists would be embarrassed to do such a thing. What's next - "I can't see the film, I can't see the synopsis - so I'm reviewing the poster!" I worry that Fahrenheit 9/11 is already driving otherwise sane people to lunacy.

What would you expect from the WSJ, the biggest pro-business, pro-war paper in the country. As they so aptly put in their paper today: "The bad news is that in today's freewheeling media environment, consumers seem increasingly unable to distinguish truth from fiction, news from polemic, reality from fantasy." This morning, they proved their own adage to be correct. They gave us fiction, not the truth.

Here's a radical idea: Why don't we wait for the film to come out before attacking it? I promise you the film is much better than the "synopsis."

- Michael Moore

I'll wait to watch the film.





hmmmm, I'm havin' a bit of trouble with fishin' deciding whether this can be called a documentary or not. I'll go with Merry Andrew on this. Everyone's got an opinion - documentaries are one place you'll see them.
Newspaper and magazine articles are another. It's all about facts and spin, facts and spin. We all have some responsibility to try to separate the facts from the spin - part of that responsibility comes in recognizing, and accepting, that it's all spun out there (and in here). As I recall, in school this used to be called critical thinking.

Lots of documentaries have strong points of view, sure.

If all anyone was saying was that Michael Moore has a strong point of view and yeah he may fudge a bit but what documentary doesn't, I'd have no problem. Again, I like Michael Moore, and think that overall he's doing something important.

But something more specific was being said. What was being reacted to were statements like,

"I don't find that the 'factual lapses' can be confirmed without countering with other 'factual lapses.'

"Again, just what are these 'lapses?'"

"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."

"What clips were 'put together' to make the viewer believe things happened that never did?"

Then, when evidence is procured,

"Anyone with a brain can figure out where he has used documentary shots and edited them together to make a point. "

OK, so why not just say that at the beginning? That's what we've been asserting. He edited documentary shots misleadingly.

Again, "Farenheit 911" sounds like a great movie. If MM manages to push all of the emotional buttons while remaining factually accurate and without the misleading stuff, all the better.

nyt is equally pro-war.
It's not just WSJ.
Every major newspaper,
is pro-war.
Haartez is more anti-war than these papers.

A documentary is simply an assemblage of documents. It does not preclude arranging those documents in any way one sees fit, say as in satirical humor to make a point. Trying to disqualify it based on some what most admit is clever editing doesn't work. It's a montage of images with narration and it works. There's no way the hatred of Michael Moore can be ignored when those who disagree with his viewpoint go on the attack. He is resting on his laurels of best selling books and documentaries that have blown up records for Pay-Per-View and premium channel viewings. This will only bolster the theatrical box office of this new film.

I do think he should watch his back (and formidal back it is -- see, I couldn't resist it myself).

Wiz... Wiz... <waving, trying to get your attention>

I don't hate Michael Moore.

I LIKE Michael Moore.

I think he makes good, important movies.

If he could make good movies that we also factually accurate at all times, thereby removing ammunition from naysayers, I'd be even happier.

That's all.

sozobe, those aren't factual lapses -- the facts are assembled in a way to make a point. I wasn't specifically speaking of the visuals of Charlton Heston but a lot of other not-so-clever mixing up of the facts to counter Moore's films. It's done and not-so-clever on FOX on a daily basis. Of course, I also like Jon Stewart but when he confesses that he is "not a real news commentator," he slips in some scathing comment about the visual and sound bites that cut straight to the heart of the politicians. Stewart owes a lot to Moore.

sozobe -- Moore isn't going to change his style anytime soon. From the reviews of "Farenheit," it appears he has still delivered a lot of satirical humor but toned down some of the hype. Did you know that almost everything is sold to us with hype? Check out the FOX channel if you don't believe the other side uses hype in portions large enough to fill a fertizer truck.

I want to see this film NOW.

Yes, I know.

Hype. Uh-huh.

I linked to several instances of factual lapses on the first page. Like, apples and oranges statistics. (Including deaths due to legal intervention in the American statistics, but not in the Canadian statistics.) Like, saying that the U.S. gave $245 million to the Taliban in 2000 when that money went to non-governmental agencies and the UN. Etc.

I think he can still convey his message with more careful attention to detail. Al Franken is good at this, for example -- big on hype, but pretty careful about details. Maybe Moore should get a Team Moore. And more to the point, maybe he HAS one by now -- the reviews of "Farenheit 911" sound encouraging.