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

(I see a lot of ad hominem attacks on the awards themselves coming).

The Washington Post:


Michael Moore, Red-Hot and Golden
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Palme d'Or at Cannes
By Desson Thomson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 23, 2004; Page D01


CANNES, France, May 22 -- Michael Moore clutched his face last night as if he were trying to rip it off. He was experiencing disbelief at the words that had just come out of Quentin Tarantino's mouth: "The jury is proud to announce that 'Fahrenheit 9/11' has won the Palme d'Or."



"What have you done?" Moore jokingly asked Tarantino, president of the 57th Cannes Film Festival jury, at the podium. "I am completely overwhelmed by this. Uh, uh, merci."

Moore's movie -- a President Bush-bashing production that enjoyed almost universal acclaim from international critics and festival-goers -- had been the hottest ticket in the town. Now it was the toast of it. And the portly, bearded filmmaker, who beat out 18 other films for the top prize, was staring dumbfoundedly at the tuxedoed, bejewelled audience giving him a prolonged standing ovation.

For Moore, the win was more than an artistic triumph. It amounted to a political hand grenade lobbed at the White House. The documentary makes no bones about its point of view: that President Bush's invasion of Iraq amounted to a diversionary tactic -- to take attention away from Bush's personal and business links with oil-rich Saudi Arabians, including members of the bin Laden family. It also portrays the president as out of his depth as a leader.

Link to balance of review:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48715-2004May22.html

I don't want to attack the awards, or Cannes, or even the film because I haven't seen it.

But I did see on an entertainment segment that a guy with a French accent said he was disappointed because (it) wasn't the best film. Another guy said Tarantino "gave it to Moore" because of politics, and many people are upset that the prestigious award was used tomake a political point.

Certainly, these opinions are as valid as others.

From "some French people" down to one guy with a French accent who was dissapointed. Tarentino I'm sure a la "Pulp Fiction" held a gun to the other judges heads to make sure Moore got the award.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" took the prestigious Palme d'Or amid sharply divided Cannes moviegoers, who found a solid crop of good movies among the 19 entries in the festival's main competition but no great ones that rose to frontrunner status.

While "Fahrenheit 9/11" was well-received by Cannes audiences, many critics felt it was inferior to Moore's Academy Award-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine," which earned him a special prize at Cannes in 2002. Some critics had speculated that if "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize, it would be more for the film's politics than its cinematic value.

------
From CNN's Entertainment section. More than a couple of people.

BTW, it would be also a political point to reject the film based on politics. Since conservatives have so many creative people who can actually make a great movie, you'd think they'd get at least one entry in Cannes.

Who are these "many critics." There are only a few reviews in, all but one are lauding the film. Have you read the reviews of the other films?

Well receive by Cannes audiences -- I guess at 20 minute standing ovation means they weren't impressed.

You thought you were clever changing "some critics" to "many critics."

Of course, some critics and some people will disagree but like in America, the majority rules.

Where did I say some critics, or many critics?

Yes, I know of the ovation at Cannes. I didn't say there wasn't an ovation...

Sorry, my mistake -- I was looking at a different review.

Do you have a heavy financial investment in this movie? You seem to take criticism of it personally. It's just a movie.

The response of the world film critics had already placed the film as the front runner:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3725373.stm

I see your clarification about my quote.

No, I have to personal financial interest. If it's only a movie, you're in the film forum where we discuss movies. If you don't want to discuss movies and believe it is only a movie then I'm not sure why you are posting here except for the opportunity to throw in the word "whored."

Let's leave it at the fact that we are going to disagree on what the response is to the film even if it appears to be overwhelming with some detractors. Wait to actually see the film and then there is some meat.

Well, though it came to me as I posted as a really good verb, I must say I was rather pleased with my use of 'whored'.

I did think you were a bit the cheerleader, and thought something other than the raving review may belong here, as well. If it is only the positive comments that are welcomed, I wish you'd have made that clear.

I did see you nipping at sozobe's heels for her egregious less than positive comments. I don't want to intentionally be all antagonistic... Can someone have a different opinion, or a less than flattering insight of the movie here?

Of course, and if someone is going to disagree, they're comments are also welcome. I haven't seen the film so I can hardly give it a raving review but I can post what the reponse is off site. For someone who thinks it's only a movie you're certainly having a field day. Sozobe was speaking of a different movie and I conceded that Moore uses the sin of ommission to good advantage. His films are satirical and humorous and if anyone is taking them serious, it's those who fear that he is doing more than just preaching to the choir.

Howsabout we wait til we've seen it to review it?
It does seem that the overall film world's view of this, is that it's a good film. Maybe not as great as Bowling for Columbine. But, I've gotta say that's not actually putting the film down. Seems they're pointing out that Mr. Moore has made more than one excellent film.

My understanding (simply as a reader and observer) is that no one person at Cannes can determine which film will win any award. It's a jury process.

So - now to wait for the film to be released - and shown somewhere I can get in to see it (and make up my own dang mind).





and back to the old 'what is a documentary?' issue. Going back to my childhood, when we used to go watch travelogues - those were as biased as any Tony Curtis film. The only real difference I see between documentaries and any other group of films, is that documentaries have some factual basis. I subscribe to the documentary channel through my satellite provider. In 3 years, I can't say I've seen anything where I couldn't figure out the angle/bias.

<I will discontinue my field day, at this time>


I just thought there was good stuff to be said, and not so good stuff. You seemed to have the good stuff handled.

No offense to you intended.