'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Palme D'Or @ Cannes
- Thread starter aria
- Start date
Loopz
Formerly Punjab,
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2001
- Posts
- 12,871
People can talk shit all they like, but usually when the right attempts to discredit Moore, it has very little to do with the things actually discussed in his films, and more to do with lots of side issues (like his appearance). His movies and books are a blast of fresh air and a welcome antidote to the bilge spewed by conservative talk radio and Fox News.
Howdoin
, Le BLING-BLING!,
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2002
- Posts
- 1,689
Haven't seen the movie but I am quite surprised after what I read about it (Good basis and documentation but sliding into personal attack towards the end).
Before anybody start saying the French gave him the prize because they hate Bush just look at the jury members:
Quentin Tarantino (President) - USA
Emmanuelle Beart - actress France
Edwidge Danticat - writer USA
Tilda Swinton - actress UK
Kathleen Turner - actress USA
Benoit Poelvorde - actor Belgium
Jerry Schatzberg - director USA
Tsui Hark - Director China
Peter von Bagh - critic Finland
The most important thing I'll retain from this edition is the emergence of the Korean cinema as one of the most active and interesting today.
Regarding our topic (forgive my digression) I like Michael Moore's films/book even tough I do not believe everything that comes out of his mouth/camera.
He does make interesting points and makes you think about things, that's what interesting about his films, but any intelligent person can also tell that they are also very partisan and that everything should not be taken as truth.
Before anybody start saying the French gave him the prize because they hate Bush just look at the jury members:
Quentin Tarantino (President) - USA
Emmanuelle Beart - actress France
Edwidge Danticat - writer USA
Tilda Swinton - actress UK
Kathleen Turner - actress USA
Benoit Poelvorde - actor Belgium
Jerry Schatzberg - director USA
Tsui Hark - Director China
Peter von Bagh - critic Finland
The most important thing I'll retain from this edition is the emergence of the Korean cinema as one of the most active and interesting today.
Regarding our topic (forgive my digression) I like Michael Moore's films/book even tough I do not believe everything that comes out of his mouth/camera.
He does make interesting points and makes you think about things, that's what interesting about his films, but any intelligent person can also tell that they are also very partisan and that everything should not be taken as truth.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Posts
- 3,217
Loopz said:
son_of_bael
Host for Orochi
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Posts
- 759
djdelly said:
That is very true, he does distort the truth to suit himself, just like the main political parties. The main problem that I have with him (bear in mind the only book of his I have read is "Dude, Where's my Country?") is that most of his references seem to basically be from the US tabloid press. Living in the UK, I know what garbage tabloid papers spew out 99% of the time, and I for one always question what I read in the papers, but he seems to take it as written fact. However, I do think the stuff he does is great and necessary, just because it highlights all that is wrong with politics and politicians. Its good that he is keeping a high profile.
slerch666
updyke,
- Joined
- May 23, 2002
- Posts
- 8,984
The only problem I have with this movie (I haven't seen it) is it's supposedly 'documentary.' I consider documentary as being fact skewed in neither direction, just given right down the middle. If you're watching a documentary on Lions/Tigers/Whatever on Discovery, do you really need/want political views or messages and bullshit to interfere? How about every 3 minutes they mention Greenpeace and how fucked up the ecosystem is. No, you don't, you're watching it to learn about whatever the documentary is about. With how he skews things it's impossible for someone looking for direction NOT to be taken in HIS direction, and it's impossible for someone on the other side of the fence to watch it. There is no objectivity to his 'documentaries,' it's totally one sided, his side. Sure, it's HIS movie and he can do as he wants, but don't call it documentary. As they say in The Outlaw Josey Wales 'don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.' (among many other great one liners)
His movie is like putting someone on trial, only hearing one side of the case and being asked to judge the case upon the one side. If you don't give both/all/as many sides as possible, then IMO it's not to be considered documentary.
His movies are 'documentary' in so much as 'reality' TV is reality.'
So, his movie may be good/great/shit/whatever, but it's not a documentary and shouldn't be described as such.
I don't like Moore, just looking at his picture pisses me off because he looks so smug. I won't say he doesn't have talent or what have you (and I definitely don't agree with his press tactics, using bullshit to build hype), I just don't like him.
His movie is like putting someone on trial, only hearing one side of the case and being asked to judge the case upon the one side. If you don't give both/all/as many sides as possible, then IMO it's not to be considered documentary.
His movies are 'documentary' in so much as 'reality' TV is reality.'
So, his movie may be good/great/shit/whatever, but it's not a documentary and shouldn't be described as such.
I don't like Moore, just looking at his picture pisses me off because he looks so smug. I won't say he doesn't have talent or what have you (and I definitely don't agree with his press tactics, using bullshit to build hype), I just don't like him.
Last edited:
bokmeow
Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2002
- Posts
- 11,314
slerch666 said:
Noooooooooooooo!!!!! Reality TV isn't reality? Say it ain't so!
Joke aside, I want to watch this movie. From what I understand Michael Moore appears a lot less in this film, so perhaps the film will leave the audience to do a lot more thinking and receive a lot less preaching.
djdelly said:
I've noticed that most people that dislike Moore says that he basically makes it all up, if true it *does* spoil som of the fun in reading his books and watching his movies. Could someone please direct me to a place where i can read up on the topic? The source doesn't matter as i am able to read between the lines.
slerch666 said:
Apart from animal documentaries, i dont think ive ever seen a 'documentary' that did not feel like it was made to sway opinion in one direction or the other. A few people dont care, everyone else has an agenda.
slerch666
updyke,
- Joined
- May 23, 2002
- Posts
- 8,984
Gorka said:
History Channel. Everything you see on there seems pretty even to me. I guess it can be argued that history is written by the people who 'win,' but you always seem to get the facts (as they were recoreded) with History Channel documentaries. The opinion shows and such that they have on don't count here of course. These are documentaries, IMO, Moore's films are not.
Crovax
Rasputin's Rose Gardener
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2002
- Posts
- 701
slerch666 said:
Bobak addressed this very issue in another Michael Moore thread here
Specifically, check out post #25 and beyond for his take on the issue.
Anyway, in regards to the topic. Awards of any kind don't really sway me when it comes to films. I'm still interested in seeing what he has to say on this particular issue though.]
aria
Former Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 4, 1977
- Posts
- 39,546
Okay, ever so briefly my take:
I think this is definitely going to be a polemic, even more editorial than Bowling, but I think its still falls into documentary -so long as people realize there is bias in everything. Actually, I've read he inserts himself relatively little in this one, he just throws facts into a pattern he sees. I guess you could compare it to a legal argument, with the audience as the jury.
I think this is definitely going to be a polemic, even more editorial than Bowling, but I think its still falls into documentary -so long as people realize there is bias in everything. Actually, I've read he inserts himself relatively little in this one, he just throws facts into a pattern he sees. I guess you could compare it to a legal argument, with the audience as the jury.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2004
- Posts
- 740
slerch666 said:
OMG. History Channel is kind of US propaganda.I bet there are other good dcumentary channels, like Discovery, but not this one, please, if we talk about US documentaries.Its absecense of auto-criticism is sometimes laughlable.And I a not talking only about WW facts( Lusitania and Pearl Harbor) but nowadays topics too.But, I have to admoit too, that in general, its not a bad channel, but it is always too benevolent when its a documentary about the US history.
slerch666 said:
History seldom gets questioned because it often lacks controversity, (With some exeptions, ex.Evolution) and i *would* use your 'winners' argument. As i see it, what you get watching historical documentaries are (educated) interpretations that could be coloured by ideals or misconceptions.
PleaseKillMeNow
Aerobics Instructor,
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2001
- Posts
- 7,484
Moore's good at stirring shit. I'll hand him that.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2002
- Posts
- 24,280
Kristian Meller said:
These are the type of indepth posts we need more of around here.
Great job dude!
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Posts
- 3,217
I could also just have written this: "Hey, great post dude, I completely agree."
End result is the same.
End result is the same.
Last edited:
Vlad said:
I agree with this completely. There have been times when I've watched the History Channel and was like WTF -- they left out THAT? Most of the history we are pumped in schools and TV are true but "cleaned up" versions to make things looks rosey.
As for MM's documentaries being biased towards his opinions and not factual....well, the one thing I've learne din taking advanced Englsih Lit classses is the beautiul art of persuasive writing. You can say make your own statement, load it up with truths, and still present an idea. Besides if anyone reads any one source and automatically assumes everything is true without researching it themselves is a FOOL. MM movies may be biased, but can be a good launching point for some personal investigations for drawing your own conclusions.
bokmeow said:
I remember seeing a documentary on discovery about sex in ancient Egypt. The entire program was based on wallfresks, paintings and carvings found in peoples houses and tombs etc. Ive never seen so much assumptions and wishful thinking in my entire life. It was lucky the ancient Egyptians kept slaves to build the pyramids, because apparantly they only got out of bed to have sex somewhere else.
If my house was buried in ashes for two thousand years, these acheologists would have assumed i had orgies in my kitchen because of the Zorn reproduction i have hanging there. And if they ever found my stash of dirty books... -Whoa!!!
