And the winner of the best film award at the Cannes festival is ...

by Simon 103 Replies latest social entertainment

• 

  SixofNine

  On the losing end are those great minds that actually are involved in passionate causes.

  Not to minimize Cousteau at all, but his work is certainly no more important to the future of the planet than the subject Michael Moore is tackling here.

  There is NO comparison between him and Cousteau. Cousteau was a scientist, who educated us about the environment with FACTS as you say. I have always admired him greatly, and I don't like the comparison at ALL.

  And again, no one has tried to compare the two, including the news article posted above by Simon. You can be sure that the people judging Cannes didn't have cause to think "hey, this'll be like back when Cousteau won it!", they simply voted on this years group of films, and this film came out on top. A long time ago, there was an entry from Cousteau one year, and it came out on top. End of comparison.

  As for the catagory it falls in, for the life of me I can't see how people completely outside the film industry can develop such intense passion for the catagorization process of films, but anywhooo... if you hadn't noticed, there are alot of gorgeous nature programs being made, and w/o question the genre was pioneered and popularized by Cousteau's work, but damn few of that sort of thing will attract anyone to a theatre anymore.

  If I ever get to make a film about the WaterTower Backhoe and Tractor Society, should I expect great lamentations from the ex-JW community if the film does well in the documentary catagory? Cuz I assure you, I would not be un-biased in my presentation. I would look for the absolute worst, most heartbreaking stories to tell. I would dig thru the publications, and video of talks being given, and secret videos of judicial meetings, to find the ugliest, most hurtful things JW's acting in an official capacity have ever said on or off the record. I would be totally honest, but Jehovahs Witnesses will not see it as honest, and in fact some non-witness people who just-don't-know, would assume that I have been dishonest as well, due to my bias.
• 

  Euphemism

  I would be totally honest, but Jehovahs Witnesses will not see it as honest, and in fact some non-witness people who just-don't-know, would assume that I have been dishonest as well, due to my bias.

  Some non-Witness people? How about anyone with a brain?

  Fact is, the WTS is not defined by its worst elements. Nor is any political party. The moment you start focusing exclusively on your opponent's worst points, and ignoring everything else, you're producing nothing but a work of propaganda that has no place in civilized discourse.

  I don't know whether that's what Moore's done in this case; I intend to see the movie and judge for myself. But I've seen enough of the self-congratulatory left-wing echo chamber (and yes, I'm a liberal, and I still feel that way) to know that this award means jack-squat.
• 

  little witch

  I am sorry Six,

  I think we cross-posted...At any rate. I view it differently (although I am enjoying all the views).

  I first of all feel it was compared, both by innuendo by the msn peice, and by Simon who agreed with it for political purposes (by saying " I hope Bush see's this" or some such.)

  As a long time film buff, loving the artistic aspect which is perhaps a big issue for me, yes I disagree. I disagree mainly over what I see as a hostile takeover of film-making for political ends. It just seems very blatent to me.

  I think I am more upset over the artistic aspect than anything else.
• 

  talesin

  Six

  As I see it, the problem with Moore is that he does misstate and manipulate facts to get his point across. He therefore negates the value of the message when his tactics are debunked. Then he can be dismissed as 'just another raving ______ (your choice of insult)". Yes, the issues are VITAL, but who is going to take his opinion seriously when his 'documentaries' are obviously, as LW says, opinionated and not merely a statement of the facts?

  I have long felt that Moore's films should be labelled "MOCKUMENTARIES" instead of documentaries. That, imho, would be more accurate. Perhaps if he presented them as such, ie satire, he could make a more valuable contribution as a 'filmmaker' and get his messages across without insulting the collective intelligence of the American public and indeed, the world.

  It seems to me that since he makes a huge impact on the political views of the general public, the film industry has a responsibility to categorize his work properly, and not present it as what may be perceived as clear, unbiased reporting of the facts.

  tal /
• 

  avishai

  Euph, Tal, You guys rock. Thank you for that. Now where are the conservatives, jumping on me for comparing THEIR heroes to Michael Moore? It's entertainment, and for a film to get an award merely because people agree with it's message disgusts me. I am working in film right now. It should be judged on it's merits as a film, not for it's "message". Hey, their have been a ton of films about Jesus. To vote for say, the passion merely because you are a christian, is silly. For instance, I'd vote for the last temptation of Christ because it was well written, directed, well shot, and well acted. Not on the merits of whether or not I was a christian.
• 

  talesin

  avi

  Truth be told, films are not judged on their merit. Just watch the Oscars some time. It's good for a laugh. And yeah, I work in it too, off and on. It's all about the almighty dollar, don't ever kid yourself.

  And you're welcome. Although I don't like Moore being lumped in with Limbaugh, I still think he needs a good figurative smack on the arse for presenting his political viewpoints as documentaries.

  tal
• 

  rem

  Moore is not racist? Didn't he write a book or something called "Stupid White Men"? ;)

  rem
• 

  talesin

  rem

  *sigh* I guess our reasonable discussion has ended.

  As I'm sure you are well aware, the title is intended to reflect the white male power structure, not white men, of which group Moore himself is a member.

  DOH !

  It's been really nice debating / discussing this matter. Thanks, folks. I am now retiring from the topic.

  talesin
• 

  SixofNine

  Some non-Witness people? How about anyone with a brain?

  I'm sorry Euph, I don't understand your point. If I'm totally honest, why should "anyone with a brain" see it as dishonest? Will it be my job as a film maker to balance the negatives of the WT with whatever positives I could find if I looked hard enough? Because, truth be known, with my inside knowledge of the WT, alot of things that people might try to trot out as "positives", just for "balance", I know are nothing of the sort. That would not keep people with their heads up their asses from imagining that they had a "balanced" view of the WT, as compared to my very dark view of the WT.

  I kept hearing all this vehement criticism of Bowling for Columbine... and when I finally watched it recently, and then checked out the specifics (which this forum has been damn short on, btw.), I found that the majority of the criticism was unfounded, and the rest exagerated.

  I think people would do well to be more honest with themselves about Moores work, figure out why it bothers them so much. I'll give you a hint: Moore didn't tell you what to believe about guns in America in "bowling", in fact he didn't define what the problem is. He alluded to alot of things. Those things were in context and relevant, there is no sin in that. Basically, he made a movie that was both entertaining and left you with plenty to think about, if you're the sort of person who does that. I'm personally put off by the grandstanding he does, but just because I'm annoyed by it does not make it in any way "dishonest".

  talesin, a "mockumentary" would be something like Spinal Tap. There is a common thought floating around that Moore has been hugely dishonest, but this is not true. The idea of documentaries with an editorial bent to them getting theatrical exposure is a fairly new phenomenom. Frankly, I think it's a bit anal to demand a new catagory for every outside of the lines colorer, but then again, I don't make my bed every morning either. Would you kick Errol Morris out of the catagory for "the thin blue line"? It certainly had a point of view.

  It's entertainment, and for a film to get an award merely because people agree with it's message disgusts me.

  Avishai, no chance the people at Cannes honestly found 9/11 it to be the most interesting, compelling, and entertaining movie in front of them this year? Any chance that the world situation genuinely influenced their feelings on that?
• 

  Simon

  hmmn ... "influenced by repetitive advertising" eh?

  Tell me again how much Bush will be spending on election advertising this year ...

  What we need is some balance and if it means someone like Moore has to counter the bias and politics of MONEY then I say so be it.

  As for Custeau, he was fantastic - I grew up reading his books and watching his documentaries but how effective were they ... really? Won't "the day after" be more effective as a wake-up call on environmental issues?

  Sometimes you need people who will get in your face and shake the tree a little.

  As for taking advantage of the columbine tradgedy ... c'mon !!! He was there with the victims highlighting a problem and getting something done. The people who were taking advantage were the extremists at the NRA