The Cannes Film Festival jury gave yet more proof that many artists have the moral seriousness of children.
See how the nine jurors gave their top honour to Michael Moore’s anti-Bush documentary, only to quickly deny they were playing politics. Who? Me?
“I knew this political crap would be brought up,” snapped jury president Quentin Tarantino after handing the Palme d’Or to Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.
“I think judging a film by its politics is a bad thing.”
Moore, too, played innocent: “I did not set out to make a political film,” he claimed, confirming his growing reputation as a liar.
Other jurors agreed that, no, they didn’t vote for Moore’s film just because it was a Leftist wet dream that made President George W. Bush seem like a moronic war criminal, conspiring with Osama bin Laden’s family. Hur, hur.
But some muffed their lines. When a journalist called the film one-sided, actor Tilda Swindon raged: “We heard what Bush has to say. We live with it. It’s not a fair fight. This film helps to redress the balance.”
Another juror, Haitian writer Edwidge Danticat, said Moore “gives voice to the voiceless”.
The jury itself was intensely political, with the Left-wing bias common to second-rate artists.
Swindon is a member of Britain’s Democratic Left, successor to the pro-Stalin Communist Party. Emmanuelle Beart, the French actor, is a Leftist activist, as is America’s Kathleen Turner, who last year said a win by Bush’s Republicans “scares the hell out of me”.
Danticat has even claimed “there is some impending evil that seems linked with the Bush regime”. Regime?
Three other jurors, less overtly political, make shlock movies as offensive to serious people as they are reckless. Tarantino’s new Kill Bill films celebrate grotesque violence, Benoit Poelvoorde cheerfully portrayed sadistic killings and a brutal rape in his Man Bites Dog and Tsui Hark’s latest is about kung fu zombies. But children always leave adults to clean after them.
So these are the cultural vandals, pantomime moralists and tyrant-followers, who now judge a politician doing deadly serious work.
It was Rudyard Kipling, the Nobel laureate, who lashed out at lazy moralists “makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep”. How many more do we have now — spotless sophisticates sneering at men made dirty by keeping them safe?
This is why the Left-wing writer George Orwell so praised the Right-wing Kipling: “He does possess one thing which ‘enlightened’ people seldom or never possess, and that is a sense of responsibility.”
Although a writer, Kipling still identified with rulers who were “always faced with the question, ‘In such and such circumstances what would you do?’ “, unlike the critics who never take responsibility.
By: Flood - 2nd June 2004 at 21:14
Never got into King of the Hill.
Never laughed at it and wasn’t surprised to find that Channel 4 (in Britain) now resorts to showing it at 02:30 in the morning…
Flood.™
By: mixtec - 2nd June 2004 at 21:03
I personally resent all the flap about the movie Faranheit 9/11 winning for political reasons. I believe a documentory is a type of film worthy of artistic merit even though its not made for artistic purposes. Thats why most film festivals have a documentory catogory. It takes artistic skill to make a documentory just as it does a regular film. I havent seen the film, but Im sure many found it entertaining, even though its entertainment is based on real life. Overall I think “reality” form of entertainment is a great thing even if its wasted on Jerry Springer type trailer trash spating.
As for violence in films recently. I personally think humans are violent by nature. And I believe suppression of our violent tendencys brings out the worst kind of violence in us, just as sexual suppresion brings out perversion in people.
When talking about Micheal Moore, you have to remember he is sort of achieved fame by accident. He originally made a film to harras the president of General Motors for shutting down an automobile plant in his hometown in Michigan. Some might say that makes him sort of a ludite depending on what you think about job outsourcing. To say that he is extreme left wing is way off. The more accurate truth is he is left wing in a very conservative moderate to right wing country.
By: Grey Area - 2nd June 2004 at 21:01
they are equal oppertunity destroyers
Excellently well-put, pluto.
By: pluto77189 - 2nd June 2004 at 21:00
Even if I don’t share this view , I understand it. Thanks for this long explaination.
Your welcome. Just out of curiosity, why do you think people SHOULD NOT own guns? (If that was your view).
By: pluto77189 - 2nd June 2004 at 20:57
I have to agree, the simpsons and futurama are some of the best satire ever. People underestimate South Park, and for shame. South Park is home ot some of the filthiest humor on the planet, but embraces some of the highest moral ground on TV. Sure, it farts, kills, and mutilates to get there, but in the end, the message is pretty good. Jesus gets whooped by Satan in a fight, and only one person bets on jesus–Satan. Perfect.
I don’t agree with them all the time, but I tend to think the message they give is fairly conservative, even though they ridicule EVERYONE!
the Simpsons and Futurama poke fun at so many people it’s impossible to tell their agenda–could it be they have NO agenda?? They are very fair in their ridicule, King of the hill is awesome, it portrays the middle aged, white conservative man, poking fun at him and his beliefs, as well as showing ithem in a positive light.
South park, and MAtt Groening have said worse things about more people than Moore ever could–and they get little heat because they do it in a way which is perfectly acceptable–they are equal oppertunity destroyers.
Do they still make futurama? or is it only in re-runs. That has to be the funniest cartoon ever.
By: Geforce - 2nd June 2004 at 19:50
Michael Moore is a true product of American McDonald-culture. There’s no finesse in his movies. Bowling for columbine was a funny movie, I didn’t watch it like a would watch a documentary or news (though even “the news” can be a show as well). Personally, I prefer Matt Groening and Co’s idea of humor towards the American culture. Even South Park is better.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that there’s un underlying problem and that the facts are killings in America outnumber Europe by what … a hundred times?!! If you go on a visit to someone in Europe and he would tell you he has a gun in the house, most people would be scared though
By: Hand87_5 - 2nd June 2004 at 19:26
Even if I don’t share this view , I understand it. Thanks for this long explaination.
By: pluto77189 - 2nd June 2004 at 19:22
Thank God for the Atlantic Ocean……… 😀
Hey, it’s not regular gun-owners that you have to worry about. It’s the thugs and low-lifes who have guns that DON’T want you to know. Now there’s the problem.
By: Grey Area - 2nd June 2004 at 18:53
Thank God for the Atlantic Ocean……… 😀
By: pluto77189 - 2nd June 2004 at 18:15
-Why do you own a weapon ?
Basically, and ultimately, because I WANT to. I own a gun because I enjoy target shooting. I went hunting once, didn’t see a deer, and still enjoyed it. I will do it again. I also like to be able to defend myself, and my family, should I need to. The rifle is for hunting/plinking, the handgun is for target shooting, but mainly defense.
– Do you plan to use it?
I use them all the time, in target shooting. I assume you mean shooting at a person, in that case, I hope not. However, I am fully confident that if placed into that situtation–those of which I make every possible effort to avoid–I would be able to use the gun in a manner that would help extricate me or my family safely.
-Don’t you think that the fact to own a gun can drive you in a situation where you will have to use it?
No. Owning a gun does not make one WANT to use it to shoot anybody.
– Don’t you agree with the FACT that there is way more people dying in gun fights in the US than in any other similar democracy in the world? In this case it’s not twisted speeches or whatever but just figures.
Probably. Not that legislation will stop the violence.
Statistics are very VERY suceseptible to misreading in these cases.
First of all, most criminal use of guns is by illegally obtained guns.
Second of all, statistics showing guns being “used” only show incedents in which the weapon is actually FIRED. Guns are used THOUSANDS of times in defensive situations every day in the prevention of violence/criminal acts. In the hands of responsible people, gun use does not entail simply firing the weapon. A gun(just like the ICBM) is most effective as a deterrant. Once the mugger/theif/rapist sees that you have a gun, you don’t need to fire a shot.
Also, in countries where guns have been banned, Austrailia, England, etc. Gun crime HAS dropped. In America, it has stayed about the same. Looks Damning, huh? However, in those countries, OVERALL violent crime has risen, where in America, violent crime has decreased. Gun-related crime is NOT separate from other forms of violent crime. In America, guns are over a thousand times MORE LIKELY to be used to PREVENT a crime than they are to be USED in a crime.
The simple fact is that people who are farmiliar with guns(rifles, handguns, shotguns, etc.), and know how they operate, and how to fire them, AND respect the capabilities of these weapons(sorry for the run-on), and teach their children to respect them, have little or nothing to “fear” of their own weapons. I knew Daddy had a rifle in the closet, and a handgun in the drawer. I knew where the ammo was. I knew also not to touch the thing unless he was there.
Sure there are people that have tons of guns and probably shouldn’t. Look at some of the “seperatist” cults out there. Neo-Nazis planning for a Race war, Religious cults gettin’ ready for armageddon. Big deal, they’re few and far between.
Want a wake up call?
go to one of the thousands of gun shows all over the country. You’ll see thousands of people walking around buying and selling anything from an AR-15, to a shotgun, to the stuff you need to make your own ammo. Hell, wiht the right permits, you can buy a full-auto .50 machine gun. Even better, any upstanding US citizen with no skeletons in their closet can walk in , get a instant(10 minute) background check, and walk out with a Barret “light” 50–a 50 caliber sniper rifle with the ability to shoot accuratly darn near a mile away. Why? because the government has no right to tell perfectly good people what NOT to do as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else.
Those kids in columbine bought their weapons at a gun show? no… we have to ban Gun shows now….!
Stupid.
You can go to ANY walmart, buy a hunting rifle and ammo, and go on a shooting spree just like them. If I wanted, I could buy some fertilizer and mix it with fuel oil, and blow up the building of my choice! I could pull a branch off a tree and use THAT!
We don’t do that stuff. And it’s not because the government keeps us from doing it–it’s because we know better.
Sometimes, these things happen, the oklahoma city bombing, columbine, the NY subway massacre, the DC “sniper” etc. Banning ammonium nitrate, guns and gunshows isn’t the solution to the problems. The people that DO these things are not going to be affected by laws.
In my parents neighborhood, almost EVERYONE owns several guns and rifles–it’s a rural area, miles from the police station. In the 8+ years I have lived here, not ONE house has ever been broken into during the night. There was one string of robberies last year. All during the day. Nobody is crazy enough to dare break into an OCCUPIED house in rural America–they wait until everybody leaves. That alone prevents tens of thousands of possible crimes in this state alone. Criminals know that there is a VERY good chance, nearly 100% that the owners of the house own guns. they also know that they will not hesistate to use them if someone’s in their house or on their property. The criminals that don’t know, or are so high on crack they don’t care, usually end up dead, or found later in a hospital with gunshot wounds.
If I was a criminal in a country that bans guns, what do I have to think about? Do the people in this house have a big dog, or a big heavy wooden stick? Well then, I’ll just buy an illegal gun on the black market. Being that I-a criminal– have no regard for the law anyway, what’s to stop me? I enter the house, and I can feel very confident that I will have a powerful advantage over the occupant.
In the Us, a criminal has to know that they’re taking a chance every time they enter an occupied house. Even better, in states like this one, they have to wonder if the person they’re about to mug in the street is carrying a concealed handgun.
Look in washington DC. Handguns are banned from the city. Guess what? Highest violent crime in the freaking country.
It’s not that we have a “gun culture” in america. We have a culture based on independence. Part of independence is the freedom to be in charge of one’s own destiny, and to be able to protect yourself from oppression in all forms. It is an inalienable right, to be free to defend oneself. Part of that is the right to keep and bear arms. Politicians try to minimize it, but the right for all citizens to keep and bear arms must have been pretty important to the founders of the nation, since they put it in the NUMBER TWO SPOT:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
If the government has ALL the guns, the government can be in total control.
If the People have guns, the government cannot have total control.
Ultimatly, that’s why it’s part of our culture–self determinitationat a nationa and individual level.
By: Hand87_5 - 2nd June 2004 at 15:01
Good : At last someone who wrote some explaination about his point of view.
I don’t want to start any argument nor flaming , but want to add a couple of questions.
-Why do you own a weapon ?
– Do you plan to use it?
-Don’t you think that the fact to own a gun can drive you in a situation where you will have to use it?
– Don’t you agree with the FACT that there is way more people dying in gun fights in the US than in any other similar democracy in the world? In this case it’s not twisted speeches or whatever but just figures.
Your point of view is in any case very interesting.
By: pluto77189 - 2nd June 2004 at 13:41
I used to be a huge fan of moore–I used to watch TV Nation all the time, and I loved his style in his documentaries, the way he showed the facts was pure genius.
That is, until I learned that he was twisting the facts, portraying untruths as facts, misrepresenting ACTUAL facts, and outright lying.
bowling for columbine is correct in that it shows America has a “gun culture”–we’re based on the individuals rights, and we as individuals have the ultimate right to defend ourselves, so we own guns. It does NOT correctly demonstrate what the gun culture is, and it portrays the NRA in a ridiculously bad light–the “speech” from heston was actually several speeches, with sentances cut and pasted from different parts of different speeches, in order to make it seem like heston was insensitive to the columbine shooting–editing out all of his references to it.
Look, the fact is, Moore’s films are based on an IDEA that was based on facts–the hard data in them may be true, may have some truth, or may be total bs–he never makes it clear. Personally, I’m a little offended by the recent ones, since they are directed at ME, a gun owner. This prevents me from enjoying them.
I could see how someone could enjoy them, if they could suspend disbelief, as if watching the lord of the rings. But to watch a film by moore, and to come out of the theatre with the idea that you “learned something” (other than the experience of watching a movie) is very VERY bad.
I can see how they(his films) are entertaining–I can’t stand his views, but he still makes me laugh…I wish he’d do less political humor again…TV nation was the hands down funniest thing ever on TV.
So go ahead, watch his movies, laugh, have fun. But do not believe a single thing he says.
there are millions upon millions of gun owners in the US–my father owns 6 semi auto military-ish rifles, several handguns, a shotgun and some other various weapons. All perfectly legal. We’re NRA members, we collect guns, go shooting maybe once every 2-3 months, I”ve been hunting once.
What’s a gun “nut”, someone who has a lot of guns? BS.
I’ll tell you the mentality of most “gun nuts”. People collect stamps, knives, cars, rocks, fossils, animals, plants, shoes, toys, hats, etc. Some people collect guns. Why not? they’re historical pieces, functional machines, works of art. Plus, they have a purpose. You can have fun target shooting, or hunting.
There’s nothing scary about being armed. Unless, of course, you want to have power over me, rob me, take my children, take my property, etc. Then, it’s scary.
Firearms are one of the most practical things that people collect. They are collectable, as can be anything. But they serve dual purposes. They are recreational devices, for hunting and target shooting, and they are defensive devices. What other collectables are so practical?
Many non-americans look down at americans with guns as gun nuts because they can’t relate. To them, people with guns seem like a threat. Well, I can see why–because they don’t have any.
Mike Moore is a VERY left wing person. He is also VERY good at entertaining. He uses his skill at filmmaking, and his perfectly genius sense of dark humor/irony to convey his agenda. He will use his skill to twist facts or misappropriate information to insinuate the untrue(that’s his specialty, it’s pretty slick, I have to say). DO NOT REGARD HIS FILMS AS TRUTH, FOR THEY ARE NOT!
I have to say I am torn. I despise his agenda–pretty much all of it. Yet I am somewhat pleased that he has become more well known, and is putting out more material. I hope in the future, he stops this left-wing propaganda stuff and does stuff that offends OTHER people. I would enjoy his work again if it wasn’t so offensivly anti-my core beliefs. It’s just hard for me to relax and enjoy his film as a film, when it’s aimed at MY beliefs. A film about the evils of another country, or hell, even the democratic party, would still probably be twisted BS, but at least it wouldn’t be aimed at me!
By: Arthur - 31st May 2004 at 10:54
Nice to see you refer to Rudyard Kipling, Steve. I’m sure the Al Ghraib excesses were just “White Man’s Burden” then?
By: Hand87_5 - 31st May 2004 at 09:07
Actually the movie itself I thought of one-sided, too opinionated, extremist (leftwing), a true product of American policy. I would place Moore on the same level as Bush, a liar. I did laugh a few times watching Bowling for Columbine (saw it for the first time yesterday), however, I did realise this was NOT American life. In this since, Moore has a huge paradox in his movie, making it believe that all Americans are like those NRA-nuts and hence, make use of the same scare-tactics on as the media he’s accusing. What the USA needs right now are policy-makers who aren’t one-sided, so no Bush’s, but no liar’s like Moore too. I mean, the man has a huge penthouse in NY I think, earns millions etc. I hope he doesn’t represents America’s moderate wing.
I have to disagree with you Ben here.
I spend a lot of time in the US for both business and in my “”in-law” family.
For sure the majority of american people are not NRA nuts. However a lot of people own a gun (or more), and a lot of them use it: it’s not propanganda , that’s statistics!
Bowling for Columbine is just a document based on facts . For sure Michael Moore uses those facts to document is point of view. For sure he is making money .
Why would it be good for Swarzenegger to make money and not for Michael Moore?
I just think that people like him are healthy in a democracy, especially in a country where the “politically correct” crossed the line lately.
As for “Farenheit 911” I won’t talk of a movie I didn’t see yet.
Michael Moore a liar : maybe . Michael Moore as liar as GWB : I don’t think so
By: Geforce - 31st May 2004 at 07:19
Actually the movie itself I thought of one-sided, too opinionated, extremist (leftwing), a true product of American policy. I would place Moore on the same level as Bush, a liar. I did laugh a few times watching Bowling for Columbine (saw it for the first time yesterday), however, I did realise this was NOT American life. In this since, Moore has a huge paradox in his movie, making it believe that all Americans are like those NRA-nuts and hence, make use of the same scare-tactics on as the media he’s accusing. What the USA needs right now are policy-makers who aren’t one-sided, so no Bush’s, but no liar’s like Moore too. I mean, the man has a huge penthouse in NY I think, earns millions etc. I hope he doesn’t represents America’s moderate wing.
Sign In
May 31, 2004 at 6:58 am