Is Cannes vote an attempt to Cannes Bush?

[El Barto]

Michael Morre won in Cannes with his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

Is this an attempt by the European movie community to influence our election?

[El Barto]

Michael Moore's Candid Camera
by Frank Rich

[Cptkernow]

I want to tick both boxes.

[Cyrus]

"Michael Morre [sic] won in Cannes with his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Is this an attempt by the European movie community to influence our election?"

I hope you are not serious.

There is no "movie community" in Europe, to speak of. Plus, even if we could say that there is one, Cannes is certainly not representative of it. Plus, the Chairman of the Cannes Committee was an American movie director. Plus, that director has not been exactly making anti-war movies himself! (Maube you're seeing something in Kill Bill that I don't.)

Plus, this would not be the first time that a movie festival gives its awards under the influence of prevalent political developments. Recall the awards of the Oscars, the Berlins, the Venices, the Cannes, etc of the 60s and the 70s. In heavily politicized times, art is often used as a direct conduit of (noble or crass) political "messages".

Yes, there is a "message" in the Cannes award. No, the Cannes Committee members are not idiots, they certainly do not think that a movie festival award could ever "influence the American election"! This would be thinking like a Jerry Lewis character.

[elwoodblues]

Finally, nobody on this board (presumably) has seen the film so nobody can really judge the film on its merits.

[scalf]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] i saw this too; this am...

most of world is anti-usa...and anti-bush...

just like in 1960's and early seventies: a lotta anti-usa films took top honours...

long live freedom..we allow dissent; and public debate..

bush wins big in nov...

jmho

gl

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, nobody on this board (presumably) has seen the film so nobody can really judge the film on its merits.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have to SEE a movie before we can have an opinion of it?? What kind of anti-American, pointy-headed intellectual garbage is that? It is my God-given, democratic right to express my opinion about anything, whether I know anything about it or not. If we can discuss Mel Gibson's film to death before even Mel saw the final cut, why can't we discuss everything else we don't have a clue about?

Next thing, you're going be saying we ought to learn about issues before we vote. I don't need to learn nothing to vote. That's why we have two parties, the smart one and the evil one. My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts.

(I bet you are one of those sissies that looks at his hole cards before he bets, aren't you? That kind of crap really slows down the game. What if everybody did that?)

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
long live freedom..we allow dissent; and public debate..

[/ QUOTE ]
So do most countries. In fact, in the USA, they don't allow dissent and freedom of speech without a trip to jail.
Most of the world has no problem with online gambling. The US is in limbo still. Many country's don't have repressive prohibition on Marijuana like the USA. Try to protest in the US and see what happens, even though it's constitutionally legal. The USA is censored in what comes in through it's media. There are over 300,000 laws on the books. Granted that most are corporate and real estate laws and stuff, but there is too much repression to say that America has the most freedoms. Americans need to stand up and take back the country but if you do that, you end up in jail.

Is the USA free? Yes, but it's not totally free like the propaganda will tell you.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Michael Morre won in Cannes with his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

Is this an attempt by the European movie community to influence our election?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your two "options" have nothing to do with each other. The "correct" answer could be either, both, or neither. Certainly the second is unanswerable at this point.

As to the first, you attribute a lot more thought to the process than exists. I find it difficult to image anyone at Cannes made a conscious decision to vote for this film because it would be a bold stroke against the Bush administration.

Based on advanced reports about the film, I can offer the opinion, without a shred of factual evidence, that political issues had an big impact on the voting. I can't imagine that anyone could be 100% objective in rating this film as a film. If a film is technically competent and it conforms with your political world view, you are going to rate it much higher than you otherwise would. Advanced information indicates that the film conforms with the political world view of the vast majority of the film industry, which is liberal, to say the least. (BTW, why are all those entertainment folk who were going to move to Europe if Bush was elected still here?)

Bottom line: the film was well received by its target audience. When you preach to the choir, you are going to hear a lot of folks yelling "AMEN!"

[MMMMMM]

"In fact, in the USA, they don't allow dissent and freedom of speech without a trip to jail."

Not true.

You actually made some good points in this post, so why harm your message with hyperbole?

The USA now is indeed less free than it should be, and has been on a path of decreasing freedoms over much of the last hunderd years or so. I think I'll be voting Libertarian this time around (as long as my state is not a "swing" state).