Things are moving fast now. Lion’s Gate and IFC Films has picked up the for distribution and it will be released on June 25 in at least 1000 theaters. The most theaters Bowling For Columbine played in was 248.
Ha, I’d love to see a double-feature with F9/11 and The Hunting of the President (A 90-minute documentary that’s supposed to expose “the 10-year campaign to destroy Bill Clinton” which opens on June 23.)
I am so there.
Yeah, yeah, embellishments, not the traditional definition of documentary, yadda yadda…listen, folks, I’ve had it up to my eyeballs with unchallenged patriotism, conservatism, and me-tooism. I need different perspectives, dammit!
So until this country gets a better alternative, I’m supporting Michael Moore, and without an iota of guilt. And I’m damn well going to see how this movie won a prestigious film award and critical accolades.
Plus, there are three free passes that’ve been sitting around in my binder for months now, and I wanna use them. 
[QUOTE=DKW]
And I’m damn well going to see how this movie won a prestigious film award and critical accolades.
QUOTE]
Quite simple, the movie bashes the current administration and the rest of the world (particularly Europe) eats that stuff up.
Hell you could make a film of someone pissing on a copy of the Constitution and you’d find takers overseas.
4 of the 9 Cannes jury members were Americans. Only 1 was French.
[QUOTE=BwanaBob]
Wow, you’ve seen it then?
[QUOTE]
**
Please subtract the [bolded bit] from my above quote.
As if Hollywood were representative of America in general.
:rolleyes:
That still leaves the majority of the Cannes jury non-Americans, in case you didn’t notice.
I agree. The Cannes jury needs some conservative American Republicans, immediately.
I nominate Sean Hannity.
I’m no huge Michael Moore fan, but I look forward to seeing this. I’m not sure whether it will work, as a movie or a pice of agitprop, but no one can know until they see it and/or the general public sees it.
I think it’s healthy. The arts establishment should have an adversarial relationship with the political establishment. It’s only natural.
No. Artists should be free to express themselves as they wish. But the idea of an arts establishment seems as oppressive as any other kind of “establishment”, right or left.
Oh no. God forbid that any cinema award be handed out without majority American representation. Maybe Cannes should be bombed.
I’ve a feeling you’re arguing with my word choice here, but you seem to agree that “Hollywood” has a viewpoint, and that the power brokers in Hollywood seem to be against Bush in general. I just don’t think that’s in any way bad or dangerous.
It is perhaps canceled out by the fact that many of these loony artists are beholden to talented and wealthy businesspeople to distribute and be compensated for their viewpoint-laden art.
Preface: This post is an attempt to de-hijack this thread. So it will start off with the hijack and get back to something that actually is related to the OP. (I know, trying to depoliticize something like this is futile, but I gotta try.)
What I am really, really tired of the use of “Underwear Gnome” logic. That is:
Step 1. Michael Moore (or some such) is anti-Bush.
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Therefore Michael Moore is anti-American.
Notice the Big Gaping Hole in Step 2. (And don’t give me any of this “We have to support the President …” nonsense. We just went thru 8 years of non-stop President bashing by alledgedly “patriotic” people.)
This is America. We have political differences. One side is not intrinsically born with all the claims of patriotism. All sides can be patriotic. Someone who disagrees from your politics might be less patriotic than you. OTOH, that person may be a million times more patriotic than you.
If you have seen any of Michael Moore’s films there can be no question whatsover that this is a guy who is 1000%, true blue, madly in love with America. Just Roger & Me alone is entirely about how distraught he is about the wealthy and powerful selling America down the drain for filthy lucre. It is completely counter-factual to challenge this particular person’s patriotism. So he’s a Bush basher. But he deepy loves America and all it stands for.
As for Fahrenheit 9/11, it will probably be likewise strongly pro-American and patriotic. We shall have to see.
Speaking from a European wishy-washy liberal viewpoint 
I find it odd how this one film has divided your nation so much. It seems like you either have to support Moore whole-heartedly and subscribe to the Bush = Satan viewpoint, or denounce Moore as the biggest traitor since Judas Iscariot first looked into alternative sources of income.
“Hmm, some interesting points being raised here, I might look into this further” doesn’t seem to be an option.
Just a final word on “embellishments” (most of which have been double-refuted by the Moore-camp and were claimed based on lack of understanding on the part of his accusers) -
Michael Moore makes documentaries. they can be twisted and full of lies, but they’re still documentaries. anyone who claims otherwise doesn’t know anything about filmmaking…go watch Herzog’s “Lessons in Darkness,” another documentary, and you’ll realize that in cinematic terms, documentary filmmaking can’t be reduced to a Ken Burns-style presentation of facts (not that Burns doesn’t manipulate facts, too). Documentaries can range from nuanced and vague to straight-foward and fact-filled. They can be op-eds (like Moore’s films), interviews, or presentations of verifiable information. or they can just be impressions of reality (a la Herzog). They can be a lot of things.
To say Michael Moore’s films aren’t “documentaries” just because they twist or manipulate facts is like claiming whale sharks aren’t sharks because they don’t attack people. you’re defining “documentary” incorrectly.
Getting upsets over Moore’s edits is futile - all edits are manipulative. all documentaries use manipulative edits. People who seek objective truth in editing are always going to be manipulated…that’s their fault, not Moore’s.
Also, anyone who tries to have an opinion by not investigating the subject firsthand (eg, not watching Moore’s films), and relying instead on second-hand information, is totally incapable of thinking for themselves and not worthy of the opinion they are trying to have.
Moore has repeatedly stated that his films are the cinematic version of the op-ed page, and i think that’s how they present themselves…nothing more. and in that sense, they’re brilliant.
Also - Tarantino is probably the least political guy in Hollywood. he doesn’t like politics, he likes filmmaking…that’s it. i’m actually very surprised this film won when he was presiding over the jury, and that’s an indication that this film may be very good, and may very well be a departure from Moore’s previous work.
It’s not really the film, Colophon, but the fact that the film, being political in nature, is viewed through the lens of partisan politics. It’s similar to Richard Clarke (traitor or hero!) or Bill Clinton (pervert or hero!) in that every issue is seen by politic-heads as a black-and-white issue when the truth likely lies in between.
I don’t think that discussions of the impact of this film and its release on political debate consititutes a hijack, since that is what the film is patently intended to spur.