The Filmsnobs "I Can't Believe It's Not a Blog!"


Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2004 December
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 May
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November

My Links
The Mixed Reviews Blog, featuring reviews by Jill Cozzi, Gabriel Shanks, and Ned Depew
Cinemarati: The Web Alliance for Film Criticism
The Online Film Critics Society
Flak Magazine
The Kansas City Film Critics Circle
Mixed Reviews
The Filmsnobs Main Page
Jill Cozzi's Brilliant at Breakfast blog
Gabriel Shanks' Modern Fabulousity blog

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog
The Liberal Passion?
05.26.04 (3:54 pm)   [edit]
I've had a subscription to [i]Premiere [/i] magazine since I was in the 7th grade, so it's safe to say I know a little about "the biz." And I had no idea that anyone outside of Sony Pictures Classics gave a shit about the Cannes Film Festival until this year. Because this week, Michael Moore won the Palme D'Or for his new documentary [i]Fahrenheit 911[/i]. That's the top prize at the international film festival and [i]Fahrenheit [/i]is the first documentary to win the distinction since 1956. The American (or liberal) media picked up on this blip and turned this into a bigger news story than [i]Shrek 2's [/i]record-breaking opener. Newspapers and cable stations proclaimed this as a victory for the outspoken Moore and his docu-tainment piece that chronicles the failures and deception of the Bush administration before and after that fateful day a few years ago. Conservative talk radio and Fox News threw their arms up in the air and proclaimed that the liberals were colluding with the French to give this gasbag a really powerful soapbox.

Both sides could be right. But they're both kind of wrong at the same time. The Palme D'Or doesn't mean much if the film has no American distributor. Miramax has been asked to give up the film over Disney chief Michael Eisner's objection to its "political nature". Never mind that Eisner's WABC broadcasts [i]The Rush Limbaugh Show [/i]every day. And Eisner keeps jacking up the price even as agitated Disney shareholders see this as a potential blockbuster going down the drain after an already bad year for the studio. There's still no deal at this writing. And conservatives want to badly link this award to the French, but the ten-person jury consists of four Americans and one Scot. All members of the Coalition of the Willing. The President of the Jury -Quintin Tarantino- has never espressed any political motivation in film or in interviews. (Note: Tarantino is the only filmmaker to make any waves with a Palme D'Or win prior to 2004. His classic [i]Pulp Fiction [/i] won the top prize ten years ago.) Tarantino contends that it was "just a great film. (The jury) had no political motives."

But that doesn't really matter. The uproar caused over [i]Fahrenheit [/i] can be summed up with a slice from Bill O'Reilly's radio show on Monday. (I listen to it from time to time to gain ammo so please cut me some slack): "This movie of course was lauded by the French and is nothing more than anti-Bush propaganda from a guy who wants Bush out of the White House. And the liberal media has fallen into line. Frank Rich wrote a column (on Sunday) saying how great it was. And he hadn't seen it. He hasn't even seen it." (Later on)"And you know, I don't have to see it to know what it is." First of all, Rich's article argued that the film should be released. He never gave an opinion one way or the other. But Rich will love it. And O'Reilly, if he ever saw it, will hate it. And that's how it will work until the film sees a release in this country.

This is the year's second example of a film becoming a political event. And this time the tables are turning. [i]The Passion of the Christ [/i] opened to a flurry of publicity about the film's depiction of Christ. Conservatives promised that the film would open the eyes of non-believers, raise the spirits, and re-affirm the pain of the Messiah. Liberals said that the film was excessively gory, wouldn't change anyone's mind, and create anti-Semitism throughout the world. Considering this is the Number One film in the Muslim world because it "shows Jews for what they are", history will decide who was right. But each side drew a line in the sand. Red voters cried in their seats; even if Gibson failed to properly capture the pace of the suffering. And blue voters stayed away or wrote nasty little notes on their blogs; even if the film had a powerful message and was beautifully filmed. If anything, the film properly captured the attention of a country already on the edge of political insanity.

And now Moore returns to counter during the already turbulent election. Talk radio will no doubt pick the film for basic inconsistencies without properly addressing the larger issues it may present. And Internet web sites and snooty magazines will blindly praise the film without noticing Moore's sometimes sloppy style. This happened with Moore's 2002 [i]Bowling for Columbine. [/i] Critics happily noted disproven or technically inaccurate theories in the film without questioning the root of violence in America that was the central question in the film. And cheerleaders talked up the film without pondering some of the heavy lifting Moore had to do in order to connect points. The film addressed some really important issues about US philosophy and did so in that entertaining format of comedy/horror that Moore is really beginning to master. And some of the material from [i]Fahrenheit [/i]already provides some tough arguments. O'Reilly contends that "any idiot in an editing room can make anyone look bad." But Moore shows Bush -uninterrupted - as he learns about the WTC attacks and remains at his seat in an elementary school. The camera pans to Andy Card and Rod Paige as they tap their feet waiting for him to get up and leave. He only departs once a Secret Service agents suggests "leaving soon." Or can anyone argue that Bush WASN'T at his Crawford, TX ranch for the full month of August 2001? Couldn't he miss something while he was clearing brush? I don't know. What I know that the upcoming months will unravel a new controversy at the corner of Pop Culture Avenue and Politics Expressway. And this debate will tell us more about this country than any film could ever do.

---Jimmy O