I hear he got the longest standing ovation ever seen at the Cannes Film Festival

Well, duh, it's anti US and it's at Cannes. It's pandering to the most willing crowd.

Utter Bullpoop!

I totally and continually reject investigation and critism of the doings and people of government and even further actually doing something quite tangible about it (like making films or writing books) being equated with "anti US"

Anti-Bush does not equate to anti-US no matter how loud or how often it is repeated.

Fine, it's anti-Bush -- from what I've read, so much so that it forgets to have any cogent discussion of the topics and just makes sweeping attempts at finger-pointing (maybe Moore is the PERFECT liberal, no?). Either way, it's sure to get a rousing round of cheers from a French audience, which was the point I was trying to make.

Now, perverting facts, omitting facts, and distorting truth to support your version of who's to blame is IMO also anti-US, but it's something that every US politician and filmmaker and basically anyone with a voice does these days, so Moore is just marching right along with them.

[ 05-18-2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

It was an international audience including many Americans.

Let M.M spew forth his agenda, where ever he so desires, to whom will listen. Who gives a RAT'S REAR END! Last time I checked it's the US. Citizens that get off their fat butts and vote that decide the direction the U.S. Government will take and not a crowd of movie goers in Cannes or any other damn film festival on this dust ball. Now if they want to change that they know where we are, they can Arm up and invade if they want to, until then blabber on it's their right to speak, lest any try to pervert my writing to say I don't believe they have the right to say what they want. Just cause it's said doesn't make it so.

Of course -- Hollywood liberals and their followers, who represent 90% of what's on TV in the US, and 15% of the geographic region where our population resides. ;) Martin Sheen or Sean Penn applauding a "documentary" (you must use the word loosely with Moore) slamming Bush doesn't actually validate it in my mind. If it's good enough for you, so be it.

Hey, at least the film is being first shown in the place where it belongs -- Europe. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 05-18-2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font color=deepskyblue>So he got film crews "imbedded" under false pretenses. In other words, he lied.</font>


<font color=deepskyblue>THIS statement by Moore is the very crux of this whole issue, IMHO. I knew this was his goal from the very first post I saw on this topic. Given the "spin" and the misinformation he has used already (claiming that Disney reneged on their deal {lie} and that they tried to prevent distribution {lie}), coupled with the lack of scruples he has been accused of exercising in former "documentaries" - I can't help but question the validity of ANYTHING this film has to say. When the director comes out and says his sole purpose for creating a "documentary" is to get the current President fired, even his most passionate defender should stop and wonder just what means Moore would be willing to use to accomplish his goal.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Hmmm...that sounds very much like what *I've* been saying throughout this entire thread regarding Moore and his films. Given that the Los Angeles Times isn't exactly a conservative stronghold in the media (I believe their war coverage represented the liberal angle far more than the conservative, IIRC), this is a very interesting comment for them to make. Seems like maybe some of Moore's former defenders are starting to view him and his works with a more critical eye.</font>

I was expecting that to be the case Donut - just cos it is in Cannes don't mean diddly. The film festival audience is predominantly international.

It doesn't mean that you can't claim bias though TL, because it would have been full of Hollywood loving leftist pinko watery liberals. Shoot em all I say - nary a solid froth at the mouth conservative about to give one a decent converstaion - what is the world coming to.

Of course -- Hollywood liberals and their followers, who represent 90% of what's on TV in the US, and 15% of the geographic region where our population resides. ;) Martin Sheen or Sean Penn applauding a "documentary" (you must use the word loosely with Moore) slamming Bush doesn't actually validate it in my mind. If it's good enough for you, so be it.

Hey, at least the film is being first shown in the place where it belongs -- Europe. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]LOL - well I didn't realise I was on the 2nd last page of the thread when I made my previous post - so I see now that you had already taken the pinko liberal stance. Good for you ;) .

Of course -- Hollywood liberals and their followers, who represent 90% of what's on TV in the US, and 15% of the geographic region where our population resides. ;) Martin Sheen or Sean Penn applauding a "documentary" (you must use the word loosely with Moore) slamming Bush doesn't actually validate it in my mind. If it's good enough for you, so be it.</font>[/QUOTE]Not true, I watched interviews with two right-wing American critics who both said it was "much better than they expected it to be" and were extremely suprised

[ 05-18-2004, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Traitors. We'll find those turncoats and hang 'em up by their thumbnails for going pinko on us!!!

Ovation lasted for 15 minutes. It must be a superb film.

Which is especially remarkable, considering the fact you've never even seen BfC...
Cerek, honestly - at least go out and see it once. Give it a fair chance, and *then* decide on an opinion - don't just dismiss it because you find Moore's public appearances repulsive or because your favourite newspapers and magazines are trying to make mountains out of molehills by putting small, irrelevant inconsistencies on par with "being a big fat liar" - sure, BfC has its flaws, and the overly cheap and cheesy closing scene with Heston makes me want to scratch out my eye-balls, but the movie makes more than enough good points that won't be mentioned in the anti-Moore media.

Which is especially remarkable, considering the fact you've never even seen BfC...
Cerek, honestly - at least go out and see it once. Give it a fair chance, and *then* decide on an opinion - don't just dismiss it because you find Moore's public appearances repulsive or because your favourite newspapers and magazines are trying to make mountains out of molehills by putting small, irrelevant inconsistencies on par with "being a big fat liar" - sure, BfC has its flaws, and the overly cheap and cheesy closing scene with Heston makes me want to scratch out my eye-balls, but the movie makes more than enough good points that won't be mentioned in the anti-Moore media. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>I haven't seen the film, but I have seen the criticisms of it on the various web pages linked in previous threads. I don't find Moore's public appearances repulsive - I find the man himself repulsive. The allegations of half-truths and deliberate misconceptions is not new to Moore's work - nor is it limited to BFC. In fact, Moore has seen to it that each of his films generated a fair amount of controversy. Controversy equals free publicity and increased interest.

I don't read magazines or newspapers. Most of my information comes from local and national news shows (when I have time to watch them) and internet sources. If I hear about a story that interests me, I usually go to CNN, Reuters or AP to find a story on it. Otherwise, I go by sources cited in the threads themselves.

As for watching BFC, I have said I will try and make time to do that. However, I normally rent movies for entertainment value, and with 3 small children I have precious little time to rent movies I DO want to see. So the idea of using some of that valuable time to watch a movie made by a man I find repulsive due to his habit of infusing his own agenda into every picture he makes is not very appealing - to say the least.

As for Moore's penchant for "spinning" the facts to suit his purpose, I have provided enough examples of Moore doing exactly that in his comments regarding Disney's treatment of Farenheit 9/11 to show he does do it on a regular basis. You can review them for yourself or choose to ignore them as you see fit.</font>

Well it's just won the Palme d'Or, first documentry to do so since the old king died, so it must be a pretty good movie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/3739325.stm

[ 05-22-2004, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Lanesra ]

Seems like it's shocked old GB [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/22/bush.fall/index.html

heh, an ovation from people who believe britney spears deserves a standing O? that isnt worth spit from the bottom of my shoes. most of those movie/music stars are less educated than the average american in any case.

heh, an ovation from people who believe britney spears deserves a standing O? that isnt worth spit from the bottom of my shoes. most of those movie/music stars are less educated than the average american in any case. </font>[/QUOTE]But if they had of booed him, they would have been ok, right ? how dare he make a film that tells the people that the sun don't shine out of G Dubya's arse.

heh, an ovation from people who believe britney spears deserves a standing O? that isnt worth spit from the bottom of my shoes. most of those movie/music stars are less educated than the average american in any case. </font>[/QUOTE]But if they had of booed him, they would have been ok, right ? how dare he make a film that tells the people that the sun don't shine out of G Dubya's arse. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>I would have been shocked if they had booed. It is "politically correct", internationally speaking. It says we should never have gone to war in Iraq and is excessivily critical of George Bush (at least that's the implication I got from Moore's comment about "doing everything he can to see that Bush is NOT re-elected this year"). So why wouldn't the Cannes Film audience applaud it? The movie is tailor-made to meet their approval and support their views.

Like I said, I would be shocked if they hadn't applauded it.</font>

i would be surprised if hollywood booed any liberal with an activist agenda. and his film does slightly more than "tells the people that the sun don't shine out of G Dubya's arse." it defames his character through slander and character assasination. i have no doubt that there will probably be a lawsuit over this movie, and disney certainly has a right to avoid that by denying distribution through one of its companies.

heh, an ovation from people who believe britney spears deserves a standing O? that isnt worth spit from the bottom of my shoes. most of those movie/music stars are less educated than the average american in any case. </font>[/QUOTE]But if they had of booed him, they would have been ok, right ? how dare he make a film that tells the people that the sun don't shine out of G Dubya's arse. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>I would have been shocked if they had booed. It is "politically correct", internationally speaking. It says we should never have gone to war in Iraq and is excessivily critical of George Bush (at least that's the implication I got from Moore's comment about "doing everything he can to see that Bush is NOT re-elected this year"). So why wouldn't the Cannes Film audience applaud it? The movie is tailor-made to meet their approval and support their views.

Like I said, I would be shocked if they hadn't applauded it.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]The award isn't so mcuh about the content of the movie as much as it is about the technical direction. The Cannes panel is hardly what one would describe as 'liberal' in nature - but certainly made up of professional film-makers and critics.

You might dislike the man for his opinions, but he is talented.

And headed by Quentin Tarantino no less. Whatever you may think of him, he certainly knows his films...

i have no doubt he is skilled at his means, but in the realm of documentary, i view reporting truth as more important than the particular flair he presents false information with...

Yeah, Skunk, he is talented -- at warping the truth. I hated being lied to by BFC, but I've even gone back and found he misrepresented what was presented to me by a professor as "TRUTH" in Roger & Me.

He splices multiple interviews as if they are one, misreprents facts, and juxtaposes facts with background shots to lead to fallacious conclusions.

Anyone who gives Moore and award before waiting for appropriate fact-checking is just irresponsible. But, as long as it slams GWB, the whole of Europe and Hollywood -- the primary audience/judge/and jury at Cannes -- is willing to be irresponsible. Guess it's okay for them, but not for GWB.

Lanesra shows us how she learns well from Moore -- she juxtaposes an article that is totally unrelated. And, shows the lack of compassion toward GWB -- which is generally one of the many charges levelled against him. It's real easy for those of us who sit here at our computers eating doritos and smoking cigs all day to make fun of the man -- but I bet there aren't 10 members on the whole of IWF capable of bike-riding 17 miles. I'd bet there's not one member on here of his age who could do it. And, that's on top of working 120+ hr. weeks. Shame on you, Lanesra.

Oh, and just to note again -- DISNEY DID NOT FORBID ANYTHING. They did not try to stop him from selling distribution rights. Moore's whining and all the newspapers following him like lemmings just goes to show his ability to misrepresent the facts.

At Cannes he said that after he found a distributor in Albania, you could now see the movie in all countries except 1 -- ■■■■■■■ LIAR!!!!! You can see the movie here, and no one is stopping it. Moore deserves every bit of bad treatment NY Time's Blair got -- he's a damned liar.

Yeah, shame on you Lanesra, silly girl. You really shouldn't hang out that much with your sister Serenity - she seems to have a bad influence on you. ;)

And on the matter of bike-riding 17 miles - you're kidding, right? Not even 10 members? I think practically any Dutchie around here could pull it off easily - and I'm pretty sure there are many other regulars capable of doing it without that much trouble. http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon19.gif
For comparison, I run about 7-9 miles a day in total (not in one session, btw). And when I have to go to the train station (7 miles back and forth), to work (5 miles b&f) or simply downtown to do some shopping (1-7 miles, depending on what I need), I go by bike, like most people do around here in the Netherlands.

[ 05-23-2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/3740939.stm

[ 05-23-2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Ironic isn't it? here's George trying to stabalise Iraq, when he cant even stabalise his bike [img]smile.gif[/img] And to post before appropriate fact checking is just irresponsible, shame on you Timber.

[ 05-24-2004, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: Lanesra ]

Yeah, shame on you Lanesra, silly girl. You really shouldn't hang out that much with your sister Serenity - she seems to have a bad influence on you. ;)

And on the matter of bike-riding 17 miles - you're kidding, right? Not even 10 members? I think practically any Dutchie around here could pull it off easily - and I'm pretty sure there are many other regulars capable of doing it without that much trouble. http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon19.gif
For comparison, I run about 7-9 miles a day in total (not in one session, btw). And when I have to go to the train station (7 miles back and forth), to work (5 miles b&f) or simply downtown to do some shopping (1-7 miles, depending on what I need), I go by bike, like most people do around here in the Netherlands. </font>[/QUOTE]I could ride 17 mile easily, but I'm saving myself for my future husband [img]smile.gif[/img]

*cough*
Timber - if you haven't realised Lanesra is a man. I know this because I've seen his todger on many occasions. We even used to sleep together in our younger days!

;)

bike riding discussion now is it ;)
my 2c
4 years ago when I was in good shape I could do 125 miles (200km) a day. Now that I've put on 40kgs (YES, shame on me) I an still do about 75 miles. 20 miles is a matter of one or two hours straight riding and I'd be appalled if ANY member here (or any adult anywhere) save those with a physical handicap were not able to do that.

I though Moore looked very smart when he received his award. He was also clearly moved by the reception.

You're a tart Lanesra - and Donut you shameless hussy, this post of yours is a mental image I do NOT need.

excuse an american for not knowing brittish slang, but is a todger what i think it is?

Sorry for any gender-bending Lanesra. And, it's nice to know my fellow ironworkers are in such great shape.

Let's see it this way : Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, The Mission, The Pianist, Pulp Fiction, they all had the Palme D'or award, and they're like...GREAT films (can we at least agree on this ?). So Farenheit 911 must be one hell of a movie too, and just for that, beyond the political aspect, we should go and see it.
Then, I say THEN, we will debate about it and, depending on our *side* and beliefs, spit on Moore or thank him.
I just can't wait for it to be released here in France, which will be pretty soon I'm sure.

Which is especially remarkable, considering the fact you've never even seen BfC...
Cerek, honestly - at least go out and see it once. Give it a fair chance, and *then* decide on an opinion - don't just dismiss it because you find Moore's public appearances repulsive or because your favourite newspapers and magazines are trying to make mountains out of molehills by putting small, irrelevant inconsistencies on par with "being a big fat liar" - sure, BfC has its flaws, and the overly cheap and cheesy closing scene with Heston makes me want to scratch out my eye-balls, but the movie makes more than enough good points that won't be mentioned in the anti-Moore media. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>I haven't seen the film, but I have seen the criticisms of it on the various web pages linked in previous threads. I don't find Moore's public appearances repulsive - I find the man himself repulsive. The allegations of half-truths and deliberate misconceptions is not new to Moore's work - nor is it limited to BFC. In fact, Moore has seen to it that each of his films generated a fair amount of controversy. Controversy equals free publicity and increased interest.

I don't read magazines or newspapers. Most of my information comes from local and national news shows (when I have time to watch them) and internet sources. If I hear about a story that interests me, I usually go to CNN, Reuters or AP to find a story on it. Otherwise, I go by sources cited in the threads themselves.

As for watching BFC, I have said I will try and make time to do that. However, I normally rent movies for entertainment value, and with 3 small children I have precious little time to rent movies I DO want to see. So the idea of using some of that valuable time to watch a movie made by a man I find repulsive due to his habit of infusing his own agenda into every picture he makes is not very appealing - to say the least.

As for Moore's penchant for "spinning" the facts to suit his purpose, I have provided enough examples of Moore doing exactly that in his comments regarding Disney's treatment of Farenheit 9/11 to show he does do it on a regular basis. You can review them for yourself or choose to ignore them as you see fit.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]If you disagree with the film, all the more reason to see it. Would you not expect a critic of the bible to at least read it before rejecting it?

It is also important to see if you want to keep your finger on the pulse of OPINIONS within America. Perceived reality is as important and valid as actual reality. If Moore IS wrong, and you are right, you need to be aware of what he is saying if you expect to counter it.

The single biggest issue I have with BfC is that he completely ignores the DEATH PENALTY as a cause for Americas gun deaths. Ignoring the reality that neither Canada, Germany or Japan - the nations he cites (bewildered as to why they have lower gun deaths). None have the death penalty. A huge factor in the problem IMHO.

Masklinn, Training Day may have garnered an Academy Award for Denzel, but that doesn't mean he deserved it for that particular movie (actually it was "make up" for another movie he deserved it for -- Training Day was mediocre at best). Point being -- sometimes these awards ARE given for political reasons.

Sorry TL, Cannes is different from the Academy Awards. It's international, it has a different group of professionals every year that has to choose between many different films from many different countries where the academy awards are just about the little world of hollywood, hollywood and only hollywood. So the Academy Awards have to be political in the way you described (and I have nothing at all against that - and in fact I loved Denzel in Training Day, he played a real psycho with ease). Cannes has really nothing to win in being political, that's why I really think Farheneit 911 is indeed a good movie. The best proof is that it has been awarded by Tarantino not by Susan Sarrandon or Sean Penn. [img]smile.gif[/img]
----
On the political aspect now, this movie CANT be full of lies, it may have some flaws of course, but you cant do a 2 hours documentary with only lies from the beginning to the end, else its kinda noticeable. And I still don't understand how some of you can still defend GWB and his admnistration after all they've done. I understand he is your president and you have to show some respect, ok. But what good did he exactly do to this world ? Democracy has this purpose : when the leading team sucks, you can replace it, you're not supposed to support it full time. But, well, that's another story. ;)