Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Barry_Green

Moderator
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL POST. This is a post to discuss the power of independent film in American politics, even the world stage. It would be wonderful if this topic could be discussed without right-wing/left-wing propaganda and anger interspersed. So everyone who reads and contributes to this thread, please disconnect your passion and try to discuss on a purely intellectual basis! ;D

Michael Moore's new film "Fahrenheit 9/11" premiered at Cannes. According to IMDB news, it received a 15-minute standing ovation.

15 minutes. Standing and clapping for a quarter of an hour. Think about that -- that's a L O N G time. Unprecedented in the history of Cannes. (of course, let's point out that it's an anti-Bush film, and Cannes takes place in France, so maybe some French anti-Americanism was at play.) I wonder if it would have gotten a 15-minute ovation in Kansas... Perhaps a distributor will pick it up in the US, and we'll see.

Latest news is that apparently some Republican committe or PAC is threatening to sue Moore under campaign finance laws, claiming that Fahrenheit 9/11 is nothing more than a 90-minute campaign ad.

Whether you support or despise Moore, whether you support or despise Bush, whether Moore's picture is fact or fiction, this is an absolutely fascinating development for independent film. Could a "documentary" (or "fanciful fiction tale", who knows -- the "facts" aren't out yet) have a hand in bringing down the President of the U.S.? Can one man with a video camera (and six million $ from Miramax) bring about what he calls "regime change" in the USA? Will laws regulating content prohibit its distribution, under "campaign finance reform" laws? If so, how will that jibe with the First Amendment -- will you be prevented from distributing your film if it has political content? If someone made an Anti-Kerry film, about allegations of his behavior during his tour of duty in Vietnam, could/would that also be squelched under "campaign finance reform" laws?

I think this is a pivotal moment in the world of independent film. I plan on grabbing a bucket of popcorn and watching how this all plays out.
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

Ifit is anything like Bowling, then I hope too many people don't buy into it. I don't think this movie has the power to bring down Bush. I think if Bush doesn't win this year it will be because of Bush. I think that most of Moore's audience, who actually believe his story, don't even use their right to vote. They like to complain about him, but don't like to vote...
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Offtopic;num=1084903945;start=0#0 date=05/18/04 at 11:12:22]I think this is a pivotal moment in the world of independent film.[/quote]

Barry,

I couldn't agree more. I've read reviews of the Cannes Festival screening, and, regardless of one's political leanings, loyalties and rhetoric, the movie has had a major emotional impact on those who've seen it.

In the context of media and its influence on society, I look forward to seeing the (hopefully intelligent) dialogue that ensues.

Monk
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

Here's how you say something without being politcal. I urge everyone who wants to, to go see the movie and make up their own mind. If you don't see it, you shouldn't comment. I've always been bugged by people who condem something without seeing it. (Snuff films and kiddie porn are exceptions.) Now I understand that some may not want to go so that Moore doesn't get there ticket money and I'm not sure how to get around that problem. (Please don't pirate this movie because piracy is bad for the industry. ) ;)

I will say if this film has the power to bring down the presidency then it must be saying something and have some kernel of truth. Is it all true? In a non-biased way, probably not. Right wing radio commentators spent 8 years blasting Clinton with their words. Some true, some twisted logic and some out and out lies. Left wingers make comparisons between W. Bush and Hitler and that's mighty wacky. Film is art and art is alway subjective, and the view also bring their point of view. I say let it play and let the public make up their own minds.

Scott
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

Interesting take on that. Certainly the left would agree that Rush had a virulent anti-Clinton bias for a long, long time -- did anyone classify that a "campaign ad"? Why would Moore's work be singled out? And obviously the right would say that Brokaw, Rather, and the entire media have promoted a liberal, left-leaning bias -- does that qualify as a "campaign ad?"

Whether you believe Moore or not, this question of whether his work will be squashed under the argument of it being specifically designed to influence the campaign should be of interest to all filmmakers. And, if I'm not mistaken, Moore HAS vowed to bring down Bush. So, is it actually a campaign ad? Where does the line get drawn?

And how does it differ from an extended "60 Minutes" piece? Should "60 Minutes" be in danger of being similarly squelched?

Wow! How does anyone comment on that without getting political?
Click to expand...
What I'm hoping to avoid are the type of posts about "Moore is a liar" and "Bush is an idiot" and "You're not an American if you don't support our President" and such stuff. That's all fine and dandy for other threads, but opinions on those subjects are likely to inflame passions and obscure the intent of the thread. You should be able to comment on the power of the press, or the power of an individual filmmaker, without concern for which "side" is which. The greater issues affect all of us, regardless of whether we are the right or the left or the center.

For example: if Moore's film is 100% factual (I know, I know, just go with the hypothetical, okay?) then how could anyone argue against its being allowed to be seen?

Yet if his avowed mission is to bring down the president, does it MATTER whether it's factual or not, as per the question of whether it's a campaign ad?

Furthermore, the issue could just have easily been reversed: let's say Rush Limbaugh had decided to finance a film about Clinton's ties to China, or "Whitewater 9/11" or Paula Jones or whatever, it really doesn't matter. The question still stands -- where does a filmmaker's right to speak end, and their ability to influence or destabilize the government begin?

To not politicize it (hopefully), I'm trying to make the actual issues in Fahrenheit 9/11 irrelevant to the discussion. Except that questions of accuracy, truthfulness, and "taking liberties with the truth" dogged Moore regarding "Bowling for Columbine" -- if that turns out to be the case, then the whole issue becomes even more complicated, doesn't it?

I don't know. I just think it's going to be an interesting debate on the role and influence of independent film in our internet-connected, instant-response society.
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

As I've said before, elsewhere, Moore is an emotion button-pushing genius. Can he make a legitimate documentary? I don't think so, but then again I'm not impressed with his message.

Gee, ya think there might be a wee bit of anti-American sentiment at Cannes? Hmmm...
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

Yeah, that's what I said at the first point -- the reaction of an audience at Cannes might be just a little different than the reaction of an audience in Kansas or Texas or ... well, you get the point. So while it's an interesting point to note that they got a 15-minute ovation, I certainly don't think that's an unbiased reaction!
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

I think it comes down to a free speech issue. Can a single individual or a production company make a film that devised to bring down a specific candidate? I think so. As I said the other day, if the KKK wants to bring out a film of their own that spreads their dogma, then they should not be stopped. We have a choice, buy the ticket or not buy the ticket. What could be more democratic.

Hey when we're watching TV political ads come at us if we like it or not.

This does bring up the question about broadcasting political films through the air? You turn on the TV and there it is. I think we need for poor more money into education because an informed electorate can make informed decisions. They will be able to digest the information decide what's true and useful.

Scott
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

Im 'seconing' (is that a word) that BUSH is gone LONG BEFORE THIS FILM. I do agree that it can be a poweful influence but as mentioned, BUSH is gone; film or not.
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

Hey Scott,

That's a good point. Other than length, what really is the difference between a campaign ad and this? They're both made with the specific intent of promoting one candidate and demoting the other. One's thirty seconds long and one's 90 minutes long... is that enough of a distinction?

There are bazillions of laws on the books related to money and politics. Does Moore's film boil down to just that -- an attempt to use money ($6m from Miramax) to influence politics? And if so, is it protected free speech, or an abuse of campaign finance laws?

Do campaign finance laws only apply to the purchase of airtime? heck, Ross Perot used to buy half-hour slots on prime-time network airtime, but those purchases were regulated under campaign finance laws. Moore, theoretically, will not be paying anything to get his message out there: instead, he's asking the public to pay to hear the message.

What a fascinating turn.

And therein, maybe that's the answer.

Is what Moore's doing really any different than if someone had written a book? People write books all the time, with all sorts of angles of attack, and I don't think anyone's ever tried to get a book regulated under "campaign finance laws." The very fact that someone has to pay to see the content should probably distinguish Moore's work (regardless of his intent in creating it) and keep it out of the realm of it being considered a campaign tool.

Hmm. I think I'm comfortable with that idea. Moore's work is basically a big, $6 million "book". Books have been brought out during campaigns for years. It'll be interesting to see if doing the same thing, but in "movie" form, has more impact on the electorate.
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

Well, you have to pay to see ads on TV, though only indirectly. :-/

Do "campaign finance reform" laws affect this film? No, though if they were genuine, they probably should. (Before anyone gets too out sorts, I'll go on record as saying that I *hate* the CFR act; I think it's one of the biggest assaults on the First Amendment, ever, and does exactly what the 1A was put in place to prevent.) CFR as it exists now only prevents *certain* speakers from political speech within 30 days of a general election, and if it's going to be fair, it should affect all -- including newspaper editorial columns, on-air commentary, and yes, politically-themed movies and books. Not only are the current campaign laws a philosophical and Constitutional nightmare, they're applied extremely unevenly and unfairly.
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

The great thing about capitalism and democracy is that it allows us to vote many times during an election. Once with our vote and then many other times with our dollars. I respect Moore's right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that I'll be throwing any dollars his way.

Is Moore's success politically revolutionary? I don't think so. The media has been involved in politics for a long time. It may, however, open a revolution for politically charged documentary films, kind of like what happened to talk radio during the 90s. And that would be a good thing for filmmakers. Would it be good for political dialogue? Maybe not. I'm sorry to say this but film and television don't always lend themselves to thoughtful, fact-oriented thinking. In film, those who shout the loudest and the most emotionally will get heard, even if what they are shouting is complete rubbish.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's easy to portray on film the idealistic idea that everyone who suffers is somehow a victim of someone powerful in the world. It's a bit harder to argue on film that the world is messed up, always will be, and we can't really fix everything, but freedom creates incentives that helps some of us become the best we can be.

p.s. To those who say Bush is out: Kerry really isn't doing that great and Bush is almost always "misunderestimated!"
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

On a lighter note! I have seen all of Michael Moore's work. Please explain to me how he spent six million dollars on one of his films. I love his work, but I know preteens that can shoot better. ;D
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

"Im 'seconing' (is that a word) that BUSH is gone LONG BEFORE THIS FILM. I do agree that it can be a poweful influence but as mentioned, BUSH is gone; film or not."

Hmm, I thought this was what Barry wanted to avoid. Nobody said Bush was gone, and time will tell whether he is or not, it is not a foregone conclusion. Personally, I hope someone makes a movie about Kerry, but using facts instead of reused black helicopter conspiracy theories that Moore likes to harp on. Moore has every right to make anything he wants, and to even call it a "documentary", and to try to affect an election with it. But the people also have the right to not watch it, protest it, and protest the distributers who try to distribute it (nobody has yet to sign on in the US, actaully a few have unsigned, although Moore says US distribution is forth coming). It's funny how some cry that their first amendment rights are somehow trampled on when people don't want to listen to their message or ignore it. I'm not saying people don't want to see Moore's work (obviously some of you do), but if a distributer isn't found watch it turn into a "free speech" issue when it's just market forces at work. I also think CFR was a horrible bill. I don't know if Moore's film will fall under it, I honestly hope it doesn't, CFR is already too far reaching and an erosion of our 1A rights, it needs to be repealed. It indeed will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Here's a few reviews of it BTW:
http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/24315.htm

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/opinion...xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/05/19/ixopinion.html
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Offtopic;num=1084903945;start=0#11 date=05/18/04 at 13:28:15]Hey Scott,

That's a good point.  Other than length, what really is the difference between a campaign ad and this?  They're both made with the specific intent of promoting one candidate and demoting the other.  One's thirty seconds long and one's 90 minutes long... is that enough of a distinction?

[/quote]

Barry, I know you were not specifically talking about what I would like to bring up, but I thought I would throw this out: Moore's film is being seen as a film with a specific message because it is blatantly giving a message. I would like to throw out to you all that every film has some sort of agenda to it. Directors are normal people with normal biases.

So yes, Moore certainly does have an agenda. But I am more concerned with films that don't have that "blatant" agenda and are influencing people every day. Think of all the violence and other gratuitous trash that influences our children in television and movies.

A little off the subject, but I thought I would give my two cents. ::)
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

SirAllen,

Thanks for your point of view. You bring up an interesting point.

"It's funny how some cry that their first amendment rights are somehow trampled on when people don't want to listen to their message or ignore it. I'm not saying people don't want to see Moore's work (obviously some of you do), but if a distributer isn't found watch it turn into a "free speech" issue when it's just market forces at work."

Now here's the question this brings up, is there such a thing as capitalistic censorship, in that some movie is so political that the big money distributors aren't willing to risk the political fallout even though they know they can make money or they are protecting their political friends? Let me play this out a little. Today, more and more media companies are being owned by giant corporations and the cost of getting movie out to the masses keeps growing to the point where it's out of reach of many smaller companies, so only the big media companies can get movies out there on enough screens that the movie can make it's money back. So you can see where this system may be creating a defacto standard that only allows politically acceptable material to reach the masses.

To be honest, I don't think this system exist today. (Although the latest Oslen Twins movie makes me wonder about the homogenized crap that studios churn out.) I think there's always small to medium sized distributor out there willing to take a risk on something they think can make a buck.

Scott
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

[quote author=Scott_Spears link=board=Offtopic;num=1084903945;start=15#17 date=05/18/04 at 20:35:56]is there such a thing as capitalistic censorship

To be honest, I don't think this system exist today. [/quote]

Absolutely there's capitalistic censorship, I do believe it exists even today. Look at "The Passion of the Christ" for example. No big name wanted it, yet it raked in the money at the box office. Yes, a smaller distributer picked it up, but it could have gone without distribution. With "The Passion" though, there was enough demand before it came out to make it a pretty safe bet for anyone that did step up to distribute it. With Moore's film, I'm not sure it's guaranteed to bring in the 12 mil to break even at the box office. It very well may, I know there's a lot of hatred of Bush out there, but I wouldn't think it would be as sure a thing as TPOTC.

Another example was "The Reagans". The uproar over it caused CBS to dump it to Showtime (which actually did CBS a favor - they came out better than if they aired that horribly acted piece of fiction).

I don't know that this is a bad thing, as long as it's based on making money I think it all works itself out. It's when the big distributers start doing it for other reasons that it becomes a "bad thing" IMO. And if there were no small/medium distributers in existance due to being bought out by the big ones, and a film like TPOTC came along, as long as there was money to be made I think you'd see a new one pop up to fill the gap.

If it's based on capitalism, it's in a sense the sum of the people's demand. It's the balance of ones who will make you money vs. the ones who will lose you money, i.e. pure capitalistic democracy.
 
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres at Cannes

Again, I have to show how easy it is to pierce the pious veil of those who decry "corporate censorship" every time a large distributor chooses not to distribute a film:

There would be no complaints if the film in question cast the KKK in a heroic light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top