Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins at Cannes

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins at Cannes
86
Sun, 05-23-2004 - 3:13am
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Top Prize at Cannes

By A. O. SCOTT

CANNES, France, May 22 - At the awards ceremony that wrapped up the 57th Cannes Film Festival on Saturday night, the jury gave "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore's stinging critique of the Bush administration's foreign policies, the Palme d'Or, the festival's top prize and one of the most coveted honors in international cinema.

The announcement, made by jury president Quentin Tarantino, met with enthusiastic cheers from the audience in the Grand Théâtre Lumière, where Mr. Moore's film had received what many thought was the longest standing ovation ever at Cannes when it was screened here last Monday. "What have you done?" Mr. Moore asked Mr. Tarantino as he accepted the prize, looking both overwhelmed and amused. "You just did this to mess with me, didn't you?"

It was a night of many surprises: a 14-year-old boy won the award for best actor; the first Thai film ever placed in competition shared a jury prize with an American actress; and all three French films in competition were given awards.

But Mr. Moore's victory outdid all of them. For one thing, Cannes is notoriously indifferent to documentaries. "Fahrenheit 9/11" was one of only three nonfiction films allowed in competition in nearly 50 years.

The meaning of Mr. Moore's Palme, however, extends far beyond the cozy, glamorous world of Cannes. "Last time I was on an awards stage in Hollywood, all hell broke loose," Mr. Moore said in his acceptance speech, referring to his antiwar remarks at the Oscars last year. His new film, which does not yet have an American distributor, has already begun to stir passions in the United States, as the election approaches and the debate over the conduct of the war in Iraq grows more intense.

With his characteristic blend of humor and outrage - and with greater filmmaking discipline and depth of feeling than he has shown in his previous work - Mr. Moore attacks Mr. Bush's response to Sept. 11, his decision to invade Iraq, and nearly everything else the president has done.

"I did not set out to make a political film," Mr. Moore said at a news conference after the ceremony. "I want people to leave thinking that was a good way to spend two hours. The art of this, the cinema, comes before the politics."

He also said that Mr. Tarantino had assured him that the political message of "Fahrenheit 9/11" did not influence the jury's decision. "On this jury we have different politics," he quoted Mr. Tarantino as saying. It is also a film financed by Miramax, which distributes Mr. Tarantino's movies.

Mr. Moore noted that four of the nine jurors were American: Mr. Tarantino, Kathleen Turner, the director Jerry Schatzberg, and the Haitian-born novelist Edwidge Danticat. "I fully expect the Fox News Channel and other right-wing media to portray this as an award from the French," Mr. Moore said. Only one juror, the actress Emanuelle Béart, is a French citizen.

"If you want to add Tilda," he said referring to the British actress Tilda Swinton, "then you could say that more than half came from the coalition of the willing." (The rest of the panel was made up of Benoit Poelvoode, a Belgian actor; Peter von Bagh, a Finnish critic; and the Hong Kong director Tsui Hark.)

The jury's other decisions ranged far and wide over the competitive slate, recognizing both audience-friendly commercial movies, and challenging art-house films, and acknowledging the strong Asian presence at the festival this year.

The second prize went to Park Chan Wook's "Old Boy," an action-filled South Korean revenge drama. The Thai film, "Apichatpong Weerasethakul's Tropical Malady," a dreamy fable, irritated some critics with its slow pacing and enthralled others with its mysterious sensuality. It shared the jury prize with Irma P. Hall, the landlady in Joel and Ethan Coen's "Ladykillers."

Ms. Hall, hospitalized in the United States, was not able to attend the ceremony. Nor was Yuya Yagira, the young Japanese actor honored for his role in Hirokazu Kore-Eda's "Nobody Knows." Mr. Yagira had exams to take back home, so Mr. Kore-Eda accepted the award on his behalf.

The prize for directing, was given to Tony Gatlif, an Algerian-born French filmmaker, for "Exiles," a ragged, sexy road picture about a young couple's journey across Europe and North Africa. Agnès Jaoui, the director of the sophisticated French comedy "Look at Me," shared the screenwriting prize with her ex-husband Jean-Pierre Bacri, who appears with her in the film. The prize for best actress went to Maggie Cheung, who plays a recovering addict in Olivier Assayas's "Clean."

http://nytimes.com/2004/05/22/movies/23canne.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 12:26pm

I'm well aware of that.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 5:20pm
Agreed.

I really can't stand the fact that this man wins an Academy Award for best documentary for a film that is based on lies, and now he wins the top prize for Fahrenheit 911.

I wonder if this film is as "factual" as his other award winning film. My guess, based on the man's politics is that it is.

Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 9:48pm
I wouldn't put much store in the accolades MM receives. Let him have his ego stroked by his liberal peers because he won't get the same reaction from average viewers. These trophies are given by like-minded liberals and not the average viewer. The average viewer doesn't look to Hollywood or Cannes for guidance nor do they take these proclamations seriously. This is evidenced in box office receipts. Take *Passion of the Christ* as an example. It didn't win at Cannes yet it has done extremely well.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 9:55am




The star chamber spills its secrets.




It was a year of upsets at the Cannes festival. The final surprise? The jury explained its choices.......


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040525/CANNES25/TPEntertainment/TopStories


 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 12:19pm
I love Michael Moore and have since Roger and Me. Sure he's a liberal biased, but considering most major news, especially since 9/11, have been conservative biased, its nice to have someone balancing out the world. This movie, from what I've read about, is a sort of validation for people out there who, like me, saw the direct link between Bush's use of 9/11 and his justification for invading Iraq. Its insulting to the victims of 9/11 and unfortunate for the members of our fine military.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 2:44pm
Disney's failure to release the film is also a business decision. Look at the percentage of their market who supports Bush and are avid Disney supporters - i.e. the U.S. Christian majority, many of the same people who resoundingly made Passion of the Christ an economic coup for Gibson. If Disney was seen to support Moore's film, and beyond that be the distributors, they would take a hard hit to their business, from one of their biggest market segments. Their decisison not to release the film may cost them something, but it will not have the same negative impacts on their earnings. I agree it's hypocritcal since they took it on in the first place - and they should release it here - but I don't think the decision is purely political. I think it can be viewed as both.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 2:54pm
I just came back from Disneyworld on May 12th. We went right before Disney announced that they would not distribute Moore's film. I am a Bush supporter and knowing that they didn't support this trash, I felt much better about spending our hard earned money at Disney. Knowing that they backed Moore in the first place is a little concerning to me, but at least they had the guts to rethink their position on his film after it was made.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 2:55pm



Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-10-2004
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 3:16pm
thanks for posting, ITA
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 3:19pm
How can you say that Michael Moore's documentaries are not based on facts? What do you think that he does? Makes all this up? If you look up some of the "facts" that he presents in Bowling for Columbine, you will in "fact" find that they are indeed, all true. Yes, some of it is for entertainment, that is obvious just because there was humour in Bowling for Columbine, but the documentary wouldn't be nearly as succesful if there wasn't that "entertainment" reason behind it - something has to draw the people in to watch it. But I can tell that not many have watched Bowling for Columbine as if they would you would know that it is not all entertainment. There are too many serious issues taht he bring up. I think that he is a brilliant individual, not because of his political motivation behind his Documentaries, but because he actually brings attention to a matter that no one wants to realize. And judging from peoples reactions on this website no one realizes this. Get your head out of the sand and realize not just how your country is, but how this whole world is!

Michael must be doing something right if he's gotten such positive reaction (Hello! Oscar?!!! Now Cannes? Who else has achieved something like that?). Your negative thoughts do nothing but fuel him and others that are behind him to try and make you realize that things that he speaks about are a matter that THE WHOLE WORLD needs to bring attention to and fix. Do yourself a favour and watch fahrenheit 9/11 and watch the images (even if you mute the entire show to not hear his view) and tell me, does anyone deserve to live like that? Do the children whom have had their limbs blown off for whatever reason behind it, do they deserve that? No. that's a point that he's trying to make. The children who experienced Columbine? Did that need to happen? Did they need to go through that kind of trauma? It's just one thing that Moore is trying to make everyone realize (Not just for America, there are others that live in this world besides you). Gun laws and weapon laws need to be modified so this doesn't happen to your child. But it won't happen again right? Okay.

Pages