1. As many on this board know, I am very liberal, and don't like just about anything about Bush.
2. I haven't seen the movie, but I've heard enough to know it's very political; which brings me to ->
3. I find it very disconcerting that this film got Palm D'Or. Unless Moore's cinematographic talents increased tremendously while I wasn't looking , I find it hard to believe that the judges at Cannes honestly thought this was the best movie in the world made this year. Now, I realize that being vehemently anti-Bush is rather convenient for those Europeans who hate American policy but are too intelligent to "hate Americans". However, it saddens me whenever an artistc award is turned into politics. I've always considered Cannes to be less political than Oscars. This, however, no longer makes it so.
Wicked Yankee Girl
Chuckm, I read Hitchens review.
It is clear from his initial characterization in paragraph 1 of liberals as "comrades" and "radicals" exactly how objective his review is likely to be. Also, his resurrections of the spirits of the Nazi film maker, Leni Reifenstahl, and the Communist filmmaker, Sergei Eisenstein, are also intended to inflame (provided that we readers are sufficient into cinematic history to know who they are.)
It is interesting that Hitchens wants to hit on the leftists among us for turgid, unhumorous, overly erudite prose. If true, he must have been reading too many articles of that sort, because his own piece here is all of the above.
Just as I read his article however, I will certainly go to the film, if TPTB actually let it be shown closer to my house than 30 miles. The very brief review in the film guide is probably more useful than that of Hitchens(not an exact quote) This film is strongly anti-administration, but is worth seeing, both for the humorous touches, and for the dialog that it will inspire. Until I see it, I will not decide that the Cannes festival has made a solely political decision in choosing this film.
Last edited by dorispulaski; 06-28-2004 at 11:14 AM.
Reason: spelling correction
Add the poor, disabled, and elderly to that list and IMO that's the problem with the Republican party. If you don't/can't work or can't vote, or not a U.S. citizen you don't matter.
Originally Posted by chuckm
ChuckM.your name is the same as my brother's
One poster who defended Moore dismissed another poster as an "old tight-***".
It seems that disregard for the elderly exists on both sides of the political spectrum.
Well, referring to someone as an old tight #%! and forcing the elderly to choose between eating or medications is a BIG difference, IMO. We routinely refer to my younger sister as OTA and have since she started getting an allowance.
Last edited by Piel; 06-28-2004 at 11:34 AM.
It isn't fair to blame the Republicans for the state of the elderly. The elderly poor were in the same state under 8 years of Clinton, and nothing was done for them then. Poverty exists in every society, and no administration in any country, under any political system, has ever been able to solve it.
True, Republicans are not responsible for the way things are. However, I look to my governement to institute policies that decrease poverty. IMO current administration chose other priorities.
As to this review... When we were discussing Gibson's Passion, those of use who objected to the movie restrained from posting reviews that were purposely offensive. This review certainly is.
Last edited by Ptichka; 06-28-2004 at 01:27 PM.
bugs are smarter than we are
In order to be considered for the Palme d'Or, a movie must be specifically entered into the competition. It is different from the Oscars in that not all movies made during the past year are elegible for the award.
Originally Posted by Ptichka
Since Chuckm gave you one SLATE article with one point of view on the film, here's the link to the main review that was on SLATE, which I found more even-handed:
As for Hitchens, good grief, having read his articles in Vanity Fair for quite a few years, I've come to the conclusion that man has a total narcissistic love for his own prose. His opinions simply get lost in his overdone command of the language. I have a large vocabulary and love people who speak or write well, but it seems that no matter what side he is on or what he's professing, the point gets lost in the wordiness. He borders on painful to read at times. (You just want to scream "get to the point, already!!!!!!"
Just in the past couple of years have companies been allowed to cancel employees health insurance once they reach a certain age. Coverage that employees counted on to help with medical expenses when they would need them most. Tax breaks for those who need them the least. The Republican party's general position on less government help for those who need it and in it's place counting on charity from churches and other organizations which in effect turns the less fortunate into beggers lining up for a charitable handout. BTW the cable installer is an hour late to put in my new receiver and I am blaming that on the Republicans too because I am sure something they have done wrong has slipped by me....LOL :D :D :D
Wicked Yankee Girl
By the way, Piel is absolutely correct about companies cancelling your insurance just when you need it is absolutely correct. My husband's IBM insurance was cancelled just that way. You don't have to be a certain age; you just have to be either on Social Security Disability (which he is) or on Social Security.
There have been suits about this, most notably against IBM, a heavy Bush donor via the Rangers and Pioneers methods now used(The Watsons are rolling over in their graves. They were Democrats), so the current administration tried to slip authorizing cancelling medical insurance for older retirees as nondiscriminatory into the Medicare drug bill last year. This was too raw for some of the Republicans in Congress (as well as most of the Democrats) and the language was removed.
But guess what? The provision was put back in as a 'rule' by the Office of Equal Opportunity on a vote of the board, 3 Republicans to 1 Democrat, at the behest of the administration.
So while you can't necessarily blame this on your local Republican (or Democrat) member of Congress-(you have to check their voting records), you can surely hold the Bush administration accountable for it. They rammed it through.
I found Hitchens' article quite compelling, and if you look past the florid prose, he made some strong points about the film.
I have grave reservations about Mr. Moore. He seems to be a nihilist, one of those people who constructs arguments of every stripe, valid or not, to condemn that which he hates, without ever suggesting any useful alternative. His solution to Iraq, which he has stated on several occasions, is for as many Iraqis and Americans to die as possible.
I have never heard MM make any statements to this effect. Can you give a cite?
Originally Posted by euterpe
Anyone know the names of those who selected the winner of the Palm D'Or?
Michael Moore is a Muck Raker. I happen to like Muck Raking. Having said that you know where I stand on the American Invasion of Iraq.
Moore's muck raking began when he was laid off from one of those motor companies (GM?) in Detroit or some other Motor City. The company had sent the work he was doing and others to Mexico for the cheap labor. Moore tried to get a job but after that downsizing but Michigan has been in decline. He didn't come from a spiffy family in Grosse Point and he did not have the education that children of Grosse Point inhabitants automatically get by birth. Enough said about his upbringing. He was out of work and angry. He somehow happen to get into making movies and he got recognition with Roger And Me a documentary about GM's CEO. It did well and he made a little money. This led to other movies culminating in Bowling for Columbine. A big HIT but not mainstream. Europeans hate American excesses and the Bush Family are excessive I agree, this had a lot to do with winning the coveted Palm d'Or.
The film opens up with a lot of the Florida vote between Gore and Bush and I could agree that this is a paste up. But then when someone is out to make a point, paste ups come in handy. You know, 'if you are against the invasion, you are not supporting our boys' stuff. same stuff.
There are the usual scenes of devastation of homes because of the invasion and the thousands of innocent Iraqi's maimed, dying and dead. Not easy to watch. There is also the 8,000 GIs dead who never could get a better job than joining the Military because of the station in life to which they were born. One scene has Moore asking congressmen if they would have their children join the miltary. They take a deep breath and move on without ansering.
The scenes of Haliburton and Carlyle are harrowing as is the Bush family entertaining the Sauds and yes, the bin Ladens. When we were all stopped from flying on the 11th and 12th Bush got the Saud's and bin Laden's out of the country safely.
The film is not anti Republican as it is George W. Bush and his family. It is about oil and the Al Qedar must wait till the matter of oil is settled.
The above is just what I got out of the film.