 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Michael Moore won the Cannes festival... posted by patrickU on May 22, 2004 at 11:34:32:
Somebody has to do what Moore does. Take an issue and work around it. In Bowling to Columbine he took the issue of guns in the US. Other than countries with a lot of political violence, the US is the only country with a "gun culture" so intertwine with the political culture.Nobody in the world would believe that the US went to Irak with "good intentions". If the goal was to make countries more democratic the US has a lot of countries to invade. It was oil control and a sense of left overs feelings from the first golf war.
Thank you Mr. Moore for making us think about this issues. By the way I never believe what the USA Today or the Fox News say. I place them at the same place with Mr. Moore. trying to advance their political points of view.
RubenSan Francisco, California
Follow Ups:
Were I a film maker who'd poured my soul into refining the art, I'd be very pissed that the winner was selected solely for his politics (it certainly wasn't for his crude film skills). The Palm D'Or has been substantially devalued as a true indicator of film excellence.
As I wrote somewhere down, my friend who saw all ( save three ) said it was a very good film...Beyond his politics..Now every is entlitle to have his own opinion...
but if Mr. Moore won an Oscar last year I would think that most people consider him a filmaker regardless of his politics.Is any bodt here seen the movie yet?
RubenSan Francisco, California
I've seen Moore's previous works, and found them tedious and contrived to the extent that they diminished his message. He's like the portraitists of the classical period who guaranteed sales by knowing what patrons want and ensuring that's what they're presented. Moore and his Cannes award are exemplary of what I think is the great problem of art since WWII; its dominance by "artists" who's skills in self-promotion greatly exceed their talent to express sentiment indirectly; by subtlety, allegory and analogy. There's little art to wielding a bludgeon.To me, there is no more artistic merit in a film that simply strings together manipulated segments of news clips and other mostly third party images under a narration expressly intended to inflame emotion. (I think that might also define propaganda.) The Cannes Jury is supposed to maintain the sense of film as art of merit that Hollywood long ago abandoned in favor of populism and profit. Instead, they sold out to politics.
***but if Mr. Moore won an Oscar last year I would think that most people consider him a filmaker regardless of his politics.How's that? You are not suggesting Hollywood is a politics-free zone? By all indications it is rabbidly and irrationally liberal, so Moore's film would be right up its alley.
Well I do. There was good intention and of course certain calcul. Like in you and me.
***Other than countries with a lot of political violence, the US is the only country with a "gun culture" so intertwine with the political culture.Yeah... like Switzerland. Lots of political violence.
Sorry, wrong forum...
But you proceed with making just silly unsupported claims. Like this one:
"Nobody in the world would believe that the US went to Irak with "good intentions". "
Well, perhaps you would not, and many others, but to say no one would believe is a lie.
I know it is hard to discuss a clearly political work without sliding into a potentially dirty political discussion... that is why in general I do not consider the "message and agenda charged" movies worth of my consideration and time.
Art has always been on the edge of sociaty. Is Moore and artist or a provocateur? Isn't that the same? What amazed me is how upset you got over the fact that he did well in Cannes.Is your problem that you actually like Bush? Why not saying that to begin with. That I can respect.
RubenSan Francisco, California
What does my liking or disliking of Bush have to do with the subject of movies?
By far you and Patrick are two of the most generous participants of this forum. I read at least 5 of your comments almost every day. It is clear to me that you were had a very strong opinions about "liberals" whatever your understanding of that.I think you should go back and comment on those old films you seem to love. Free of liberal thinking.........
RubenSan Francisco, California
"I do not consider the "message and agenda charged" movies worth of my consideration and time."*shrug*
Well that tosses out most of cannonized literature and art - and Will Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Shelley, Dickens etc - all of whom were writing "message and agenda charged" literature. Honestly some of these should be worth your consideration and time.
The films of Mr. Moore are the perfect example of this situation. There were people before me that made comments about Mr. Moore credibility making documentaries. You did not comment on those. You choose to comment on mine. Clearly something I said trigger you to respond. That was a political choice. Everything is political..... or nothing....
RubenSan Francisco, California
I only randomly sampled a few posts in this thread. What caught my attention in yours were several strong and wrong statements, that's all.That choice was of course political, and that is why I said I would rather not waste my time on political movies, especially the "documentaries" that are in essence lies.
To me any time art tries to carry political message it fails in the artistic department.
Hahahahaha. Wow you know nothing about artists then do you? Art throughout the ages has and is and will always be about commenting on the policies of the time. Music certainly is, and most Literature. If it isn't political chances are it's a waste of time from an art point of view.
Victor, you say "anytime art tries to carry political message it fails in the artistic department."What about Griffith's "Intolerance", Eisenstein's "Potemkin", Dohzhenko's "Earth", Reifenstahl's "Triumph of the Will", Ford's "The Grapes of Wrath", or Godard's "Weekend"?
Picasso's painting of "Guernica"?
I recall several days ago you discussed "Alexander Nevsky," a film about a Russian leader defeating a German army made in 1938. You do not think there is a political message there? Or if you think there is a political message there does it make the film an artistic failure in your opinion?
I am a little surprised by your statement. Michael Moore's film may be bad or good due to the way he handles his political statement. But just because he has a political message in there you believe it is a failure? Without even seeing it?Melville's book "Moby Dick, or The Whale" has problems, but I don't consider it an artistic failure because of his pointed criticism of Christian missionairies. I can't watch 99% of Godard's post-68 work because of the way he handles his political messages in the work, but it isn't the presence of his political message that I specifically object to.
I realize you were just responding to another poster with a brief note. But the last sentence of that note is quite a statement, and I would appreciate it if you would clarify or elaborate on it if you don't mind.
Thanks!
***I am a little surprised by your statement. Michael Moore's film may be bad or good due to the way he handles his political statement. But just because he has a political message in there you believe it is a failure? Without even seeing it?I guess you found something I never wrote - please show me where I said it was a failure. My problem with him is his politics and his apparent willingness to bend the truth to make his point - based on what I know about him. Based on that I shall not waste my time on this bomb thrower - I can throw bombs just as well, perhaps even further.
To answer your BIG question, I think Patrick already touched on the answer. There are different political flavors. Potemkin is not really a political work - it is a strongly humanist one rather than the promotion of any particular ideology, and that makes it stand on its own feet.
I guess my main objection is with making a political statement de jour in such an overt and in-your-face way that it dominates everything - things like Philadelphia. From what I read about Moore's film it is such work, therefore, knowing his political views it becomes simply a waste of time. I doubt you will find many parallels between, say, BFC and Potemkin, and I suspect fifty years down the road people will still watch the Eisenstein's work, but hardly anyone will recall the mundane Moore's works.
Ditto for Alexander Nevsky. That film is about fight for freedom - the notion so universal that it transcendes the political spectra. You can easily consider it just this way, without even realizing its political message.
Things like Triumph of the Will are harder nuts to crack, but even there I see the difference. Leni's work is that of an artist describing the wave of emotions taking place at that time - so she is more a documentary writer than a promoter of a particular idea. She is taken with the movement, she is obviously sympathetic to it, but she is still more of a landscape painter. She was equally enthusiastic and at home filming the mountains... I doubt it Moore's next film will be about the natural beauty of Nebraska.
"I guess you found something I never wrote - please show me where I said it was a failure. My problem with him is his politics and his apparent willingness to bend the truth to make his point - based on what I know about him. Based on that I shall not waste my time on this bomb thrower - I can throw bombs just as well, perhaps even further."I sincerely doubt you can. Michael Moore, lover him or hate him, is making films that people are watching. Unless I am missing something you are not and I doubt you can. Not a knock on you, it's just not easy to get the attention Moore has by making documentaries, which, itself isn't easy to get funded.
***it's just not easy to get the attention Moore has by making documentaries, which, itself isn't easy to get funded.Oh, yeah? Apparently Hollywood is on the mission today - the mission of destroying Bush. Apparently there is wave of anti-Bush (anti-conservative) films coming out... apparently there are also a few decidedly pro-Kerry films... so tell us more about how hard it is to get such funding - it is music to our ears.
Sheesh...
I said
***it's just not easy to get the attention Moore has by making documentaries, which, itself isn't easy to get funded.
Victor saidOh, yeah?
Yeah.Victor said
Apparently Hollywood is on the mission today - the mission of destroying Bush.Apparently you still suffer from the delusion that "Hollywood" is some single minded entity with an agenda.
Victor said
Apparently there is wave of anti-Bush (anti-conservative) films coming out...
What would that be, Van Helsing, Spiderman II and The Village?
" apparently there are also a few decidedly pro-Kerry films..."Such as? And please provide some support that whatever films you cite,if you cite any, are actually pro Kerry films. Tyr to remeber the time involved in taking a film from pitch to screen, if you have any idea what I am talking about.
Victor said
" so tell us more about how hard it is to get such funding - it is music to our ears."I have some second hand experience on this. A very good friend of mine has been involved in the productions of several documentaries. It is very difficult to fund them because it is very difficult to genrate any money from them. Many are funded by grants, There are usually hoops to jump through for grants. It can be a nightmare and it can take several years just to fund some documentaries.
Victor said
Sheesh...
Yeah, You spew so much opinion from so little actual knowledge about film making.Sheeeeeesh......
***Apparently you still suffer from the delusion that "Hollywood" is some single minded entity with an agenda.Cheap red herring. First - only a fool would deny that Hollywood is largely liberal.
Second - it doesn't take the whole Hollywood to perform a mission, only a few determined individuals with lots of money.
You are not suggesting there are no rabbid liberals with tons of money in Hollywood... that would be too much even for you.
Next you are gonna play us for complete idiots and suggest it is just as hard to get financing for a liberal viewpoint "documentary" as for a conservative one.
Sheesh indeed.
I said to Victor
***Apparently you still suffer from the delusion that "Hollywood" is some single minded entity with an agenda.
Victor said
Cheap red herring.Hardly. I guess you already forgot the content of your own post. Here is what you said... "Oh, yeah? Apparently Hollywood is on the mission today - the mission of destroying Bush."
Victor said
First - only a fool would deny that Hollywood is largely liberal.Hollywood is a large piece of real estate. Film makers are as diverse in their political beliefs as any other large group of the general population. Of course you ignore this diversity in your claim that "Hollywood" is out to get Bush. Your charge was naive and painfully simplistic. Only a fool would charge an entire industry with a singular mind.
Victor said
Second - it doesn't take the whole Hollywood to perform a mission, only a few determined individuals with lots of money.Fine. But you said "Hollywood" is out to get Bush. Your mistake , not mine. If you wish to talk about specific film makers that are out to get Bush go ahead. Cite them and discuss the situation. Your whinning about a "Hollywood" agenda here is just laughable though.
Victor said
You are not suggesting there are no rabbid liberals with tons of money in Hollywood... that would be too much even for you.
No I am not suggesting any such thing. I suggest you actually read my posts before reading things into them.
Victor said
Next you are gonna play us for complete idiots and suggest it is just as hard to get financing for a liberal viewpoint "documentary" as for a conservative one.
Prove it isn't.I see no list of anti-Bush pro Kerry movies that you claim are comming out. Figures.
I went mentally back to your "arguments" and nearly chocked on my pizza from laughing.You said:
"Hollywood is a large piece of real estate. Film makers are as diverse in their political beliefs as any other large group of the general population. Of course you ignore this diversity in your claim that "Hollywood" is out to get Bush. Your charge was naive and painfully simplistic. Only a fool would charge an entire industry with a singular mind."
I guess I will have to agree with you that it IS a piece of real estate - so chalk one point for your wisdom.
Next statement is... is... ignorant? Idiotic? Whatever. Everyone knows it is heavily liberal... could it be everyone but you?
A simplistic notion of Hollywood?
I can see Scott opening the morning paper and seeing the headline:
"Japan to increase its steel production by 10%"
Scott drops his toast in indignation. "Why - he yells - Japan is one large piece of real estate!" he proclaims!
"Their people are diverse! How could you say "Japan" when there very well may be a housewife in Yamatzuki that has nothing to do with the steel production increase! In addition there's also a still mill in Osaka that will be closing down!"
I truly admire your discussion power, Scott... it is just that I have little respect for such inaptitude.
nr
...and even no wife... instead - Scott's post on the computer!Pizza with a twist... I buy those for-one small ones, but then cover them *completely* with sliced pepperoni. That makes them moderately enjoyable.
If a wife is the food of love, then my dear you have all my compassion for lacking both of them...
...And a lot of olive oil, and a springle Origan...
...of refining the frozen supermarket pizza.I mean - anyone can make a good dish out of a frech chicken, but try THIS challenge!
What else should I dump (not sprinkle... DUMP!) on it?
Well a frozen pizza will never turn in a beautiful princess.
And it is so easy to make one .From scratch.
But it happen 3 to 4 time a year to put one of this beast in the oven.
I always buy a " bio " one with almost nothing on top, then I add some hot Italian sausage, mushrooms,fresh ham, olives, and Mozarella, Or plain tomato sauce, olives and anchovis...
But nothing taste as one made in the wooden oven with the right wood!
Still no substance from you just personal attacks. Nothing new.
Just what you deserve, Scott, nothing more, nothing less. You make idiotic statements - you take your lumps.
What lumps? You grand stand and offer no substance to support your opinions. Big Deal. Any dork with a computer and an online account can do what you do here. You may be laughing but you are also being laughed at. So what? Fortunately for the rest of us your opinions have no impact on the film world. So feel free to keep spitting in the wind.
Fortunately my opinion does have impact on film world. For some years now I have refused to pay to watch Hollywood films... lesse... several years, perhaps twenty films not watched a year, at probably $18 a pop, say, $10 form that goes to Hollywood, I guess that's maybe $1000 or so.But you are weaseling and changing subject. What on Earth does my impact have to do with your most idiotic discovery that Hollywood is large piece of real estate? Man, that was rich!
Next you even discovered there were some different people living there - well, Scott, time to reread Rabelais - there's a comparable discovery contained therein.
Nope you are inconsequencial to the film world and utterly clueless. Your impact on and knowledge of film go hand in hand. God I hope you are better at building amplifiers.
nt
***Your impact on and knowledge of film go hand in hand. God I hope you are better at building amplifiers.LOL! Why don't you also kick my dog while you are at it!
I have nothing against your dog. I do apologize. Even though I have never auditioned any of them, I am confident that you are indeed much much better at building amplifiers. I did not mean to disparage your product in any way.
I didn't find it very offensive, more humorous that anything, but I still appreciate your apology - needless to say being in the open (name and all) does invite some nasty comments, and usually without any apology... often quite mean.
***I see no list of anti-Bush pro Kerry movies that you claim are comming out. Figures.You obviously are not all that well informed - you should thank me for giving you this info.
So I am one step ahead of you - I know they are coming, and I heard the titles, but did not write them down, so I guess you will have to do your own legwork... if you do then perhaps you will get knowledgeable enough so we could continue this discussion instead of your usual hot air.
There is no leg work to do. You are making unsupported assertions. Get back to me when you have something of substance to report. Let me know if you ever figure out why your claims are amusingly naive and obviously incorrect. Time for you to do some home work.
Dear Scott, you have constitutional right to remain as ignorant as you wish.
Tell us again what you know about the production of documentary films, oh right you already did when you told us nothing about the subject. Talk about ignorance. Thankfully your impact on the film world is proportional to your knowledge of film production. I'll do the math for you 0=0.
Please forgive me if I put words in your mouth! I was extending the thought of your post's final statement. You said that "anytime art tries to carry political message it fails in the artistic department." Based on that I thought you would consider "Farenheit 911" a failure.Correct me if I am wrong: You do not mind politics in art, per se, just not overtly. You prefer any political comment to be underneath the work, as opposed to being "all over it".
I respectfully disagree with you. "Potemkin" and "Nevsky" have political messages and I personally do not think they are quite so hidden beneath "humanism" or "freedom".
You were silent on Picasso's "Guernica". Perhaps it is the exception that proves the rule?
Thank you for your response. And I agree with you re: comparison of Michael Moore and Sergei Eisenstien. Eisenstien's films WILL be viewed decades after Michael Moore's works are dust. And I say this as a fan of Moore's work. I suspect HE might agree with you too!
Take care and have fun, Victor!
***You were silent on Picasso's "Guernica". Perhaps it is the exception that proves the rule?Two reasons. One - Patrick already mentioned it. Two - I am in general not a great fan of Picasso... I feel his monumental nature, but I am not in love with most of his art.
Ah, and perhaps three... it's been many years since I saw Guernica, so I do not have fresh enough impression to comment on it - just to be fair.
But you are basically right - it is the overtness of the message that I object to. One can find messages in all works, if that is his inclination, sometimes it takes effort, but one should be completely dumb to miss it in Moore's work.
And thanks for giving me chance to look once again at Potemkin and Nevsky... however after some evaluation I still feel that the political message in these was not in your face, especially in Nevsky.
Call me dumb, but I must have watched it hundred times before someone told me about its message!
I guess that bring up the question about the type of the message. If it is present clearly in Petemkin, and really sticks out like a sore thumb in Philadelphia, you would never realize it was there in Nevsky - you would need to be told about it.
I would be the LAST person to "call you dumb", Victor! First, I am not the smartest person in the world by a long shot. Also, I do not purposely try to post things to insult anyone. I enjoy reading the different perspectives on film that people have.If I were to chance upon "Alexander Nevsky" without knowing anything about when it was made, what was going on between Germany and the Soviet Union, etc., I too would probably take it for only great film about a leader who leads his people into battle to repel a fearsome enemy. In fact, that is the way I enjoy it 98% of the time when I see it. I allow the context of its making to influence my enjoyment (and it only brings an additional smile to my face) the other 2% of the time!
Perhaps your experience of "Alexander Nevsky" is close to mine with "Citizen Kane". I chanced upon it late one night as a young teenager. My mother just said that it was an old film by Orson Welles about a newspaper publisher. She did not then (and maybe still does not) know anything about William Randolph Hearst,etc.
So I watched this movie and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was another six years or so before I knew the background behind it!I saw "Philadelphia" once. I did not hate it, but I never HAVE to see it again. "Nevsky", on the other hand, I will HAVE to get the Criterion edition! In fact, I am planning to get the Criterion edition of all of Eisenstien's sound films (at least the ones that Stalin's ministers allowed him to make)!
Believe me, I didn't take any offense.I think we are entering an interesting discussion topic here, which is much bigger than Moore, his films and the political undercurrents at Cannes or Oscars.
That is the hidden messages, or hidden baggage if you will.
I think we all can quickly see the overt messages, be it the BfC, Philadelphia (home of the best cream cheese!!!), Erin Brockovich (sp? Who cares!), or some other such film.
It is harder to spot when it is in the background.
These can include many things, like the political and historical situation at the time the movie was made, direct orders from the authorities, and things like important steps in artist/director development - his personal life, etc. etc... who knows, maybe his getting out of closet, having severe emotional trauma of losing loved ones, etc.
For instance, one could not evaluate properly such works as Pasolini's Salo without looking at his biography and the history of his relationship with public - both international and Italian.
But how on Earth could an average viewer be aware of all those underpinnings?
Even the most sophisticated ones probably miss many of them, and the majority of us catches very small proportion.
Often what happens is the movie leaves a profound mark on one's memory, and forces the viewer to look and dig deeper. But how common is that? How many of us, besides clark, that is, come to the theater having done excruciating background preparation? Most of us treat such excursions as recreation, not final exams.
From there one might draw a cynical conclusion - since the messages are not incorporated directly into the movies, they must be simply ignored.
Thus is it really wrong to simply watch Nevsky like most kids would, without even knowing who Stalin was?
I would argue that taken from that perspective that work would still represent a great achievement, and that no message, however strong, would make a bad movie great.
Many of us do enjoy learning about movies and what surrounds them, but the truth is there is so much there we simply can't possibly cover it all, so what is wrong with simply enjoying the work for its artistic merits? Nothing, really. Great art can be appreciated at infinite number of levels, and with more knowledge these levels change, and the work takes new forms, but important thing is it will never look weak, flat and shallow - even if you were to just scratch its surface.
So, if you will, I have no issues with the "dissolved" messages, those that are present in the work without calling attention to themselves. Art is always about subtlety and finesse of means of expression, and the same applies to the messages, I think.
Just a few random thoughs during some idle moment at work.
nt
There are different degree of political messages made by artists. Some are more humanistic or more philosophical, some related to more actual events.
And the last one is the more difficult to achieve, as too much catch and sqeezed in his own time. Of course there are exceptions!
I donīt think that Picassoīs " Guernica " is a good one. The intention very touching, the art...Not for me.
the italian and french master filmakers you like soo much and celebrate (Sicca, Trufault, etc.) all the time had a political goal with their movies. I agree that art should be the creation of something that inspire, provoque, etc. But thinking that when art expresses politics some how looses the art is naive.Movies like the ones Mr. Moore are definelely art becauses they provoque discussion of relevant issues. Like the thusand of people that have been killed in the middle east. Hopefully sociaty would discuss these issues more so no more people keeps dying there.
RubenSan Francisco, California
"...they provoque discussion of relevant issues."The Central Park jogger's rape and savage beating provoked the discussion of relevant issues.
Would you call it a form of art?
the issues are just the beginning. The artist does something with the idea. It transform the idea into something that provokes discussion. Hey, the people of Cannes decided that the movie was worthed because it did just that. Povoked a lot of talk.....
RubenSan Francisco, California
It is hard for us to get into the heads of the jury members to know exactly what made them do it.Perhaps they simply loved it from the artistic standpoint - who knows? But all this is suspect today - when in the hightly charged anti-American atmosphere the movie with apparently strong anti-American tones scores high one has to wonder.
As we know, some European minds are not exactly sympathetic to the US.
"It is hard for us to get into the heads of the jury members to know exactly what made them do it.
Perhaps they simply loved it from the artistic standpoint - who knows? But all this is suspect today - when in the hightly charged anti-American atmosphere the movie with apparently strong anti-American tones scores high one has to wonder.As we know, some European minds are not exactly sympathetic to the US."
Anti-American? What makes you think this movie or the film maker is anti-American? He claims to be quite the opposite. I have never seen him say down with America. The movie is about Bush and his family and the Bin Ladens. There is certainly more to America than Bush. One is not anti-American just because one is critical of Bush.
Who is not anti -American Now in Europe ? Of course only IF America equals Mr. Bush...Or Mr. Or Mr..... We are very condescent here in Europe...
Actuall and factually the last US president must have been Mr. Kennedy.
I was in Paris in September 11. That was my first day in my French vacation. I stayed for a whole month in France. People stoped me in the street to show me their feelings for what happened in 9/11. On 9/13 I was amazed at the moment of silence that the entire country did for the victims of 9/11. I think our president destroy all that good will by acting like a roman emperor after 9/11. Did not care about any other opinions. They were going to do what they wanted to do whether other nations like it or not..My initial coments about the fries happened at the US congress, tell me about being silly. Our congress............ silly for voting to use billions of dollars for Irak while the schools and health clinics in our country are falling apart.............
RubenSan Francisco, California
Those all would have some validity if we were discussing some French movie and its score during the Oscars, or some geo-political issues... as it is, this thread was about Moore's film, so perhaps we should stick with it.What I said was that its score was tainted by the current political climate.
One of my favorite (of many) lines in "Breaking Away" is when the father is complaining about his son's attraction to all things Italian. The father says, "It's all this ' I-TI ini' food, zuchini, fettechini, I want some AMERICAN food. I want FRENCH FRIES!"
. . . that 4 of the jurors at Cannes were Americans too . . .
It doesn't. Unless you don't know that many simply hate the current administration... and I mean hate, not dislike. And hatred is blinding.
. . . . it's easy to say that Cannes has a French and Euro bias. But when half the judges are Americans, that bias goes out the window.Maybe it's just a good movie?
But again YOU'RE already making judgements about it, aren't you?
Well that half of the judges are US citizen that do not mean anything. The fact is that the actual govenement of the USA stirs a lot of heat and hate everywhere. There may l lay the reponse.
nt
RubenSan Francisco, California
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
