Cannes 2004

[Ghostboy]

Nah, it's fun to watch threads evolve. Let's see where it goes.

[Vile5]

I find that all people the world over can be ignorant.

Me too

The difference is as Americans we do not necessarily have to deal with people from other nations..

?

the US has a greater capacity to be self sufficient. .

i thought it was Cuba  

We deal with the other nations in the world, yet we do not have to..

?

Other nations, to stabalize their economies and their quality of life, are far more dependent on the US and other nations than we are of them..

?

There are ignorant people all over the world. After all the majority of humans are stupid, insipid creatures.

That's true my friend, THAT is true...

sorry if you didn't understand my post, i will try to address your ? marks

- as americans we do not come into contact with as many multi-nationals as say most Europeans. The size of our country and its relative isolation from nations other than canada and mexico keep us that way. When living in Europe say Germany, as I did, you ineract on a dail;y basis with people from Italy, Austria, England, Romania, North Africa etc... Europe is a thoroughfare.

- by being self- suffieicent of course I mean that, America, unlike almost all other countries has the ability to produce most of its own resources. We may choos not to b/c of trad deals or comparative advantages that may make it more costly for us to do so, but the ability is there. And that ability gives us a sort of cushion when dealing with nations around the world. We may desire goods and products from toher nations, but if there was ever a lock-down on certain items we would be able to get by on our own.

- once again, 'by dealing with other nations' it has something to do with being self-suffiecient, except in this case we are militarily self-suffiecient. America, unlike many nations is fully capable of defending itself without help from the UN or allies. we have the capacity to project unilateral force anywhere in the world. So we do not necessarily HAVE to negotiate with North Korea to have them turn over nuclear weapons. Whereas Japan has no other choice but to negotiate and seek help from its allies.

- America is prosperous enough to maintain the relative quality of life of its citizens without the aid of other nations. If international trade was disrupted for a prolonged period there would be an extreme period of adjustment , but the US is a big enough market that we could conceivably produce, sell and use almost everything goood or service ourselves. Unlike other nations that rely hevaily on foreign aid, or trade to balance their books. We have seen in France and Germany recently, that the loss of some American trade and aide packages has had a detremental effect on their already sliding economy. An even better example is Saudi Arabia. All of the wealth and prosperity they enjoy is due to their oil export. If that export were cut off, or the market dried up, their entire society would crumble in a matter of years. Whereas The US, has a diversified enough economy that the death of one income stream would not necessarily destroy the entire economy.

if i'd refute your arguments we'll start an interesting but endless discussion, so let's talk about movies again!  

[Jeremy Blackman]

once again, 'by dealing with other nations' it has something to do with being self-suffiecient, except in this case we are militarily self-suffiecient. America, unlike many nations is fully capable of defending itself without help from the UN or allies. we have the capacity to project unilateral force anywhere in the world. So we do not necessarily HAVE to negotiate with North Korea to have them turn over nuclear weapons. Whereas Japan has no other choice but to negotiate and seek help from its allies.

I really don't think we're as militarily independent as you think. Our military is huge and technologically advanced, but not enough to fend off the rest of the world (without starting nuclear war). The biggest reason we have such huge military power is our foreign aid and strategic alliances with dictators. Where would our military strength be if we weren't in bed with Saudi Arabia & Pakistan or if we stopped giving Israel helicopters and weapons to kill Palestinians? There is no innocent self-sufficient US military power and there never will be. Try being an arrogant & violent world power and surviving without allies... our most important ones are the most dangerous and oppressive ones, and it's always been like that post-WW2.

do i dare push the secret virgin thread-splitting button?

I did it once.  

[ono]

I don't know if this has been posted or not, but I realize the Jury Defense has.  I was unable to view it, though.  Haven't figured that one out yet.  Anyway:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-nws-cannes23s1.html

"This prize was not for politics. It won because it was the best film."

That was to Ebert, backstage at Cannes.

So much for getting this thread back on topic, but I thought I'd take a shot.

[modage]

"This prize was not for politics. It won because it was the best film."

do you think the jury would've actually said "we didnt know if it was the best film, but felt voting it the best would send a message that we agree with its politics and it is a film that should be seen."  of course, they're gonna say it wasnt for politics, but that doesnt mean it wasnt a factor.

[cron]

"This prize was not for politics. It won because it was the best film."

do you think the jury would've actually said "we didnt know if it was the best film, but felt voting it the best would send a message that we agree with its politics and it is a film that should be seen."  of course, they're gonna say it wasnt for politics, but that doesnt mean it wasnt a factor.

If you watch the press conference the jury gave, they say that they chose the film that will prevail the most out of all in competition. Quentin says a zillion times that it had nothing to do with 'politics crap'. And one is left wondering , hm.

[NEON MERCURY]

michael m$$re
+
tarantino
=

2 lovers
2gether
4 ever

[xerxes]

michael m$$re
+
tarantino
=

2 lovers
2gether
4 ever

i don't think your formula is right there, man.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Yeah, especially when Tarantino keeps repeating the phrase, "that politics crap."

[pete]

michael m$$re

dude you misspelled michael moore.

[Pubrick]

it's funny how all of a sudden ppl wanna pretend QT is political.

[mutinyco]

Of course Tarantino liked it -- it's a real-life revenge tale. By the way, Before Sunset takes a few jabs at the French/America thing.

[Chest Rockwell]

I can't wait to see Before Sunset.

[SoNowThen]

Xixax, your prodigal son has returned.

"This prize was not for politics. It won because it was the best film."

do you think the jury would've actually said "we didnt know if it was the best film, but felt voting it the best would send a message that we agree with its politics and it is a film that should be seen."  of course, they're gonna say it wasnt for politics, but that doesnt mean it wasnt a factor.

If you watch the press conference the jury gave, they say that they chose the film that will prevail the most out of all in competition. Quentin says a zillion times that it had nothing to do with 'politics crap'. And one is left wondering , hm.

Exactly. Thank you mod, thank you cron.

I'm not gonna say QT is political. But take this into account: he's a safe, also very good at self-promotion, artist. Theory says to be soft and left leaning when in this industry. He walks by the strikers at Cannes (who everybody knows are there to grab glory, like a fucking second rate celebrity), and he raises his fist. What a fucking ham moment. Yeah, I'm sure when they cut one of his PA's salaries he's gonna take to the picket line. Also, he answers to your hated Miramax company, and its notoriously Democratic boss Harvey, who just happens to be the producer of Moore's movie. Oh my, what a strange connection. Without stressing any great conspiracy theory here, I think it's worth noting and considering.

I've seen some of Moore's films. I've read interviews by him. As I've said before, he's an awesome media manipulator. Is he an awesome filmmaker? Let's put all personal bias aside... now really, is he? Unless you are already totally on board with his Politics, have you been blown away by his sense of cinema? Morris and the Maysles brothers are TEN FUCKING TIMES more important. To cinema. To leftist Politics, Moore is the king of doc filmmakers right now. Why was I so angry, why did I say the Palme meant nothing to me now? Because in my naivette, I thought Cannes was the last place about the politics of cinema, not the cinema of Politics. Did I say F 9/11 was a shitty movie? No. No I didn't. But that didn't stop P from flaming out on me. When I responded to a few posts in the Passion thread, suddenly I was commenting on the movie without seeing it. One CAN make comments related to a film in a film discussion without seeing the film, seeing as the discussion had expanded to a wider range. But of course it's easier to sit on a pedastal, cloak all of your opinions with doublespeak and in-jokes, and freak out when anybody else ever puts anything on the line. Did I tell any of you to not see the movie? No. I put out a simple opinion. Oh, you're gonna change my mind? Who the hell do you think you are to try and change my mind about this? How do you know what I want to accomplish with cinema, and what I think is good for it? And do you think in one little post you're gonna radically alter my ever evolving artistic viewpoint on this career? No, you probably don't, you just want to make a petty, bullying comment.

On to this "I don't think politics should be in film" comment. Little "p" politics, if we take into account the idea of "politics", can be applied to anything, most definitely relationships between people and organizations, and so by that definition all films are political. So, yes, Taxi Driver and Conformist fit nicely. Big "P" politics, eg. this is who you should vote for in the next election -- those are just feature length commercials, or worse, propaganda. Do you guys like watching church-funded movies about how secularization is ruining America, and how atheist or agnostic leaders are idiots and evil men who need to be stopped? Well, guess what, it's the same fucking thing coming from the other side, but since you agree with that side you can't see the forest for the trees. If the KKK made a film about how Martin Luther King deserved to get shot, would you flock out and see it? No, it'd be hatred, racism, and propaganda. As someone said before, it's become this intense head-hunting for one man, and a tearing down of that man at every possible turn, in the name of a political cause. You ever heard of scape-goating? It's being used to great wonders right now. It's childish, and it's sad.

People are all talking about this great revival of Cannes this year. What? I liked it when Bowling For Columbine won a special prize. Here, you made some leftist propaganda and we love that shit, so we'll invent a special prize for you. But we're gonna reward some cinema with the real prizes. Last year, we had Dogville and Elephant. Some anti-Americanism creeping in, perhaps. Some questioning of societies? Most definitely. Broad questioning. Dogville may have sent up the American dream, but it didn't attack ONE SPECIFIC LEADER AS IF HE WAS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY PROBLEM IN YOUR FUCKED UP COUNTRY. Dogville wasn't about which Political party is evil and needs to be replaced, it was about human politics and their evil and self-serving nature. Little p, big P, little p, big P. Somebody out there disagrees, I'm sure. Someone will perhaps post a dictionary definition or something, and so on and so on. If we whittle everything down to a semantics assault, which I suppose is the path I may have led us on, we can deconstruct and rebuild anything we wish to suit our arguments. But you must be able to grasp the nature of what I am saying.

Which brings us to:

It was a political move, and that's what disgusts me. It'll be nothing more than a footnote in cinema in the future.

1. Has Roger & Me become a "footnote"? Have other political movies become footnotes?

2. Do political movies in general disgust you? Does political movies winning awards disgust you?

3. Do political movies that you disagree with disgust you? Does political movies that you disagree with winning awards disgust you?

So everyone can be mad about my opinion. Whatever. Someone had to say something. Now let's go on for 7 pages about how I'm "wrong". Preach to the choir.

4. Do you really hope to have any meaningful discussion about this with that amount of cynical baggage?

JB, I've always found it is an interesting tactic to ask question with someone you argue with. Of course they must now formulate answers, which you can further question, thus throwing it into a state of confusion and making it look like you have some upper hand. So allow me to furnish you.

1. Yes.
2. Yes, if we are speaking of big P propaganda
3. Yes, of course. The very nature of the polemic dogma of these works does not allow you to appreciate them as art, but as an order: either you're with us or against us. I have to choose a side. This is a trend that flows through both popcorn commercial films with clear cut "good guys" and "bad guys", as well as these sidewinding diatribes.
4. No, no meaningful discussion will follow because you have hardcore ingrained ideological leanings, as do I, and no internet debate is gonna change that. Thus, preaching to the choir. And I never wanted to have a discussion anyway. I expressed my feeling on not caring if I ever won the Palme. It's you other guys that took such offense to this, and retorted.

I'm not stopping anyone from seeing this film. More power to you, and to Moore. And more power to me to opt out. I saw something that didn't sit right with, and I questioned it. Isn't that what you want people to do, JB? Question things? Or do you only want them to question things that you also question? Are you as one-sided as me? Would you admit that? Is it a bad thing anyway? Shall we have a question-throwing battle?

At least a few people took up the discussion of devil's advocate. Some good did come of all this.

[xerxes]

the fact still remains that you spoke ill of a film festival, for giving its award to a film you have not seen. if you had seen the film, i really wouldn't have had any problem with what you said. the fact that you haven't seen it just makes your whole rant about it just as bad as saying that f 9-11 is going to be the savoir of all cinema.