Moore's Film- Top PRIZE

[reeds]

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Cannes' Top Prize

American filmmaker Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," a scathing indictment of White House actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, won the top prize Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" was the first documentary to win Cannes' prestigious Palme d'Or since Jacques Cousteau's "The Silent World" in 1956.

"What have you done? I'm completely overwhelmed by this. Merci," Moore said after getting a standing ovation from the Cannes crowd.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top award from sharply divided Cannes moviegoers, who found a solid crop of good movies among the 19 entries in the festival's main competition but no great ones that rose to front-runner status.

While "Fahrenheit 9/11" was well-received by Cannes audiences, many critics felt it was inferior to Moore's Academy Award-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine," which earned him a special prize at Cannes in 2002.

Some critics speculated that if "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize, it would be more for the film's politics than its cinematic value.

With Moore's customary blend of humor and horror, "Fahrenheit 9/11" accuses the Bush camp of stealing the 2000 election, overlooking terrorism warnings before Sept. 11 and fanning fears of more attacks to secure Americans' support for the Iraq war.

Moore appears on-screen far less in "Fahrenheit 9/11" than in "Bowling for Columbine" or his other documentaries. The film relies largely on interviews, footage of U.S. soldiers and war victims in Iraq, and archival footage of Bush.

The best-actress award went to Maggie Cheung for her role in "Clean" as a junkie trying to straighten out her life and regain custody of her young son after her rock-star boyfriend dies of a drug overdose.

Fourteen-year-old Yagira Yuuya was named best actor for the Japanese film "Nobody Knows," in which he plays the eldest of four sibling raised in isolation, who must take charge of the family when their mother leaves.

The directing and writing prizes went to French filmmakers. Tony Gatlif won the directing honor for "Exiles," his road-trip about a couple on a sensual journey from France to Algeria.

Agnes Jaoui and her romantic partner, Jean-Pierre Bacri, won the screenplay award for "Look at Me," their study in self-image centering on an overweight young woman who feels neglected by loved ones. Jaoui and Bacri also co-star.

Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul's "Tropical Malady" widely regarded by Cannes audiences as a snoozer for its elongated scenes of a man wandering a jungle alone, with no dialogue won the festival's third-place jury prize.

Another jury prize went to Irma P. Hall for her role as an elderly Southern woman who foils a casino robbery in the Coen brothers' crime comedy "The Ladykillers," starring Tom Hanks as the heist's ringleader.

Keren Yedaya's "Or," about a Tel Aviv prostitute in failing health and her teenage daughter, won the Golden Camera award for best film by a first-time director. The U.S.-born Yedaya, who grew up in Israel, gives lectures about the problems of prostitution for government officials and mental-health professionals.

[MavKikiNYC]

Meaningless.

Cannes was already passé.

[MavKikiNYC]

One wonders: Why are things French so out of style today?

NYC
Another Grande Dame Says Adieu
By CLYDE HABERMAN

Published: May 21, 2004


A WHITE-HAIRED man in a well-tailored gray suit wagged his finger at Rita Jammet. "Méchante," he said. "Bad girl" is a reasonable translation from the French, given the context. He meant it more as a verbal hug than a rebuke.

Mrs. Jammet stood accused of naughtiness because she and her husband, André, are about to close La Caravelle, one of the last surviving grandes dames of French gastronomy in New York.

In an age when elegance sometimes seems defined as wearing the most expensive ring possible in your exposed belly button, La Caravelle has endured as a graceful refuge where men are expected to wear jackets and women to leave tank tops in the drawer. Inexpensive, it ain't. But it isn't stuffy, either. There are places in this city known to serve food half as good at twice the price and a quarter of the warmth.

Tastes change, however. La Caravelle now joins a growing line of classic French restaurants in Midtown that have not survived the opening rounds of the 21st century (which is fast shaping up as a miserable century for reasons having nothing to do with high cuisine and everything to do with lowlifes).

In the last year or so, Lutèce, Lespinasse and La Côte Basque all collapsed like an ill-prepared soufflé. Tomorrow night, it will be La Caravelle's turn. After 44 years, the last 20 under the Jammets' full or partial ownership, the restaurant will serve its last pike quenelle and white chocolate mousse.

Does New York suffer as a result of these closings? "Suffer" would seem a stretch. But it might be argued that the city does lose some of its luster.

New York is, above all, people and neighborhoods. Then, maybe, it is museums and art galleries and concert halls. But without its pockets of glamour - the high-end restaurants, the gleaming stores on Madison Avenue, the chic of SoHo - the city would be perceptibly diminished.

You might never once set foot in Tiffany's or in Le Bernardin, any more than a typical New Yorker visits the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building. You might even be the sort who considers such temples of extravagance to be beneath you. But the odds are strong that you are quietly glad they exist. Just knowing they are there is part of what makes you feel you are living in Oz.

Mrs. Jammet, born in Saudi Arabia and reared in Switzerland, understood that the moment she first landed at Kennedy International Airport in 1977. "I got out of the plane and said, 'This is it,' she said. "The gut voice, as I call it, was talking to me." New York was where she had to be.

SINCE word of La Caravelle's imminent demise got out nine days ago, customers have all but arm-wrestled for tables. The place has been packed all week. Perhaps if it had done business like that on a regular basis, it might not have had to close. If she shared that thought, Mrs. Jammet was too discreet to say so out loud.

"I don't have bitterness at all," she said the other afternoon. "I believe that everything has a reason. Yes, this is sad. But it's also a time of renewal."

At lunch on Wednesday, the 105-seat room was filled mostly with regulars, including David Rockefeller, who sat against a wall under one of the several murals of Paris by Jean Pagès. One by one, customers thanked the Jammets for the memories.

There was the fellow of the "méchante" remark, and a woman who had to have one final quenelle, and a man who told Mrs. Jammet, "You owe yourself a vacation," and a guy who said to her as he headed to the door, "It was a great run."

Martin Lager, a certified public accountant, sat at the bar. He was way too late in trying to make a table reservation. But he said, "I wanted to see the room one last time."

He asked Adalberto Alonso, Cuban-born and a bartender at the restaurant for 42 years, what his plans were.

"I'm going to retire," Mr. Alonso said.

"Mazel tov," Mr. Lager said, extending his hand.

The bartender was confident that most of La Caravelle's 50 employees would have little trouble finding work. "They're professionals," he said.

What the next chapter holds for the owners is unclear. Nothing has been decided, Mrs. Jammet said. There are things to tend to first: murals to be taken down, tableware to be stored or sold, and wine - 15,000 bottles worth - to be auctioned.

Why not drink it?

"You need a good thirst for that," she said, "and a good liver." Oh, and something else. "A good group of friends to share it with," she said.

[dude1394]

Hopefully the french/german wine industry can also be positively affected. I know in my household the austrailia wines are very popular right now.

And italian.

[mavsman]

I just hope your household doesn't support a basketball team with a German and a Frenchman on their roster. That would be more than hypocritical.

[dude1394]

Yes my household does support an AMERICAN BASKETBALL TEAM. My workplace also has many honorable germans and frenchmen.

Would you boycott south africa during apartheid? Yet not support successful south africans in this country during that time?

I can easily seperate the government actions (which their government and by representative cases themselves) from people who come to america to taste the american dream. Unfortunately for the french/german citiizens who have pushed their governments to be not allies, but more like enemies they will pay the economic price. But it's the only way to put pressure on them and their politicians.

[FullBurst41]

This is one good joke, my friend. Did I just read a comparison between the Apartheid regime and the French government? ROFLMAO Tse Toeng! I mean, sure, I don't like Chiraq either, but that is just ridiculous beyond belief..

Your coments about the French just goes to show that you have never been there. I will try to refrain from judging you the same way.

[MavKikiNYC]

There is as yet no evidence at all that Michael Moore was walking on the roof prior to its collapse.

Paris Airport Terminal Collapses; 5 Dead

May 23, 10:58 AM (ET)

By JOCELYN GECKER

(AP) Firefighters inspect the debris of the 2E passenger terminal after a section collapsed at Charles...

ROISSY, France (AP) - A huge portion of the vaulted roof of the new passenger terminal at Paris' Charles de Gaulle airport collapsed Sunday, killing at least five people and injuring three in a shower of concrete, glass and steel.

Tons of material from the roof of the futuristic, cylindrical Terminal 2E, which sits on pylons, fell onto a waiting area and pulled the outer walls down. Several parked cars underneath were smashed.

Transport Minister Gilles de Robien said there was nothing to indicate that a terrorist attack triggered the collapse just before 7 a.m., though the cause was not yet known.

Hundreds of rescue workers rushed to the scene, and temporary hospitals were set up on the tarmac and in the gleaming terminal, whose distinctive ceiling is honeycombed with hundreds of windows that bathe the interior with sunlight.


(AP) Aeroports de Paris (ADP) president Pierre Graff holds a news conference at the 2E passenger...
Full Image


Authorities said that five people were definitely killed but that the number could reach six. They were all likely passengers, said Hubert de Mesnil, director general of Paris airports.

Rescue officials could not immediately access the area of the accident. However, search dogs indicated there were few, if any, bodies left under the wreckage, said Michel Sappin, prefect of the Seine-Saint-Denis region where Charles de Gaulle - France's biggest airport - is located just north of Paris.

"It looks pretty bad out there," said Amy Haight, 30, arriving from Houston with her husband, Nelson, for a friend's wedding. She said she saw the collapsed building and dozens of rescue vehicles as her plane landed. "It's so sad, it's so scary. My God, we're so lucky."

The accident occurred in an approximately 98-foot-long section of Terminal 2E that opened just 11 months ago, after at least two construction delays.

The French television station LCI said safety issues caused the delays, and there had been media reports that a huge light fixture fell as inspectors were checking the $890 million facility.


(AP) Aeroports de Paris (ADP) President Pierre Graff talks to reporters outside the 2E passenger...
Full Image


When it was finally opened, the long, tunnel-like terminal with arched roof and sleek design was considered a "prestige" site in the sprawling airport complex, said Pierre Graff, president of the Paris airports authority. "It was our showcase," he said.

The cause of the accident was under investigation, and Graff said there were warning signs right before the collapse.

"Some witnesses heard something cracking just before the collapse. There were cracks and some dust from the concrete," he said. The director-general of the Paris airports, Hubert de Mesnil, said there was "absolutely nothing" in the past to indicated a structural problem.

"It's the structure that gave way, the structure itself," he told reporters.

Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin, who inspected the site of the accident along with the transport minister, said there were five confirmed dead and "perhaps six." Paris Fire Dept. Chief Laurent Vibert confirmed that.

Officials had earlier said that six people were killed.

Terminal E2, which has slots for 17 planes, was being closed indefinitely, said Graff. He suggested the move would pose problems for arrivals and departures.

The tragedy comes as France braces for an influx of summer tourists.

President Jacques Chirac said he was requesting "that the necessary investigations be immediately started so that the causes of this accident can be determined as quickly as possible."

He expressed his "very deep compassion" to families of the dead and the injured, a statement from the president's office said.

Sappin, the prefect of the region, said there was only a moderate number of people coming and going in the area of the terminal at the time. An Air France plane coming from New York and another from Johannesburg, South Africa, had just landed, he said. Another Air France flight was taking off for Prague.

The identities of the victims were not immediately known, Sappin added.

The accident strewed concrete over an area about 50 yards by 30 yards. "There are several tons of concrete that collapsed in a structure in a waiting area that leads out to the airplanes," Paris Fire Dept. chief Vibert told The Associated Press.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: FullBurst41
This is one good joke, my friend. Did I just read a comparison between the Apartheid regime and the French government? ROFLMAO Tse Toeng! I mean, sure, I don't like Chiraq either, but that is just ridiculous beyond belief..

Your coments about the French just goes to show that you have never been there. I will try to refrain from judging you the same way.

I don't read that comparison being made at all. If you do, I think it says a lot about your trying to distort non-issues to make a cheap rhetorical non-point.

[FullBurst41]

A rhetorical non-point, eh? I don't think so.

Have you ever thought about why it is that so many jump on the French government (heck, the French people for some) because of their opposition to the war in Iraq? Does the expression "Freedom of Speech" mean anything to you? Isn't that partly what Mr. Bush is trying to bring to the people of Iraq? Isn't that part of "The American Values" (like the rest of the world d doesn't have them)? Think about that.

[dude1394]

Here is why I jump on the french fullofit41... It's because they act more like our enemies than our allies. Do "I" not have freedom of speech to voice my displeasure in a country that we've asked many times to help us but usually does not? Don't "I" have the freedom of speech to choose what wines I might buy, what countries products I might support just like I'm sure you do as well in this country.

You know like not watching a Woody Allan movie because you don't really want to support someone who's committed incest? Or a roman polanski movie, things like that?

Have you ever decided against buying anything in this country due to some reason, political, social, whatever. Weren't YOU exercising your freedom of speech or were you trying to squash the company/person you decided to not support. Your argument is juvenile, however I've heard it a lot on the left.

I wasn't comparing the french to south africa (although I wouldn't mind seeing someone make that comparison, historically speaking I"m sure the french have enslaved many,many more that the south africans ever did. ).

Oh and by the way, I have been there numerous times although it's irrelevant, how many times have YOU been there?

[mavsman]

double message thingy

[mavsman]

Dude, yes, you support an American team, god forbid. But just like Hitler let those Jews live who could be of service, you ignore the fact that the most important employee of your American team is German. For one time, be consequent, boycott the team that employs the enemy. Don't buy jewish! If you think that you can send a message to the governments that didn't support the US by ruining the lives of poor chaps who live in the US for half of their lives and just try to run a business but bear the wrong passport, be my guest. See you in the stands, booing Dirk.

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: mavsman
Dude, yes, you support an American team, god forbid. But just like Hitler let those Jews live who could be of service, you ignore the fact that the most important employee of your American team is German. For one time, be consequent, boycott the team that employs the enemy. Don't buy jewish! If you think that you can send a message to the governments that didn't support the US by ruining the lives of poor chaps who live in the US for half of their lives and just try to run a business but bear the wrong passport, be my guest. See you in the stands, booing Dirk.

That's some very iffy logic

[dude1394]

How in the world can you compare me supporting dirk on a mavericks basketball team, in a country that is the most multi-cultural in history to something done by hitler? good grief...

Dirk Nowitzki is NOT my enemy... Let him come out and say the crap that the german politicians do and you'd see how quick I tell cubes to take his tickets and shove it, however you make litreally no sense to me.

The french restaurant guys are NOT my enemy, but too dang bad if they are on the wrong side of the popular opinion. Tough tiddly winks. I may/may not go to their restaurant but c'est la vie as it were, start another one. It's just too bad man and people have strong feelings, I guess unlike yourself.

What actually is your POINT?? That because I won't buy german/french products I have to hate all germans/french to not be hypocritical. It's a silly point. Please answer my question about the south african products (OR WHATEVER) if there IS anything you feel strong about. Like maybe not eating tuna for some reason, or some other thing you might feel passionate about. I'm sure there is some poor fisherman whose kids are going hungry because you won't eat starkist, how can you do it, aren't you being callous and hypocritical?

[dude1394]

Oh I also boycott the NYTimes as well. But I guess it's because I have no feelings for the poor newspaper editor who is promoting my countries defeat in a militiary action approved by the american people.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: FullBurst41
A rhetorical non-point, eh? I don't think so.

Have you ever thought about why it is that so many jump on the French government (heck, the French people for some) because of their opposition to the war in Iraq? Does the expression "Freedom of Speech" mean anything to you? Isn't that partly what Mr. Bush is trying to bring to the people of Iraq? Isn't that part of "The American Values" (like the rest of the world d doesn't have them)? Think about that.

Not so far fetched considering the political and illegal military support that France gave the Saddam Regime in the post Gulf War era. So long as Frenchie could make a buck, or in this case a franc I guess, the hell with their "friends" who save their butts twice during the last century. The French are led by a dispicable and morally bankrupt regime that actively supports tyranny and the enemies of the United States. To hell with them and all who support them. And I'll take France as an open enemy anyday over being a "friend". Friends don't stab friends in the back.

[FullBurst41]

Err, LRB, as much as I want to say "Yes, you're right," you're overlooking the fact that the country you live in, or rather the politicians that run it, have done the same thing in the past. It's part of political life, it's partly that which I contest. I'm not saying that things will be all merry when Bush is replaced, because it won't. The Brits, the French, the Jerries, heck the Belgians, the Americans, the Chihnese, the Russians, the South Africans, they're all the same when your own profile is on the line. That's a fact. Just look at countries like Chile, Congo (which the entire Western world left to rot after communism fell), and Iran (that's right). Those are some examples, but don't you forget that the oh-so-bad Saddam used your weapons aginst his own people. Those were not Frenchie weapons he used.

[FullBurst41]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Here is why I jump on the french fullofit41... It's because they act more like our enemies than our allies. Do "I" not have freedom of speech to voice my displeasure in a country that we've asked many times to help us but usually does not? Don't "I" have the freedom of speech to choose what wines I might buy, what countries products I might support just like I'm sure you do as well in this country.

You know like not watching a Woody Allan movie because you don't really want to support someone who's committed incest? Or a roman polanski movie, things like that?

Have you ever decided against buying anything in this country due to some reason, political, social, whatever. Weren't YOU exercising your freedom of speech or were you trying to squash the company/person you decided to not support. Your argument is juvenile, however I've heard it a lot on the left.

I wasn't comparing the french to south africa (although I wouldn't mind seeing someone make that comparison, historically speaking I"m sure the french have enslaved many,many more that the south africans ever did. ).

Oh and by the way, I have been there numerous times although it's irrelevant, how many times have YOU been there?

That's not the point at all. You can disagree with the French all you like, but you do so in the utter belief that you are right and shouldbe helped by a government that you belief owes you something. Perhaps more the second than the first, I don't know, I don't really care either. What you buy and don't buy is none of my business. I myself have never boycotted anyone's products (I still happily guzzle coke), and if I don't consume a nutritional supplement, it is purely because it is not my taste.

Again, I find boycotting products juvenile, to make a stupid comparison:
"Oh? You don't agree? You ungrateful idiot! Come here, let me shackle you to the floor for a couple hours, we'll see who talks rough then!"

As for France itself, I go there multiple times a year, so don't tell me I don't know the French. (yes, yes, I know you didn't) That is pretty much my point and I stand by it, hopefully you get it right this time.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: FullBurst41
Err, LRB, as much as I want to say "Yes, you're right," you're overlooking the fact that the country you live in, or rather the politicians that run it, have done the same thing in the past. It's part of political life, it's partly that which I contest. I'm not saying that things will be all merry when Bush is replaced, because it won't. The Brits, the French, the Jerries, heck the Belgians, the Americans, the Chihnese, the Russians, the South Africans, they're all the same when your own profile is on the line. That's a fact. Just look at countries like Chile, Congo (which the entire Western world left to rot after communism fell), and Iran (that's right). Those are some examples, but don't you forget that the oh-so-bad Saddam used your weapons aginst his own people. Those were not Frenchie weapons he used.

1st of all Saddam used weapons from the US, France, and many other nations against his own people. I'm not especially proud of how we sat by and let him do it either. But at least we didn't try and stop someone from correcting the error and removing his sorry @$$ from power just so we could keep making a buck.

And please name one instance where the US has supported keeping a dictator in power versus having him removed and replaced with a democratic form of government just so we can make a buck? During the cold war we supported some unsavory governments that is true, but it was to combat a meglamanic opponent. Is that right? Personally I wish we would have pushed harder for reforms in the governments that we supported. But we also supported Stalin in the fight against Hilter. Maybe that wasn't right either. But even if we made mistakes in the past, it hardly justifies France making one now.

Again, I find boycotting products juvenile, to make a stupid comparison:
"Oh? You don't agree? You ungrateful idiot! Come here, let me shackle you to the floor for a couple hours, we'll see who talks rough then!"

So if you walked into a McDonald's and the server came out, unzipped his pants and pissed on you, you mean you'd keep going to McDonald's? Guess not everyone likes being pissed on. If it's juvenile not to let someone keep pissing on you, then I pray that I always act juvenile in your eyes. [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

[FullBurst41]

Well, I'm quite certain that both the Iran and Iraq alliances were quite helpful economically to the US. You could sell military material to both, and get oil in return (especially in Iraq's case here) as much as you liked.. Of course, supporting dictators in the third world is rarely lucrative.

Then again, why is it that the French can't make a mistake now and it's alright just dismissing (though admitting) mistakes the US policy makers made in the past? I fail to see the logic in that.

What you say about supporting a vicious leader as to protect the country and questionand yourself from not-so-friendly people is partly true. I don't particularly like the Iranian government as it stands today, and it was far worse twenty years ago. However, how the Chile incident exactly works out, I do not quite understand. It's not like the Soviets were going to place missiles in there just to piss you off, I don't think they were going to make that mistake again. That said, the soviet Unjion was by then becoming a toothless tiger (or perhaps that's a bad analogy).

As for the McDonnald's peeing thingie, I really fail to see what relevance that holds to the boycotting of products and it being juvenile. If you think the French pissed on you by saying "we won't support you in this war" and it having more to do with economic reasons than anything else (for the government, at least), they can say the exact same about the US government. Many a person over here thinks that Bush likes the economic prospects this country might bring him and his allies. The Halliburton incident didn't help a lot either.

Another thing that quiteintrigues me, if you'll let me divert slightly, is why the Bush administration stands by its "freedom for the world" stance so much. Why aren't American troops rolling into Zimbabwe? N ot much chance of them being attacked by militants there, and the Simbabwean army isn't much to worry aboutfor such a powerful force as the American army. South Africa obviously isn't going to do anything about its neighbor abusing its people and basically holding a fascist government, so why doesn't the US step in? Its not like they're going to drop nukes on your turf, like the North Koreans might. It's not like everyone from Lebanon to Usbekistan is going to come at you screaming "FOOOK YAAAAAAGH!" like what might happen in Iran, if you invaded.

Hell, I think you might even find international backinig for it, after some pushing and shoving.

[Drbio]

Some critics speculated that if "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize, it would be more for the film's politics than its cinematic value.

Duh. Liberal artsy-fartsy morons were going to ensure that Moores piece-of-crap won. Did you not see that coming?





The rest of this thread is amazing. good grief.

[LRB]

Well, I'm quite certain that both the Iran and Iraq alliances were quite helpful economically to the US. You could sell military material to both, and get oil in return (especially in Iraq's case here) as much as you liked.. Of course, supporting dictators in the third world is rarely lucrative.

I'm sure that both countries did bring a good deal of wealth in for some companies. Our government also expended a great deal of money in aid. What was the net result? I'm not sure, but I can tell you that in neither situation were we raking in the money hand over fist. The primary objective in supporting those governements was to combat the soviet regime and to stabalize the region. And with time our government has been increasing restrictions on countries that we sale military hardware to.

Then again, why is it that the French can't make a mistake now and it's alright just dismissing (though admitting) mistakes the US policy makers made in the past? I fail to see the logic in that.

Well let's see, the cold war is over so exactly which enemy is France fighting by supporting Saddam against the US? Is France saying that they are an enemy of the US? And just when was the United States a signatory to an international agreement not to supply certain military hardware to a dicator and violated that agreement? It's not like we told France that they had to agree with not giving Saddam help, they agreed to this on their own. They just didn't adhere to their agreement.

What you say about supporting a vicious leader as to protect the country and questionand yourself from not-so-friendly people is partly true. I don't particularly like the Iranian government as it stands today, and it was far worse twenty years ago. However, how the Chile incident exactly works out, I do not quite understand. It's not like the Soviets were going to place missiles in there just to piss you off, I don't think they were going to make that mistake again. That said, the soviet Unjion was by then becoming a toothless tiger (or perhaps that's a bad analogy).

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. What specifically are you referring to about Chile?

As for the McDonnald's peeing thingie, I really fail to see what relevance that holds to the boycotting of products and it being juvenile. If you think the French pissed on you by saying "we won't support you in this war" and it having more to do with economic reasons than anything else (for the government, at least), they can say the exact same about the US government. Many a person over here thinks that Bush likes the economic prospects this country might bring him and his allies. The Halliburton incident didn't help a lot either.

In case you haven't realized that the American taxpayer is paying out far more for Iraq that what is entering the American economy from Iraq. It's hard to believe the European educational system is so bad at teaching math. And it's not that the French didn't support us, no they actively opposed us in all but shooting at us with their own forces. When you're sending military supplies to an enemy that is actively trying to kill American service men I consider that a lot worse than pissing. So I guess my analogy was off, just not in the way that you were intimating.

Another thing that quiteintrigues me, if you'll let me divert slightly, is why the Bush administration stands by its "freedom for the world" stance so much. Why aren't American troops rolling into Zimbabwe? N ot much chance of them being attacked by militants there, and the Simbabwean army isn't much to worry aboutfor such a powerful force as the American army. South Africa obviously isn't going to do anything about its neighbor abusing its people and basically holding a fascist government, so why doesn't the US step in? Its not like they're going to drop nukes on your turf, like the North Koreans might. It's not like everyone from Lebanon to Usbekistan is going to come at you screaming "FOOOK YAAAAAAGH!" like what might happen in Iran, if you invaded.

When we do act as a nation, it is not to conquer territory for imperial reasons. We come, we kick butt, we rebuild, we teach, we leave. Generally we spend a great deal more that we make. We do it to safe guard our interests, yes that is true. But we believe our interest are best served only in removing credible and significant threats of violence against US citizens, assets, or trading means and helping rebuild any region that we have to use military force to accomplish the 1st. It's actually more complicated that this simple explanation, but I don't have time to write a book and this is close enough for now. Occasionally we do intervene for humanitarian means. The results for these reasons alone are substantially less because there tends to be less committment to see it through to the end.

[FullBurst41]

First of all, Chile. Are you telling me that you never heard of Pinochet? A leader the Americans helped to power and proceeded to commit human rights abuses across the board? Who's educational system is lacking again?

As for Iraq, you should know that I'm not talking about "today, right now, here and now." I'm talking abotut he future. That said, just because the American citizen isn't feeling his purse getting heavier, top xecutives might. But let's not go there, lest you come here and bite my head off.

What exactly was Iraq going to do to any of your trade allies? Pee on 'em? I mean, their military obviously isn't much to speak of. After the first Gul War in Iraq, the US made damn sure that Kwait and Saudi Arabia were more or less prepared for whatever Saddam could throw at them, or at least hold them off until the cavalry arrived. If they even tried to point their finger at Israel, hell, they might've gottena WMD on their skulls, who knows. As for Islamic militants, I think it's prudent to say that the militants most certainly aren't where your troops go all the time, more like they go where your troops are. Ideologically, Saddam and bin Laden don't agree terribly well, except perhaps in their hate for the West That leaves the question, what's going to come out of Iraq that can hurt anyone but Lichtenstein (if only it were located closer to the Middle East).;

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Drbio

Some critics speculated that if "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize, it would be more for the film's politics than its cinematic value. [/i]

Duh. Liberal artsy-fartsy morons were going to ensure that Moores piece-of-crap won. Did you not see that coming?

Actually the selection of Farenheit was not what most saw as the most likely film to win the gold Award. Guess Moore was very persuasive in his presentation....
-------------------------------------------

France and Brazil vie for top Cannes prize
20 May 2004

CANNES: French and Brazilian films are the leading contenders for top prize at the Cannes festival but movie industry watchers say that with cult director Quentin Tarantino presiding over the jury, anything is possible.

They lead the race for the Palme d'Or top film prize at a 2004 festival which has, by common consent, far surpassed last year's lacklustre effort, bringing big stars, edgy themes and powerful politics to the Riviera.

French director Agnes Jaoui's Look at Me and The Motorcycle Diaries by Brazilian Walter Selles both deal with themes of awakening, but there the similarity ends.

Jaoui tells the story of a tortured 20-year-old desperate for the attention of her self-centred father and longing for the figure of a fashion model.

The Motorcycle Diaries, starring Mexican Sex Mex screen idol Gael Garcia Bernal, traces the political awakening of a young Che Guevara on a Latin American odyssey.

"The general sense of the festival is that the adrenalin is flowing. Cannes got a facelift at the age of 57," said Tim Gray, executive editor of the trade paper Variety.

"Last year was sleepy with nothing to talk about," he said as the festival headed into the home straight and Saturday night's prize-giving.

"Cannes is traditionally the most apolitical of festivals. This year it is very political. That's exciting. It is reflecting what is happening in the world."

But picking a winner could be tricky. "With Quentin Tarantino head of the jury, I have no idea," Gray said.

With superstars Brad Pitt and Tom Hanks walking the red carpet for the first time, Hollywood really embraced Cannes this year.

It used to avoid it as a costly event where jaded critics would often give blockbusters a real grilling.

Today, fearful of the pirates who can easily plunder a big hit as it opens from territory to territory, studios have opted for instant global releases and Cannes offers an ideal publicity platform.

Politics has taken centre stage with Fahrenheit 9/11, a blistering tirade against the Bush administration by documentary film-maker Michael Moore.

Critics say his angry slice of propaganda is so emotionally effective that it could play a part in influencing vacillating voters in November's presidential elections.

Tarantino said: "I'm in heaven" at the prospect of being shut in a darkened room for 12 days watching art-house movies..

With his bloodthirsty tastes, critics believed Tarantino could be tempted to opt for Korean revenge movie Old Boy in which the distraught hero cuts off his tongue after finding out he has slept with his long-lost daughter.

Critics were close to vomiting over the explicit violence.

No animation film has ever won the Palme d'Or but the Hollywood Reporter believed that the crowd-pleasing Shrek 2 could be the surprise final choice.

And a possible outsider may be The Edukators by young German director Hans Weingartner whose parents mortgaged their house so he could make the movie.

Screen International's round-the-world poll of critics put France and Brazil in as favourites, followed closely by Moore's political diatribe.

"There has been a conscious effort this year to introduce more mainstream films," said the paper's Editor-in-Chief Colin Brown.

"And it was certainly difficult to imagine a more glitzy Cannes. Stars were far more ready to travel this year," he said. "France's Jaoui is the one the critics like but if the jury decides to go political, it could be Moore."

[LRB]

Originally posted by: FullBurst41
First of all, Chile. Are you telling me that you never heard of Pinochet? A leader the Americans helped to power and proceeded to commit human rights abuses across the board? Who's educational system is lacking again?

As for Iraq, you should know that I'm not talking about "today, right now, here and now." I'm talking abotut he future. That said, just because the American citizen isn't feeling his purse getting heavier, top xecutives might. But let's not go there, lest you come here and bite my head off.

What exactly was Iraq going to do to any of your trade allies? Pee on 'em? I mean, their military obviously isn't much to speak of. After the first Gul War in Iraq, the US made damn sure that Kwait and Saudi Arabia were more or less prepared for whatever Saddam could throw at them, or at least hold them off until the cavalry arrived. If they even tried to point their finger at Israel, hell, they might've gottena WMD on their skulls, who knows. As for Islamic militants, I think it's prudent to say that the militants most certainly aren't where your troops go all the time, more like they go where your troops are. Ideologically, Saddam and bin Laden don't agree terribly well, except perhaps in their hate for the West That leaves the question, what's going to come out of Iraq that can hurt anyone but Lichtenstein (if only it were located closer to the Middle East).;

Your description of the US role with Pinochet was somewhat lacking. But it did take place was the Cold War was going full force. I definitely don't agree with our support of Pinochet, but the reasoning was either we support him or the soviets will. but you're still talking abou the Cold War. It's much easier now than when living under the very real threat of a nuclear war.

As for Saddam, the Sarin gas contained in the shell that was fortunately ineffectively exploded resently could have caused several times the deaths of 9/11 if given to terrorists. Saddam's threat was very real. Even supplying easy access to conventional weapons and training grouds could have been very dangerous to the US. A few anti-aircraft missles in terrorist hands or some explosives could be very deadly. And even if Saddam didn't have WMD's, and we can't prove conclusively that he didn't, he had the means and opportunity to do so if we had not intervened.

I still can't understand why you Europeans and leftist extremeists are crying so much for a monster like Saddam. All you have to defend him are that there are other people just as bad that the US didn't take out. You sound like a bunch of spoiled children who are mad that they didn't get their way.

Incrdible abuses have been halted in Iraq. Mass murders on the scale of hundreds of thousands at a time have been halted. And for the most part except for a very few incidents the whole scale torture chambers of Saddam have been shut down. The painful but ultimately rewarding process of democracy has begun. Aid is arriving to help the Iraqi's rebuild. Yet all Eurpopeans can do for the most part is ball about the poor dead terroists and fascists. Sigh.

[dude1394]

I was going to jump in here but LRB is doing such a fine job, that I refrain.

[Murphy3]

As a liberal, I must say that I complete disagree with the United States' role in Iraq regardless of how many lives that they are saving simply because I'm a liberal and I must take the most annoying and polar opposite stance from republicans simply because it's my right.

[dude1394]

As a liberal I would expect that you would be a promoter of freedom throughout the world. Like kosovo, bosnia, south africa, iraq, sudan etc. Ala christopher hitchens.

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: dude1394
As a liberal I would expect that you would be a promoter of freedom throughout the world. Like kosovo, bosnia, south africa, iraq, sudan etc. Ala christopher hitchens.

I could do that, but then I wouldn't be the annoying liberal guy that simply digs my heels in and opposes anything and everything republican regardless of bad I make myself look.

[dude1394]

*Chuckle*

[u2sarajevo]

Michael Moore and Me
From the May 31, 2004 issue: An encounter with the Cannes man.
by Fred Barnes

A FEW YEARS AGO Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"

Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.

The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone. And, two, I read both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my first year at the University of Virginia. Just for the record, I'd learned what they were about even before college. Like everyone else my age, I
got my classical education from the big screen. I saw the Iliad movie called Helen of Troy and while I forget the name of the Odyssey film, I think it starred Kirk Douglas as Odysseus.

So why didn't I scream bloody murder when the book came out in 2001? I didn't learn about the phony anecdote until it was brought to my attention by Alan Wolfe, who was reviewing Moore's book for the New Republic. He asked, by email, if the story were true. I said no, not a word of it, and Wolfe quoted me as saying that. That was enough, I thought. After all, who would take a shrill, lying lefty like Moore seriously?

More people than I thought. Moore's new movie attacking Bush was given a 20-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival. Moore has described the movie as breaking new ground and revealing new facts, but the accounts by reviewers suggest it merely provides the standard left-wing, conspiratorial critique of the president. Reviewer Lou Lumenick of the New York Post, who gave Moore's previous movie Bowling for Columbine four stars, said the anti-Bush film would be news only "if you spent the last three years hiding in a cave in Afghanistan." Still, I suppose it's not surprising they loved it in France.

In publicizing the movie, Moore has been up to his old dishonest tricks. Just before the screening at Cannes, he charged that Disney had told him "officially" the day before that it would not distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore said this was an attempt to kill the film. He indicated a newspaper article had the correct explanation of Disney's decision: "According to today's New York Times, it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

Later, in a CNN interview, Moore admitted he'd learned nearly a year ago that Disney would not distribute the movie. By pretending he'd just gotten word of this, Moore was involved in a cheap publicity stunt. And it wasn't the New York Times that said, on its own, that Disney feared losing tax breaks. It was Moore's agent who was quoted as saying that in the Times. Disney denied its president Michael Eisner had told the agent of any such fear. "We informed both the agency that represented the film and all of our companies that we just didn't want to be in the middle of a politically oriented film during an election year," Eisner told ABC News.

Where does this leave us? I think it's time for Moore to be held accountable. In Stupid White Men, he has 18 pages of "Notes and Sources," but he offers no evidence for the sham interview with me--no date, no transcript. How could he, since the interview never happened?

I have just the person to look into Moore's lies and distortions. Al Franken has taken special interest in public liars, writing a bestseller called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Al, the Moore case is now in your court.


Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

[Drbio]

Mavdog- there was never any doubt that Cannes was going to be a liberal love fest this year. No matter how many biased articles you cite, it will not change that fact. Everyone knew it going in and Moores "award" was highly predicted.

[Drbio]

murph- greatness......




I echo dude above.....go get 'em LRB.....

[FullBurst41]

Originally posted by: LRB

Your description of the US role with Pinochet was somewhat lacking. But it did take place was the Cold War was going full force. I definitely don't agree with our support of Pinochet, but the reasoning was either we support him or the soviets will. but you're still talking abou the Cold War. It's much easier now than when living under the very real threat of a nuclear war.

As for Saddam, the Sarin gas contained in the shell that was fortunately ineffectively exploded resently could have caused several times the deaths of 9/11 if given to terrorists. Saddam's threat was very real. Even supplying easy access to conventional weapons and training grouds could have been very dangerous to the US. A few anti-aircraft missles in terrorist hands or some explosives could be very deadly. And even if Saddam didn't have WMD's, and we can't prove conclusively that he didn't, he had the means and opportunity to do so if we had not intervened.

I still can't understand why you Europeans and leftist extremeists are crying so much for a monster like Saddam. All you have to defend him are that there are other people just as bad that the US didn't take out. You sound like a bunch of spoiled children who are mad that they didn't get their way.

Incrdible abuses have been halted in Iraq. Mass murders on the scale of hundreds of thousands at a time have been halted. And for the most part except for a very few incidents the whole scale torture chambers of Saddam have been shut down. The painful but ultimately rewarding process of democracy has begun. Aid is arriving to help the Iraqi's rebuild. Yet all Eurpopeans can do for the most part is ball about the poor dead terroists and fascists. Sigh.

We do not defend Saddam. We are not extremists. (since Europeans are now automatically linked with "leftist extremists," I presume that we are extreme as well, in your eyes). If you want to prevent Islamic militants from getting their ihands on a couple of anti-aircraft missiles, then why don't you propose the US just nukes the MIddle East and bedone with it, followed by a large-scale invasion of Indonesia, the sanitation of India, and anything else you want to do to eliminate the threat of Islam. Because you don't need a guy like Saddam Hussein in a country like Iraq to get your anti-aircraft missiles. Hell, they can probably obtain them in Russia far quicker than they ever could in Iraq or any other friendly government.

As for small armsin general, anyone could've bought those in Baghdad just after the fall of Hussein's regime. I heard a BBC reporter going to investigate the sale of weapons that too place just after the Americans had leveled Saddam (literally and figuratively). You could get your hand grenades for about $1 a piece. You might have heard the story of the JApanese journalist that ended up blowing a couple of Jordanian customs workers to hell with a hand grenade in his luggage.

The point to all this, is that I find the reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq pretty questionable, in keeping with the "defense of our own citezens" logic. If you fear the security of your citezens, it is time to put major pressure on Kim Jong Il, he is far more dangerous to US forces and US allies in the area than Saddam ever could be. And remember, it was the United States ofo America, who had the full backing of the UN, who were not able to wipe Saddam out of Baghdad, because, as I gather, Bush wasn't sure he could defend such a move. As far as I'm concerned, you can't defend it today either, but that's that, I guess.

[FullBurst41]

Originally posted by: Drbio
murph- greatness......




I echo dude above.....go get 'em LRB.....

Yeah LRB, go and show that anyone that disagrees with you has no valid opinion. Make my day.

[LRB]

We do not defend Saddam.

Sure sounds like it. You keep complaining about our invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. Sure sounds like you'd rather have him back in power. Maybe we should try putting the Nazis back in power while we're at it. Really we didn't have any better reason to remove them than we did Saddam.

We are not extremists.

Well if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, and acts like a duck generally I would call it a duck. Same thing for extremists. And I'd call anyone who thinks that Saddam should be back in power an extremist. See below for example of extremist rhetoric:

If you want to prevent Islamic militants from getting their ihands on a couple of anti-aircraft missiles, then why don't you propose the US just nukes the MIddle East and bedone with it, followed by a large-scale invasion of Indonesia, the sanitation of India, and anything else you want to do to eliminate the threat of Islam.

BTW we don't believe that we can prevent anyone from obtaining conventional weapons, but we can make it extremely difficult for terrorists to get them without our knowledge. With knowledge comes the ability to strike and destroy the weapons before they can be put to use. And we have a great deal of intelligent assets in Russia as compared to what we had in Iraq pre-invasion.

If you fear the security of your citezens, it is time to put major pressure on Kim Jong Il, he is far more dangerous to US forces and US allies in the area than Saddam ever could be.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. We are putting major pressure on him and are getting concessions. Try using some relevant observations next time.

And remember, it was the United States ofo America, who had the full backing of the UN, who were not able to wipe Saddam out of Baghdad, because, as I gather, Bush wasn't sure he could defend such a move. As far as I'm concerned, you can't defend it today either, but that's that, I guess.

It wasn't our objective to remove Saddam from power only to remove him from Kuwait and as an immediate threat. We did that. Now should we have added the job of removing him? Well I for one wish we had. Several hundred thousand dead Iraqi's probably do as well. But one mistake not to remove him, does not justify doing it again. We gave Saddam the chance the pansy Europeans of the world wanted to give him. And it cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lifes and ultimately ended up putting much of the world potential hostage to Saddam's WMD capabilities. And just because we didn't find any doesn't mean there weren't. And even if there weren't any, doesn't mean that he wasn't working towards being able to make them in secret.

Of course there are a lot of Europeans like you seem to be who would rather see hundreds of thousands dead than to admit that they possibly made a mistake. But hey are you the guys who gassed the Jews and other "undesirables"?

Yeah LRB, go and show that anyone that disagrees with you has no valid opinion. Make my day.

Hey anyone's free to disagree with me. I don't have a monopoly on being right either. But if you are to argue, all I ask is that you argue intelligently and be mature enough to concede points, not the whole argument, but points when logic shows that you're wrong.

[Drbio]

Yeah LRB, go and show that anyone that disagrees with you has no valid opinion. Make my day.

Hello pot. This is the moronic kettle calling you black. [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

[mavsman]

Originally posted by: dude1394
How in the world can you compare me supporting dirk on a mavericks basketball team, in a country that is the most multi-cultural in history to something done by hitler? good grief...

Dirk Nowitzki is NOT my enemy... Let him come out and say the crap that the german politicians do and you'd see how quick I tell cubes to take his tickets and shove it, however you make litreally no sense to me.

So you say that the small German winemakers that you gladly boycott all said the "crap that the German politicians do" and are therefore your enemies? I don't think so. You don't even know one of them, neither do you know anything about their political background. You just boycott them and try to ruin their business, because your republican buddies tell you to do so. How's that any different from third reich germany's policy of "don't buy jewish"?

I happen to know quite a handful of Germans that went to the US and started a business there, most of them left Germany for a reason and are more hardcore-republicans than you or madape, but still their businesses suffer, because they bear the wrong passport. You may say "tough luck, buddy!", I say that's nationalistic BS, and you know it.

What actually is your POINT?? That because I won't buy german/french products I have to hate all germans/french to not be hypocritical. It's a silly point.

No, I think it's a clever move to punish small businessmen for what you think their government does wrong. I don't think that your horizon is wide enough to grasp the concept, but just like not all of the US voted for your current president, we also had just about 50% voting for our current chancellor. Okay, ours had a slightly better result, but nevertheless, there is no such thing as a "German opinion" on things. You may boycott everyone you like, but be asured that the German public is able to seperate American individuals from your government and not to vent their little anger at the wrong folks.

[mavsman]

And, oh, I forgot: You were asking why I was calling you a hypocrite. That's obvious. You say you don't despise Dirk because he didn't say "the crap that german politicians do", just like you didn't hear any German winemaker say "the crap that german politicians do". Yet you feel free to boycott the winemaker, because it's easy for you to replace german wine by italian or american, but you don't boycott Dirk, because you just can't replace him that easily. That hypocrisy at it's best, if you ask me.