F** F*** Brings down the house in Cannes with Bush bash film

Obviously your body weight is as important to directing a film as intelligence is to directing a country...

 

Sure.

I don't understand that you need me to spell it out for you, I thought you would be able to see it on your own, but I will so that you're clear.

The relationship between the Bush family and the Saud family, particularly Prince Bandar, is long and well chronicled, and not disputed. Now, when the US President has a long and close personal relationship with influential members of the hereditary dictators(let's be frank, that's what the House of Saud is) of the radical Wahabbist state that is the ideological & geographic home of Al Qaeda, this may result in conflicts of interest of certain consequence.

This conflict results in such things as 1. Bandar being told of the invasion of Iraq before US Secretary of State Colin Powell, and 2. The excision of the Saudis from the Sept 11 committee's preliminary report; and those are just the ones off the top of my head.

Given that members of the House of Saud are directly & indirectly responsible for the continued financial support of Al Qaeda and radical Wahabbism to an extent unmatched by any other state, save maybe Pakistan, I would say that it is highly relevant that the President has a close personal relationship which has apparently resulted in concessions being made that are potentially against the national interest.

Did you really need me to explain that to you? Or do you doubt the veracity of the Bush clan's ties to Bandar & such. It's not exactly a crazy conspiracy theory, they freely admit them.

EDIT: for more on the corruption of the House of Saud itself, read this piece by Robert Baer, former CIA analyst who recently wrote a book about them:

http://foi.missouri.edu/evolvingissues/fallhouseofsaud.html

 

Your pResident is sticking to his agenda of making his corporate buddies rich while sticking it to the people of Iraq and ordinary Americans. The invasion of Iraq is a prime example. Innocent Iraqis and American soldiers are dying, and the only beneficiaries are Halliburton and KBR. You may applaud it; however I despise it. You're welcome for me pointing that out to you.

 

Not that I buy the whole Bush is stupid argument, but wouldn't that be more relevant than someone's weight? What's next, are we gonna use someone's ability to **** correctly to judge their political IQ?

BTW, I don't care for Michael Moore. I have avoided Bowling for Columbine at all costs just like I will avoid this one. I'd rather watch an objective piece that comes to conclusions without a political bias than watch his stuff.

 

Seeing how large a lot of directors are, I wonder if being fat does make for a better filmmaker.

 

If the choice for President comes down to one guy who eats a bag of Doritos in one sitting or a guy who's so stupid he can't play poker, give me the Doritos guy.

 

I assume that you're talking about how no one wants to touch it. Remember how no one wanted to touch the Passion of the Christ? It's now about to pass up The Return of the King for sixth place on the all time chart. I was wondering when someone would jump on the bandwagon with the "too controversial to be released by us" theme. I wonder if it is staged.

 

Nice explanation, but you didn't really explain anything of import, did you?

If I thought all Saudis were evil or sinister, then I'd be worried.

Maybe you're concerned about a possible, future conflict of interest? Is that it? Is it that I lack your imagination?

 

It sure does seem to pump up the box office. I do believe that it is staged.

 

I'm talking about the whole shebang, especially the idea that Disney's refusal to distribute the film was something recent rather than something that had come out the second the Weinsteins agreed to fund the film (though even Moore himself has now backed off that). More recently, he's mentioned having a release date set at Miramax, something that was never set (Miramax would've mentioned it if they had set it, even if they knew Disney would balk).

There's just a whole lot about the story the way Moore has told it that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. But, since we don't know what the Weinsteins told him directly, I can't say for certain that he's purposely lying. For all we know, Harvey told him that he'd work everything out with Disney and not to worry about it, and Moore believed him. Since there's no way to know what Harvey said to Moore, I am not willing to go so far as to say that Moore is purposely lying... though I do think that's probably the case, just based on his past history).

 

IMO, Michale Moore has some notable strengths and weaknesses as a director and as a spokesman for causes.


The most notable of the weaknesses is, from what I;ve seen, an over dependance on one or two strains of thought to the exclusion of contradictory information. As such, when he's on the talk show circuit, or when hed appear on Politcally Incorrect, he;d sound damned convincing and versed the first time or so he presented his position, but when challenged, or when needing to move on to other, though related topics, he'd invariably repeat his initial arguments.

This somewhat translates into his films. He often makes sound points, but rather than move on, he finds new means to repeat same until you feel a little beaten over the head. It also seems to allow for little deviation, and as such he seems to add points as though they supported his premise by logic when you'd need to think that way to make the connection to begin with.

And, while he may have been right, his treatment of Charlton Heston lacked class, and was additionally melodramatic. I asctually thought the criticism of this aspect of BFW was overblown, in terms of the conversation itself, but the end where he leaves the picture and shouts accusations at Heston's back seemed juvenile.



That said, there is a lot of willfull baby with the bathwater about Moore from people predisposed to disagree with him politically. He asks really interesting questions at times, and challenges accepeted ills in a way that reminds you that it's not ok just because it's endemic. Additionally, his conclusions tend to be fairly well thought out and founded on a lot of support, irrespective of the overblown means he sometimes uses to illustrate same along the way.


I find it to be a typical non-argumet that people who already disagree with him will focus on one aspect or scene of a film, point out it's particual shortcomings, and use that to ignore or refute the entire contention, sidestepping all of Moore's valid points along the way. I expect that this will be more fo the same.

 

I would say this is his biggest failing. There's no reason for him to be shy about his political dispositions, but he does it in such a way that is easily ignored. While I haven't found any of his arguments to be all that offensive, I do find his approach and his attitude to be offensive. And, much more importantly, I find him impossible to trust. Because of his zealous partisanship, I would put no deception past him. Even when he tells the truth, I must discount it because I'll rather ignore the truth than to believe lies. Because he has this air of partisanship, rancor, hatred, and pettiness, he can't be respected as a source of information. And, when you're making movies that are meant to educate and/or uncover the truth, such respect is paramount.

Twenty minute ovation is ridiculous. Back when the secret police would whack the first guy to stop applauding Stalin's speech, the ovations would still only last 10 or 12 minutes.

 

Either we're having some sort of failure to communicate, or perhaps January of 05 can't get here soon enough.

 

Yeah, we have the guy who CHOKED on a pretzel...

 

if you criticize rush limbaugh...you've waived your right to defend moore...

if you criticize moore...you've waived your right to defend limbaugh.

thank you!

 

LOL!!!

That fat azz is a joke...

 

I had dinner with Mike in Austin last year when he was first starting on F-911.

From the ideas he told me were circling around in his head I can't wait to see it.

Anyone who can get under the skin of right wingers like him is obviously a genius.

 

Getting under the skin of many right wingers is as difficult as making teenagers depressed.

 

By the way, it appears this film has a distributor now.

NBC Universal is apparently picking it up for its Focus Features division.

 

by far his best movie is "The Big One"
when he talks to the CEO of Nike, that scene is classic!
I wonder how anyone can left or right can object to that movie.