I received this e-mail from a friend of mine the other day who had the chance to live in Cannes for the past four months and thus was around all the films that were screened this past month. He has some great thoughts on Michael Moore's latest as well...
I have just got back from Cannes after four months of 'studying' (hence my inability to type coherently due to different types of keyboard), and really feel my French has made a great improvement.
I also feel a bit of an insider in the film world due to the lucky chances I had to go and see a few of the films, such as The Ladykillers (on which, I feel the critics have been a little too harsh, and which for me was both funny and time well spent - possibly because I haven't seen the original), the Assassination of Richard Nixon (OK, a little similar to Mystic River with Sean Penn's part, though with funny moments as wel) and a few French or Italian films that are probably of no interest to the rest of the world, though the Italian film, my chance to go properly on the tapis rouge, was actually quite good.
On Monday, howver, I managed to get an invitation for a special screening of the winner of the Palme d'Or for this year for people living and studying in Cannes. Follow this advice - go see it, whatever your political persuasions and/or opinions on Michael Moore, as soon as possible, for a few reasons.
Firstly, the cinematic value. I am sceptical about the idea of documentary as film, but the film has been well put together. I'm not saying it was worth the biggest prize in internqtional cinema, however, which is something I will leave you to decide.
Secondly, it is, I think, better than Moore's other work, from my experience of Stupid White Men and Bowling For columbine. In Fahrenheit 9/11 he lets the images (or merely the sounds in one scene) speak for themselves. This is unlike Columbine, where we see far more of Moore talking to people and in doing so, dominating the scene. In some ways it is not Moore who fires the anti-Bush salvoes, but more the president shooting himself in the foot, with the aid of his administration, such as, for example, Condy stating in Feb 2000 that "Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction"
Thirdly, it is actually a reasonable piece of investigative journalism on his part, though some Moorish exaggeration does creep in,
But also because you should see it before you make your own opinions. As I said, it is unlike his other work in some respects, with better usage of images, sounds and even the infamous on screen appearences that he limits in this film. To damn it or to praise it beforehand would be foolish.
