Moore's new move wins Palm D'Or

[CV]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1222939,00.html

"Michael Moore's controversial polemic Farenheit 9/11 became the first documentary for nearly 50 years to win the Palme d'Or at the Cannes film festival last night...."

[Loz]

I think it's good that he won this. Hopefully this award will make it easier to find a distributor in the US, so this film can get out there. Apparently the film is very anti-bush, and Moore's crusade to get Bush out of office is very clear throughout the film. Also, some of the points put over in the film, whilst being very possible, aren't backed up by any real facts.

However, I will go and see this, and I know I will enjoy it, and I think it's very important to the world, and especially America to have someone crusading for the 'other' side of politics, as it seems from my point of view, and talking to my friends in America, that most other public figures and broadcasters won't dare question the war or Bush in much detail for fear of being labelled 'anti-American.'

He was quoted at Cannes answering someone saying that he is seen as unpatriotic, and his reply was something along the lines of "I am the most patriotic man in America. This country was built apon questioning those in power, making sure they're doing a good job." I think that sums it up perfectly.

[invisibleplanet]

our party cheered and applauded and whooped and holler'd when we saw the news that michael moore had scooped the palm d'or.

it makes me feel that all my writings (more like mad political rantings!) of 2001 (http://www.u4us.com/?act=ST&f=78&t=1091) as username 'brideofchaos' worthwhile. i've re-read what i wrote 2.5 years ago now, and am really really pleased to see a film exposé of the bush-bin-laden connection.

(that topic is a little jumbled since we changed pinboard providers, but still readable and many of the info links still available)


i love u, michael moore. thankyou

[jukka]

yes, this is a good thing.
i'll definately go and watch it !

[wheezer]

Yeah this documentary really seems to be even less factual than the previous - I don't necessarily hold Moore responsible for this since this seems to be a general trend in documentaries.

Still it's not that good to read that e.g. all the Bin Laden - Bush ties covered in the movie stem from one single book...

[V Knid esq]

Yeah it's a worry that his research (or lack of) may fall apart under examination - if that happens he could end up discrediting anti-Republican politics more than he promotes it :(

[invisibleplanet]

New York Times today says:
FRANK RICH
Michael Moore's Candid Camera
"Of course, Mr. Moore is being selective in what he chooses to include in his movie; he's a polemicist, not a journalist. But he implicitly raises the issue that much of what we've seen elsewhere during this war, often under the label of "news," has been just as subjectively edited. Perhaps the most damning sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the one showing American troops as they ridicule hooded detainees in a holding pen near Samara, Iraq, in December 2003. A male soldier touches the erection of a prisoner lying on a stretcher underneath a blanket, an intimation of the sexual humiliations that were happening at Abu Ghraib at that same time. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/arts/23RICH.html

edit addition: http://www.bushnews.com/binladens.htm
(this site has been on the internet for around 4 years)

[wheezer]

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/regional/061700ny-col-tierney.html

June 17, 2000

THE BIG CITY
When Tables Turn, Knives Come Out
By JOHN TIERNEY

Michael Moore made a name for himself pointing cameras at cruel corporate executives and other enemies of the people. He stalked the chairman of General Motors, sent people in Puritan costumes to Ken Starr's home and set up a Web site with a camera trained on a window of Lucianne Goldberg's apartment.

But Mr. Moore does not appreciate being bothered himself, as Alan Edelstein discovered. After he was fired by Mr. Moore, Mr. Edelstein tried borrowing the technique Mr. Moore had applied to G.M.'s Roger Smith in the film "Roger & Me": showing up uninvited with a camera and trying to get an answer from a boss who has decided to downsize.

Mr. Moore responded by filing a complaint with the New York police accusing Mr. Edelstein of aggravated harassment, menacing and criminal trespassing. As a result, Mr. Edelstein was arrested in March and spent nine hours in a cell at the Midtown North police station.

The district attorney's office later dropped the case. Now Mr. Edelstein is suing Mr. Moore, alleging malicious prosecution.

Mr. Edelstein, who is 39 and lives in Park Slope, Brooklyn, was hired in 1998 as a producer on "The Awful Truth," Mr. Moore's show on the Bravo network. He was fired by a subordinate of Mr. Moore's after seven weeks.

"I was told that there was a budget crunch," he said, "but I don't think that was true. I later learned there were questions about my competence, which no one had ever raised when I was there. So I was angry at the way I was dealt with."

He had another reason for pursuing Mr. Moore with a camera. Mr. Edelstein, who was nominated for an Academy Award in 1985 for a documentary about a musician, was making a documentary incorporating scenes from his own life. "I thought footage with Michael explaining why I'd been fired would be useful for my own documentary," he said.

During a speech by Mr. Moore at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, Mr. Edelstein stood up with a camera and a bullhorn, a tool used by Mr. Moore outside the offices of executives. Mr. Edelstein demanded to know why he had been fired but didn't get an answer.

Mr. Edelstein twice showed up with his camera at the office of Mr. Moore's production company on West 57th Street near 11th Avenue. He filmed some employees but didn't manage to reach Mr. Moore. Later, he took his camera for a few more unsuccessful attempts to engage Mr. Moore at public events outside the office.

Mr. Moore says he complained to the police because he thought Mr. Edelstein had become a stalker who was a threat to Mr. Moore's family as well as his employees.

"If all he was doing was making his little film about me, I wouldn't have cared," Mr. Moore said. "But other people were at risk. This is a disgruntled employee who is a bit off his rocker. Everyone in the office felt there was considerable risk. The women in the office felt frightened for their own safety. Ask them. They'll tell you."

I asked several women, including one recommended by Mr. Moore, and none sounded scared. They said they found Mr. Edelstein a bit obsessive but otherwise mild-mannered and harmless.

"No one was remotely in fear of Alan in any shape or form," said Kyra Vogt, who was the office manager at the time Mr. Edelstein showed up with the camera. "Most of us thought the situation was comical. The only person who was paranoid was Michael. He couldn't deal with having someone follow him around."

When I asked Mr. Moore why the district attorney hadn't prosecuted someone who was supposedly so dangerous, Mr. Moore said he didn't know. "I wanted to pursue the case," he said, and he urged me to find out what had stopped justice from being done.

I did, and again Mr. Moore's version of reality did not jibe with the rest of the world's. A transcript from a hearing in Manhattan Criminal Court on Nov. 1, 1999, shows that Judge Ellen M. Coin dismissed the case after being informed by Assistant District Attorney Erin Koen that "the complaining witness does not want to proceed with the case."

Mr. Moore dismissed as "frivolous" Mr. Edelstein's lawsuit in Federal District Court in Manhattan. Mr. Edelstein said he was looking forward to his day in court.

"I want Michael Moore to be accountable for his false charges," Mr. Edelstein said. "He always grandstands about the First Amendment and artistic freedom, but when I attempted to do essentially what he does, he had me arrested and put in a cell for a day."

[bitch one]

mr moore may sometimes speak sense, but his techniques of getting footage often fall into the cheap stunt category. he has the self-righteous demeanour born of a large ego. his lack of humility, or respect/politeness for the subjects of his films, guarantees that they will look angry (and hence guilty). it's the same school of film-making as the cook report used - tabloid television - and tho i haven't seen the film in question, i think it's a bit sad that political considerations have entered the minds of the cannes judges. the festival used to be about giving awards for artisitic merit. based on things i've seen him do before, it is very doubtful that this film is a tour de force of the film maker's art.

[bitch one]

oops

[Hagbard]

While I agree bitch one.. Desperate times need desperate measures... and he is actually making a difference.

[bitch one]

hmm. but i worry that he is only preaching to the converted, and in fact only increasing polarisation of opinion (especially in US) by further alienating right wingers, and even giving them ammunition by linking important facts to dubious evidence. a more careful/humble/ FACTUAL approach is more likely to change things imho.

[Hagbard]

Well its swinging voters in the middle that really matter, liberals and right wingers are set in their ways. I'd say he probably is only preaching to the converted in Europe, but its his influence in the States that really matters and that seems to be growing.

Unfortunately to get noticed in such an ugly and unsophisticated system (the US media) it seems you have to employ some pretty unsophisticated methods.

[Hagbard]

He did get slammed for some of the content in 'Stupid white men', but his latest book is full to the brim with reference so I think he's learnt his lesson on that hopefully.

He's bumbling through the process, but unfortunately right now he seems to be the only active american personality hitting the headlines with this stuff.

[Loz]

His stuff on Northern Ireland in Stupid White Men was very adolescent and ill-conceived, in my opinion. The rest seemed pretty good, but it didn't look like he spent any time researching the NI situation at all.

[Hagbard]

And his stuff on the EU in his other books likewise.. but when he writes about what he knows i.e. A guy who is proud to be an american but is ashamed of his Government, and the corporatisation of the US, he comes through well. Particularly in "Dude, Where's My Country?". He's no Chomsky for sure, but then Chomsky doesn't ever get on mainstream US television ;)

[Loz]

Michael Moore is basically a tabloid Noam Chomsky, isn't he?

However, as a rule, I distrust anyone who swears by Noam Chomsky, because to me, they always seem to come over as self-important holier-than-thou twats, even when I'm basically agreeing with them. Not sure why.

[Hagbard]

Chomsky has an annoying habit of answering questions with "Well It's obvious what the solution is".. followed by one of his very intelligent and simple insights, he just doesn't realise its not obvious to everyone else ;)

[wheezer]

I forget, but in some book Mr. Moore also reiterated the good 'ole "all of Germany should be turned into a potato field" strategy, while we're on the eu topic. otherwise, what bitch one said.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by wheezer
I forget, but in some book Mr. Moore also reiterated the good 'ole "all of Germany should be turned into a potato field" strategy, while we're on the eu topic. otherwise, what bitch one said.

Bitch one said:

Originally posted by bitch one
A more careful/humble/ FACTUAL approach is more likely to change things imho.

But is that really going to have a chance of impregnating the US media like Michael Moore has?.. not as far as I can see.

[wheezer]

Impregnate yes, but I'm not sure with what, it doesn't seem to me like his movies like bowling for columbine really encourage discussion or independant thought, it was good fun seeing a discussion on a german board where everybody was just shouting "go michael", I interjected with the little potato field chestnut and was quickly labeled "a bush lapdog".

I happen to feel that his shock-n-awe approach will do more harm than good (hate to reiterate a bunch of bitch one rethoric when it's all there a few posts up), if he's really so big on trying to keep bush from winning a second term why doesn't he distribute the movie for free, e.g. via the internet, on cd-rs, dvds or vhs? none of those approaches are terribly costly if you leave out lot of marketing fluff.

[Loz]

wheezer: same argument for "If you love music so much? Why don't you release it on the internet for free?"

he wants to make a living, after all, and if he makes a load of cash whilst doing so, who cares?

[bitch one]

can't you be sensational and truthful at the same time then?

maybe not.

[Loz]

the truth isn't sensational, however, parts of the truth can be

[Hagbard]

Bitch one, I think to say Moore doesnt tell the truth is a pretty kneejerk reaction, I mean he is a civilian trying to extract the truth from governments, is it really surprising that the Government controlled media have the power to the dis-prove the odd thing he says?

Wheezer the 'bush lapdog' comment you got is really dumb obviously, but a lot of the Moore bashing seems like the classic case of the left wing ripping itself apart.. and more than ever it needs to be strong.

Obviously I wasn't at Cannes so we can only base this on his material released to date.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by Loz
the truth isn't sensational, however, parts of the truth can be

Anyone ever read one of the really long Chomsky books?

They are the polar opposite of Michael Moore, fascinating.. but they read like GLUE, and there are so many of them. The 'whole' truth is very hard to digest, just due to the sheer volume of information to digest.

Most of us barely have time to read these days... life is a hectic mess, people rely on Television, Moore has to compete with this, thats undeniable.

Taking 'parts' of the truth is effectively what any journalist or investigator, good or bad does..

[wheezer]

Originally posted by Steev
Wheezer the 'bush lapdog' comment you got is really dumb obviously, but a lot of the Moore bashing seems like the classic case of the left wing ripping itself apart.. and more than ever it needs to be strong.


Yeah I don't really care about the comment, thing is that I just consider it a obvious example of the spreading polarization bitch one was talking about, those people were certainly all below their 30ies.

chomsky books have been on my list, so far I only saw one really long documentary (3+ hours I believe) on him, 'manufacturing consent' - had good fun with the fucker in theoretical computer science though! :)

[bitch one]

Originally posted by Steev
Bitch one, I think to say Moore doesnt tell the truth is a pretty kneejerk reaction

i didn't mean he doesn't tell the truth - rather he distorts facts to suit his agenda, in a tabloid manner. i don't think this shoddy approach to documentary film making is worthy of prizes.

but it may be a thing worth doing if it helps. does it really help? or does it just make a lot of liberals say 'i told you so' ?

i may agree with many of his liberal sentiments but i think the man makes pretty trashy films.

now i will shut my gob until i've seen the bloody thing

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by wheezer


Yeah I don't really care about the comment, thing is that I just consider it a obvious example of the spreading polarization bitch one was talking about, those people were certainly all below their 30ies.

chomsky books have been on my list, so far I only saw one really long documentary (3+ hours I believe) on him, 'manufacturing consent' - had good fun with the fucker in theoretical computer science though! :)

No polarisation isn't good.. you're right of course, but then a super strong right wing and fractured left wing isn't much use either.

Manufacturing Consent is great, thats like fun chomsky :)

This is a great Chomsky book for an intro, short, to the point, up to date.. its based on interviews and speeches so its not 'academic'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583225900

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by bitch one


i didn't mean he doesn't tell the truth - rather he distorts facts to suit his agenda, in a tabloid manner. i don't think this shoddy approach to documentary film making is worthy of prizes.


Fair enough, I doubt it is a work of art.

I really enjoyed Bowling for Columbine for what its worth, I find Moores humour appropriate and I think it lets him gradually dig into issues which I'd not seen elsewhere. I.e. the fact a lot of the parents in Columbine worked for the arms industry.

[Spandex]

Yeah.. I think it got a lot of people talking. Especially comparing the US and Canada with regard to their vastly different murder rates and similar gun laws. Loads of people talk about the availability of guns being responsible for the vast difference between European and American murder rates.. but this made me think a little deeper.

[drop]

micheal moore is to the left
what fox news is to the right,
i can't see anything good about that

[Hagbard]

(I'm not ignoring you anymore.. I actually found it more annoying)

I'd say:

Michael Moore is in the middle
Fox news is FAR right.

Pulling any fox news viewers closer to the middle is a good thing.

[drop]

i don't know
bowling for columbine was a great movie, but michael moore always takes regular americana and twists it to make common people seem stupid, while he maintains this supremely arrogant air of superiority.

that said the scene with terry nichols brother is some of the weirdest shit on the screen.

cnn/msnbc news (depending on the show) is middle off the road broadcasting, in terms of what middle is in the states. mike is way of center
he's like a rush limbugh for the socialist set

[Hagbard]

He probably plays up to Europe with the whole redneck thing, because we pay his mortgage..

But he was a regular working class/blue collar guy himself who was fed up of getting treated as stupid and worthless, thats what prompted him to stand up and shout, right?

[drop]

thats it, now that he's that he in that position he's using it to bash the place that he came from. his movies inform, but its the methods that he uses to collect information, and his presentation that taints his message. its not what you do, but how you do it.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by drop
thats it, now that he's that he in that position he's using it to bash the place that he came from.

Isn't that the American Dream?

[drop]

i go to a ghetto in old san juan named la perla (the pearl) to buy my weed. right outside the old city gate that serves as the entrance to the slum is about 15-20 kids ready to sell you coke, weed, xanax, or heroin. most people are appaled (still don't know how to spell) by the open sale of drugs, in front of homes, kids, dogs, whatever, its there in the open, where's your money.
what most people don't know is that the money made selling goes right into the community. drugs paid for plumbing, electricity, property taxes, organized block parties, set up daycare and clinics.
yeah it sounds like pablo escobar, but he seen as a hero in columbia.

anyways that the point, the american dream is to make something of yourself and then give back to the place your from, not bash it. stepping on the heads of the people who made you is inexcusable.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by drop
anyways that the point, the american dream is to make something of yourself and then give back to the place your from, not bash it. stepping on the heads of the people who made you is inexcusable.

And thats the attitude I've got from most if not all Americans I've ever met in the Flesh.. and in fact that was reinforced by something I read in a Michael moore book where he says most Americans are very liberal people, something I've found in real life too.

So how come Fox and Limbaugh etc have such a hold? Whats the dynamic there?

[drop]

most americans are very conservative on international issues

surprise, surprise

and liberal on domestic

that probably why you see americans as very conservative, you not exposed to the domestic issues as much.

[Hagbard]

But the thing is.. the liberalism goes beyond politics.. in a very personal sense I've found on balance most Americans and also Canadians much more approachable, generous and friendly than say English people when meeting them for the first time.

I just really don't understand why the shutters come sliding down on International issues. That's the part of the American psyche I find impenetrable as a British person.. I almost typed 'European person' but who am I kidding, the one thing that does go a little way to explaining it is that I do understand how the US has an 'island' mentality like the UK.

[drop]

i don't know why "the shutters come sliding down" when it comes to americans and international issues. maybe it because we've never had to answer for our actions. i'm sure that going to change soon, but i don't think it going to achieve the desired effect of making americans more sensetive to world opinion. americans pretty much feel that the majority of the world hates us, so in reality the question really becomes an us vs. them type issue. maybe were paranoid. the point in bowling for columbine was that americans do live in fear most of the time.

to any fellow americans who felt i was speaking for them, sorry, i was generalizing based on my experiences.

[bitch one]

Originally posted by drop
i don't know why "the shutters come sliding down" when it comes to americans and international issues. maybe it because we've never had to answer for our actions.

i'd say it was because most americans are pretty ignorant about the places outside america. because a) most of them never go there and b)most of them don't learn much about it at school. even american history is taught through a rosy patriotic filter, i believe.

obviously this is a huge generalisation, and there are large numbers of informed people, but it is telling that of all the american civil servants who have gone to iraq to help turn it into a 'democracy' only 3 speak the language.

[invisibleplanet]

only 3 speak the language? what?
*faints*

[drop]

Originally posted by bitch one


i'd say it was because most americans are pretty ignorant about the places outside america. because a) most of them never go there and b)most of them don't learn much about it at school. even american history is taught through a rosy patriotic filter, i believe.

obviously this is a huge generalisation, and there are large numbers of informed people, but it is telling that of all the american civil servants who have gone to iraq to help turn it into a 'democracy' only 3 speak the language.
you're right
but not for the reasons you've listed
i think most americans really don't give a fuck about whats going on in the world, politically, that is. what americans care about is domestic issues, medicare, social security, local crime, etc, etc, mainly stuff that handled by state governments. the republican party came to power with the slogan "no more big government", americans felt that the democrats had handed too much of their lives to bureaucracies, and they were concentrating too much on other countries instead of there own. ironically, people are now saying the same things about bush. until 9/11 most americans would've been happy not knowing what america does overseas. its not ignorance or patirotic history lessons, just the urge to make life at home as good as it can be.
unlike europe, the americans were in a position, geographically, and politically, that allowed those kinds of attitudes to flourish.

[bitch one]

in other words 'america is so big we don't need to know about anywhere else'

that sounds like ignorance to me - ignorance means not knowing something, doesn't it?

plenty of people in the uk are ignorant of other places too, mind you.

[drop]

i see what you're saying
but i don't think that its an attitude thats brought about by arrogance. most americans really believe they elect officials to office that are going to represent their interest. so its assumed that members of congress, the president and his staff are going to handle foreign affairs in such a way that the average american isn't going to have to worry about it. to me thats where the true ignorance is, the republican party under bush has really taken advantage of this kind of attitude toward world politics and push their own self-interest ahead. remember before bush was elected the US did have a president that really did have american interest at heart.
during presidencial champaigns foreign policy never really hold any interest to the voters. what we want to here is how the US is going to be a better place to live because.... i supposes that going to change, but i think the US is going to become more conservative in its approach towards the world asa result of whats happened in the last year and a half.

[Hagbard]

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4021&n=3

[drop]

where do these rumors of arrogance come from
were like two little kids in a playground
up in each others face
screaming
no your arrogant
no your arrogant

pretty funny when it on an international scale.

[Hagbard]

"Women of the world, take over.
Because if you don't, the world
will come, to an end,
and It won't take long"

- Ivor Cutler

[anarchosyn]

Weinsteins Buy Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 Source: Reuters Friday, May 28, 2004



Miramax film studio founders Harvey and Bob Weinstein have personally acquired rights to Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 from Disney, after Disney, which owns Miramax, declined to distribute it, reports Reuters.

Miramax had funded the film but Disney said it was too politically charged for the family-friendly company. After more than a week of talks, the Weinsteins have bought rights to the film, estimated to have cost about $6 million, and will arrange for its theatrical and home video distribution.

The film won the Palme d'Or, the highest award of the Cannes film festival this month, but plans for a U.S. theatrical release had been held up while Disney and the Weinstein's negotiated.

[anarchosyn]

Originally posted by Steev


And thats the attitude I've got from most if not all Americans I've ever met in the Flesh.. and in fact that was reinforced by something I read in a Michael moore book where he says most Americans are very liberal people, something I've found in real life too.

So how come Fox and Limbaugh etc have such a hold? Whats the dynamic there?

Because most american's don't travel to foreign countries and put themselves in the kind of places you'd be hanging out in.

[Yer_Maw]

http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,1222497,00.html

interview with moore which doesnt paint him in a very good light - from the observer no less.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by Yer_Maw
http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,1222497,00.html

interview with moore which doesnt paint him in a very good light - from the observer no less.

The Guardian and Observer have some really shoddy Journalism, theres some good points in this article, but stuff like this:

"After the conference, Moore went to the official screening of his film, which is in competition for the main jury prize. The end of the film brought a standing ovation that, observers estimated, lasted somewhere between 12 and 15 minutes, a Cannes record, and possibly unmatched since Stalin's audiences used to continue clapping for mortal fear of being the first person to stop."

Is pathetic, totally destroys any merit the piece has.

[anarchosyn]

or, even worse:



'You cool with them being here?' he asked me conspiratorially, though quite brazenly, in front of the Australian and Japanese journalists.

When I told him that it wasn't what was advertised on the brochure, he said: 'Yeah, I don't know what to do here. They've got me so jammed. No offence to you, the Japanese,' he gestured to the Japanese woman, 'but you both deserve your own time,' now gesturing to the Australian woman and myself. Either he doesn't sell too well in Japan or there was a hint of racism in that distinction, but Moore was too caught up in his own drama to notice. 'This is bullshit, you know. Don't they understand the difference between the Observer and a Portuguese magazine, no offence to the Portuguese, but don't they know? I'm just asking, man.'



Speculative bullshit. You know, it really reads like that journalist had his own ax to grind..

[invisibleplanet]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/opinion/01UNGE.html?th

new york times op-ed TODAY 1. June 2004 about the secret evacuation of Saudis by plane that began just after Sept. 11.

[Sheridan]

IP: do you mind copying and pasting the article? I don't want to sign up as a member to nytimes.com. thanks.

[drop]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by anarchosyn
or, even worse:



Speculative bullshit. You know, it really reads like that journalist had his own ax to grind.. [/QUOTE
true or false, mr. moore has created a publicity monster that makes articles like this belivable. whether or not the journalist has an ax to grind why who someone as controlling as mr. moore make this kind of statement in front of the entertainment media, who specialize in twisting facts for entertainment.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by Sheridan
IP: do you mind copying and pasting the article? I don't want to sign up as a member to nytimes.com. thanks.

Sheridan, I use http://www.dodgeit.com to sign up to these sort of things, and then you don't have to give them a single piece of real information about yourself. (Ok maybe your current IP address, but the important thing is they don't get your email).

[invisibleplanet]

http://www.moorewatch.com/
!!!

[invisibleplanet]

Ray Bradbury: "Michael Moore is an asshole"

Michael Moore stole the title to his fictuous documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" from author Ray Bradbury (picture), who in 1953 wrote his dystopic scifi classic "Fahrenheit 451." So what does Ray Bradbury, now 84 years old, think about Moore using his book title for his Bush-bashing movie project?

The answer is, as journalists in the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter found out when they called the author, that he is mighty pissed off. Here's my translation of the juicier bits of the interview.

"Michael Moore is a screwed asshole, that is what I think about that case. He stole my title and changed the numbers without ever asking me for permission.

Have you spoken to him?

- He is a horrible human being. Horrible human!

That Ray Bradbury thought Moore could take his Palme d'Or from Cannes and stuff it was extremely clear, even if he never expressed himself with those words, when DN reached the author in his home in Los Angeles. [...]

Do you disagree with his opinions...

-That has nothing to do with it. He copied my title, that is what happened. That has nothing to do with my political opinions.

Bradbury said that he had tried to discuss the issue with Moore, but that the director avoided him.

- I called his publisher. They promised he would call me the same afternoon, but he didn't.

When was that?

- A few months ago, when his plans about the movie was first made known.

The conversation touched politics when Bradbury mentioned that Moore had ruined general Wesley Clark's chances to become the democrat's presidential candidate. Like several American commentators Bradbury means that Moore's support to Clark was a kiss of death when Clark did not distance himself from Moore's claim that Bush deserted from his military service.

- He slandered the president to general Clark, and Clark allowed him to do it. Clark should have said: "Don't say that. It is not true." That day Clark lost his chance to become president.

I understand. And you supported general Clark?

- No. I support honesty.

According to Bradbury others have asked him about Moore's use of his title, but "I don't want to make a big story out of it."

- I detest all paparazzi journalism that is so common these days. If I just could make him change his title silently, that would be the best thing.

Do you think that is possible, I mean the movie is very famous under that title now?

- Who cares? Nobody will see his movie, it is almost dead already. Nevermind, nobody cares.

But it won the Palme d'Or in Cannes?

- So what? I have won prizes in different places and they are mostly meaningless. The people there hate us, which is why they gave him the d'Or. It's a meaningless prize.

Ray Bradbury was very clear that he considered Moore a dishonest thief, but refused to answer if he would press charges in any way.


from: http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1058&a=272062&previousRenderType=2

Bradbury has a valid point....Moore does sound like a self-interested monster...


05/03/02
Ray Bradbury thinks the title of Michael Moore's upcoming documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 will confuse people and he wants him to change it. "He can't have my title," said Bradbury. "We've got an important film coming out, the book's having its 50th anniversary in October. If he wants his movie to be an homage to me, why not title it, 'Bradbury, where the hell are you now that we need you?'" (Variety)

[Yer_Maw]

i think every man and their dog is trying to see the new trailer on the site. ive been trying to watch it all day. man im so excited! woo!

[djerome]

a coincidence that the new harry potter movie uses a ray bradbury book title as its subtitle: "Something wicked this way comes. " i wonder if they got permission? well they probably did.