Lucidity

I think I'll put my disgust at Tarantino's Cannes-tastrophy to rest by mentioning a little window of lucidity about Moore-on. In the French press. Hard to believe?

Let me translate a little of it for you. After describing Moore as 'honorable' due to his desire to honor his parents and their political ideology, Alexandre Adler asks...

Is he lucid? A lot could be said about his latest series of films. The first...forgets to tell us that...his home state of Michigan has recovered...and has created dozens of thousands of jobs...notably related to new technologies, jobs that would never have existed if not for freer exchange on the international market.

...The same observation can be made about his second film about firearms proliferation...Again, Moore plays prosecutor and shows us a Canadian utopia...without mentioning that in New England, possession and use of firearms are as moderate as in Canada... Neither does he mention that...Michigan abolished the death penalty in 1856...and never reestablished it...even when Detroit became the most violent city in the USA. Nor does he show abusive arms use by...Nation of Islam...

More serious, in Bowling for Columbine, no mention is made of the bad influence of the media and, in particular,...the Internet, which had decisive influences...on the three guilty teenagers. (Moore) prefers to point a finger at firearms sales and nothing else...and...having crossed the line of decency and respect of others, closes the film with an interview with Charles Eston (sic), whose Alzheimer's was obvious.

He goes on to say that this same cruelty, all for Moore's 'cause', of course, is also seen in the film that won Cannes. But he wonders...

Is he a serious film-maker? Moore is no more a serious film-maker than I am driving the car when I'm in a taxi.

And later...after mentioning that what Moore does for his 'just' cause is, indeed propaganda, Adler is disappointed that by giving his film the Palmes d'Or, the jury was actually going AGAINST the ideas that were at the origin of the creation of the festival - to protest pervasive Mussolinian propaganda in films, he says...

...Moore works, remember, within the most advanced and successful cinematic culture and industry on earth so where is the talent, the artistic endeavor? And dare I say...where is the audacity in a European jury wildly applauding an example of propaganda that feeds the public's anti-American hunger, a public that thinks it already knows everything about Bush, his entourage and his people?

Further on, he brings up 'our anti-Americanism'...

Maybe it's a good idea, amidst the applause, to remind our fellow citizens that anti-Americanism is not what it's cut out to be. First, base resentment leads us to enclose ourselves in 'only them, never us' certitudes that don't make us any smarter. Anti-Americanism doesn't make us more esthete, either. By promoting the success of a film with no grace nor complexity, no artistic endeavor nor remorse, the Cannes jury left all lucidty behind. From now on, must we believe that good intentions will be the equivalent of excellence - if so, why not honor Amelie Poulain?

To finish, after saying that he understands Moore's devotion to his parents' experience and the justice Moore wants for them, he suggests there is a more profound justice to consider...

We are a week away from the 60th aniversary of D-Day when thousands of young inexperienced American soldiers came to...save the freedoms of a vacillating Europe. I don't think that it's very honorable to begin the commemoration by spitting in the face of the legitimate leaders who represent America, leaders chosen through universal sufferage since 1788.

Posted by Valerie at May 26, 2004 07:52 PM