Upon awarding Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit
9/11″ the Palme d’Or prize last Sunday at the annual
Cannes Film Festival, film jury member Tilda Swinton said of the
film, “It is sophisticated cinema. It wouldn’t have
served its political end if it wasn’t a good piece of
filmmaking. (Moore) has matured as a filmmaker since “˜Bowling
for Columbine.'”
Jury President Quentin Tarantino added that “judging a
film by its politics is a bad thing. If (“˜Fahrenheit
9/11′) wasn’t some of the best filmmaking (I’ve
seen), then I would not have chosen it.”
The film, which criticizes President Bush by connecting him to
various Saudi families, including that of Osama bin Laden,
certainly has political themes. For the first time, the festival
has allowed the jury to explain publicly its Palme d’Or
decision, largely resulting from the political nature of
Moore’s work. But the explanations focus so much on the
film’s artistry that the politics get lost.
Or is that the point? Emphasizing the film’s craft over
its content attempts to excuse the jury (and the festival as a
whole) of making any overt political statement in awarding
Moore’s film the prestigious top prize. But the act of
honoring Moore makes a political statement, regardless how the jury
justifies it; it suggests that Moore’s film should be seen.
Even if the reason behind this suggestion is the film’s
technical quality, it cannot be watched without experiencing
Moore’s thematic point of view.
And outside the world of politically correct semantics, is there
really a difference between praising Moore’s filmmaking and
his politics? It’s hard to imagine that the shot selection,
editing or cinematography in “Fahrenheit 9/11″ is
superior to that in “Bowling for Columbine.” What makes
Moore’s films compelling is the strength of his arguments.
Whether intentional or not, by calling Moore a more mature
filmmaker the jury refers to the quality and maturity of his
argument.
But the Cannes jury alone cannot be blamed for trying to be
politically correct with an inherently political topic; Tarantino
and company are far from the first to respond to Moore’s new
film.
In a story published on May 5, The New York Times reported that
the Walt Disney Company, which owns Miramax (which owns
“Fahrenheit 9/11″), was attempting to block the release
of the film and force Miramax to sell U.S. distribution rights to
another company. An unnamed Disney executive justified the
decision, which would surely cost the company boatloads of money,
by claiming that “it’s not in the interest of any major
corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political
battle.”
In the article, Moore’s agent, Ari Emanuel, also suggests
that Disney may not want to release the film because it could
jeopardize tax breaks the company receives on its hotels and
resorts in Florida, a state governed by the president’s
brother. Disney denies the accusations.
Regardless, the most important aspect of the story is that it
made the front page of The New York Times, ensuring that millions
of people will read it and talk about it, spreading publicity for
the film beyond anything Miramax could dream up. In the same way
that talk of anti-Semitism regarding Mel Gibson’s “The
Passion of the Christ” helped propel the film to make almost
$370 million (and counting) domestically, the general reluctance to
honestly discuss the politics within “Fahrenheit 9/11″
can only fuel people’s desires to see the film.
Sure, it’s a bit ironic that the most effective way to
publicize a politically charged film is to criticize it, but Disney
and the Cannes jury have sparked a national discussion about the
film, in which everyone seems to generalize the film’s
message and exclude specifics. Even White House communications
director Dan Bartlett mentioned the film, but only briefly:
“It’s so outrageously false, it’s not even worth
comment.”
But what, exactly, is so outrageously false? To figure that out
and to understand what everyone’s talking about, you’re
forced to see the film — which is exactly what Moore wants.
E-mail Tracer at jtracer@media.ucla.edu.