Of movies and Moore

John of Iberian Notes writes this in a recent post:

In today’s La Vangua, Xavier Batalla has read an article by Sidney Blumenthal, of all people, in the Guardian, so he has an analysis of the two schools of American foreign policy according to Sid. Now, Sid, as everybody knows, is by no means a neutral source; in fact, he’s about the most extreme Clinton / Democratic Party partisan out there. Mr. Batalla does not mention this either in his article or his dandy little fact-sheet on the two opposing schools, which Sid apparently provided. According to Sid and Mr. Batalla, school Number One is the “Globalists”, exemplified by a photo of a smiling Bill Clinton waving to somebody, and the other is the “Hegemonists”, exemplified by a photo of a scowling Paul Wolfowitz. Above these two photos, by the way, is a still from the movie “Seven Days in May”, an early-60s thriller in which the Army tries to pull a coup d’etat, whatever that has to do with anything. (Europeans keep referring to movies when trying to explain America. This is not precisely an accurate basis for analysis.)

I think it’s pretty easy to explain why Europeans refer to movies when trying to explain America. I’d be willing to bet that a typical European spends 1,000 times more of their time watching American movies and TV than reading American history, newspapers, or analysis. So do we. But we live here and, consequently, hear other voices as well.

But an American picture with mass distribution can have a substantial influence on forming Europeans’ views of America.

And that’s why I’m so angry at Michael Moore’s cinematic hit piece Fahrenheit 9/11 being awarded the Palme D’Or at Cannes for best picture. I don’t know whether to cry, spit, or break something. When I emailed the news to Roger Simon, noted screenwriter and blogger he wrote back:

“I’m speechless. I don’t know what to say. I was out pretty much all day and didn’t know.”

The jury’s president, director Quentin Tarantino, told Roger Ebert: “This prize was not for politics. It won because it was the best film.”

Perhaps. Papers such as Variety and The Los Angeles Times, not generally known as right-wing tracts, have described Moore’s anti-Bush documentary as a political diatribe. So it’s difficult to see how the jury’s action cannot have been at least in part politically motivated.

And European public opinion will be formed by this film.

What’s worse is that the award ensures that Fahrenheit 9/11 will gain a wider distribution in the U. S. that it otherwise would have enjoyed. It will probably be released in theaters here in June and released on video in October—carefully timed to maximize the political impact.

I haven’t seen the film and I don’t plan to. But I’ve read commentary from those who have. It’s difficult for me to see how this picture will create more unity in the U. S. when we so desparately need it. We’re at war and facing an implacable enemy, folks. We need all the unity we can get.

It’s difficult for me to see how this film and this action by the jury at Cannes will bring greater unity between the U. S. and its erstwhile European allies.

It’s a wicked, wicked thing.