Re: The 2004 Film of the Year
Mike Ventrella wrote:
box_2005 wrote:
Fahrenheit 9/11, for more or less the same reason as The Passion. Though, keep in mind: It made less than 1/3rd of the money, and it failed- Bush won.
How do you know that Bush wouldn't have even won by more without this film?
From what I saw, Bush won by the lowest margin of any incumbent President -- not a ringing endorsement of the American public by any means.
Strange how we judge films based on whether they achieved a certain political effect or not, hm? We used to deal with whether they were good films or not.
By that standard, "Shawshank Redemption" must really suck because we still have bad prisons.
I find that alot of people who are pushing the Passion and dissing F 9/11 (or vice versa) are doing so for political/religious and not film reasons. They like the films because they agree with them, and not for whether they were well made or not, and then they convince themselves that it is well made to justify their feelings.
Mind you, I haven't seen either one, since I really don't like being preached to, even when I agree. Plus, I agree with what Eric Idle said when asked if he was going to go see "Passion": "Nah, I hate snuff movies."
I don't think I was dissing F 9/11. I thought the intention behind it was to bring some things that Michael Moore thought were important, in hopes that Americans would make the decision not to elect him again. If so, then obviously it's aim was to have the president out of the office in November.
If you consider, Moore took a number of steps to make sure that his film was watched by as many people as possible prior to the election. He even opted not to go after the best documentary Oscar and air the film on television the night before election day. Obviously, Moore was hoping to influence the outcome of the election, and that being the case, one ought to take into consideration the outcome as part of deciding whether the film had any influence or not.
But as you said, there is absolutely no way to tell if it had anything to do with the election results at all, and the same thing goes for Passion and conservatives. I just showed the Top 10 All-Time NYC films; are there enough conservatives alone to push the film to the 7th spot in the city? Obviously it's appeal was broad.
But I think as a representative of a conservative aspect of American culture, its success is a somewhat acceptable, if flawed, indicator of the country's sentiments.
From a political viewpoint, I am much more in tune with Moore's politics, and I'm hardly more appreciative of Bush than he is, but that has nothing to do with the film itself. F 9/11, like Passion, didn't tell me anything new, which was fine with me, because both turned out to be good films. F 9/11 is an entertaining film, the Passion is powerful. More importantly, both are expressions of deeply held personal views. You gotta give props to both guys for having the guts to make these films. They went through a lot to get both made and distributed, and the success is deserved.
Anyways, just my opinion, of course
.
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos
MadGez wrote:
Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation.
My Box-Office Blog:
http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
