Why are movies the new hotbed of political discourse?

Michael Moore is the talk of Cannes. Harry Thomason's "Hunting The President" screens to a sold out house at Tribeca. "Bushes Brain" makes it's way to the Crossett as well.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. George Butler is working on a documentary about John Kerry's Vietnam war record. And "Inside The Bubble" has a heavyweight list of producers and Exec Producers inside team Kerry.

But what's really going on her? Why are films the new medium of choice for engaged, political, independent storytellers?

Are these films objective or activist propaganda? And does the movie going public want to engage these kinds of issues during the few hours on Friday and Saturday night reserved often for 'entertainment' experiences in the multiplex?

These films are the natural outgrowth of the diminished impact of television... As cable has added choices, television has become less of medium that can move the public and more of a headline service. In order to aggregate a mass public impact - independent storytellers find their moving to books and movies as a way to create a voice that is able to create discourse across multiple media outlets.

Case in point - the Richard Clarke book. After it's publication, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and a raft of print, radio, and internet publications covered both the book and the story. It's what Bill Clinton once called the media "echo chamber." An echo chamber that works both ways. When it's echoing a story that you want to reverberate... Then an independent publication is the only way to creating enough exposure to generate dialog.

Strangely enough - being independent is more powerful than being affiliated with, say, "60 Minutes."

And that's a good thing.

Then there's the whole idea of filmmakers wanting to have an impact. Even as the media reports of Michael Moore's anti-bush agenda, it seems a bit surprised that he is allowed to have a point of view. Why is that so surprising? Artists aren't creators because they want to make a picture to put over your couch. Dancers, Poets, Authors, Singers, Sculpters all want to move you. Touch you. Have impact. Open your eyes. Engage your spirit. Challage your notions about life, politics, the planet, your neighbors.

Artist work in poverty, obscurity, suffering at the fringes of society... And not for nothing. They struggle to expose injustice and touch a nerve.

Shame on Mr. Moore for being - well - successful. Did he play Disney? Yup. Did he play GM? Sure. What about his buying that gun in Bolwing for Columbine? Or taking on Charlton Heston. No Fair. He cheated. He made us feel something. What right does he have to use his art to engage my brain.

Now he's taking on George W. Bush. Why? Because he wants to. And in a free
society he's got the right... Even the obligation... To act on his conciouncous or have his artists card revoked. Truly. He's doing his job. He's messing things up. He's a fire starter. A trouble maker. A rabble rouser.

Didn't we use to think of journalists like that? Rabble rouser? Who's rousing the rabble now? Certainly not the news establishment. They're selling soap, filling the 'news hole', keeping their jobs. Searching for 'balance'.

Michael Moore is throwing gasoline on the fire - leaving journalists to put it out... Or report on the facts in his film like they've never heard them before.