Anderseon states, in the linked article above, "Giving Tarantino and Co. the benefit of the doubt, Moore's win was a political rather than cinematic decision on a night that began on a political note: Jonas Geirnaert, who won second place among short films for his "Flatlife," pleaded with anyone watching in America not to vote for George W. Bush; actor Tim Roth, head of the Camera d'Or jury, which judges first films, seconded the motion, calling Geirnaert's words "extraordinarily brave."".

This is hardly accurate in light of the fact that Tarantino himself asserted that the film was awarded the Palme d'Or on merit rather than for political reasons. So how does contradicting him adversely and overtly constitute giving him the benefit of the doubt? Moore's win may just have been a cinematic, rather than apolitical victory.

But giving Anderson the benefit of the doubt in a more substantive way than he gives it to Tarantino, suppose Moore and the others WERE politically motivated? Given the dark and shaky horizons on our current political theaters, more power to them for throwing their weight in a more positive and pro-humanity political direction!! A LOT of actors and directors should be so politically active.