Who saw Michael Moore's speech just now on the Oscars?

He won for Bowling for Columbine, and invited the rest of the nominees up with him, which I thought was good. But then he used his 45 seconds as a platform for his own political views on the war, which was kind of inappropriate for the moment. And since the rest of the nominees were up with him, I wonder how they feel being represented by Moore without their consent. I love Michael Moore but I think that was over the top.

What do you guys think?

Michael Moore is incredibly good at what he does, that is, put his spin on a story by only telling the part that will benefit his perspective. Don't really think any of his work is Oscar level, but clearly others disagree!

Same thing he did at the Spirit Awards (he won for Columbine). Which between him and ever other person that got their hands on the mic ruined it.

I don't have the answer, but I do know that a dozen of our finest young people were taken prisoner today, and it appears that at least two of them were executed in front of their compatriots, and meanwhile we sit in front of the tube and watch an endless parade of celebreties pretending that everything is normal, and that attending the Academy Award show is somehow patriotic.

BTW, most of the other documentary nominees who joined Michael Moore were wearing the green "Peace" buttons, so I have a hunch this may have been a group decision. How did Moore get the others to join him so quickly if something had not been discussed beforehand?

I found Michael Moore's remarks invigorating in an otherwise numbing evening given the current situation. But I confess to watching the whole rambling affair, and I also confess to my bias against the war.

Just my 2¢

They give him the time to do with what he wants. If he wants to spout war propoganda (for or against), or juggle chickens in his underwear, that's up to him.
Inviting up the other nominees on it's own is a nice gesture.

hehe. I didnt see what he did but thats a nice little twist on the events. Other than that the show was a waste of time. What a let down. Im just happy that Road to Perdition got best Cinematography.

I am just tired of the crap on television.


Rob:D

I found his delivery, not his subject matter, offensive. But being from Colorado and having a niece at Columbine on the day of the shooting made me dislike Michael long before tonight. I think he could have chosen a better title for his work.

I'm also a twice-wounded combat veteran (Vietnam). I participated in the Grenada invasion and was military advisor in El Salvadore, where I was bitten by a water moccasin. I have two sons currently serving in the Iraq war... one an army scout and one aboard U.S.S. Kitty Hawk. I like to think we, and other veterans, serve(d) to give people the freedom to say what they think. So I get a little peeved at those who are critical of those who are critical.

BUT...

You'll notice I said "give people the FREEDOM to say what they think." I didn't say give them the RIGHT to say it. My feeling is people should have to earn the right to dissent, along with every other right we take for granted. I think EVERYONE over the age of 18 should have to do two years of national service -- military, Peace Corps, working in a hospital, a nursing home, in an environmental program, a library, a shelter for the homeless -- something, to earn their rights as a citizen.

And, Mr. Moore -- like countless others -- could have been more dignified in his criticism. Rude behavior does not endear me to peoples' point-of-view. Neither does violent civil disobedience.

Now to justify this harumphing post I'll ask this: How are the embedded journalists keeping that micro-fine dust out of their XL-1s and their PD-150s?

Nice conversation so far, but please keep in mind that political discussions are verboten on this board... the question should probably not have been asked in the first place.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing... it allows me to impose all sorts of unreasonable and senseless policies upon you, including the limitation of certain subject matter such as politics.

All is well here so far, but I would hate to pull the plug on this thread, so please show some restraint. Thanks,

I'll try not to be political Chris =)

I did however see a interesting thing here.

Michael Moore used his usual political propaganda style of speech and got booing and shouts. Probably alienating more people than it befriended (Especially since most of that audience is very anti-war).

Adrien Brody (Best male actor in a leading role) delivered basically the same message (peaceful solution, stop the war, bring the soldiers home) but in a much nicer presentation. He got standing ovations from the entire audience.

Just a little observation. Regarding Michael Moore's method of "documentary" this has been dealt with in other threads.

/Henrik

I am as Charles Newcomb a veteran of RVN, also 2x wounded.
I agree this is not the forum to discuss politics but before the show last night Mr. Moore stated that if he won he would say something, that he is not checking his citizenship papers at the door. I agree Mr. Moore, you have the right to say what you want and people have the right to disagree or not, BUT I still don't feel the Oscars or any other "awards" show is the proper venue.

Having said that, I too wonder how they are protecting the microphones on their PD150's.

Adrien Brody (Best male actor in a leading role) delivered basically the same message (peaceful solution, stop the war, bring the soldiers home) but in a much nicer presentation. He got standing ovations from the entire audience.

That speech was almost the equivalent to Roberto Begningi's (sp?) a few years back.. I really love it when they truly aren't expecting it and are absolutely floored by it like he was; I don't think anybody else would have the guts to kiss Halle Berry!

Considering the current events, the only thing I find more insulting than hollywood's self aggrandizing are the people who engage in mindless discussions concerning hollywood's antics.
It's unimportant trivialities.

My quetion is...

When is TV going to give the rest of the American public 2 minutes and an audience of a billion people so they can explain their point of view along with the celebs?

I see a lot of people trying to skirt Chris' stated policy on discussing this issue and still getting their digs in...

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Newcomb :
Now to justify this harumphing post I'll ask this: How are the embedded journalists keeping that micro-fine dust out of their XL-1s and their PD-150s? -->>>

Well Im sure they have a Potabrace with a nice UV filter over the lens. They might also have another bag handy to change the tapes or batteries but then again I have a rain cover and it keeps the deck part clean and clear. So that might be all they need. But then again when the dust kicks up its time to close the shades.


Rob:D

I'm sure they're sent into a warzone with more than one spare camera anyway ;)

I'm just sort of dumbfounded that "Bowling for Columbine" won over "Winged Migration."

>I'm just sort of dumbfounded that "Bowling for Columbine" won over "Winged Migration."<

Me, too. But since the feature film (Get Goosed) I'm finishing the editing on right now is about an old Native American man and his best friend, a Canada Goose, I guess I'm not as objective as most folks would be.

Production stills at: http://www.centralcolorado.com/newcomb

He should have won for best lying in a documentary. he splices and edits to make a story. I should say to make his point. His far left wing point and since this is a video board it should be pointed out that people can use video to stress their views. Right or wrong. A edit here. A edit there. A voice over. The next thing you know, you have a fake documentary.

Sounds like sour grapes Bob.Its more than evident that there are many people who like what Moore does work wise , enough so that he won an award this year. As to his politics they are his, no one could have though you could get one without the other as he has made his living espousing his views.
2)being a vet from the 70's myself I am glad we live in a country where you can say what you feel unlike Iraq and many other places in the world and still wake up in your own bed in the morning and I would not have it any other way.
KennJ

Actually, the voters in the Academy represent a very small group of people that bears very little resemblance to average Americans. I wish I could be sure that small group really believed "Columbine" was the best choice, but I admit suspicion.

Getting back to the speech, Moore can say what he likes and produce what he likes. This is not about the content of his speech but rather about civility. The Academy directly and strongly asked its members not to engage in that sort of thing, just as this forum asks the same. Moore ignored the request and thus behaved badly.

Here the penalty is the swift removal of content, a reprimand, and possibly expulsion. What was Moore's penalty?

There is a time and place for everything.

<<<-- There is a time and place for everything. -->>>

And Mr. Moore felt that the Award ceremony was exactly the place when the most people would be watching and listening to what he had to say. How many of you heard what he had to say about the other documentarians joining him for his protest at the post-awards press conference? Very, very few, I would guess.

He used his two minutes of fame to address something he felt very passionately about, and showed the world some celebrities have other things on their mind than thanking their lawyers and agents, as Moore also pointed out in his press conference.

He spoke for many of us, and gave voice to our opinions that are being ignored by much of the media as they march off to war. There are many organizations in this country that wanted this war, and in my opinion, that includes most members of the media. Who will be the next "Scud Stud?" Vile.

I vehemently disagree with everything Michael Moore and Wayne Orr have to say on the subject. In my mind, there is no difference between Michael Moore (and others of his ilk) and Leni Riefenstahl. Moore lied in his press conference. He claimed that only 4 or 5 people booed him. All anyone has to do is listen to the clip. It was far, far more than 4 or 5 people booing him during his vomiting of propaganda.

And, like Will Fastie, I was totally shocked that "Bowling for Columbine" beat out "Winged Migration."

We all have freedom of speech and a person can make up storys. But we should be worried about the truth also. Since we all are in the video business in one way or another or want to be, we should worry about people who make documentaries that are really propaganda! Bowling For Columbine was filled with lies to make his point and I'm not surprized that a bunch of limousine liberals from hollywood would give him a award for that.

I agree with you, Bob, and that's why this is, I think, a fair issue for this forum. Filmmakers in general, and documentarians in particular, exercise "freedom of speech" through their work. However, with that freedom comes the _responsiblity_ to be honest and truthful. Michael Moore has shown, in both his work and in his words during his press conference, that he is neither. His lack of integrity is so blatant that I cannot take either the man or his films seriously.

I am always surprised when Moore's work wins critical acclaim. However, he's got enough talent to put together enough film, enough artistry to incorporate unique theme, and enough savvy to write and promote a interesting title for his movie.

Notice I never said there was enough truth to really call them documentaries.

What is indeed unfortunate is that we cannot have a reasonable discussion of Mr. Moore's actions without resulting to slurs such as "vomiting of propaganda," "limousine liberals," and "lack of integrity." Certainly you are all entitled to your opinion, and I might find it has more merit were it not couched in inflammatory rhetoric.

As to Mr. Moore's responsibility to tell the truth; would that be as he sees it or you see it? Having a point of view does not make you a liar. Just unpopular. Am I a liar? No, but I'll bet I'm unpopular, judging by the posts.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Notice there is no mention that you must "tell the truth." Certainly our government knew that when we waged war in Vietnam.

Wayne, what has been said here is no different than what was said Sunday night, in a non-political forum, but you there you found the remarks "invigorating."

You're right, having a particular point of view does not make one a liar. But not telling the truth does. Michael Moore lied, hence he is a liar. He has shown his lack of integrity--his fault, not mine.

If I have a right to my opinion, then I also have the right to couch it any way I may see fit, as do you. I say what I think using language that leaves no room for misinterpretation.

When a former employee of Moores' was interested in doing a documentary on Moore himself, Moore threatened to sue the guy.
And his putting a wreath on Charlton Hestons door was pure grandstanding. Maybe Pauline Kael was right? he is nothing more than a put down artist? then again....

I remember his short lived show on Bravo. He is just too precious and impressed with himself. But he does what he does welll, that is, stir discussion about his behavour, not the issues he presents.

BTW, refering to his comments. A post election analasys of all votes cast in FL (ones that counted and ones that got left out) showed Bush winning by about 5000 votes. Per Miami Herald and at least one other paper whos, name I forget.

If Michael Moore stood on my front lawn and opened his mouth, I'd have him arrested. Not for what he had to say, but because he was trespassing, perfectly within my rights.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is a private organization, not a public one. It has the right to set its rules for its activities, even those broadcast to the public, as it sees fit. It did. Moore ignored them. Uncivil and crass, at best.

I think I saw Moore one morning on The Today Show. I listened then. I thought he was spouting drivel, but there was nothing objectionable in the appearance. The right time and place...

Speaking of documentary filmmaking, most people would agree that when they sit down to watch a "documentary" they expect the documentarian, and rightfully so, to exercise a certain level of integrity as it pertains to the accepted definition of the term documenting: "the act or an instance of furnishing or authenticating with documents 2 a : the provision of documents in substantiation; also : documentary evidence b (1) : the use of historical documents (2) : conformity to historical or objective facts (3) : the provision of footnotes, appendices, or addenda referring to or containing documentary evidence."

Moore's films do not adhere to this standard. He, being smarter than the rest of us, or so he thinks, throws all that aside. He takes material and twists it in order to create a piece that does nothing more than underpin his own little twisted point of view. As a result, his films are more fiction than fact.

If you care to take the time and read an article entitled "Sliming America," written by James Norell, about Moore's style and approach to documentary filmmaking in "Bowling for Columbine," go to:

http://www.nrahq.org/publications/tag/feature6.asp

Then you'll know how NOT to make a documentary.

Damn Jay, what's in the article cause our corporate firewall and filtering system won't let me access it ;)

Aaron

Aaron, I sent it to you via e-mail as an .rtf document.

Alex, my opinion is that Moore should have kept his political views to himself, at the Oscars.

I have views about the war, but I try to keep them in check. And my views don't count anyway, because I do not have all the facts about the war---and I'm sure Moore doesn't either.

Personally, I'm against killing. But I have to ask myself, perhaps one must kill to stop further killing. I'm just not qualified to take sides, but Moore, being an American, should have used better judgement with his speech. That's my opinion.

Interesting. Most Documentaries I know of they have to take clips to show a story expecially when they are dealing with nature. Most are edited and not taken from just one camera to where they cant edit the shot to keep the subject true.
this is what Moore said from comingsoon.net:

"And I'm a filmmaker. I'm first and foremost making a movie. I'm not making a political statement or giving a sermon here. Clearly, this film is heavy with politics and strong with my point-of-view, but if I just wanted to make a political statement, I'd run for office. If I wanted to give a sermon, I'd be a preacher. I'm a filmmaker and I'm first and foremost trying to make a great film that you're going to love seeing. That you can sit there in the dark with a group of people and eat popcorn and have a great time. That is my first mission."

reference link: http://www.comingsoon.net/cgi-bin/archive/fullnews.cgi?newsid1035985115,79621,

So it is his POV. It is his film. He just wants some money. Don't we all. lol.
And so what if you agree or disagree with him, he said what he wanted and got you to respond. That makes him very good at what he does.

Rob:D

If Moore's documentaries are propaganda, then the NRA article linked above is counterpropaganda. Among the deceptive practices it charges Moore with are the use of stock footage, film editing, and recreation of unavailable images, for example, one of a dog wearing a hunting vest.

I haven't yet come across credible criticisms of the facts presented in Moore's documentary. To my knowledge Moore has never been convicted of libel in civil court.

I can't say I disagree with the crux of Moore's thesis, which is our news media at present leans toward ratings-accruing fearmongering instead of reporting straight facts. Not a night goes by that my local news stations don't report on the danger lurking in my own kitchen/backyard/neighborhood that could kill me!

Fortunately in America our system supports perspectives of all political leanings. America is healthier for having both Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh.

Somebody said: "The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is a private organization, not a public one. It has the right to set its rules for its activities, even those broadcast to the public, as it sees fit. It did. Moore ignored them."

Before the show, Gil Cates, producer of the Academy Awards program, told media that winners had not been instructed to refrain from voicing war objections, and Academy President Frank Pierson said, "What happens with the people who win, that 45 seconds is theirs--they earned it and what they do with it is up to their individual conscience. I would not instruct them as to what they do with it."

Moore said, "I'm not making a political statement or giving a sermon here."

Mo[o]re lying. I rest my case.

Moore wouldn't know a "fact" if it came up and bit him on the butt.

Moore represents one extreme in a media spectrum that has extremes. Neo-cons can rail against Moore but there are also Foxnews' Bill O'Reilly (notoriously he called the son of a victim of the WTC attack a traitor because he wouldn't support the war against Iraq) and Rush Limbaugh. Moore believes he can use polemical tactics because he operates in an environment that has become skewed toward the right where traditional media shuts out his point of view.

One might say that he is just providing one side of the balance because the rest of the media environment adequately provides the other side. I see a lot of this criticism arising because Moore struck a nerve with the popularity of his film.

At the same time you can criticize the fear mongering of organizations with much more play like Foxnews and their own popularity. Both groups are addressing audiences who believe they have something to fear. I've seen it stated in other groups that they are happy to have a mouth like Moore, even with his tactics, because he is using the same rhetorical style and succeeding in getting the message out. If the public embraces the arm waving, badgering style of O'Reilly, then perhaps he has shown the way to what the public wants. Would a more traditional documentary have received such attention and brought the issue to such platform?

If anyone thinks lying helps create balance, then that individual is certainly entitled to that opinion, but I don't think Moore's lies provide anything of any value whatsoever to society in his films. How can misrepresenting facts be helpful? What purpose is served in lying? As I said above, that negates the whole idea behind documentaries.

By the way, Robert. The NRA has never done or said or promoted anything that was an attempt to take away anyone's rights. And your description of the article is overly simplistic. Its criticism is credible, you just choose to ignore it, and you're allowed to do that, thank heaven.

Is the implication here that Bowling for Columbine is a bid at shifting public opinion toward abrogation of the 2nd Amendment? I'm not sure that's Moore's intent.

Then what was it?

Moore states in his film that he himself owned guns and shot guns and is a member of the NRA, so he definitely is not against the right to bear arms. What the film develops is his idea that the American culture has been built on a tradition of violence (in its history) and that rampant gun ownership is predicated upon an environment of fear spread by the media.

Moore lied about being a member of the NRA. It was simply an end to his means. Read the article, Keith.

"... the American culture has been built on a tradition of violence (in its history) and that rampant gun ownership is predicated upon an environment of fear spread by the media." Again, if that is your take on it, you are welcomed to it. However, you, nor Moore, can't "blame" the media for people owning firearms.

Moore is to the Left what a member of the Klan is to the Right. Both are very dangerous.

That article says that he bought a membership before interviewing Heston.

Elsewhere in the movie Moore states that Canada has a similiar proportion of gun ownership to the U.S. without the same gun violence statistics. Which leads Moore to postulate that there are other reasons for gun violence above simple gun ownership.

In fact that NRA article states:
"But it is actually an attack on American culture, on American society, on us, the American people. And it is an attack on the media itself." So the article has gotten it right at least.

So it would not be correct to say that Moore is against gun ownership after he reaches that conclusion. At least as far as the film narrative goes.

I didn't catch the Oscars. But after hearing his speech on the radio, other than him bringing up the other nominees, was the exact speech he gave at the Spirit Awards. One trick pony? In the end I wasn't against what he was saying as when/where he was saying it. I also believe that in a year's time no one will remember him or his speech. Unless he decides to make another mockumentary about the current government officials.

//"... the American culture has been built on a tradition of violence (in its history) and that rampant gun ownership is predicated upon an environment of fear spread by the media." Again, if that is your take on it, you are welcomed to it. However, you, nor Moore, can't "blame" the media for people owning firearms.//

I'm discussing the Moore film, not explaining my own views on this issue. If you would prefer to discuss my own views on this and not lump me in with Moore in a dismissive way then there are other forums we can take this to.

Feel free to vent, though, if it makes you lower your blood pressure.

EDIT: grammar error fixed

Keith, if you don't think the theme of the "mockumentary," to use Matt's apt description, isn't an attack on the Second Amendment, then you missed the whole point of the film.

Read Sarah Brady's quote in the article.

"I'm discussing the Moore film, not explaining my own views on this issue. If you would prefer to discuss my own views on this and not lump me in with Moore in a dismissive way then there are other forums we can take this to."

I was only responding to what you had written, no more no less. And if you will go back read what I said, I used the word "if" as in 'if this was your thought...'

Brady is endorsing the film; she didn't make it. So what? Saddam Hussein reportedly likes The Godfather too.

Even in Brady's quote it doesn't indicate that she is against gun ownership, only gun violence. As I recall, one of the planks of the NRA is that guns don't cause violence, people cause violence. I don't seen any divergence between that statement, Moore's film or the Brady endorsement.

Then you don't know or don't understand who Sarah Brady is and what she is trying to accomplish.

Be that as it may, Michael Moore is a liar. His films are not valid documentaries. Just my opinion.

I've said more than enough on the subject.

###

//I was only responding to what you had written, no more no less. And if you will go back read what I said, I used the word "if" as in 'if this was your thought...'//

Yes, but if you go back and read my post which you liberally quoted so that it sounded like I had said it as my own opinion you would see that I was restating Moore's argument. Based upon the film. It sure looks like "less" not more.