Michael Moore's Oscar Speech

Jay Gladwell · March 25th, 2003, 03:44 PM

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with documents 2 a : the provision of documents in substantiation; also : documentary evidence b (1) : the use of historical documents (2) : conformity to historical or objective facts (3) : the provision of footnotes, appendices, or addenda referring to or containing documentary evidence."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.

Aaron Koolen · March 25th, 2003, 04:05 PM

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

Aaron

Jay Gladwell · March 25th, 2003, 04:34 PM

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

Frank Granovski · March 25th, 2003, 04:52 PM

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.

Robert Poulton · March 25th, 2003, 04:58 PM

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

Robert Knecht Schmidt · March 25th, 2003, 05:01 PM

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."

Jay Gladwell · March 25th, 2003, 05:02 PM

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.

Keith Loh · March 25th, 2003, 05:14 PM

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?

Jay Gladwell · March 25th, 2003, 05:37 PM

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.

Robert Knecht Schmidt · March 25th, 2003, 06:13 PM

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.

Jay Gladwell · March 25th, 2003, 06:23 PM

Then what was it?

Keith Loh · March 25th, 2003, 06:33 PM

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.

Jay Gladwell · March 25th, 2003, 06:39 PM

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.

Keith Loh · March 25th, 2003, 06:49 PM

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.

Matt Betea · March 25th, 2003, 06:50 PM

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.

March 25th, 2003, 05:01 PM	#36
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	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." __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

March 25th, 2003, 05:14 PM	#38
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	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? __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

March 25th, 2003, 06:13 PM	#40
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	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. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

March 25th, 2003, 06:33 PM	#42
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	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. __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

March 25th, 2003, 06:49 PM	#44
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	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. __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

March 25th, 2003, 03:44 PM	#31
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	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.

March 25th, 2003, 04:05 PM	#32
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Damn Jay, what's in the article cause our corporate firewall and filtering system won't let me access it ;) Aaron

March 25th, 2003, 04:34 PM	#33
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Aaron, I sent it to you via e-mail as an .rtf document.

March 25th, 2003, 04:52 PM	#34
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	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.

March 25th, 2003, 04:58 PM	#35
Robert Poulton Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 245	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

March 25th, 2003, 05:02 PM	#37
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	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.

March 25th, 2003, 05:37 PM	#39
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	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.

March 25th, 2003, 06:23 PM	#41
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Then what was it?

March 25th, 2003, 06:39 PM	#43
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	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.

March 25th, 2003, 06:50 PM	#45
Matt Betea Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: detroit, mi Posts: 187	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.