I will boycott anything that pig Michael Moore does

I didn't waste my time reading the thread, but as far as the boos, you did basically have about 5-10 people booing very loudly; probably they knew well in advance what Michael Moore would do once he took the stage. People who might agree with him might otherwise think the Oscars is not a political forum and felt uncomfortable with such a bold public swipe at the President while we have troops in the field.

Me, I just hope that, since we're there, we lose as few of our troops as possible.

As far as his actual comments, what he said is true. We have an unelected President (thanks a lot, Antonin Scalia) surrounded by military hawks who automatically connected Al Qaeda with Iraq. Every time Bush mentions Al Qaeda, the next sentence out of his mouth includes Iraq. The connection has never been proven. But no one ever calls him on it.

How about how he made his case about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger? Except that the document he used as proof turned out to be forged. Or the so-called proof that the French had evidence about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, when, in fact, the French said "uh...that's not what we said. In fact, this isn't proof at all." But of course, we don't believe the French, do we? Hell, we're even boycotting French toast.

Operation "Iraqi Freedom"? As if Bush or Cheney or any of them give a **** about the Iraqis. How many Iraqi civilians, including children, might have died over these years thanks to sanctions?

Oh, wait. That's Saddam's fault.

How about this: there's plenty of blame to go around?

Emancipating a people through military conflict has never ultimately worked. Freedom is one thing, but cramming your own set of systems and values down another's throat only causes resentment. And installing a new power structure inevitably falls apart. We should have already learned this about the Middle East.

But it's easier to rah-rah-rah those falling bombs. No one wants to hear dissension. Turn off my microphone, people.

"The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."

The media goes along with this administration's crap; whoever rocks the boat usually finds himself out of a job. And war equals big ratings.

I won't shed a tear when Saddam is out of power, but we sure are going a long way to lord it over the rest of the world. And if terrorists one day decide to avenge their Iraqi brethren, I can only pray that my family---all living in Houston---doesn't fall prey to that retribution.

 

From David Poland's Oscar column at Movie City News:

*Best Moment Of The Night: Adrien Brody gave us one of the great acceptances ever. And also reminded us of what was on CNN during the entire show.

*Second Best Moment Of The Night: Michael Moore getting booed. Being political is one thing. But when will the left, of which I consider myself a member, stop invoking the election results as though they were still relevant? That's what got him booed. Worse, it was old material. The guy won a WGA Award for Original screenwriting. Couldn't he come up with a second dumb slogan when his use of "fictional" didn't exactly raise the roof/tent at the Independent Spirit Awards?

http://www.moviecitynews.com/columnists/poland/030323.html

And from Leonard Klady's column at the same site:

What we love most about the Oscars are those moments, those oh so rare moments, when art and popularity align perfectly. And while they can only ameliorate the inevitable dross inherent in more than three hours of self-congratulation, they do happen and did happen Sunday. It was Adrian Brody’s moment and he accepted it with grace, flourish and just a tinge of embarrassment.

These tiny pieces of time do not occur often; the last I can remember happened more than a decade ago when Daniel Day-Lewis took home the statuette for My Left Foot. The audience exploded, rose to its feet, including the other nominees who truly seemed to be elated by the deservedness of the honor. Well, lightning struck twice.

Brody could do and did no wrong. He smooched Halle Berry and properly dressed down the orchestra who indeed heard and put down their instruments. He then went on to give the most effective plea for peace, invoking the themes of The Pianist to underscore his points.

 

Rox,

I thought that Iraq had trained Al-queda in the use of chemical weapons.

DD

 

"Don't report that there was a split decision in the hall because five loud people booed."

Is he talking about what happened last night or describing the anti-Bush movement?

 

That was my favorite part as well (of course, I really only watched that part!), but there was something extremely heartwarming at the response of Nic Cage and Jack Nicholson...they seemed very truly happy that Brody won.

The first time in 8 years that I haven't seen all the Best Picture nominees, and the guy wins an Oscar for it...I know what I'm going to see this week.

 

I'll echo that. It's Michael Moore. He is ingracious and boorish. He does grandstand. He'd be remiss to not take this opportunity to do what he does.

I'd at least give him this: he had a point to make. Most of the references to the war in which people tried to be gracious, they ended up being simply vacuous. Making opaque, general, and vague allusions to the war isn't almost not a communication at all. Why not just not say anything?

 

Wow. I admire your stamina. Personally, I don't think I've ever seen all the Best Pictures nominees in any given year. And for the 4th year in a row, I haven't seen any of the Best Picture nominees prior to the Oscar telecast.

(Actually, I looked it up and the five nominees for Best Picture from the 1995 telecast were all ones I saw, though at least two of those I caught after the Oscars).

I understand it's different since you do movie reviews, but still.......

 

There are three issues here, as I see it.


1) Should he have said it under the circumstances. Aside from the supposed agreement, I see no reason why not. He was merely reflecting the stance about what he sees as corruption and mismanagement in the US government and culture; the very subject of the work he was being rewarded for. Tom Hanks on homsexuality and AIDS, Steven Spielberg on the Holocaust, etc. There have been many, many instances of award recipients chooseing that time to voive their stance on the issue of their film as they see it applying to the current world, and many, amny more ( Halle Berry on racism in Hollywood, Marlon Brando on treatment of the natives, etc.) of people citing issues that had nothing to do with the film for which they were being rewarded. Aside from the current wave of " If it's against the war, it is against the troops, and therefore against America!" rhetoric, I see nothing to distinguish Moore's choice from so amy others; just it's possible unpopularity at the moment.

2) Michael Moore's credibility and consistency. I have loved some of Moore's work, including Canadian Bacon... about an unpopular President engaging in an unjustified war to rally the inevitable public support the world recognizes to be automatic in Americain war time. The irony, considering that the nature of most of the criticism against him is of the " You don't criticize during war!" variety is interesting. That said, having seen Moore in interviews several times, I will say this...He is passionate, he is reasonably intelligent, and he is very, very sincere...but he can also get grating, as he is often reduced to repeating the same basic idea with minor variations, in response to any contrary point. He is smarter, but in that way he can annoy me the same way Bush does with his standard responses. That is not to say that those adopting a consistent approach in the face of consistent opposition is wrong, but he seems to adopt that consistent response itrrespective of the nature of the opposition.

3) The idea that it is somehow unpatriotic to debate an on-going war. I just have no idea why the criticism of people like Jane Fonda during Nam has evolved into this sophomoric a stance...It refutes the very principle of responsible government at the time when, irrespective of whether it's this or any war, it is most needed. It premises that

a) Once a war is begun, it is, for all practical purposes, justified, and therefore beyond criticism until it's over. This means, and I use an extreme example here, to show how ridiculous the stance is, that were the President to order the invasion of, say, Canada or Mexico tomorrow, and mange to get troops in within a couple of days, we SHOULD, by the very nature of the statement that you can't object once it's begun, we SHOULD support that invasion and make no public statements of opposition else we are being unpatriotic. The examples are extreme, as it seems Canada or Mexico seem comical, but remember the stance isn't Don't criticize JUST wars once begun, as there you come down to a matter of subjectivity again, and open up the debate of whether this war is just, but it;s dont' criticize ANY war the US engages in, once begun. That is an incredibly flawed principle which has taken on the flavour of a sound-bite catchphrase, and, ironically, the exact kind of predictable mind-set Moore mocked well before this Iraq thing began in Canadian Bacon.

b) That objecting to a war is somehow a disservice to the troops. I can see that if you accept the war as a given, you can conclude that lack of popular support at home might make it a tougher experience for the troops. But what if it isn't a given...Moreover, what if people who believe that this is an unjust war seek to take troops out of harm's way when it isn't in for the right reasons? Should no one have protested VietNam, and, by extension, should we still be there fighting?


c) That it is more important to stand up for the physical aspect of what constitutes our nation, ie geographically defined America and Americans, than to stand up for the principles of that country...which, ironically, stands in complete opposition to the very foundation of that country. " I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees." being an example of the idea that the principles of America are what distinguish it, not the birthright, and if we confuse and smother the very rights we stand for, suvch as independant thought and questioning of governemntal authority, than what distinguishes us from the people we are fighting for, except perhaps being at different gradients on the slippery slope of pragmatically prioritized government?

 

Well, I've only been doing the reviews for a little under 3 years, so 2000-2003 are the only years I have an excuse for.

Actually, I just lied...I've never seen Shakespeare in Love.

 

didn't mean to get personal...but i'm still a bit surprised you feel this way...nevertheless...

doing alright...inlaws were in town the past couple of weeks and they did a ton of work on my new home while i was busy working..they left to go home and my wife and son are sad...i think i'm taking my son to see The Piglet Movie tonight.

New Mexico is beautiful...my business partner owns some property there, including a nice little home near some slopes. Sounds like you had fun...

 

I thought I heard 11 people.

You, and every other American.

Man, even Bill Maher can't believe liberals keep bringing this up. That's in the past. I don't see how you can hold that against Bush, it's not his fault the voting system is so screwed up. Are you suggesting he should be stripped of some of his presidential powers since the election was controversial?

 

Michael Moore is tired.

Did you really expect anything else from him?? He's modeled his life around 'in your face' possibly uncomfortable confrontation. Sometimes it works. Occasionally it's truly insightful. Last night it wasn't. He lived up to his own caricature. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised.

I agree with the sentiments of 'wrong place, wrong time' but would have been more surprised if he hadn't said something direct and controversial. Tact has never been his strong point. Neither has respect for others. This may have added to the freshness of his original works, but now, it's almost scripted.

And I agree with the sentiments about the election of two and a half years ago. Result was basically a tie, with Bush winning in overtime on a controversial call by the ref. Old news.

 

doesnt make it any less true Chance...

 

no..it's certainly true...it's just entirely irrelevant. we all know they have a right to say whatever they want...and we have a right to disagree and say whatever we want in response. it's just not worth saying over and over and over again in every thread where some jackass sticks his foot in his mouth.

 

The only movie nominated in a major category that I didn't see was <b>Frida</b>. I think I saw about 70 movies last year.

 

Didn't see that, but almost did once I heard Renee was a dude!!

 

Why do so many people care what Michael Moore thinks?? He voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, so I dont know why he is bringing up the election.

 

Some of you are talking about going out to see the Pianist, so let me bring your expectations down. I don't want you to be disappointed.

Basically, the movie is as good as it can be, but it's not much of a movie in any traditional sense. It's almost a hyper-realistic documentary. Of course, it's incredibly sad, but the odd thing is that I think it's incredibly boring in a way. In essence, you've got 2+ hours of Brody running around, hiding in closets, gnawing at 2-month-old bread crusts, scurrying to a new hiding place... But you never get to know his character. After the first 30 minutes, there is almost ZERO dialogue. Who was this guy, the pianist? I have no idea. I just know that, like any other human being, he was incredibly driven to survive, and, unlike millions of other wartime Jews, he had luck on his side in several miraculous cases.

The strangest thing is that the screenplay won an award. It is probably about 13 pages long.

SCENE 138:
Pianist cowers, covers ears, has longer beard. Pianist sees someone in the street get shot by a Nazi. Pianist scurries to a new bombed out house, finds rat carcass, eats feverishly.

SCENE 139:
See scene 138. ...

Okay, now go ahead and see it; it's a gorgeous film with great performances. And if you didn't know that the Nazis were pretty evil, you will learn this in vivid detail.

 

I didn't see the Oscars last night. I rarely watch them, but I might have last night were it not for the Rockets game which ironically I missed as well. I'd blown out my knee the night before and was mercifully sleeping due to the Xanax I took for the pain. That disclaimer aside, I read the thread so I hope I'm still qualified to comment.

Michael Moore is a well known, liberal, political activist who is among very, very few people who has been at least moderately successful using the mediums of film and television to moderately further his causes. Why in the world would anyone be surprised that he would use the forum which granted him his largest audience of all time to attempt to further a cause he has championed his entire adult life?

He's not polite? Naw... Pull me up a chair... Neither was Malcolm X. While a lot of us on the left would prefer Moore used his gifts in a style more akin to Martin Luther King's, I am grateful to live in a country where one such as Moore can express his opinions, politeness be damned. He is oftentimes clumsy, abrasive and offensive. He knows this and he doesn't care. He puts a higher premium on taking every chance he has to expose what he considers to be grave injustice than he does on his popularity. That's called conviction and there was a time that was respected in this country.

For those who want to boycott him now, go ahead. You weren't ever going to see his movies anyway, and if you did you'd be similarly outraged. In a time when the left is overwhelmingly populated by spineless careerists and opportunists, Michael Moore is a breath of fresh air, warts and all.

A final note at what I recognize is my own peril on this board. There was a time that any time I saw a post from Clutch I got just a little bit excited. I considered him to be the voice of reason on this board and I always took his posts more seriously than any others on this board. I was pleased when I first saw his name pop up in the hangout forum. But he has exhibited such bias in b****ing about the liberals on this forum, while never, NEVER calling out the equally extreme conservatives that I just sit and sigh when I see the immensely respected father of this site showing up in political threads just to bash the liberal take. Way to kick us when we're down. I hope you're able to forgive me here, Clutch, but your posts in this thread remind me of a homer referee doing whatever's necessary to make sure the underdog's comeback never has a chance. Expressing your political opinions is one thing. Everyone should be able to do that. But you rarely do a thing to criticize liberal positions in these threads, you seem to come around here only to bash liberal posters. Your bias against longtime supporters of your site who don't agree with your politics is disappointing. And it takes a lot for me to find any fault at all with the creator of my favorite site in the history of the internet.