Waddaya think...?
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I hope not.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Winning election = shutting people up?
So that's what democracy is for. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
More importantly, does this mean F911 won't get nominated for Best Picture? because I cannot STAND Michael Moore. He took himself out of the running for best documentary in order to shore up his chances for Best Picture. I want that to go down in flames and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind to take its place in the Five.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Actually, I am betting it greatly increases his chances of winning an Oscar for Fahrenheit 9/11. Had Kerry won, giving that movie accolades would have seemed unneccessary, but with Bush still in power many will look to endorsing the movie as further protest against Bush.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No way. Best thing that ever happened to him was Bush getting elected. Second best thing, Bush getting reelected. Just like Clinton was great for Limbaugh.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tres: Grrrr...that's irritating. Moore is a hack and liar. It's a sad day for everyone when bad art is tolerated because of its message. This applies to everything, all sides of the political and cultural cube.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Oscarwatch.com is reporting that things look pretty good for his Oscar chances, based on Academy screenings:
quote:Oscar watchers know that one of the surest indicators of prize potential is the reaction of audiences at the private weekend screenings for members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences - the people, predominantly white and middle-aged, who vote on the awards. The sessions in the 1,002-seat theater at the academy's Beverly Hills headquarters are heavily attended, and opinions are freely expressed over the end credits and in the lobby outside. Catherine Billey spoke to several academy members about how the voters have responded to some of this year's contenders.
'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'
On an Oscar scale of 1 to 5, Michael Moore's political screed may get a 5. In a packed screening, the academy crowd laughed out loud and applauded throughout the film. One attendee said the applause and cheers over the closing credits ran a nearly unprecedented three minutes.
And Moore is neither a hack nor a liar. He's an opinionated guy who makes very good and very opinionated editorial films. Truthfully, Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't his best work though, and doesn't deserve the top Oscar as much as something like Bowling For Columbine might have.
[ November 03, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Ignore him, but please don't try to shut him up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There have been numerous threads about his lack of honesty in filmmaking. Hack is, I suppose, a personal opinion, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he made a crappy film about a popular subject with his audience, and that will probably take the place of The Incredibles at the Oscars.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, it was a very effective film judged cinematically. The pacing and tension are quite well done, in particular.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
May all the movies you ever watch be made the same.
*curses fugu smugly*
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Moore made a crappy documentary but a brilliant film.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
The Incredibles is likely to win the Oscar for Animated Feature. I'd be surprised if it even gets a nomination for Best Picture.
I heard, and I swear I thought I heard it from Moore's own lips (though I admit my memory may be faulty in this), that he withdrew F911 from nomination consideration as Feature Documentary because he wanted to give others in that category a chance to win. This strikes me as such pure hubris, I hope my memory is wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What precisely made it brilliant? The demagoguery, or the dishonest editing?
quote:that he withdrew F911 from nomination consideration as Feature Documentary because he wanted to give others in that category a chance to win.
The sad thing is, that's the more noble motive that can be attributed to him - the other being he withdrew it from the documentary category to shore up its chances for Best Picture. If the Democrats in Hollywood want to let him have a speech, it has to be the top one.
Seriously, if this is nominated over Eternal Sunshine, it will be tragic. If it wins, it will be laughable.
[ November 03, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
A good documentary must be honest. A good film doesn't have to be.
I disliked "Birth of a Nation" but I understand why it is considered a brilliant film by many people.
[ November 03, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He claims that its a documentary.
Either he's making up stories, or he made a documentary. That's one of the most irritating aspect - blatant disregard for the truth in the midst of calling other people liars.
It's like those who put more credance in what bin Laden said in his tape than what the candidates said. I'm dubious about politicians, but I simply can't believe that Americans use bin Laden's words to refute them. Seriously, you think HE'S being honest?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I find it interesting you don't seem to offer any evidence that it was a bad film. I can acknowledge that Triumph of the Will was cinematically revolutionary without agreeing with its Nazi ideals, for instance.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fugu, when you watch The Incredibles, unlike the rest of us, you will see a movie that's made as well as F911 was. *wicked twinkle*
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"He claims that its a documentary."
And as I've said before, it was a crappy documentary.
Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
Is there a consensus that there are four other films likely to be nominated or is that just a doomsday scenario? I'd hope Sunshine would be up regardless of F911.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Fahrenheit 9/11 is both honest and well-made. What it isn't is unbiased, but it isn't intended to be either. It makes a case for a certain view point based on certain reasons, which the viewer may or may not agree with at the end.
The equivalent is an editorial article in the newspaper. Editorials are often highly biased and even good ones often tell only one side of the story to make their point, and they can even be wrong in their conclusions, but this doesn't make them untruthful.
I have seen a number of threads accusing Moore of being untruthful but as of yet have not seen any good evidence that he was. The closest I've seen to evidence given is in Bowling for Columbine when he edited parts of a speech and put them together in a way that wasn't originally said - but even in that case if you look at the original speech it is clear that Moore did not alter the point being made - he merely cut out other points that would have made the segment too long and would have not added to his main argument.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, so making fun of its cinematic qualities constitutes consideration? So I can make unsubstantiated claims that Bush is ignorant because it seems obvious to me, and not be called on it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't care what you do. For you, LOTR has now been made to a Michael Moore level of quality.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Is hatred of your subject a good basis from which to make a documentary? doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r) adj. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.(from dictionary.com)
It was much more a diatribe. Do they have a Best Diatribe category at the Oscars?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Tres, are you kidding?
First of all, the NRA did not decide to hold their annual meeting in Denver after Columbine happened. Anyone who knows anything about event planning knows that the meeting was scheduled months in advance. In fact, the NRA cancelled all events, save the voting - which they could not cancel.
Second, Charleton Heston delivered the "cold dead hands" speech one year after Columbine in Charlotte, NC.
I could go on and on - this is all well-documented by credible sources.
Also, I dislike Michael Moore for personal reasons. He was rude and condescending to me because I dared to do my job and asked him for a photo i.d. (which I had also done for the president of the university and the mayor of NYC, both of whom gladly showed me theirs). There's nothing more telling about a person's character than how they treat service people.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
? First, I don't consider F9/11 to be a high enough level of quality to be considered for best picture. I just said it was high quality. Do not put words in my mouth.
Second, there are many different types of quality. F9/11 was a very effective film demagogically. One might well compare it in sort to the political speeches of Cicero as consul of Rome. Unethical and politically motivated they might be, but they were brilliant (F9/11 isn't brilliant in composition, merely high quality). It is not a work of speculative fiction, a piece of entertainment, it is a political tool, and should be judged as such.
I don't think you've even considered how effective it is cinematically, I think you're to concerned with condemning the man and his ideas to consider his craft.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Just my opinion on MM.
He's the modern day Leni Riefenstahl. He's a propagandist plain and simple. He's the SBV but a filmmaker instead of a commercial/ad maker.
F9/11 is the political equivalent of a RONCO infomercial.
Are there facts? Sure, but they are slanted in a way that ignore any opposing facts, and are heavily colored by opinions/editorializing.
F9/11 is an infomercial for Bush Haters and Political Hatred in general.
I didn't buy the RONCO food dehydrator, and I don't buy what F9/11 is selling either.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I hope you enjoy the golfing scene in Casablanca.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I didn't know there was Golfing at the "White House". (speaking Spanish has it's fun times) Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'll take that as an affirmation, as your answer is as well thought out as someone suggesting I'd enjoy the Mount Doom scene in Casablanca. That is, not at all.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Mrs. M, That's not dishonesty, though. That's selectively choosing what facts to present, and its something done in all editorializing. It may make for a bad argument, but it is different from lying.
Moore's arguments are definitely sometimes quite poor, though.
[ November 03, 2004, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
A great example of a true documentary is The Devil's Playground.
HBO also used to have a great series of documentaries, including Bret Killed Mom and Before You Go.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
fugu, take it as proof that I don't have the slightest interest in what you think about anything, including me.
So in your version of Brokedown Palace, the girls do get on the plane?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One of the best documentaries I've ever seen is "Just, Melvin: Just Evil." Definitely had some technical weaknesses, but it was an impressive piece of work.
Dagonee
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: There have been numerous threads about his lack of honesty in filmmaking.
Most of the people in these threads hadn't even watched the movie.
Roger & Me is a good film.
I also like some of his bits from TV NATION.
Michael Moore makes some good art.
There are parts of Farenheit 9/11 that are great filmmaking.
Hack and a Liar?
If he is a hack and a liar, when did it become illegal to be a hack or a liar?
Who are the ones that are so much better than Moore that they put him to shame and take away his name?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
It's never illegal to be a hack or a liar, but what Michael Moore does is at the very least unethical.
I'd actually be happy for him to win Best Picture instead of Best Documentary, because those are fiction. Let him have his extra thirty seconds to show us how innapropriate he can be.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I dislike Moore simply because he's a polemic, in the same way Limbaugh and Coutler are. However, they survived Clinton, and Moore will survive Bush.
--j_k
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
They thrived under Clinton, as Moore thrives under Bush.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I like the picture of Bush made from the dead soldiers on his website.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)