Moore under fire

[Fritz]

Web Site Wants Michael Moore's Oscar Revoked

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85359,00.html

"There's a movement to revoke the controversial director's Oscar. The Web site RevoketheOscar.com claims that Moore's Oscar-winning anti-gun documentary, Bowling for Columbine (search), is riddled with inaccuracies, misleading statements and unethical edits — and the site is calling for the film to be disqualified as a documentary. "

[John Galt]

Very interesting. I went to the website and read the National Review article. I didn't read the other sources because the NR article was so long, but it was an interesting read. Still, the whole campaign is kind of crazy.

I'm not a fan or Michael Moore - I think he makes himself the story and picks easy targets (just like O'Reilly) to interview (and I think everyone in NYC that I saw it with cringed as we watched Heston fall apart). Still, I've scene more of Moore's work and Bowling for Columbine is probably his best.

The argument that it is not a documentary seems to be based more on ommissions and implications, not actual inaccuracies. I was only able to count a couple inaccuracies in the NR article and they didn't seemed a problem of oversight and didn't affect the central parts of the film. Documentaries have a long history of reflecting a particular point of view about a subject and Bowling for Columbine continues that trend. I didn't think it should have won the award because at least for the K-Mart sub-story, the documentary is about Moore and not guns (and a documentary about Moore is pretty lame). To argue that it isn't really a documentary is good press, but really doesn't make a lot of sense (especially after the fact).

[CamEdwards]

ohmygod.

ohmygodohmygodohmygod.

John Galt and I agree on something. Namely that Michael Moore's biggest problem isn't his politics, it's his inability to make any sort of documentary without making his own self the star of the show.

Remember this day children... remember it well.

[andy m]

i read on http://www.commiebastard.com that they are also looking into taking away George Lucas' Oscars for Star Wars because those spaceships are nothing like ones we have on planet earth. it is obviously a fabrication and riddled with inaccuracy.

you can express your displeasure for the devil-dog Lucas at:

http://www.knickersinatwist.co.ru

please come and post in ALL CAPITALS on the forum.

[Drake]

Heh, Andy.

[NoMyths]

lol andy

The time for Bowling for Columbine to be disqualified as an Oscar is long past. Besides, it's not like the Oscars are meant to be the final determiner of genre...after all, this same year they nominated both Charlie Kaufman (real) and Donald Kaufman (not real) for the Original Screenplay Oscar.

While many of the supposed inaccuracies in BFC have been debunked, there is certainly a lot of authorial bias at work. Still, Moore has been upfront about the kind of films he makes. If the Academy wants to nominate it in the documentary category, it's their perogative.

Remember, at the end of the day the Oscars are just Hollywood's biggest advertising night for their films.

[Fritz]

you just knew that andy visited RUSSIAN websites....

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NoMyths

While many of the supposed inaccuracies in BFC have been debunked, there is certainly a lot of authorial bias at work. Still, Moore has been upfront about the kind of films he makes. If the Academy wants to nominate it in the documentary category, it's their perogative.

When it comes to Moore, you are a huge fanboy.

This does not take away from my desire to roll your naked body in Mazola and sprinkle you with daisy petals.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by NoMyths
While many of the supposed inaccuracies in BFC have been debunked,

Please, post links to the debunking. Most of us are convinced of the inaccuracies. Some of them are so ridiculous as to be called lies.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Samdari
Please, post links to the debunking. Most of us are convinced of the inaccuracies. Some of them are so ridiculous as to be called lies.

I'm curious - after reading the National Review articles, I didn't see anything that would be considered a "lie." What exactly are you refering to?

[Wolfpack]

Personally, I think the Academy should live with the decision they made. Some will support it, but most will view it as the embarassment it is. (Not so much the movie, but the fact they gave an award to Moore to begin with and then have him make an ass of himself while a war was going on.)

[Craptacular]

Why, again, does anybody give a rat's ass about the Oscars??

[Samdari]

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Let me preface this by saying that I have not seen the movie, I got interested in the lying thing by reading that site when it was linked here in the post-Oscar hubbub. Most of my knowledge of the film comes from that site. That is why I posted (honestly) asking for the sources where these are supposedly debunked, I wanted to have a more well rounded knowledge of the situation. I truly am interested in reading informed rebuttal to the above accusations. I would prefer if it were an independent source (i.e. not Moore) even if that source were clearly pro-Moore.

I cannot, however, in good conscience see the movie, as I have a strict personal policy of not supporting fat smug bastards. For those who would accuse me of being a Republican and biased against Moore because of that, the same rule prevents me from financially supporting Rush Limbaugh.

What the sources I have read convinced me he did, that I consider lies, are:

1) He often refers to the Lockheed Martin plant in Littleton as making Weapons of Mass Destruction. They make rockets which launch satellites into space. Moore knew this when he made the movie (and admits it) and used the WMD term anyway. I believe that is a lie, despite the lame explation found at the above site.

2) Moore splices different parts of different Heston speeches together, and does not inform the viewer he has done so, leading the viewer to believe they were from one speech. Probably not in the "out and out" lie category, but deceptive nonetheless.

3) The gun at the bank scene would qualify as a lie in my book. I apologize for forgetting the source, but I read one website which goes further than the National Review, and that Moore's people let the bank know weeks in advance that he would be coming in to open an account and get a gun. This site accused him of even filling out some of the paperwork beforehand, and claimed the bank had a dated fax to prove it. This one seems especially silly to me, as most people who are on the fence about the gun issue (like me) are usually shocked (like me) about the TRUTH of how easy it is to get a gun. And yet, from what I have read, Moore presents a completely inaccurate account of what he went through at the bank to get the gun. This I also consider to be a lie.

NoMyths, I apoloqize if my post seemed to attack your contention, I really did want to read the sources where you got the information that "the supposed inaccuracies of the film were debunked"

EDIT: grammar - just assume all of my posts have been edited for grammar or spelling

[JonInMiddleGA]

Damn, I saw the thread title & was hoping somebody had the bastard pinned down somewhere.

[John Galt]

If 1) is true, then I consider that troubling. The movie does say that they make rockets for nuclear weapons and that is an important point. Doing a quick google search, there does seem to be some articles that the Littleton facility produced Minuteman missiles. If it was done so in the not-so-distant past, then I don't think there is a problem, but if there was no actual missile building in a recent time, that would be bad.

I don't have a problem with 2) - if you watch the movie, I think Moore is just relying on juxtaposition. You could infer that Heston's speech was the one given at those locations, but I think it is meant to show the gulf of opinions on the issue.

I'm not really upset by 3) at all, because it is in the early stages of the movie where Moore is talking about the culture of guns he grew up in. The material was more quirky background than anything else. Moore himself talks about his experience as a hunter and his uses of guns. He is just using the anecdote of the bank to show how gun-oriented parts of Michigan are. I grew up in Virginia, so I can certainly relate to that.

I also think it is important for those who haven't seen the movie to recognize that despite media accounts, it is NOT an anti-gun movie. It makes the point that guns are not the problem largely by using Canada as an example. Moore engages in some cultural criticism and argues American culture has a strong element of fear and violence that makes guns dangerous, but it is definitely NOT a simple anti-gun message.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by John Galt
it is NOT an anti-gun movie..... it is definitely NOT a simple anti-gun message.

Is it not an anti-gun movie or a movie not just about anti-gun?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Is it not an anti-gun movie or a movie not just about anti-gun?

I think it is not an anti-gun movie precisely because he argues that countries like Canada have a "healthy" relationship with guns. The movie is more a criticism of America's relationship with guns and isn't a blanket statement against gun ownership.

[astralhaze]

Indeed. The movie doesn't really even have, this is wierd for Moore, an agenda. He simply examines our culture of violence and tries to figure out why this is. Like all of us, he asks the questions, and that is the first step, but he doesn't answer them. We are bascially left, as he was, wondering why we are the way we are. This is something all of us have to answer and Moore realizes this.

That was my take anyway.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by John Galt
If 1) is true, then I consider that troubling. The movie does say that they make rockets for nuclear weapons and that is an important point. Doing a quick google search, there does seem to be some articles that the Littleton facility produced Minuteman missiles. If it was done so in the not-so-distant past, then I don't think there is a problem, but if there was no actual missile building in a recent time, that would be bad.

I don't have a problem with 2) - if you watch the movie, I think Moore is just relying on juxtaposition. You could infer that Heston's speech was the one given at those locations, but I think it is meant to show the gulf of opinions on the issue.

I'm not really upset by 3) at all, because it is in the early stages of the movie where Moore is talking about the culture of guns he grew up in. The material was more quirky background than anything else. Moore himself talks about his experience as a hunter and his uses of guns. He is just using the anecdote of the bank to show how gun-oriented parts of Michigan are. I grew up in Virginia, so I can certainly relate to that.

I have a SEVERE problem with #2. Splicing two speeches together and implying they were from the same speech is a gigantic breech of ethics IMO. Juxtaposition or not, I rely on a documentary filmaker to give me an accurate view of the issue being discussed. It is impossible to get an accurate view of that issue if behavior like this is going on.

Aren't you a lawyer, John? If you are, you should understand the basic tenants of debate, discussion and credibility. If a person lies about one thing, it's difficult to take anything else they say seriously. If that lie is also an attempt to make someone else look bad, influence opinion or to give yousef gains it crosses the line even further.

Without a doubt, the splicing was done to make Heston and the NRA look like cold hearted bastards.

Thus. . . my problem with Michael Moore, which I said in an earlier post:

Originally posted by TroyF
He isn't the enemy, he's a big, fat bloated piece of crap who I can't trust reading or watching anymore. . . because I have zero idea how much of what he says is true if I don't spend 200 hours researching it myself. (if you believe that 700 individuals donated 2/3 of the money for the Bush campaign fund, you have some SERIOUS issues)

I don't hate Michael Moore with a passion because he's a democrat or a bleeding heart liberal. I hate Michael Moore because instead of using facts to encourage healthy discussion, he uses lies to propogate the myth that conservatives are not only wrong in their ideals, but they are bad people as well.

I don't give a damn about his Oscar and wheather or not he keeps it. I don't know who won the Best Documentary feature Oscar in 1973 and don't really care. I imagine most people will feel the same way about this guy in 20 years.

TroyF

[MJ4H]

If you agree with Michael Moore's conclusions, you are more likely to overlook (or dismiss as unimportant) the fact that he lies and distorts to support his conclusions.

[John Galt]

I have a SEVERE problem with #2. Splicing two speeches together and implying they were from the same speech is a gigantic breech of ethics IMO. Juxtaposition or not, I rely on a documentary filmaker to give me an accurate view of the issue being discussed. It is impossible to get an accurate view of that issue if behavior like this is going on.

When I saw the movie, I didn't think the juxtaposition was meant to imply that the speech shown was the one in Colorado. Maybe that is not the way most people interpreted it - I don't know. I'm just saying to me it wasn't disturbing, because I didn't interpret it that way.

Aren't you a lawyer, John? If you are, you should understand the basic tenants of debate, discussion and credibility. If a person lies about one thing, it's difficult to take anything else they say seriously. If that lie is also an attempt to make someone else look bad, influence opinion or to give yousef gains it crosses the line even further.

I'm not defending Moore and I don't take him seriously (see my first post in this thread). I'm just trying to see if he was actually a "liar." So far, I'm not convinced.

[NoMyths]

Samdari: Oh, it's okay. I have no stock in Moore to get unhappy when his inaccuracies and edits--and yes, they do exist--are pointed out. A work needs to stand on its own feet. That said, I think the good in BFC outweighs the bad.

Fritz: I think you and I both know I'm not a Moore fanboy. I like BFC an awful lot, but I also think Stupid White Men is one of the worst books I've read in a while.

Here's some links to the info I mentioned, in a nice article by Roger Ebert:
Roger Ebert Addresses Moore Issue, Provides All the Links You'll Need


I also think that anyone bold enough to criticize the film without seeing it should perhaps get over their fears that they'll be indoctrinated (or that their money will support Moore, or whatever). It's a fascinating film that makes some really good points and some really bad points. There's no excuse for being ignorant about a significant aspect of something you'd criticize.

[TroyF]

No Myths,

There's the problem though. . . by spending any money to see the movie, I support someone I consider to be a bold faced liar.

Sorry, not gonna happen. When it comes out on a movie channel I already get or I can borrow a DVD from someone I know, I'll watch it. I won't put a penny of my money in his pocket.

John,

We just have to agree to disagree. Anytime an edit is spliced like that, it is with the intention to mislead. I worked in broadcasting for awhile and know the methods and how to do it all to well. I've seen it done by others.

All accounts I've read about it (both pro and con) say that Moore stated the speech was from Denver after the Columbine incident and never mentioned that parts were from a different speech at another location. If this is true he's intentionally witholding information from his viewer. Not sure of all of the definitions of lying, but there isn't much doubt in my mind that is indeed a lie.

TroyF

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NoMyths
Fritz: I think you and I both know I'm not a Moore fanboy. I like BFC an awful lot, but I also think Stupid White Men is one of the worst books I've read in a while.

Well, you act like a 13 year old girl getting an star augraphed copy of tiger beat when it comes to this and most things Moore (that I have seen you post about.) I know you are not like this about everything.

Originally posted by NoMyths
I also think that anyone bold enough to criticize the film without seeing it should perhaps get over their fears that they'll be indoctrinated (or that their money will support Moore, or whatever). It's a fascinating film that makes some really good points and some really bad points. There's no excuse for being ignorant about a significant aspect of something you'd criticize.

wrongo

you can read critical reviews and get a good basis for your own critisism. fanboy

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Fritz
Well, you act like a 13 year old girl getting an star augraphed copy of tiger beat when it comes to this and most things Moore (that I have seen you post about.) I know you are not like this about everything.

Huh? Would you mind refreshing my memory about the places where I behaved in that manner about Moore?

wrongo
you can read critical reviews and get a good basis for your own critisism. fanboy

hehe...are you serious? I suppose "good basis" is your bulwark in the quote, but my sense is that it's awful hard to accurately talk about sex if you've only read The Kinsey Report.

[AgPete]

JFK was nominated for an Oscar. Nuff said.

You mean to tell me that movies are full of lies and myths?! Nooooooo way!

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by AgPete
JFK was nominated for an Oscar. Nuff said.

You mean to tell me that movies are full of lies and myths?! Nooooooo way!

I'll give you the argument against that before the right-wingers rip you a new one.

The difference is that BFC is supposed to be a documentary, which are supposed to be factual.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by astralhaze
I'll give you the argument against that before the right-wingers rip you a new one.

The difference is that BFC is supposed to be a documentary, which are supposed to be factual.

I know the argument, and actually, according to that article, the Oscars only say it must be non-fiction which I guess is open to interpretation. Sorry, I just can't take anyone serious that has a problem with Hollywood's versions of events - documentary or fictional movie. Filmmaking is a lie. Everything from making a "Hollywood" script to shooting someone from a different angle to alter their height, the entire artform is an illusion. I can't comment on the narration in the Columbine flick because I haven't seen it yet but this all seems like an effort created by someone with too much time on their hands.

[astralhaze]

Just thought it would be better coming from me

[Anthony]

Frtiz,

hang 'em up, pal, hang 'em up.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NoMyths
Huh? Would you mind refreshing my memory about the places where I behaved in that manner about Moore?

Here, at the FOBL, in chatrooms...

Originally posted by NoMyths

hehe...are you serious? I suppose "good basis" is your bulwark in the quote,

I am absolutely serious. We rely on critical accounts, observation, reporting, etc of most things to form our opinions. Lots of experts on the War of 1812, and not one of them was around to see it.

Originally posted by NoMyths
but my life demonstrates is that it's awful hard to openly talk about sex if you've only whacked off in your mom panties.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by NoMyths
my sense is that it's awful hard to accurately talk about sex if you've only read The Kinsey Report.

So I guess I can't speak out against child abuse because I've never beaten one of my kids?

I can't talk about the dangers of meth because I've never smoked it?

While personal experience certainly adds another element to a person's critical thinking, it's not always necessary.

[astralhaze]

I haven't heard Cam's radio show, but from what I read and hear it is a bunch of Bush-loving gay-bashing ultra-right paranoia.

[CamEdwards]

hmmm... the problem, astral, is that I don't think you've even talked with someone who's heard my show. If you had talked with half a dozen people who listen on a regular basis, could provide you with specific incidents that corroborate your claims, then maybe you'd have a point.

Right now you're just yapping.

[astralhaze]

You are right, I am just yapping. Actually, more specificaly, joking

[Anthony]

wow Cam, how did you not see that. i thought you were sharper than that.

[astralhaze]

<---makes a note to start using more emoticons

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Fritz
Here, at the FOBL, in chatrooms...

Oh no no no, my friend. Specific quotes and places, please. I think you may be confusing me with someone else. I'm pretty neutral on Moore, although I appreciate that his energies are directed towards making films that I find interesting. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't attribute the "Moore fanboy" position to me without some evidence, as I can't imagine how I've given anyone that impression.

Originally posted by Fritz
I am absolutely serious. We rely on critical accounts, observation, reporting, etc of most things to form our opinions. Lots of experts on the War of 1812, and not one of them was around to see it.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
So I guess I can't speak out against child abuse because I've never beaten one of my kids?
I can't talk about the dangers of meth because I've never smoked it?
While personal experience certainly adds another element to a person's critical thinking, it's not always necessary.

Fritz & Cam: We're not talking about those kind of experiences. We're talking about evaluating an artwork, and the primary source of evidence for that is the film itself. Anytime you start relying on secondary sources authorial error and bias can start distorting the evidence.
You certainly don't have to beat your kids or witness child abuse first-hand to speak out against it. But you wouldn't be able to speak about witnessing its effects personally. And what if it turned out that one of your souces evidence was just plain wrong (as has been the case with some criticisms of BFC).
Anytime people make the argument that we can rely on secondary sources, rather than primary ones, it sounds a lot like students arguing that there's no point in learning math when calculators do it all for us.

[Fritz]

artwork or documentary....

[NoMyths]

Moore made the film. The studio billed it as a documentary. As Moore has said in places, he makes films that represent his point of view, and aren't intended to be unbiased. People sometimes put labels on things that don't fit perfectly.

The criticisms of BFC were well-publicized before the Oscar nominations. If the Academy had concerns, they could have shown them by not nominating the film.

[astralhaze]

Can we just all be honest and admit that this shitstorm is because of politics or is that too much to ask?

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Can we just all be honest and admit that this shitstorm is because of politics or is that too much to ask?

Nope. It is definitely about politics. Doesn't make the criticism right or wrong though.

[Fritz]

Folks like Moore and Stone tell just enough of the turth to give their story credibility, but not enough to make it honest.

[CamEdwards]

what's the source that's been proven false?

And I AM relying on primary sources for my information. Deciding that I don't want to watch BFC because of four different websites trashing the authenticy of his documentary is the same as me deciding I don't want to buy the Minus Five's "Down With Wilco" because three different music magazines have said it's humdrum.

I can't say I believe it's humdrum because I've never heard it, but I can say the consensus is that it's humdrum. Likewise, I can't say that I find Michael Moore's film to be fictitious, but I can say that many different people have found faults with what was presented in the film.

[stkelly52]

Personally I think the Fox gives this story too much creedance (sp?). Lines like "and now he might lose the statuette he won for best documentary." are a bit over the top. Moore is not going to lose his Oscar, and I am almost certain that revoketheoscar.com know that. After looking at the websight I don't really think that is what they realy want to do. The aim of the sight (IMHO) is to be another sight pointing out the lack of truth in the movie. Think of it as a protest letting the Oscar voters know what they think of the decision to give the Oscar to (what they think is) a sham of a documentary.

[Samdari]

NoMyths - the ignorant comment was out of line. Its like saying that historians should not be writing about history because they were not there to see it. Someone commenting about Moore from having read second hand sources is just as valid as people having opinions on historical events that they only read about. By saying you are neutral on Moore and throwing insults at people who are disurbed by the way he distorts the truth, you seem the ignorant one here.

John, I am really shocked that the third of my points is ok with you. That was the part that to me seemed the most eggregious lie. I read several of the sources, and all seemed to agree that he presented that scene as him walking into a bank, with no forewarning, and walked out with a gun a short time later, with no background check. Is that not a correct representation of the film? If it is, how can that not be considered a lie, as that is not the real sequence of events.

EDIT: Also, NoMyths, my original post in this thread asked for you to supply a source to support your contention that the supposed inaccuracies have been debunked. You have not done so, and I really am interested in reading some, to get a more balanced view, as Hardy is clearly biased against Moore?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Samdari
John, I am really shocked that the third of my points is ok with you. That was the part that to me seemed the most eggregious lie. Does he not intimate in the film that he walks into the bank cold and walks out with a gun a short time later, with no background check or anything, when in fact that is a false representation?

While Moore has copped to the other charges, in a mealthy-mouthed Clintonian sort of way, he steadfastly denies that the scene was a setup. Since neither you nor I was there and really know what happened, I think saying that is was in fact a false representation is overstating the case a bit.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Samdari
NoMyths - the ignorant comment was out of line. Its like saying that historians should not be writing about history because they were not there to see it. Someone commenting about Moore from having read second hand sources is just as valid as people having opinions on historical events that they only read about. By saying you are neutral on Moore and throwing insults at people who are disurbed by the way he distorts the truth, you seem the ignorant one here.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...wasn't calling anyone names. My statement was "There's no excuse for being ignorant about a significant aspect of something you'd criticize." 'Ignorant' doesn't mean 'stupid' in that statement, it means 'uninformed'. And I stand by that -- if you're going to criticize a film (or any other artwork), you need to see the it first. To ignore (the etym origin of what I was getting at) a significant primary source isn't excusable when it's so easily viewed.
If you took offense thinking that you was being insulting, I apologize--that wasn't my intention.

EDIT: Also, NoMyths, my original post in this thread asked for you to supply a source to support your contention that the supposed inaccuracies have been debunked. You have not done so, and I really am interested in reading some, to get a more balanced view, as Hardy is clearly biased against Moore?

Um, I already did. Here's the statement from my earlier post: "Here's some links to the info I mentioned, in a nice article by Roger Ebert:
Roger Ebert Addresses Moore Issue, Provides All the Links You'll Need

[NoMyths]

dola...
Any historian worth their salt would also tell you that if you were planning to write about an aspect of history, and you had the chance to witness it firsthand (and safely, for those lawyers amongst you ), you should absolutely do. Once middlemen start to come in things get distorted pretty quick.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NoMyths
dola...
Any historian worth their salt would also tell you that if you were planning to write about an aspect of history, and you had the chance to witness it firsthand (and safely, for those lawyers amongst you ), you should absolutely do. Once middlemen start to come in things get distorted pretty quick.

they would also tell you that firsthand is only one perspective, and being too close has its flaws as well.