Michael Moores Oscar acceptance speech

ratio of boos/cheers apparently the subject of some debate, it seems to depend on what you're most expecting/wanting to hear

FWIW, Moore pretty much said on the way in the door that he would do something like he did, were he to win.

As I said there, I think the fiction/non-fiction distinction is specious. America has always been a "fiction" - that's what the Constitution is.

As for expecting boos or cheers, I thought Hollywood supported Moore and the lady who announced he had won (forgot her name) was smiling as if to say, "Alright, attaboy!" I was looking forward to something like this, and yet all I heard were boos. I didn't hear any cheers, unless they were the old Arsenio Hall dog woof sort of cheers, but I doubt that.

I thought Adrain Brody's (sp?) acceptance speech and denouncement of war was a bit more graceful.

funny how they let the actors ramble on and they interupted moore
after a minute.

the fiction/non-fiction distinction is specious. America has always been a "fiction" - that's what the Constitution is.

This is where I differ from Moore: 'We like non-fiction and we live in fictitious times'. Now I have no problem with various 'fictions' -- the US constitution, JFK's pledge to put a man on the moon, etc. Imagination can and must be a factor in the formulation of policy. But at a certain moment -- what Bush calls 'the moment of truth' -- you turn fiction into fact. People die for ideas.

And at that point literary criticism is called for. Was this a good fiction, one worth dying for (and there are fictions worth dying for), or was it a poor, shoddy, mean-spirited, selfish, lowbrow fiction, a penny dreadful? And there can be no doubt that stuff like 'The Project For The New American Century' is not Twain, or Shakespeare, or Marx. It's, at best, an editorial in 'Jane's Defence Weekly' crossed with a Jack Chick comic.

Goodness me, who's ever said that? He is an evil bastard with vast power. Some dreamer.

it's a figure of speech for Christ's sake sez I who does not believe in the divinity of Christ ;)

The problem with a written constitution is that it presupposes that it need not ever change. I think that Mr. Moore's Oscar winning documentary might demonstrate the issues with this type of constitution. Sure, people might be more aware of their rights if they have a document that can be read, but then this document becomes untouchable, regardless of the reality of time and change.

It would seem to me (apologies in advance for pretentious wankery) that the US exists as a modernist entity. Modernism, by suggesting at around the turn of the century that, although old ideologies don't function, new ones can be established. These new ones would be completely workable. Frankly, I think the US was ahead of its time--it is really a modernist state--a state created from a new sense of what statehood is--a state with a new constitution--a state with a new form of goverment--a state quite satisfied that it will function well. Unfortunately, the modernist state that is the US doesn't seem to work because it is not subject to the reality of dynamic change (I could use the word postmodern here, but I'll hold myself back--I've been out of grad school long enough to know that using postmodern as a descriptor can be quite annoying). Thus, we end up with a sense of the US as unquestionable--the consitution is unquestionable, the foreign policy is unquestionable, and the country is unquestionable even in the face of profound objections from the rest of the world.

Anyhow, I apologize once again. It's early and I'm suffering from an overdose of the BBC World Service.

'American Primacy' is less an experiment than a Testament. It decrees a future without doubt.

And why is that?

Correct. I don't see what's so "needlessly effete" about that.

I think anyone who voted for him was out of order, in one way or another. I don't usually call them 'dupes'.

Something about the idea of a 'smarter understanding' doesn't convince me. That could be because there are so many things I don't understand.

I think the Nipper should be needlessly effete in all circumstances.

I initially read this as "neat ubermousian idea" which amused the hell out me

I'm not one to defend Momus, who I think is so blinded by the glamor of postmodernism that he ends up sidestepping most/all of what's interesting about the very questions he himself raises, but I must do so here: drawing strands from disparate elements into one slightly (playfully) perverse idea is Momus's schtick -- not "schtick" in a derogatory sense at all: it's what he does, right, and in fairness to him I don't think he's claiming (I hope he's not claiming) to have discovered The Great Big Insight into the things he talks about. I view it as more, "Y'all know how I do things: here's what happens when how I do things intersects with [insert the present object of his scrutiny's affection]."

And now Nick please back away from the postmodernism-posing-as-modernism table, that stuff's been dead for at least eight years ;)

I doubt it. At a talk last February he was asked how things would be different in Al Gore was in change, and he said "They wouldn't. He do the same things because he wouldn't want to be seen as a wimp."

yeah, it'd prolly be easier for him to get around on that scooter thingy.

Yes - I think it may have died at about 5:40pm on the Thursday before Wake Up Boo! came out.

Right, forget the Red Cross, what the people of Iraq need now is Northrop Frye.
I'm sorry, Momus, I think I see your point, but I also think it's, uh, a bit naive and self-absorbed.

What I've been saying! Hurrah for Mr. Moore.

My God, John...are you never NOT on here? I mean, do you have nothing better to do than to cyber-stalk me and make sure that I end all my posts with...

you pieces of shit.

The US went to the UN grudgingly--whatever the motive, who even cares at this juncture. But to say that there has not been much public and private debate about Iraqi policy in the past 18 months is simply untrue, whether born of ignorance or not. There has been assloads of debate. The problem for the anti-war contingent is that their side lost it.

Please. You have no proof of this.

There does seem to be a witch hunt against this guy. There have been a number of patronizing attacks on him from the left establishment (read: white boys club), basically saying that the left needs to "disown" him and that he makes "us" look bad. First of all, referring to the left as a monolithic "us" is really offensive. Michael Moore does not "belong" to a lot of people on the left, while he does belong to a lot of people who never thought of themselves as "left". And calls for people to "disown" him are quasi-Stalinist.

Daniel Radosh started it by writing a bunch of unsubstantiated bullshit about Moore. Daniel Radosh is, of course, Ronald Radosh's (noted conservative & braggart of sexual exploits) son. There are a lot of behind-the-scenes politics going on here.

This "egomaniac" stuff is nothing but projection from a bunch of guys who don't realize how patronizing, arrogant and snooty they appear to a lot of people. I just do not see it from him at all. I tried to explain why his cultural background (Catholic, working-class) influences him, but I guess people just don't give enough of a shit about that demographic to try to understand it. A lot of these Catholic activists believe in stuff like "conviction" - which gets misinterpreted by others as "self-righteous" or egomaniacal.

I wonder if he's pissed people off simply because he refused to put up with the snooty bullshit that annoys a lot of us. The people he rubs the wrong way are the people who want to call the shots, the people who only want "their" people contributing, and in the "appropriate" manner.

If you really want to know what arrogance and egomania are, ask a woman. We're experts at recognizing that crap. It's not coming from Michael Moore. It's coming from people who pretend to "own" a movement and who think that all of the "others" out there are dumber than they really are.

And this defeatist "what will the neighbors think" mentality on the left has really got to stop. It's controlling and patronizing. It's as if people don't recognize or respect the idea of "conviction" anymore.

Who exactly is the "white boys club" anyway?

As for the witch hunt after Moore, well, it seems pretty similar to the witch hunts that Moore himself has perpetrated over the years. But as I've said previously, the guy does seem to have enemies--I guess we'll just have to disagree as to the origins of them. I say a loose handle on facts makes you an easy target...just ask Limbaugh about that one. This thread is nearly exactly like every single one I've ever seen on Limbaugh, in fact.

This "arrogant" projection of Moore for me actually results from personally dealing with the guy and is inflamed when watching his ego-driven publicity stunts. The problem with your presumptions regarding some sort of "working class" (which is opposed to what, the "non working" class?) Catholic cultural sector is something that I'm intimately familiar with and do not find to be a credible explanation of his rude behavior. It's degrading to my own family and friends who have emerged or reside in that area of society without resorting to political bullying that Moore seems so fond of. That cultural background borderlines on a bigoted stereotype that I'd rather not perpetuate any farther.

Your arrogance of the female gender is also a little unsettling, as if your biological component gives you some sort of intellectual or emotional superiority over those of us who were born with different chromasomes. I agree that the controlling, patronizing nature of political discourse is limiting overall, but your conclusions regarding your gender are specious and patronizing in their own right.

Finally, I rather like the anarchist in Michael Moore. Class warfare is always exciting, and I'd be the first to admit that he's pretty funny. I just wish he'd think before opening his mouth a little more often.

Sigh. It's depressing that someone who claims to be from the left says this. It's even more depressing that you don't seem to find this the least bit problematic. And yet you're worried about Michael Moore alienating the left? It's attitudes like these that have alienated the majority of this country - which is what the working-class is.

Catholic cultural sector is something that I'm intimately familiar with and do not find to be a credible explanation of his rude behavior

Who is he being rude to? Who is he bullying? How is trying to get past security to engage in a civil (yes, he is civil) discussion with people who hide in their offices or behind gates "rude"? He's trying to engage people who obviously don't want to be engaged, and he's exposing the mechanisms by which they shield themselves. If you think that's "rude", I can't imagine what you must think of the people who would like to do a hell of a lot more to Roger Smith. I'm supposed to feel sorry for these people? Why are people so quick to identify with the poor community-destroying CEO who gets confronted with the consequences of his actions? Why am I expected to do the same?

First, I have never ever in my life claimed to be from the left. Not only do I resent you putting words into my posts, I don't appreciate being prescribed to a group I have little in common with. I'm a Libertarian, if you're so anxious to frame my political views with the context of this discussion.

Second, your references to "the working class" are oblique and ultimately, rhetorical.

Third, I've not been worried about Moore alientating the left--in the sense that he turns lefties away from the cause. I'm worried that he is reinforcing negative stereotypes of the left--he being yet another mouthy celebrity who arrogantly projects his point of view as superior to others--that ultimately weaken the message the left has to offer. As for the "poor community-destroying CEO" that Moore went after, well, there are two sides of that story and you will only ever care about Moore's. But I will say that it is human nature to assume that any CEO would not be so inherently evil that he/she would maliciously destroy any community, so I would imagine that that is why people might identify with Roger Smith. Then again, plenty of people think that CEOs are the root of all evil, so I'm not quite sure why you assume that people are more likely to identify with a CEO than you would.

Oh and Kerry, if you think that arrogance can't come from underdogs then you have a lot of living to do.

Don - you're a libertarian. No wonder you pissed him off.

arrogantly projects his point of view as superior to others

In other words, he thinks he's right. How dare he.

Of course he thinks he's right. I've no problems with that. Not a lot of people around here have a problem with his message--indeed, you made the assumption that I was a leftie since I never attacked his political views for what they are. I and others challenge his method, that's it. And then somehow it all wandered off into sexist comments regarding arrogance/egomania, Catholic "working class" stereotypes, and other hyperbole.

The attacks on his public persona--Bowling For Columbine, since this all relates to the Oscars--are in fact substantiated. His statements at the Oscars accused the times we live in and the election as being "ficticious," when his very own film was constructed entirely to propogate his political perspective as opposed to an accurate portrayal of events as they actually happened. What exactly does Moore mean by ficticious? And more importantly, why should I trust a person's opinion on the definition of "ficticious" when the standard seems to be a sliding one?

But the problem with Limbaugh isn't that he's rude and rough and kicks ass. The problem isn't even the veritable miasma of self-satisfaction that emanates from his every pore. The problem is that he's a demagogue who elides, misrepresents, and otherwise distorts the truth to make his political points -- and that he encourages an atmosphere of screaming-at-the-top-of-your-lungs debate, delivered in the kind of rhetoric that obscures, rather than illuminates.

Is Moore damaging to the Left? I don't know, but I know how betrayed I felt when, as a teenager, I found out that there were substantial fabrications and distortions in Roger and Me, a movie which galvanized me with righteous anger when I first saw it. It was an experience for which I am in a way grateful, because it taught me one of the more important lessons in my life -- namely, that if anything, you have to be more rigorous, more skeptical, when confronted with polemics whose political point you agree with. And it also taught me to be deeply suspicious of anyone, from any political persuasion, whose arguments conjure the existence of an Evil Other. When I'm listening to an argument and assessing a person's credibility and intelligence, one of my main benchmarks is the speaker's ability to argue the other side's case in a convincing way -- to present both sides of the story, as it were -- and then to demonstrate why his/her own point of view is a more truthful one. I've never seen Moore do anything of the kind, and while that may make him an effective advocate in the eyes of some, it also means that he's little more than a cheerleader: he may convince the kind of people who are swayed by bumper stickers, slogans, and propaganda, but for those of us who need to be genuinely persuaded with thoughtful argument, he has nothing to offer.

A lot of the arguments in defense of Moore seem to come down to "B-b-but he's on MY TEAM!" -- in other words, they're partisan arguments ("he's fighting for my cause and can do no wrong!"), rather than reasoned ones ("all in all, he deserves your trust/support, and this is why"). The former kind of argument is of no interest to me; the latter is. I would love to see a point-by-point debate of the alleged distortions and half-truths in Moore's films -- one that would present the evidence and let me make up my own mind as to whether this is a man whom I want to support, or one whom I can't trust to be a credible advocate for the things I believe in. And let there be no mistake, if a political point of view acquires a spokesperson whose behavior is sufficiently toxic, it most certainly can damage that point of view -- in much the same way as an articulate, honest spokesperson, whose tactics are fair and whose arguments are lucid, can help a cause immeasurably. If Moore is not honest -- whether in his representation of the facts, or in the argumentation he makes about them -- then I can't support him, even if I agree with his political goals: his work would then be akin to a house with a rotten foundation.

I have to say that I find Kerry's tactics in this thread rather distasteful, and emblematic of exactly the kind of thing that embitters me and makes me not want to bother with politics at all. Playing the race, class, and gender cards, all within a few posts, is a sign of a person whose aim is to shout her opponents down with ad hominem attacks, rather than genuinely engage their arguments. The link you posted, Kerry -- which has some interesting ideas, and some very poor ones too -- says that "The most popular form of dirty fighting is to attack the person rather than her or his point of view...Activists can learn to fight, and to fight fair." Well, you're not fighting fair, and frankly, you should know better.

reason i ask is i've read a few long articles about how very minor mistakes or discrepansies in the film were taken and blown up into into a whole story of 'lies and distortions' completely out of proportion to what was on screen. I found those articles quite convincing so I'm wondering whether the accuations are based on those R&m era stories or something else entirely.

A bit one-sided in your critique, eh?

What bugs me is your certainty that *you* are free from bias, or that it is possible to be so.

"He's fighting for my cause and can do no wrong" - is reductivist and a misrepresentation of what I said. "The existence of an Evil Other" is also your interpretation, something that can't be objectively quantified.

There were very few arguments made here, Phil - just dismissals of Moore with little to no substantiation.

You're not the final arbiter of what is or isn't persuasive. Which is exactly the sort of "I can afford to be above-it-all" arrogance that drives me up the wall. It takes nothing into account like, say, sensitivity to things that are important to lots of people. Who are you to think that I care whether I've persuaded you or not? I don't.

I think I have every right, on the other hand, to say what I find persuasive, or convincing, or truthful: in my post above, I said (1) Michael Moore's mode of discourse doesn't work for me, and (2) I suspect that, for people who want what I want out of someone like Moore, it won't work them either. What's so hard to understand about that?

Your last paragraph doesn't even make any sense -- that, or it's espousing a viewpoint so alien to mine I can't even begin to fathom it: are you saying that whether or not Moore tells the truth is unimportant compared to, say, whether or not he is "sensitive" to the needs of some unnamed "lots of people"? Oh, that's right, "he's one of our own" -- so questions about whether or not he tells the truth aren't important, since anyone who impugns him must be a rich white male "righty" with a hidden agenda, yes? Sigh...

The one thing that can be talked about with some degree of objectivity here -- and I never said that the question of whether or not he was a "jerk" could be -- are the allegations about Moore's misrepresentations. I want to know what both sides have to say about these issues -- particularly the allegation that Moore added text to a Bush ad, which seems like a clear-cut binary: did he, or didn't he? And if he did, has he explained why? If you've got something to say about these questions -- something more substantial than "the only people saying bad things about Moore are right-wingers, so they must be full of shit" -- then I'd love to hear it, because if there's one thing I've been trying to harp on in these two posts, it's that there are (at least!) two sides to every story, and I'm sure the truth isn't as simple as Moore or the likes of Andrew Sullivan would like to portray it as being.

MM's public persona and primary TV tactic is prankishness intended to wrongfoot and embarrass his targets*: somewhat bogus facts undermine this far less than they would (say) Ralph Nader, bcz the purpose is to get the target scrambling around on the defensive for once. (LBJ aide: "You can't say our opponent's a pigfucker!" LBJ: "I wanna hear the sumbitch deny it..." => LBJ is the main architect of Civil Rights as established US constitional fact...)

(*Like any spectacle-based political tactic its effectiveness is intensely seasonal, and this year's trend = next year's overchewed gum...)

In fact, I've extensively commented on primarily one issue: that Moore's tactics often obscure his message. I see Moore's tactics as often self-aggrandizing, but Kerry thinks I need objective proof before I can credibly allege arrogance. That's her position and I accept it, even if it seems a little specious to go on. Personally, I really don't think that Moore's joking about Bush voters dying in 9-11 is anything less than asshole-ness, but perhaps that only goes to show that an asshole is different for everyone. Or something like that.

The crux of my criticism--other than my feeling that he is an asshole in both public and private--is that Moore has a history of playing loose with the facts. This includes, most ironically, a non-fiction documentary film that just won an Oscar on Sunday night. As I've noted several times, Moore deliberately reconstructed timelines and other elements of fact in order to support the thesis of his narrative, yet never once lets the audience know about it. Those are substantial issues that question the credibilty of the filmmaker in my opinon, but I guess I'm alone in that.

what exactly do you mean by "text"

*ducks*

Also I don't agree that "Outrageous polemical claims made in the heat of the moment — deliberately or unknowingly — are part of what keep your opponents honest": the lessons of the McCarthy era -- set off as it was by exactly such an outrageous polemical (and categorically false) claim -- do not seem, to me, to correlate with your assertion.

I still stand by the notion that deeds done in Aslan's name, but with Tash's tactics, belong to Tash: if the Left doesn't fight fair, and with honesty, then it loses an important piece of what makes it worth fighting for in the first place.

btw I haven't seen Moore at the Oscars; my immediate reaction was that, while I wasn't thrilled that it was he who did it, I was glad that someone made some kind of a statement. Unlike Kerry, I don't think that people who are fond of Moore are unimportant people with whom I wouldn't care to associate (am I the only one who finds this a remarkably icky thing to say?), and I can certainly understand why they admire his willingness to doggedly persist in fighting his particular fight -- I could even call it courage, perhaps. But I'm deeply troubled by his methods, and by the repeated question marks about his integrity as a filmmaker. And so, despite having spent just about all of my 26 years on earth well below the poverty line, no, Michael Moore does not speak for me, or to me -- for at this point, I don't feel that I can trust him, and that to me is far more relevant to being "one of us" than...well, than just about anything. But if history proves me wrong, and Moore accomplishes great things that help the poor and oppressed, then I will gladly acknowledge those accomplishments. I just fear that the concerns I have described will, if nothing else, keep him from accomplishing those things.

There have been instances when Moore has obviously been contradictory, and I think it's quite deliberate, like when he says that the majority of American people don't want war on the one hand, and acknowledging that Bush's approval ratings would go through the roof once it started. He knows exactly what he's doing when he says he speaks for the majority - do you really think he's that dumb? He's wrong and yet he's also right - Americans support progressive causes such as greater social spending in large numbers when questioned in surveys about it.

I have my own internalized prejudices about my own people, and I must say I'm continually surprised by the intelligence in his juxtapositions, observations and deliberate contractadictions -
he knows he's not perfect (his audience knows it, too), and he plays this up to avoid being falling into the Messiah trap. Still doesn't protect him from death threats, though.

And what are the papers saying about him this morning? That he's fat, that his tux didn't fit him, that he has no class, and - most appallingly - that he doesn't give a damn about the troops because he insulted George Bush.

The Bush administration, regarding Congress the same way it regards the UN and the American people themselves (ie troublesome insofar as their right to vote might block hawk will) actually struggled for months to avoid any congressional debate on Iraq. They argued that they already had authorisation for Gulf War II because of the continuing validity of congressional authorisation for Gulf War I, even though this legislation talked only about Iraq's threat to Kuwait. Read this or this.

It's perfectly reasonable to want to avoid the kind of bullshit-infested political egoism and pandering that accompanies any formal debate in Congress. To suggest that the Administration didn't debate this issue openly (or privately, where the press widely reported the battles within the administration's highest ranks) or stifled the discussion on all sides of the issue is not supported by facts. At all.

I like Michael Moore, he understands the power of film and how it can be used and he works an audience very well. He's a clever, well-read man and his speech at the Oscars was great. I thought that Adrien Brody played it safe, his speech was 'controverst for cretins' really. 'Let's all hope for peace' (cue: standing ovation from those too scared of being blacklisted for cheering Moore) oh how radical - and care to share any opinion whatsoever on the war?

Martin Scorsese WAS about to applaud before they cut away. Scorsese is no one's bitch, he's the the greatest filmmaker since Kurosawa and Hitchcock for fuckssake, and the man who made 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. Good for Marty! I would suspect that Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins were applauding - I guess Martin Sheen and Sean Penn weren't invited. But, hey, why not have actors and directors passing comment on this fiasco that's going on? I believe that cinema is a great art (at its best obviously, summer blockbusters notwithstanding).

Getting back to the point. What fucks me off about this war is the two faces of America - holding prisoners of war in Cuba for over a year now and then screaming 'Geneva Convention' when their POWs look malnourished. Bush saying: 'Saddam is evil cos he kills his own people'... well, no doubt, but then Bush sent how many under-18s and innocent people to the electric chair whilst guv'nor of Texas? And with a record number of rich to poor how the fuck can America play world bully and start talking morals? Fuck Bush, he's a twat and fuck Blair as well.

John Carpenter is better.