I hate Michael Moore's complete lack of tact

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Michael, Michael, Michael. I've been watching Michael Moore's work since "Roger and Me" came out, and I've always had some respect for the man for trying to get to the truth of the matter and showing it for what it is. Last night, however, Michael Moore lost a lot of that respect. After recieving an academy award for best documentary, he took his three minutes of main-stream fame and decided to blow it by bashing Bush, the electoral process, and the war. True, all three are in need of close monitering. But to just come out and make a bunch of blunt accusations you do not have time to back up, and start ranting at your peers who are trying to honor you... this does absolutely NOTHING to further the cause of peace!
Michael Moore has now thrown up a wall between himself and the people that he should be trying to spread the truth to. Moore came off last night as a self-righteous and beligirent crusader, rather as the rational and intelligent everyman who's greatest talent lied in his ability to make anyone, regradless of political bias, stop and think.
For every one person who is proud of Moore's behavior, there are 4 that will no longer listen to him. He has done for the anti-war movement what people who try to start chaos during a "peace" march have done, which is to discredit those who seek true peace. I give Moore credit for exercising his power of free speech and the balls it took to behave as he did, but his behavior did not as much reflect that of a pacifist's as that of an attention-wanting media whore.
Shame on you, Mr. Moore.

― The Man they call Dan (The Man they call Dan), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 03:57 (twenty-three years ago)

he did get everyone's attention tho. probably quite a lot of people were turned off by it. i'm not sure what he should have done. either way "when youve got the pope and the dixie chicks against you, you know yr time is up" was pretty funny at least.

― rebekah (rebekah), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 04:44 (twenty-three years ago)

true... it was entertaining to hear him go off, and it was entertaining to see everyone shocked, but did it really accomplish anything worthwhile? He could have done something better.

― The Man they call Dan (The Man they call Dan), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 04:59 (twenty-three years ago)

i liked roger and me, but i hate "the awful truth". i don't have any particular aversion to him making anti war comments at the oscars.

― di smith (lucylurex), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 05:11 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't have a problem with it being anti-war either, it was just the way he presented his statement that bothered me. It was about as subtle and tasteful as showing up at the party and pissing in the punchbowl.

But I guess that's fun too huh...

― The Man they call Dan (The Man they call Dan), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 05:41 (twenty-three years ago)

haha maybe i'm just used to people turning up at the party and pissing in the punchbowl. afterall, this is dunedin.

― di smith (lucylurex), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 06:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Wow, Michael Moore expouses rediculous opinions that have little to no basis in fact in a completely retarded manner. WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED?

"when youve got the pope and the dixie chicks against you, you know yr time is up" was pretty funny at least.

I still fail to see why that's funny.

― webber (webber), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 07:40 (twenty-three years ago)

also i cant spell lol

― webber (webber), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 07:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Who's more relevant that the Pope? or the Dixie Chicks? It was sort of funny, sort of cool, not too much of either and what difference will ANYTHING make to what's going on anyway blah blah

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 11:50 (twenty-three years ago)

I think the Dixie Chicks apologised for saying they were anti war anyway. Too bad.

― Elisabeth (Elisabeth), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 12:26 (twenty-three years ago)

I like Moore, too. But what good does this do his film-making career, or the "antiwar movement" (I wish there wasn't a war but wishing doesn't=happening, this isn't like the Bolsheviks or something)? Prob none. prob impressed some chicks, tho

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 15:25 (twenty-three years ago)

they (the dixie chicks) apologized for saying they were ashamed to be from the same state as bush. you know those crazy COUNTRY MUSIC fans!

i guess it was funny cos everyone's been making such a big deal over what the dixie chicks said...plus they're kind of a joke, never taken seriously, so to say if you've got them against you then you're in trouble - is kind of funny. *shrug* or not

andrew's right, nothing will make a difference anyway. how depressing tho.

― rebekah (rebekah), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 18:24 (twenty-three years ago)

i <3 the d1x13 ch1ck5!>

― di smith (lucylurex), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 20:33 (twenty-three years ago)

dUdE tHeYrE sO KeWl

― rebekah (rebekah), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 20:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, as Rebecca and Andrew already said, Moore's protest changes nothing. But hey, you'd think he was intelligent enough to work that out for himself, he might just've wanted to broadcast his own feeling about the war. Also, I think lact of tact was probably the point - if he'd just gotten up there and gone "um...we wish for peace and stuff" he'd sound like every single other person there.
It was pretty funny, anyway - the Dixie Chicks and the Pope should meet up some time, seeing as they have so much in common.

― Livvie (Livvie), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 00:22 (twenty-three years ago)

I disagree, Moore's statement has made things worse. A man as intelligent and witty could have done much better than he did. I feel very strongly that he went on stage with the intent of pissing people off and being shocking. He has damaged his already thinning credability and done the people who believe in anti-war a dishonor.
You cannot tell me that he was shocked that he got a negative response. His speech came off as a loud-mouth with an award pressing verbal hot buttons and engaging in shameless self-promotion. In less than three minutes, Michael Moore took his public persona and wiped his ass with it. There are other ways to be unique and opinionated without ranting at the people who just gave you an award.

― The Man they call Dan (The Man they call Dan), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 00:45 (twenty-three years ago)

I guess what pisses me off about the pro or anti-war views being shouted out is the division it's causing amongst the populace. People keep fanning the flames of division in this country. Everyone is so stuborn about their views on this war. Instead of promoting compromise, people are letting their actions reflect extremism, and this is on both sides of the debate. I'm sure Saddam is laughing his ass off as people in America try and supress the protesters, and protesters scream hatred and anger in an attempt to gain peace. I'm sorry if I come off as self-righteous or if I ramble on too much about this shit. I just need to speak my mind.

― The Man they call Dan (The Man they call Dan), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 01:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Moore's statement has made things worse.
I meant it was changing nothing in terms of the actual war i.e. George Bush and Saddam will continue as they had planned, regardless of what some irrelevant at the Oscars has to say about it. I think you meant in terms of the view of war in America - I don't live there, so I have no idea what the general sentiment towards the war or Bush is, or how it has changed. I'd imagine here, however, most people would just dismiss it as rambling and carry on with their original opinions anyway.

Ranting at the people who just gave you an award.
What part of Moore's speech actually attacked the Oscar voters? From what I remember (I could be wrong) his speech was mainly directed at Bush alone.

I guess what pisses me off about the pro or anti-war views being shouted out is the division it's causing amongst the populace.
Pretty much any sort of action like this war is going to cause a division - are you suggesting that we keep our views to ourselves, or just that we should all remain apathetic? What way would you have wanted Moore to protest against war, or what would you rather he'd said? And what exactly do you suggest as a "compromise"? How can pro- and anti-war opinions ever come together - this doesn't make sense to me.

I'm sorry if I come off as self-righteous or if I ramble on too much about this shit. I just need to speak my mind.
Well that is what this board is for, although personally I'd rather read the slightly more banal threads! I actually didn't really have much of an opinion on the war before this, except that George Bush is an idiot (I was against it, obviously, but I tend to believe that protesting achieves very little) but hey, just goes to show what a few hours free can make you do.

― Livvie Tapper (Livvie), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 02:58 (twenty-three years ago)

What part of Moore's speech actually attacked the Oscar voters? From what I remember (I could be wrong) his speech was mainly directed at Bush alone.

It was my understanding the academy wanted to keep war out of things this year as much as possible. To rant on and on about like he did is vaguely analogous to going to a party held after someone the host knows has just died and walk around all night going "xxx WAS GAY LOL IM SO FUNNY AND CLEVER".

It's not very polite. If you were to talk about issues like that, at least respect the people that invited you as other nominees succeeded in doing.

― webber (webber), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 03:25 (twenty-three years ago)

Moore has stated that he believes Sony rigs the Oscars. Yet somehow he won. I consider it a rant against the Oscars attendee's when you go on stage and just unleash so much negative energy out at the audience. I feel he went out there with the purpose of provocation, in both the people in the Shrine Auditorium and the people viewing on television. Why on a night of honoring the achievements in the film industry would you go out and make statements sure to provoke anger in the audience, and right after you've recieved an award from that same audience? Moore has presented himself as a crusader of the working man since the beginning. How can he maintain this image when he goes and presents himself with such hostility? You can't facilitate change by throwing up a wall between those you're trying to reach! If you can make someone stop and think about the electoral process, you could possibly change the way they vote in elections or IF they vote, and potentially avoid a situation like this again. Michael Moore has handicapped has ability to accomplish this by letting his emotions overrun his words.
Look, we can have a split in opinions without being obnoxious assholes about it. Because people are out on the streets, protesting the war and causing the streets to get clogged, making it impossible for ambulances or fire trucks to get through , or by jumping barriers, destroying public property, it's because of this irresponsible and chaotic behavior in the name of PEACE that people here in my country who are FOR the war are even less likely to listen to these protesters or agree with them. The split between people in this country is growing because people cannot behave in a rational and responsible manner. They can't present their cases without resorting to petty tactics such as destroying property or raving on television. This is happening on both sides of the war/anti-war arguement. People are letting their emotions dictate their actions, and the extreme nature of their behavior is causing the divide between our people to grow. I'm afraid if this extremism grows, we are going to have case like in Kent State in the early 70's where the National Guard showed up on a college campus and ended up shooting civilian college students. Or a situation like the Birmingham riots during the Civil Right's activism of the 60's, where the cops showed up with firehoses to spray those "damn rebellious niggers". This is the kind of mentality that extremism breeds, and over-emotional and irresponsible rebellion breeds it. Go to a public park, have a rally. Get on television and debate someone! Moore could have pulled that off WITHOUT going on the Oscars and flaming the president! Martin Luther King and Ghandi made change by having peaceful demonstrations and giving intelligent and meaningful discourses. I know not everyone can be King or Ghandi, but wouldn't it be nice if more people tried?
I think people should say what they want, but if they expect to be taken seriously and respected and make a difference, they should keep in mind how they present themselves and the impact it is going to have on those who watch them.

― The Man they call Dan (The Man they call Dan), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 03:37 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.