# Farenheit 911 Scores Perfect Zero-No Oscars for Michael **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 26, 2005, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701 "2005-01-26T03:37:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/101 "2005-01-27T03:07:38Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The point _you’re_ missing is that the word “documentary” has _never_ meant “objective.” The term is misused by those who do not understand the genre. Much like the term “theory” is misused by those who do not understand the scientific method. The fact that this misuse is so widespread as to merit mention in a dictionary does not make that misuse correct. Dictionaries do not, after all, necessarily provide the _correct_ definitions of words, only the most _popular._ And no one here is arguing that the perception of documentaries as “objective” is not widespread. [Here’s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film) a fairly good introduction to the history of the genre. Note that the original documentaries involved a fair bit of outright, deliberate falsehoods and a significant amount of stagery. Compared to the first documentarians, Michael Moore is a model of probity and even-handedness. Really? Perhaps this is why some posters have a problem with the term. Viewing my own well-worn collegiate dictionary- doucmentary _adj_ 1: contained or certified in writing 2: of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; _broadly_ FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE No emphasis added-that’s how the book shows it. Mr. Moore’s work is not a documentary, it’s a politically driven piece. While some will argue as to it’s factuality, it is in no way objective. He hates Bush, which is why he is the darling of the left. By not allowing 9/11 to be considered as a documentary and betting on best picture, he played the long ball and lost. Michael Moore is full of himself, and that is why I pitted him. Had any of the wailing, whining supporters who are willing to attack posters actually _read_ the link, they might have understood what the pitting was about. Perhaps I relied on too much. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/102 "2005-01-27T03:16:16Z")
> [@danceswithcats](#): > > Really? Perhaps this is why some posters have a problem with the term. Viewing my own well-worn collegiate dictionary- doucmentary _adj_ 1: contained or certified in writing 2: of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; _broadly_ FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE > > No emphasis added-that’s how the book shows it. Mr. Moore’s work is not a documentary, it’s a politically driven piece. While some will argue as to it’s factuality, it is in no way objective. He hates Bush, which is why he is the darling of the left. By not allowing 9/11 to be considered as a documentary and betting on best picture, he played the long ball and lost. Michael Moore is full of himself, and that is why I pitted him. Had any of the wailing, whining supporters who are willing to attack posters actually _read_ the link, they might have understood what the pitting was about. Perhaps I relied on too much. Bearing aside that that definition has already been posted and discussed, the objectivity has nothing to do with whether it would have been considered as a documentary by the Academy (It would have. He’s up for other awards from the Director’s Guild and Documentary Association). I am more than willing to believe that Moore’s ego rank amok and didn’t want to ‘lower himself’ to competing in the straight doc category – so he’s guilty of grandstanding. I also doubt he actually he thought he’d get a nomination and if he did, he was delusional, since no other documentary has ever been nominated for best pic and only a handful (Hoop Dreams, notably) have gotten other nominations (for editing). What, you thought no one would argue with you in the Pit? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/103 "2005-01-27T03:44:00Z")
I very much doubt that MM hates Bush, in the same way I don’t. That would be like hating Pinnochio rather than Gepetto. What we hate, what we truly _hate_…is what these men are doing to our country. GeeDubya is a marketable product. So long as he sticks to the script his handlers lay out for him, he’s cool. But don’t you notice that when he wings it, he fucks up? Isn’t that what really rankles about\* F451\*? They show the outakes, the bloopers, the unguarded moment…GeeDubya as he really is, not the packaged goods you bought. Do you believe in magic? Miracles? Do you believe that a pampered and feckless mediocrity can suddenly transmorgify into a Leader of Men? By what divine intervention? What metaphysical mechanism do you put your faith in, that such things can happen? Fate? Divine guidance? Do you seriously imagine, for one second, that GeeDubya would be name you would recognize if he was born in a broken home in Arkansas? For all Bill Clinton’s failings, and they are legion, he built the man he is, from scratch, from Arkansas to Oxford to the White House. GeeDubya was born on third base and believes he hit a triple. The boy who points out that the Emperor has no flight suit is a pimply little snot. I don’t have any illusions about MM, he doesn’t matter. But as long as these men can wrap a vacuum in an American flag, swell up the patriotic music and bloviate a few stern platitudes and sell us a President…this shit will keep happening to us. Isn’t that really it? When you talk with people like yourself, who hate MM and his movie, isn’t that really what its about? Not that he made GeeDubya look evil, that he made GeeDubya look _foolish_. GeeDubya is foolish. And that’s worse, far worse, than evil. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/104 "2005-01-27T03:45:49Z")
> [@danceswithcats](#): > > Really? Perhaps this is why some posters have a problem with the term. Viewing my own well-worn collegiate dictionary- doucmentary _adj_ 1: contained or certified in writing 2: of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; _broadly_ FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE You can’t argue complex subjects such, as the history of an entire genre of art, by relying solely on dictionary definitions. Find a more comprehensive source that agrees with your definition, and I’ll listen. If all you have is dictionaries (and, note, only _some_ dictionaries), then don’t bother posting. You haven’t got jack shit. > [@](#): > > No emphasis added-that’s how the book shows it. Mr. Moore’s work is not a documentary, it’s a politically driven piece. While some will argue as to it’s factuality, it is in no way objective. Yes, it was a biased, politcally driven _documentary_. Same as _Triumph of the Will_. Same as _Why We Fight_. Are you saying these films were not documentaries? Can you find one credible filmmaker who would agree with you? > [@](#): > > He hates Bush, which is why he is the darling of the left. Yeah, you got us pegged there. He’s our God-King. We worship and sing hossanahs unto him every morn. This has nothing at all to do with anything I’ve posted here. Wether or not I agree with a film has no bearing on wether or not that film is a documentary. > [@](#): > > By not allowing 9/11 to be considered as a documentary and betting on best picture, he played the long ball and lost. More likely, he decided that he’d rather rake in the long green by releasing his highly controversial documentary right before the election, than hold it back so that he might get yet another tacky gold statue and have the DVD sales tank after the issue had already been decided. Jesus Christ, if you’re going to malign the man, at least pick a motive that makes a single bit of fucking sense. Documentaries do not win Best Picture. Ever. They don’t even get _nominated_ for best picture. Moore would have to be either a congenital idiot, or a full-blown schizophrenic to think he had a chance at Best Picture. > [@](#): > > Michael Moore is full of himself, and that is why I pitted him. Sure, whatever you say. > [@](#): > > Had any of the wailing, whining supporters who are willing to attack posters actually _read_ the link, they might have understood what the pitting was about. Perhaps I relied on too much. I give as much of a fuck about Michael Moore as I do about your pit thread. I’m objecting to morons who cherry-pick one definition out of a goddamned _dictionary_ and think that means they understand an entire genre of film. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/105 "2005-01-27T03:56:27Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I give as much of a fuck about Michael Moore as I do about your pit thread. I’m objecting to morons who cherry-pick one definition out of a goddamned _dictionary_ and think that means they understand an entire genre of film. Is everything okay with you, **Miller**? I’m not being facetious here, either. I’ve seen you participate in a great many threads where more substantive issues than this were under debate and I don’t recall nearly so much anger from you. The way you’re acting is more than a little out of character for you. You know I have a high regard for you and I hope everything is okay. I really do. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/106 "2005-01-27T04:01:30Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Oh for Christ’s sake. In each of those sentences “documentary” is used as a modifier of the noun (and subject of the sentence) “film.” Except, of course the first, where it’s implied. The word is used as a fucking adjective in all three instances. Just give up, man. _It’s a documentary._ “Documentary” is a noun in this sentence. Compare with “it’s a house”, for example. “House” can be an adjective too (house music, house party), but obviously it isn’t acting as one in that sentence. _The film is a documentary._ Same as above, with the pronoun “it” replaced with the noun phrase “the film”. Same rule applies: when you say “(noun) is a \_\_\_”, a noun goes in the blank. “A (adjective)” just doesn’t work - would you say “the clown is a happy” or “the car is a fast”? _It’s a documentary film._ **There** you go. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/107 "2005-01-27T04:25:59Z")
Is not. 😉 “Documentary” implies truth and credibility, and therefore it carries a certain amount of lightweight gravitas. Neither truth nor credibility are hallmarks of Moore and his works. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/108 "2005-01-27T04:30:11Z")
Funny how so many people seem to think showing facts and news clips, and linking them with narration and sequencing to present a point of view, is somehow untruthful. ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/109 "2005-01-27T04:50:58Z")
Well Fuck it. You guys have it right… Documentaries are all objective and without bias. By that definition Mr Moore’s movie is not a documentary. By that definition there has never been a documentary film made… ever. See? Simple. The academy should remove the category and we should stop using the term until someone makes that competely unsubjective film. Easy peasy. Happy? ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/110 "2005-01-27T04:56:15Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Words fail me. Yeah, I understand how that can happen when you’re wrong about something. How can you call F911 “factual” when he lied about the Pantagraph quote? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/111 "2005-01-27T05:08:56Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > How can you call F911 “factual” when he lied about the Pantagraph quote? Ah yes. That’s the scene that showed a newspaper with the wrong date, with some text reformatted and enlarged, right? As long as you’re setting the bar that low, why don’t you cross reference all the end credits with IMDB? That big fat liar might have misspelled someone’s name! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/112 "2005-01-27T05:50:14Z")
Well, let’s have a fair comparison… How about the stirring documentary, _Mission Accomplished_, starring GeeDubya, as The Leader, and a cast of thousands from the USS _Abraham Lincoln_. You remember that one, don’t you? How the ship was held up for hours so that The Leader could land on the deck? How they used a jet transport, even though well within helicopter range? How they made the ship turn round to have the coastline in the TV shot? How The Leader strode, oh, so _manfully_, with the words “Yes, I flew it!” Anybody believe that? Anybody? Remember how they displayed that big ol’ banner, “Mission Accompished”, then, when criticized, tried to weasel out of it by claiming that it was all the crews doing? Of course, it was produced in Washington, DC, by the Presidents Orcs, but they wouldn’t cop to it, not if anyone was being critical of Himself. So they dumped it on the crew, they’re just extras, after all. So how many lies is that in this brief little film clip? And in comparison, that headline was not on that page, and not in that typescript! Gasp! The mendacity! If Moore worked 24/7, didn’t sleep, didn’t eat, for six months, he couldn’t put out the body of lies that this admin. puts out between lunch and dinner. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/113 "2005-01-27T05:55:46Z")
> [@](#): > > **Pantagraph** > > Pantograph \Pan"to\*graph, n. [Panto- + -graph: cf. F. pantographe.] An instrument for copying plans, maps, and other drawings, on the same, or on a reduced or an enlarged, scale. [Written also pantagraph, and incorrectly pentagraph.] The Pantagraph is _not_ a pantagraph. The owner and or editor are LIARS. We must not believe anything they say, or the terrorists will have won. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/114 "2005-01-27T07:11:45Z")
> [@kingpengvin](#): > > …Documentaries are all objective and without bias. > > …By that definition there has never been a documentary film made… ever. > > …Happy? Very true. So, why bother? Just make shit up. There never was a war without atrocities, either. So, why bother? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/115 "2005-01-27T07:14:18Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > There never was a war without atrocities, either. So, why bother? I don’t recall hearing anything about torture and atrocities in the American Revolutionary War. Why do you hate America, **New Iskander?** ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/116 "2005-01-27T15:16:22Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Very true. So, why bother? Just make shit up. > > There never was a war without atrocities, either. So, why bother? ???!?!?!?!?! I’m sure you have a point there but you’ve got me stumped! I never said anything about made up shit, I’m merely pointing out anyone deluded enough to believe that documentaries are objective works have set the bar to an impossible level. By their standard (and the dictionary definitions they keep pointing to) there have never been documentaries ever made. Once you make a choice what to point the camera at and what is cut out or what is cut together to create a narrative you have made a subjective piece of film. It is impossible to make a documentary that is objective. Even if you have no narration playing connect the dots you still have a message by what you show. For example take Atomic cafe. It shows many clips of 50s atomic bomb educational films as well as test films from the era. No narration just the clips which weren’t even filmed by the director. You might think oh that is objective, but guess what, It ain’t. When you watch it it is quite obvious it is an anti nuke film. You know by watching what the director is telling you by what he shows you and how he pieces it together. No one has ever nor will ever meet the standard of objectivity that is proposed by those who use a dictionary as the means to judge what is or what isn’t a documentary. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/117 "2005-01-27T15:44:40Z")
> [@kingpengvin](#): > > ???!?!?!?!?! > No one has ever nor will ever meet the standard of objectivity that is proposed by those who use a dictionary as the means to judge what is or what isn’t a documentary. Technically, those quoting from [Dictionary.com or the like](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dictionary) are **not** using a dictionary to support their argument. If you look up ‘Dictionary’ in one of these online sources, you’ll see that it’s defined thusly: > [@](#): > > 1. A **book** containing an alphabetical list of words, with information given for each word, usually including meaning, pronunciation, and etymology. There are no books online, thus there are no dictionaries online. ---
**Author:** ![WernhamHogg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a587f6/32.png) [@WernhamHogg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WernhamHogg)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/118 "2005-01-27T15:57:07Z")
**book** (from the Oxford English Dictionary): 1. c. A literary composition such **as would occupy one or more volumes, without regard to the material form or forms in which it actually exists** ; ‘an intellectual composition, in prose or verse, at least of sufficient extent to make one volume’ (Littré s.v. livre). In this sense Carlyle described himself as ‘a writer of books’. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/119 "2005-01-27T17:00:48Z")
> [@WernhamHogg](#): > > **book** (from the Oxford English Dictionary):… Looks to me like the OED is [weaseling](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=weaseling) in an attempt to keep its definitions in tune with this fast paced world. > [@](#): > > **[Volume](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=volume)** > > 1. A collection of written or printed sheets bound together; a book. > 2. One of the books of a work printed and bound in more than one book. > 3. A series of issues of a periodical, usually covering one calendar year. > 4. A unit of written material assembled together and cataloged in a library. ---
**Author:** ![WernhamHogg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a587f6/32.png) [@WernhamHogg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WernhamHogg)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701/120 "2005-01-27T17:12:20Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Looks to me like the OED is [weaseling](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=weaseling) in an attempt to keep its definitions in tune with this fast paced world. And material in any format that WOULD fill a volume is a book – or so say the treacherous weasels who want yesterday’s words to meet the needs of today’s high-tech world. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/farenheit-911-scores-perfect-zero-no-oscars-for-michael/286701.md?page=7)