Micheal Moore booed at Oscars

Yes, I was wrong about the 10 seconds part. It seemed shorter than what it was to me at the time, and I’ll gladly admit that he went longer. Honest mistake. I was actually going to mention that when I posted the MP3, and forgot.

In any event, the characterization that he was ‘booed off the stage’ I guess depends on how you define it. The boos got louder as he kept going, they cued the music over his speech, and he had to shout to get the last part out. But I’ll admit my belief that he was ‘booed off the stage’ was partly based on my recollection that he wasn’t given his full 45 seconds. It looks like he was.

On the other hand, YOU said that ‘there was just a few people booing loudly’. It was a lot more than that.

On the other hand, Roger Ebert’s account of the post-Oscar media event says this:

This is the kind of accuracy we’ve come to expect from Michael Moore.

(BTW, in the article Ebert also says Moore got his full 45 seconds)

It was certainly much more than 5. But it could have been 30 or 40 people booing loudly. In comparision to the size of the audience I would say that is “few” Like I said I didn’t see too many people booing when the camera showed the audience. And though it isn’t clear because of the music there seems to be quite a bit of clapping right at the end.

He actually got more. From the time that he started speaking to the time the music came up was ~1min 7 sec.'s. He finished his speech at ~1min 09secs.

The two people at the ceremony who commented on be flashed time where Best Actor and Best Orig. Screenplay they both mention being told time was up between 1min 5 and 1min 10.

Moore was the only person who was cut off by music. Well the Best Actor was at over 2 min’s but he ignored it. He did get more than his time though. You also fail to comment on the standing ovation that a lot of people gave him when he won and the round of applause he received when he walked off the stage as the booing was subsiding.

*Timings taken from a repeat that was shown last night. *

Though I can’t post a link to it for copyright reasons, you should all download the video of the speech from Kazaa. The fact is that most of the audience was neither clapping or booing.

A further analysis of the audience shots reveals the following:

People clapping: 4
People booing: 1

Of course this is by no means a rigorous scientific test, but does give some credence to the claim that clapping may simply be harder to hear than booing.

Regarding MM and his right to freedom of speech…

As Americans, we all have freedom of speech. I am allowed to call every man I see Sally. I am entitled to tell people waiting in line for a movie how it ends. It is perfectly legal for me to tell someone just how UGLY there child is.

Just because we HAVE the right, does not mean we will use it responsibly. I too support his right to dissent. I just wish he would have the grace to accept his award and move on, saving invectives for the President to a more appropriate forum.

I find it strange that Moore is being panned for speaking his mind, yet Roman Polanski, who has been evading justice for 26 years on a statutory rape case, was applauded wildly for winning best director. Moore was right- we had a fictitious election that gave us a phony president. Now we claim to be fighting a war for Iraqi freedom, yet at the same time criticize an American for exercising his right to dissent. How hypocritical.

Sam

It appears I have overestimated the degree of class with which you are possessed. Rather a pity. And your lame contention that you were only insulting a celebrity, when your words clearly state otherwise, is the kind of argument I used to scrape off my shoe before I went into the house.

To impugn the patriotism of “anti-war” people is pure Nixon, and I am frankly surprised to see you stoop to such. I thought better of you. I was wrong. Perhaps the stress of this shitstorm has gotten to you, and later you will think better of it. I hope so. Otherwise, you will soon be reduced to posting cites from G. Gordon Liddy about hairy peaceniks spitting on returning soldiers.

When you get there, wait for me. I might be a while.

I took ‘we’ to mean all the other nominees for best documentary that he had invited onstage with him. I’m surprised that no one has focused on this aspect of the whole affair. Did Moore get the other nominees to sign off on his remarks beforehand, or did Moore simply annoint himself their spokesman? If it’s the latter as I suspect, then it makes Moore’s remarks even more inappropriate.

Does anyone have any information about this? Were the other nominees aware of what was going to happen?

According to this, which gex gex posted in the Pit thread:

Who gives a rats ass when an actor at the oscars goes up and ries out and gives the same kind of bla bla bla that has been done to death.

“I wanna than k my prducer my manager my lawyer and my mom etc etc etc” that is the safe way to go in life…
To use your 1.15 minutes of fame to say what you believe (EVEN IF ITS NOT POPULAR) takes GUTS.

U>S>A> is suposedly a free contry (well it was before the Patriot Act of 2001).
So If Moore wants to appear as the biggest idiot on earth he is entitled to it. If he wants to support the war and the US troops he is entitled to it, If he wants to defect grab a gun and help Saddam that is his right.

Man you have too much time on your hands to be concerned with Mr. Moore ramblings about the war and of the 2000 election. He just spoke his mind if you agree perfect if you dont perfect now go on with your lives…

I justt wonder If he had been more “inteligent and classy”, what would have happened and example:
As Mr Bush where the hell is bin laden? he promised in 2001 to get him
or other more incendiary topics (deficit and resecion 4 example…

anyways ,
Just one more thing This is not a war on Iraq. Is an INVASION, because no formal declaration of war has been issued no UN permision was given, so this is no WAR is an Invasion.

According to a witness at the event, the booing was “overwhelming”; the only applause was coming from the front of the seating where the microphones could pick it up. Basically, he was booed off stage.

Okay, watched it again. Watched it about 5 times. And I can say that he was definitely NOT “booed off the stage”, by any stretch of the imagination. If you WATCH, as opposed to listening, you will see that pretty much nobody in camera range was booing, they were nearly all smiling, and many were clapping. If you watch and listen, you see and hear that the booing was coming from a very small percentage of the people in the theatre, and that even they weren’t sustaining it.

I’d say the crowd was mostly with him, it’s just that the portion that wasn’t was noisy about it. Remember, it all started with a standing ovation, and I feel pretty sure that wasn’t merely for the film. It’s hard to argue that the film commmunity is anything but overwhelmingly liberal.

At one time I was an NRA member, and I recieved many such offers in the mail. Every one of them stated that you would need to pick up your gun at a licensed gun dealer, after the usual checks, etc. I saw none that also claimed to BE a gun dealer. However, that said, there is no reason why a Bank can’t be both, and if they are both a licensed gun dealer, you could do the entire transaction there. However, what’s the point? If they are a gun dealer, and you give them money, and you “check out” properly, why shouldn’t they hand you your weapon? I know out in the “Big City” we are used to most businesses being single purpose, but there is nothing wrong with combining them. There is a Wells Fargo Bank inside my local Safeway- I can cash my paycheck, get a loan, and buy a sixpack and my groceries all in the same stop. So?:confused:

It’s been interesting reading this thread without having seen the footage. Now I’ve seen it and I was quite surprised.

Let me state for the record that I think Moore is an ass, and I DO NOT agree with his remarks.

Even given that admitted bias, I wouldn’t say he was “booed offstage” to my perception. There were both claps and booes. Neither seemed overwhelming to me and certainly didn’t drown him out. The orchestra is what finally cut him off, not the jeers, cheers, booes or other audience feedback.

To be purely logical here, one could also claim he was “cheered offstage” as both applause and booing were going on as he left and neither seemed to “dominate” the other. Of course, I think he was neither. I think he ran out his time (as amply cited above) and they struck up the band… Finis.

FYI, my definition of “booed offstage” is that you were drowned out and could not make yourself heard. Watch Amateur Night on Showtime at the Apollo for (usually) several good examples of this. Yeah, they turn on a siren and send out the hook, but only after you’re already “done”…

Bottom line re: whether what he said was “proper”… He had the right to say it, and I have the right to think he was a jackass for doing so at an inappropriate time and place. No more or less to it than that. And yes, I’d feel the same way if a conservative had got up there and ranted about their war views in a similarly partisan way.

I have to disagree with Kix on the point that Michael Moore had GUTS in stating his views in the forum of the Oscars. I’d like to see Moore say the same things to a crowd of soldiers based in Kuwait, then I’d say it takes GUTS.

Using his 1.15 minutes of fame to lash out against the war meant pretty much nothing coming from him. Pretty much everybody knows what side of the political fence he stands on. I totally respect his freedom to use his time to say what he wanted, but I was disappointed that there was not more coverage of the audience during his little tyrade. Unfortunately, it was pretty hard to discern what celebs were clapping and cheering and which ones were booing. If the audience had been shown a little more during Moores time, the American public could have practiced their rights to boycott or support the celebs of their choice based on their support for MM.

Sam’s argument that opposing the war will cost American lives is an example of a fallacy known as the “false dilema”. The dilema is “false” because Sam presents only two options: war with full support of the American public, or the same war with opposition from the public.

While it may certainly be true that IF the war continues to be prosecuted in the exact same way regardless of public opinion, protests will give Iraqis hope and prolong the war, the IF is no certainty.

If, for example, the war became so wildly unpopular that America pulled out of Iraq, the result would be quite different. Further, the long-term consequences of opposing unilateral action are difficult to determine, and may very well save billions of lives (for all Sam knows).

By the way, the “false dilema” argument is used repeatedly by George W. Bush, when he says “you are either with us or against us.”

His documentary was far from a documentary. Some “facts” he portrayed have been debunked at:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

There is lots more on this page with more possible debunkings but this post is long enough. Each of these “facts” has a link (for instance to the exact Charleston Heston speech) At least food for thought. There is also a link for those who question this debunking.

Could we stay on topic here? Bowling for Columbine has already been discussed here and can be discussed in a new thread if you want. This is about his speech at the Oscars.