Well that explains everything.
It’s not clear to me that this has happened at all, though.
The guy is claiming that he was represented as having anti-war views or not being behind his mission in Iraq. In the lead-in to his segment, Moore’s narration says that some vets aren’t getting the coverage they deserve. Then Mr. Damon:
Now, according to the Post:
Everything he was quoted on was prefaced with the comment that some soldiers weren’t “getting the coverage they need.”
It seems to me that that’s what Damon was talking about, that’s all he was talking about, and there was no deceptive editing or intention to make it appear that he was against the decision to go to war itself.
I don’t see that the man was misrepresented at all. Totally frivolous suit – unless Mr. Damon wasn’t dissatisfied with his medical coverage and didn’t intend to support the Democrats when he got back home – in which case that’s some award-winning selective editing, right there.
No, he just accepts nominations and awards for making documentaries. Ergo, he makes documentaries.
What “seems fair” to you is completely unrelated to what the actual law is.
This wasn’t some advertising or stock photoshoot, where model releases are required for publication. The guy was interviewed as part of an NBC news report. There can be no “additional round of releases” because there was no first round of releases. Once he chose to talk to a camera crew that he knew belonged to a news organization, he knew that his words would appear on the news, and that NBC would own the coverage.
Well, as far as i can tell he hasn’t yet even demonstrated that he was, in fact, quoted out of context in such a way as to distort his words or their meaning. According to the article linked by the OP:
I saw the movie in the theater, so it’s been a while, and i don’t remember this particular scene, but if it happened as described in that news article, i think he’s going to have quite a bit of trouble demonstrating that he suffered any real harm from Moore’s documentary. The fact that he appeared in close proximity to an anti-war Democratic congressman really doesn’t say very much.
Also, i don’t know about you, but if i saw footage of a soldier who had lost both arms, and who said that he felt like he was being “crushed in a vice,” i wouldn’t jump to any particular conclusions about whether he was for the war, or against it. I would simply think, “Fuck, how shitty would it be to lose both arms? no wonder the guy feels so awful.”
You are such a fucking mouth-breathing idiot.
Just out of interest, what lie have you caught him in?
And this whole “it’s not a documentary” schtick has gotten a little old, don’t you think? Find me a single interpretive documentary that can be said to be completely factual and accurate, with no room whatsoever for disagreement over facts or interpretation. Documentaries—not just individual ones like Moore’s, but the whole genre—are no less subject to error, bias, dishonesty, or interpretive differences than any other form of media. My local video store, in its documentary section, has a quote from film-maker Jean Renoir calling documentaries “the most false form of film-making.”
And now, on preview, i see that Larry Mudd has given more detail about exactly how the scene played out in the movie. If that’s how it was, then i’m even more convinced that this whole thing is a non-issue.
Well, I suppose in the loosest sense of the word he might. But let me tell you…the Academy Award people are by no means the final overlords on what the definition of “documentary” is. Tell me…do YOU think he gives equal time to both sides of his issues? I certainly don’t. But I trust what he says regarding his opinions to be the truth nonetheless.
In what universe does this quality have a cussed thing to do with documentary filmmaking?
Then why, on Moore’s own website, are his films called documentaries? Including this telling quote:
I was referring to Unclebeer’s statement that because Moore accepted nominations and awards for documentary filmmaking, that they were automatically considered to be documentaries. That fact doesn’t mean it’s a documentary.
He’s documenting only part of the story. Unbalanced. Get it?
Oh, I understand perfectly. But the slant (or lack of slant) of the film matters not a whit to what . I’m only contesting the claims of fact - it has bee stated explicitly by several in here that Michael Moore does not make documentaries. And even further it has been stated as fact that Moore doesn’t call his films documentaries. These claims of fact are both demonstrably and irrefutably false.
It’s like the inmate calling the cuckoo loco.
So, if one of a list of reasons for a war is proven false…can we follow your “thinking” to its logical conclusion?
-Joe
And you can point to the law that distinguishes between what is allowed in a parody, and what is allowed in a documentary? Or even a law that defines what is a parody, and what is a documentary?
Actually, they pretty much are. They’re the world’s premiere organization of film professionals. They’ve got about as much authority to say what is and is not a documentary as the APA has to say what is and is not a mental illness.
I don’t trust him, either, but that has nothing to do with wether or not his films are documentaries. “Documentary” does not mean fair, or honest, or undistorted. It just means “purporting to be truthful.” Hell, the first documentary ever made, Nanook of the North, was about as staged and choreographed as a Busby Berkely musical. There’s a widespread misconception that a documentary is supposed to be objective, but even a casual familiarity with the genre will show that that has never been the case.
I actually agree with you here.
And, personally, i think it’s silly for Moore’s defenders to assert that he doesn’t make documentaries. He does. And the fact that i believe that has nothing to do with my opinion of his work. I wrote a long review of Fahrenheit 9/11 (or, actually, a response to Chirstopher Hitchens’ review) on this message board, and made clear that i had some real problems with the movie.
But, just like Moore’s defenders are wrong when they claim he doesn’t make documentaries, his critics are wrong when they claim that the errors or misinterpretations or biases in his films mean that they’re not documentaries.
I don’t know if you remember, but some conservative made a film aimed at countering Moore’s propaganda. I haven’t seen that film, but even if it’s full of bad interpretation or manipulation of the facts, i still think it’s a documentary.
What we need to do is get past the stupid idea that a film only qualifies as a documentary if it adheres to some absolute, objective level of factual and interpretive truth.
And, on preview, Miller pretty much beat me to it.
Sure it is – but a documentary filmmaker typically has a point of view that is being represented. Hell, the term “point of view” is unambiguously associated with documentary filmmaking.
A neutral POV has never been a requirement for a documentary, and it’s ridiculous to think that there’s some tradition of removing all perspective and personality from a film in order to make it documentary. Triumph of the Will is a documentary film – as well as being unapologetic propaganda. The Hour of the Furnaces has a definite political point of view, but it still considered one of the world’s greatest achievments in documentary filmmaking.
Documentary filmmaking is, in most cases, all about presenting a point of view. To pretend that there is some tradition of neutrality or even-handedness in documentary filmmaking is to betray a profound ignorance of its history.
And here are their rules for documentaries:
http://www.oscars.org/79academyawards/rules/rule12.html
That’s it. Nothing about bias.
From dictionary.com
Taking an out of context quote and presenting it in a manner opposite to the original context is neither factual nor informative with respect to the subject. It’s not even about being objective or neutral, it’s about taking a statement, distorting it’s meaning, and presenting that distorted meaning as factual. If the REAL facts don’t support your point of view, tough shit, I guess your POV isn’t that solid then, is it?
I’m certainly willing to admit that this guy could be bullshitting about being taken out of context in the first place. Take any lawsuit filed anywhere and it’s possible the plaintiff is flat out full of shit. Discussions about the merits of the lawsuit either assume the facts are as presented (which is what I’ve done), or have to discuss those facts directly (which I can’t, since I don’t have the movie to look at).
My understanding of US law is that, since the First Amendment comes into play here, the plaintiff has zero chance of winning, and his lawyers know it. So lodging this suit is just a cheap publicity trick, and putting the high damages in it was just a way of getting more media coverage. There should be a price tag on bullshit cases like this, such as the plaintiff having to pay the defendant’s legal costs.
OK, let’s leave aside the fact that you’re apparently so intent on getting it right that you won’t make an evaluation until you see the footage in the movie for yourself.
Why would you assume the facts are as presented by the plaintiff?
What if the situation occurred as described in Larry Mudd’s post #22, above? Would you argue, based on that information, that the guy was misrepresented in Moore’s film?
I didn’t ask for a definition of “documentary,” I wanted a cite for your claim that there is any legal difference between how clips can be used in parodies and how they can be used in documentaries.
There is nothing in that guy’s quote which was distorted or misrepresented. He said what he said. There WAS no “context” which could alter the plain meaning of what he said and Moore made no claim that the guy was against the war. The soldier agreed to be interviewed and HE said he was going to work for the Democrats, Now he has to live with that. Too bad for him. What “context” would alter the meaning of his own words? What law says that Moore would have to show that context? What was the “real meaning” which you’re suggesting has been changed?
The allegations as presented (i.e. even if everything the soldier says as true) still do not amount to an actionable claim and his complaint will be dismissed for lack of merit.
Defamation is not protected by the First Amendment. But (not having read the suit) I’m hard-pressed to see how “the placement of the footage makes me seem anti-war” meets the legal definition of “defamation.” And even if it does, I can’t imagine that this guy could show that he was monetarily damaged by it.
As for the infliction of emotional distress claim, SCOTUS has ruled that the inflictor’s First Amendment right triumphs over a public figure’s claim of such in the realm of parody (Hustler Magazine v Falwell). I’m not sure if the Court has also found so in non-parodic situations, if the party claiming the infliction isn’t a public figure or whether agreeing to appear in a national news broadcast makes one a public figure for purposes of the law.