Then why didn’t he win for Best Comedy? He did not. He marketed his film as a documentary, and won in that category. You are applying an artistic license to a category where it does not apply.
If he had presented his film as a parody, objections to his lack of faithfulness to the truth would disappear. Nobody cares that there never was a real band called Spinal Tap, and nobody would object that interviews with the band were staged.
Moore is claiming that his film is documentary - that is, that it documents real events and presents real information about those events. It isn’t, and he didn’t.
You have just demonstrated the problem with Moore’s approach to film-making. The bank scene was staged; it is not reasonable to draw conclusions about the staff based on the scene.
The reason that you cannot believe everything you see in the media is that some of them lie - and that is exactly what Moore is doing.
I thought it was Jerry Falwell who distributed a video alleging that the Clintons had had their political opponents murdered. Did you shrug your shoulders then and say, “Oh well, it is everyone else’s fault for believing what they see on TV”?
It is Moore’s doing that you cannot believe what he says. He has blurred the definition between fact and fiction - deliberately.
Shodan, it seems to me that you missed the posts where it was demonstrated that what Moore did was within limits of the rules for the Academy Awards. Or were you just omitting that, becuase it won’t fit your argument?
Also - I still haven’t heard anything from CaptMurdock or his wife. They’ve been suspiciously absent from this thread for quite a while. Where are you guys?
No, I read them. They seem to me to be beside the point.
Moore and the Academy seem to agree that this was a documentary. The post I quoted seemed to be arguing that it was a comedy. One or the other must be wrong. Either it was a documentary, and should have been treated as such, or it was a comedy, and you and Moore and the Academy are all wrong.
Or are you saying that the Academy rules specifically allow lying? If so, this is also irrelevant. I am arguing what is morally correct, and this is not set by the Academy rules.
To reiterate - the video about the Clintons made false accusations about them. It presented itself as a documentary. Moore’s films also made misrepresentations about Heston, the NRA, and others. It too presented itself as a documentary.
Is it OK to make such misrepresentations, or not? Is it OK for the media to lie, or not? Or is it OK in the one case, but not the other?
There is no stipulation that a documentary cannot be comedic. His film was never presented as a parody because it isn’t. It is a documentary with elements of comedy. Are you having difficulties with this concept? Do you not understand how a film cannot fit into multiple genres?
His film does document real events and present real information.
It has been alleged that the bank does not keep the free guns in its offer on its premises. There has been no evidence offered that the interviews with the staff were not legitimate. If you have proof that Moore used actors to stand in as the bank staff, I’d like to see it. Regardless, it is of little matter. As I explained before, the scene was for comedic value. It was not meant to prove any argument, and its inclusion, whether false or otherwise does not prohibit the film from being a documentary, by any acceptable standard.
But this threads deals with the topic: “Should Michael Moore give back his Academy Award?” If you want to debate the morals of his film, I suggest you start a new thread. May I suggest a title: “My view of what reality is, and how to morally present it”.
The Gaspode: Hold your horses there, Tex. Me and the missus have been busy the last few days and haven’t had the time to drop in casually. Nice to know that the thread has been rolling along in our absense.
Our “agenda” is not to necessarily dispute Moore contention that the NRA and the media perpetuates the “culture of fear,” but whether or not a documentary made by using (at the very least) judicious editing or even (as some would say) outright partisan distortion truly deserves the Academy Award. As some have said, that is dependent upon one’s interpretation of the official rules of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. As others have said, documentaries are inherently biased and the filmmaker inevitably makes choices based upon his own viewpoint.
Our “agenda” is not to disprove Moore’s thesis, nor to say he is a partisan hack or anti-American or a Bush-hater. Any of that is irrelevant to the question: should a documentary that is not 100% “as he shot it” win an Oscar for Best Documentary?
Sure. I just thought it strange that you throw in a topic for deabte and then go AWOL. No worries.
But he didn’t say that the NRA ‘perpetuates’ the culture of fear. That accusation was made about the media.
No, not really. What have been said here is that the rules from the Academy give quite a bit of leeway in the category of documentaries. Others have said that they don’t care about the rules, that Moore is a lying piece of shit and that the movie is terrible.
You put agenda within quotation marks. I brought it up. Basically, I’m wondering why you decided to post. I would not go so far as to say ‘sock puppet’, but it seems to me that you’re caught up by an opinion against Moore and his movie. While you’re not copying and pasting from the site which runs the campaign to revoke Moore’s Oscar, it’s sometimes close. In the OP, the Mrs. said to have seen Moore on Oprah and the debate on the same show, but there is no indication that either of you have seen the movie. If you haven’t, why do you want him to give back the Oscar? You haven’t been lied to, as you claim Moore did, since you haven’t seen it. You must therefore have an outlook that give you the inclination to join the crusade. And I wonder what that is?
A couple of weeks ago I made a three minute film, it was fiction, but I think I can use it to illustrate a point.
If I had shown the film ‘as I shot it’ it would have been over half an hour long, incoherent and full of outtakes.
If Mr Moore, or anydocumentary film maker did the same, showed their film ‘as they shot it’ it would be hours long, and an incoherent mess.
Every filmmaker edits their work, all documentaries are subjective some more than others. As humans it is impossible for anyone to be truly objective, even news reporters. Many, many documents deliberately have an agenda, history is rewritten everyday.
Should Mr Moore give back his Oscar, of course not, his film matches the academy’s definition of documentary, and the common definition. ‘A film presented as fact’ it’s hardly matters if it’s truthful or not.