Filmmaker Michael Moore says he is willing to give up a chance to compete in the Oscar race for best documentary with his anti-Bush movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” in order to have it shown on television before the U.S. presidential election in November. Says Moore: “I have already won a Best Documentary statue. Having a second one would be nice, but not as nice as getting this country back in the hands of the majority.” Kudos!
20 thoughts on “Moore And The Oscars”
Comments are closed.
Politics aside, this just goes to show you how immense Moore’s ego has grown over the past six months.
Well said, David, and well earned…
SOFA
Politics aside David, let’s talk about G W Bush’s ego?
Given the choice, I’ll gladly opt for Moore’s ego – it may be big, but at the very least it has a sense of reality and justice.
Were we comparing the egos of these two, Barry, you might have a point…
But we’re not.
The comparison is of Mr. Moore’s ego pre Bowling for Columbine and post Faerenheit 911. A change, dare I say, not for the better…
SOFA
Okay. Yes. Sure. We should waste what little time we have left before the US presidential elections discussing Michael Moore’s apparently monstrously big ego. That ought to do it. Jesus man how can you talk about Moore in a non political way? That “politics aside” remark really curled my toes up the wrong way. These are not the days to be acting as the ‘detached allbeit-liberal’ social historian. I find that kind of thinking weak and devoid. Strikes me as sad that you guys feel the need to go down that route. No offense intended…
“Jesus man how can you talk about Moore in a non political way?”
Easily, as he is not a politician… He’s a political commentator. Woodward & Bernstein weren’t politicians either, tho likely responsible for ‘bringing down’ the House of Nixon. Laudible, yes. But they were not ‘politics’ nor politicians, so speaking of them in a non-political sense is appropriate.
To paraphrase someone we all love: “Writing about politics is like dancing about architecture.” It can be done, but what is the true value?
Frank was a political commentator also, but he got rather pissed if that was all you got from his art. And I dare say FZ was a ” ‘detached allbeit-liberal’ social historian”. I find nothing “weak and devoid” about that… David and I will do what we believe is right at the voting booth come November. When you live in the system, you work within it; otherwise you’re merely dancing about architecture.
“No offense intended…”
Really? Hmmmm… I think when you allow your passions to dictate to your common sense, you do yourself a disservice. I don’t have to be pro-Michael Moore to be anti-George W. Elevating either to a status above their actual relevance is folly, similar to vowing that the ‘Frugue’ is the ONLY, or best, way to dance about architecture.
As an outside observer, I wouldn’t presume to enter a debate with you on Belgian politics, as I know the best I could offer would only reflect that which I’d read or was told – where you have to live it.
No offense intended…
SOFA
“Easily, as he is not a politician”
Would you disagree with the assertion that, although not a politician, his work is highly political, and as such, makes Moore a political player?
“I think when you allow your passions to dictate to your common sense, you do yourself a disservice”
What an ingenious way of saying I shouldn’t bring up (American) politics on this weblog :-)
“I don’t have to be pro-Michael Moore to be anti-George W”
Of course not (nor was my intention to insinuate such a thing, sorry if it read that way); but I’ve noticed that anti-Bush posts here made by me usually don’t get any comments – then I post something about Moore and there we go talking about the man’s ego. I don’t get that for some reason. In itself, David’s comment about how Moore’s ego has gotten somewhat inflated post Columbine, is quite true — but it struck me as a rather isolated comment, a nicely formulated oneliner that doesn’t take “the bigger picture” in account.
“As an outside observer, I wouldn’t presume to enter a debate with you on Belgian politics”
You’re right in that what I know of US politics, I read in the newspaper/see on the news. On average, about 40% of my daily newspaper deals with various aspects of US politics (Dem/Rep conventions, Iraq war, homeland economics, …). My question to you: how much space on your newspaper is reserved for aspects of belgian politics? (actually, I think I know the answer to that, and it would be: close to nothing – which is only normal as we’re in no way a “world-player”. but because of that, I like to think that it makes us look more outward than “the big players” who just tend to be too pre-occupied with themselves)
“No offense intended”
Of course not, I realize that – otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. ;-)
“Would you disagree with the assertion that, although not a politician, his work is highly political, and as such, makes Moore a political player?”
I would disagree with that assertion, yes. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-Moore; I agree with most of Michael’s views, enjoy his cinematography, and love his caustic writing style. “Stupid White Men” is one of my favorite books – as much for how it is written, as is the content.
BUT, his work makes him no more a political player than Sean Penn, Tim Burton, or any other person who hates Bush, and has access to the media. Michael has become a “media darling”…
To paraphrase someone I truly respect: “Strikes me as sad that he feels the need to go down that route.”
(Someday, off list, tell me how you do the italics thingy with the quotes; that’s nifty.)
“What an ingenious way of saying I shouldn’t bring up (American) politics on this weblog :-)”
That is not what I’m saying at all. In fact, I’m heartened to see commentary that doesn’t pigeon-hole me with other Americans who do support W, for whatever reason. For awhile there, that all that was available here… A ‘He’s your President, so it’s your fault’ kinda implication.
“I’ve noticed that anti-Bush posts here made by me usually don’t get any comments – then I post something about Moore and there we go talking about the man’s ego.”
I think David’s comment and my agreement were simple statements of what we observe in the man; not a reflection of his work, but an observation of what the adulation given his work may be doing to him… When you spend your time debunking ‘heroes’, you run the risk of becomming one. Somewhere, sometime, someone will come along and debunk you for no reason whatsoever.
(I think I’m doing well keeping this FZ relevant, no?)
Here’s a tip for all of you Bush haters (hell, let’s include his supporters, if there are any reading this): Give Michael a rest. He deserves it. Rather, go to your bookstore, or possibly your library, and check out “The Sorrows of Empire” by Chalmers Johnson. Mr. Johnson spent a number of years inside Washington personally observing (possibly even contributing to) the evils being done without the knowledge of the American public. He doesn’t need to rely on sensationalism, or questionable research, or ‘artistic’ manipulation of facts to make his point. He worked within the machine, and reports evenly on how it operates. And it’s fucking scary how it operates. His work is extremely enlightening…
Regards,
SOFA
BTW, 8 – no make that 9 now – comments on this post and no chicken joke? Where the hell is BobAgain?
SOFA
Sorry boys. I was out cleaning my yard from the damage my neighbor has done.
Now then, anyone have a good recipe for chicken soup?
Jeez Louise, I was speaking about his personna as a film-maker, how success has really gone to his head. I think he’s starting to believe his own publicity which is dangerous, and in some ways not unlike GWB who’s gotten “US” into the mess we’re in in Iraq.
I appreciate Moore’s movie to an extent, but I do think that if he actually really wanted to perform a public service, he should have handed out a reading list for those who went to see the movie, so people would have some background for what he’s talking about.
I don’t know whether this is kosher, but would you like to see what I said about the movie in
New Partisan? [http://newpartisan.com] and read “Moore’s Utopia”.
I didn’t mean to upset you Barry, I’m far from being a “detached social historian”. I try to do what I can to bring some sense to a political campaign which is losing all its sense and turning into basically what happens when high schoolers are passing in the hallways and calling each other names. The real problem is that generally speaking, Americans are willfully under-educated and naive about politics, and prefer to get their news from Fox News and think of politics as just another “reality show”. It’s not, I’m scared, serious shit is going down, and many Americans just don’t want to do their homework on current affairs. The problem has been building for years, getting worse and worse as the level of education has declined.
You didn’t upset me David, and I couldn’t agree more with what you’ve written here; thanks for that. And thanks to Bob Again for The Mention Of the Chicken Ritual ;-)
Homemade Chicken Soup
Ingredients:
1 tablespoons olive oil
1 whole chicken, breasts removed and reserved for future fantasies
2 onions, diced
2 quarts boiling water
Salt
2 bay leaves
1 large (REALLY BIG!) carrot, peeled and sliced
1 celery stalk, sliced
1/2 teaspoon dried thyme
1/4 cup minced fresh parsley leaves
Ground pepper
Preparation:
Heat the oil in a large heavy-bottomed pot and sauté the breasts until they are light brown, about 5 minutes. Remove the breasts and set aside. Add the onions and sauté until translucent, approximately 4 to 5 minutes. Remove and set aside.
Cut up the remaining parts of the chicken (not the breasts, these are reserved for future fantasies) into small pieces to allow them to release their juices in the shortest time possible. This is the hardest part of the recipe, specially if it is a chicken with a big ego. If you have a meat cleaver, it makes the job easier, but if you don’t, do the best you can with a chefs knife.
Add the pieces to the pot, and cook for 8 to 10 minutes until no longer pink. Return the onion to the pot, reduce the heat to low, cover, and simmer until the chicken releases its juices, about 20 minutes. Add boiling water, reserved chicken breasts, 2 teaspoons of salt, and bay leaves. Cover and simmer until chicken breasts are cooked (look at them in a funny way), about 20 minutes. Increase the heat if necessary, and stir to heat discussion.
Remove chicken breasts and set aside. Strain and reserve broth. Skim fat from the broth, reserving 2 tablespoons to be used to cook the vegetables. Write two e-mails to Joe Travers, asking when Roxy is gonna be released; wait for “No”, “Soon” or “I don’t know” reply. Add the reserved fat to the soup pot and sauté the remaining onions along with the HUMMUNGUS carrot and celery for about 5 minutes. When the chicken breasts are cool enough to handle, handle them a little bit. They like that. Shred the breast meat into bite sized pieces and add to the pot. Add thyme and reserved broth; simmer until the vegetables are tender.
Season with salt and pepper, add parsley and serve. You can also add noodles, orzo, or small pasta shells and cook until tender.
Enjoy!
Not seen the films, not read the books, but this seems a dubious comment for an anti iraq-war campaigner to endorse…
“And your film has filled that void — and now there is no way to defeat it. It is the atomic bomb of this campaign.”
That Michael Moore has some big breasts, doesn’t he? …or are those mainly manifestations of his ego?
Good Doctor,
That is the funniest thing you have ever written – that I have read – and you have tickled my funny bone on numerous occasions. Bravo!
Any chance we can add that to TBN’s cookbook? We could call it “Homeland Security Soup for the Soul”, or something…
You go girl!
SOFA
Oh, Bob Again, in Michigan we call those manneries…
…and, Michael being a native son of the fair state, manneries they shall be!
end of fantasy
David Walley says:
“I appreciate Moore’s movie to an extent, but I do think that if he actually really wanted to perform a public service, he should have handed out a reading list for those who went to see the movie, so people would have some background for what he’s talking about.”
try http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/checkitout/
i think he did exactly what you ask — and it’s been there for awhile. don’t let the style of the message distract you from the content… something frank would’ve no doubt agreed with.
Sofa: of course we can add the recipe to TBN’s cookbook; i like the title you suggest too. Btw, thanks to your mention of “manneries” and searching for the actual meaning of it i’ve found a lot of (brand new, to me) interesting words. I just love “murse” and “chesticles”! :-)
Interesting search result, Dr.
Ya know, if I didn’t know better, I’d say the owner of that blog is a homosexual… But that couldn’t be, as he would use the PC term “mangina” over the crude slang “mussy” if he wanted to get a head.
Still, I’m glad you brought it up!
(Somebody, stop me.)
SOFA