Michael Moore's oscar revoked??

[Rubia Warren]

Michael Moore's Oscar targeted
Effort underway to convince Academy to revoke documentary award

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 25, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


The 2003 Academy Awards were handed out a month ago, but now there's a campaign looking to revoke the Oscar given to filmmaker Michael Moore.
The "Bowling for Columbine" director was the recipient of the coveted trophy in the Best Documentary category, and now some want the prize withdrawn by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

RevokeTheOscar.com is a website created specifically for that purpose, claiming the Academy violated its own rules, since the site believes the anti-gun film is a work of fiction instead of non-fiction.

"Whenever it was necessary to his theme," says the site, "Moore invented facts, fabricated events, staged scenes or doctored the depiction of what actually happened."

It suggests Moore doctored footage and fudged facts to make Charlton Heston of the National Rifle Association sound more inflammatory.

"When Heston, for example, gave a mild and conciliatory speech, Moore simply edited the footage (and inserted footage from a different speech a year later) to make it sound arrogant. ...

"The Academy can reward propaganda, if it pleases. It can reward anti-Americanism, if it pleases. But its own rules establish that it cannot reward fiction as 'best documentary.' We call upon the Academy to enforce its own rule."

The page includes fax numbers and addresses to contact Academy officials.

Others are also joining the effort to dispute the "facts" as presented in Moore's film.

"'Bowling' is fiction," says Arizona attorney David T. Hardy. "It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered. 'Bowling' uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect."


Scene from 'Bowling for Columbine' (United Artists)

Hardy has compiled a list of many of the alleged deceptions used by Moore. One example he cites is an animated history sequence linking the NRA with the Ku Klux Klan:


"Bowling" equates the NRA with the Klan, suggesting NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict Klansmen becoming the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.
This sequence is intended to create the impression either that NRA and the Klan were parallel groups or that when the Klan was outlawed its members formed the NRA.

Both impressions are not merely false, but directly opposed to the real facts.

And Dave Kopel, a columnist for National Review Online writes an in-depth analysis of the film, coming to the same conclusion:

"Imagine if the Academy gave the award for 'Best Music – Original Song' to a film that used an unoriginal song, such as 'Jingle Bells.' Such an award would show that the Oscars are based on Hollywood politics rather than on artistic merit. The presentation of Best Documentary to Michael Moore for a film based on so much untruth has proved the same thing."


Michael Moore and wife Kathleen Glynn (photo: Oscar.com)

Moore became a lightning rod for controversy by proclaiming his anti-war views during his acceptance speech for the award: "We live in a time with fictitious election results that elect fictitious presidents. We live in a time when we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.''

Moore went on to exclaim, "We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you! Shame on you!''

His comments were greeted by a chorus of loud boos from the audience of 3,500.

Nevertheless, Moore remains defiant in the face of criticism, saying he's only benefiting from the publicity with interest in his movie, books and website soaring in recent weeks.

He says he's obtained funding for his next documentary and also has been offered a slot back on television for an updated version of "TV Nation"/"The Awful Truth."

"Don't let the false patriots intimidate you by setting the agenda or the terms of the debate," Moore writes on his website. "Despite what they have pulled off, it is still our country."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...RTICLE_ID32217

[wienerdog]

Yeah, I find this frustrating. I suspect I would agree with the majority of "Bowling for Columbine" (I haven't seen it), but the reports of Moore altering the stuff is disturbing. When CNN asked him about certain inaccuracies in his book Stupid White Men, Moore responded "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" Some of the "alterations" he's apparently made in "Columbine" are:

--The big opening scence, where Moore receives a gun for opening a bank account, was staged by Moore. The bank actually did offer a gun for new accounts, but it had to be obtained from a gun shop, after the necessary waiting period and background checks had been performed. Moore promised the bank that it "was just a joke" and that they would receive good publicity for faking the gun giveaway.

--Moore claims that the USA gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban in Afghanistan. In actuality, the USA gave this money to famine relief programs administered by the UN.

--Moore altered an old TV ad from the 1988 presidential campaign. First, the ad was not done by the Bush campaign, but was done independently by the National Security Political Action Committee. Second, Moore inserted a caption that wasn't actually present in the ad to further make his point.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh great. Leftists employing the techniques of the Right (thinking about the subliminal RATS from Bureaucrats decide. Funny how rats are the middle 4 letters in that awkward pharse)

I guess I'll put all my eggs in the Al Franken basket.

[Mr Stick71]

I saw the RATS ad you are talking about. That's not an intentional alteration of the truth (that's purely a leftist thing). Nice attempt at a red herring though.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 03:35 PM post located here
Mr Stick71:

I saw the RATS ad you are talking about. That's not an intentional alteration of the truth (that's purely a leftist thing). Nice attempt at a red herring though.

What is that called? Plausible deniability?

Take the god-awfully awkward phrase "Bureacrats Decide" Do you think that just happened to be some great two word phrase they came up with? Do you think that it just happened to centered on directly, magnified to only show the letters r-a-t-s? It wasn't a scroll through. The people who put the commercial together had to film the phrase zoomed in and picture that one or two frames intentionally. That wasn't a mistake.

The phrase is suspect, the display seems intentional. Red herring isn't what this is.

[geochron]

That's not an intentional alteration of the truth (that's purely a leftist thing).

The sweet smell of ironing!