CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Michael Moore's Oscar Acceptance Speech...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Michael Moore's Oscar Acceptance Speech...

post #1 of 144
3/24/03 at 12:48am
Thread Starter 
Holy Hell!

1) Do you think the other nominees for best documentary knew he was going to pull that when they got invited up by him to accept the award?

2) Do you think the Oscar's are a good place for political speeches?

You have to hand it to the guy for having the cajones to do something like this. Not sure how people are going to react though.
Reply
post #2 of 144
3/24/03 at 12:49am
I loved it. Its great that he went ahead and did what most people would never do.
Reply
post #3 of 144
3/24/03 at 12:53am
Atleast Michael Moore showed what he's all about here-he's still pissed Bush won the election. GET OVER IT!. It was fitting he gor boo'd off the stage.
He should have been nominated for best Docu-Drama.
Reply
post #4 of 144
3/24/03 at 1:04am
No,it was not fitting that he got booed off the stage. Its stupid, thats what it is. Just shows how close minded people are. This man had every right to go up there and do what he did.
Reply
post #5 of 144
3/24/03 at 1:07am
What did he say to get people so pissed off?
Reply
post #6 of 144
3/24/03 at 1:34am
People got pissed off because he brought up the war.
Reply
post #7 of 144
3/24/03 at 1:38am
So have a third of the other winners. What exactly did he say? Was it pro-war?
Reply
post #8 of 144
3/24/03 at 1:38am
First Oscar winner booed off the stage ever???
Reply
post #9 of 144
3/24/03 at 1:39am
It's a politically touchy thing for actors. They don't want to get brushed as "anti-American." There's a LOT of fear of a new blacklist.
Reply
post #10 of 144
3/24/03 at 1:50am
Meanwhile the guy who wrote Talk to Her makes an anti-war statement and gets applause. Again, what did Michael Moore say that was so different that he got booed off the stage?
Reply
post #11 of 144
3/24/03 at 2:10am
You had to expect it out of him. Lots of people are anti-war. Moore's statements were anti-Bush. Everybody stood up for him as he took the stage... then everybody stayed in their seats, hands down, when he became an ass. Welcome to Hollywood.
Reply
post #12 of 144
3/24/03 at 2:19am
Quote:
DJ Dylan is Anti-War:
No,it was not fitting that he got booed off the stage. Its stupid, thats what it is. Just shows how close minded people are. This man had every right to go up there and do what he did.
And the people had every right to boo him. did he mention the war first? no. it's his hatred of Bush and it's tired. There was a classy way to protest and there was Moore's way.
Reply
post #13 of 144
3/24/03 at 2:42am
Quote:
Mike 'Beating Off' Arsenault

1) Do you think the other nominees for best documentary knew he was going to pull that when they got invited up by him to accept the award?
If they were surprised, they apparently have NO conception of what Micheal Moore is about.

Quote:
2) Do you think the Oscar's are a good place for political speeches?
Tough call. Everyone seems to be on the "why do entertainers get this platform?"; why is because people are sheep who follow sparkly objects, but the point is they HAVE it. If you have strongly held beliefs, and an opportunity to present them to a large audience, well, why wouldn't you?

But I think an anti-war rant would have been FAR more accepted than the anti-Bush one he went with. I'm hardly a Bush fan and have serious issues with the way the election was handled, but let it GO already, liberals - you sound like whiny pussbags when you continually bring it up. Besides, if the US keeps hitting snags in Iraq, W is going to seal his fate as a one-termer.
Reply
post #14 of 144
3/24/03 at 2:43am
Quote:
DJ Dylan is Anti-War:
I loved it. Its great that he went ahead and did what most people would never do.
Most people wouldn't get up on stage and masturbate furiously, either (well, not literally). Doesn't mean it would be great if someone did it.

Moore's comments weren't just anti-war. If I remember correctly, they were also anti-Bush, brought up the last election, and insinuated Bush is illegitimate. There was also a venom in his speech that was truly nasty. I felt the comments were truly out of place.

Free speech means he can say those things on a telecast that should be mainly entertainment. It also means the audience can boo him, and I think they were right to do so.
Reply
post #15 of 144
3/24/03 at 2:45am
Quote:
Burke:
First Oscar winner booed off the stage ever???
Redgrave got booed off, but I'm not positive if it was after winning or after presenting.
Reply
post #16 of 144
3/24/03 at 2:45am
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
It's a politically touchy thing for actors. They don't want to get brushed as "anti-American." There's a LOT of fear of a new blacklist.
Who do they fear would blacklist them? The studios? Or would viewers stop coming to their films?
Reply
post #17 of 144
3/24/03 at 2:47am
I don't get this concept that people should "get over" what they view as an illegitimate election that was basically a courtroom coup d'etat.

For the love of God, the conservos couldn't "get over" Clinton ACTUALLY winning his elections without even being contested.

If the charges are true, that the election WAS subverted and the will of the people not heeded (which IS true without any argument - Bush did not get a majority of the vote), then this is a big deal. To say someone should "get over" the fact that they believe that the current government does not legally belong there seems silly to me.

And this is pure speculation, but imagine the tables turned - imagine the JIHAD Ann Coulter and friends would be calling for these last two years.
Reply
post #18 of 144
3/24/03 at 2:48am
Quote:
Al Manheim (wedway17):
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
It's a politically touchy thing for actors. They don't want to get brushed as "anti-American." There's a LOT of fear of a new blacklist.
Who do they fear would blacklist them? The studios? Or would viewers stop coming to their films?
One assumes it would work like the original blacklist - from the studios, thanks to heavy influence from the government.
Reply
post #19 of 144
3/24/03 at 2:55am
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
I don't get this concept that people should "get over" what they view as an illegitimate election that was basically a courtroom coup d'etat.

For the love of God, the conservos couldn't "get over" Clinton ACTUALLY winning his elections without even being contested.

If the charges are true, that the election WAS subverted and the will of the people not heeded (which IS true without any argument - Bush did not get a majority of the vote), then this is a big deal. To say someone should "get over" the fact that they believe that the current government does not legally belong there seems silly to me.

And this is pure speculation, but imagine the tables turned - imagine the JIHAD Ann Coulter and friends would be calling for these last two years.
It's been said a million times, but here it is again; the system worked as it should have in 2000. We all know how the electoral college works. If you want to get rid of it, fine and dandy. That's a legitimate debate. But, under the system we have always had, Bush won.

And as for Clinton and the will of the people - correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clinton get a smaller percentage then Dubya did both times he won?

Anyway, the crowd at the Oscars was ready to be anti-war. They don't seem to have been ready to condemn the President entirely.
Reply
post #20 of 144
3/24/03 at 2:57am
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war
[QB]If the charges are true, that the election WAS subverted and the will of the people not heeded (which IS true without any argument - Bush did not get a majority of the vote), then this is a big deal. To say someone should "get over" the fact that they believe that the current government does not legally belong there seems silly to me.
QB]
That's a big IF
and Presidential elections aren't about the majority of votes, It's about electorial votes. The "fly over" states count to.
Why do "liberals" bring up Gore got more votes when that's not how Presidents get elected. When I hear that now it comes out WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH.
Reply
post #21 of 144
3/24/03 at 2:59am
Quote:
Al Manheim (wedway17):
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
I don't get this concept that people should "get over" what they view as an illegitimate election that was basically a courtroom coup d'etat.

For the love of God, the conservos couldn't "get over" Clinton ACTUALLY winning his elections without even being contested.

If the charges are true, that the election WAS subverted and the will of the people not heeded (which IS true without any argument - Bush did not get a majority of the vote), then this is a big deal. To say someone should "get over" the fact that they believe that the current government does not legally belong there seems silly to me.

And this is pure speculation, but imagine the tables turned - imagine the JIHAD Ann Coulter and friends would be calling for these last two years.
It's been said a million times, but here it is again; the system worked as it should have in 2000. We all know how the electoral college works. If you want to get rid of it, fine and dandy. That's a legitimate debate. But, under the system we have always had, Bush won.

And as for Clinton and the will of the people - correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clinton get a smaller percentage then Dubya did both times he won?

Anyway, the crowd at the Oscars was ready to be anti-war. They don't seem to have been ready to condemn the President entirely.
It's not a percentage game from year to year. It's a percentage game within the one year.

The questions that people have about how the election was handled do not focus on the electoral college (which, again, I believe would be dismantled had Gore won in the way Bush did). There is evidence and suspicion of an election really and truly stolen. We won't know the full story for years.
Reply
post #22 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:00am
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
One assumes it would work like the original blacklist - from the studios, thanks to heavy influence from the government.
Is there any real evidence the government has any intention of doing this?

Most of the anti-celebrity feeling I've seen comes from ordinary folks pissed at their rhetoric.

An interesting point; if these folks, ignorant or not, choose to avoid a star's picture, and the star becomes less profitable and as such gets fewer good offers, is anyone in the wrong? Or is everyone within their rights and the star is simply screwed?
Reply
post #23 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:02am
Quote:
Mike 'Beating Off' Arsenault:
2) Do you think the Oscar's are a good place for political speeches?
Hey, he's got podium - more power to him. The audience has the right to boo him - more power to them. Point is, go ahead and do what you have to and be prepared for whatever backlash/applause you're going to get.

It just feels a bit "odd" at a ceremony where you're getting an award for your work and then end up going on to something totally different. That's me though.
Reply
post #24 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:03am
Quote:
Al Manheim (wedway17):
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
One assumes it would work like the original blacklist - from the studios, thanks to heavy influence from the government.
Is there any real evidence the government has any intention of doing this?

Most of the anti-celebrity feeling I've seen comes from ordinary folks pissed at their rhetoric.

An interesting point; if these folks, ignorant or not, choose to avoid a star's picture, and the star becomes less profitable and as such gets fewer good offers, is anyone in the wrong? Or is everyone within their rights and the star is simply screwed?
I don't think people avoid artists because of their political views. Look at the Dixie Chicks record climbing the chart this week.
Reply
post #25 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:03am
Quote:
T_Mike:
Quote:
Mike 'Beating Off' Arsenault:
2) Do you think the Oscar's are a good place for political speeches?
Hey, he's got podium - more power to him. The audience has the right to boo him - more power to them. Point is, go ahead and do what you have to and be prepared for whatever backlash/applause you're going to get.

It just feels a bit "odd" at a ceremony where you're getting an award for your work and then end up going on to something totally different. That's me though.
Did you see Bowling for Columbine? His work IS about this.
Reply
post #26 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:05am
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
It's not a percentage game from year to year. It's a percentage game within the one year.

The questions that people have about how the election was handled do not focus on the electoral college (which, again, I believe would be dismantled had Gore won in the way Bush did). There is evidence and suspicion of an election really and truly stolen. We won't know the full story for years.
I'm well aware that, based on percentage, Clinton won. No doubt he was legitimate. But he did NOT get a majority of the people's "will", our system put him in office. Just as it put Bush in office.

What is the "evidence" that the election was stolen? Is their a reasonably non-partisan website outlining it? I know of the suspicion, but not of the evidence.
Reply
post #27 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:09am
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
I don't think people avoid artists because of their political views. Look at the Dixie Chicks record climbing the chart this week.
I don't think they do either. My point was mostly hypothetical, wondering if there might be a legitimate path to the rather unpleasant "black list".

Again I ask, is there any evidence the government wants to create a new "black list"?

(edited because I wish "there" was always spelled the same way)

Reply
post #28 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:09am
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
Quote:
T_Mike:
Quote:
Mike 'Beating Off' Arsenault:
2) Do you think the Oscar's are a good place for political speeches?
Hey, he's got podium - more power to him. The audience has the right to boo him - more power to them. Point is, go ahead and do what you have to and be prepared for whatever backlash/applause you're going to get.

It just feels a bit "odd" at a ceremony where you're getting an award for your work and then end up going on to something totally different. That's me though.
Did you see Bowling for Columbine? His work IS about this.
Nope. Explain.
Reply
post #29 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:09am
I gotta admit, I was disappointed, but not surprised, by Moore's performance. He had the chance to get up there, to be the elequent and smart guy my friends always tell me he is (I'm not personally a fan of his body of work.) And what does he do? He trips over a rehersed tirade. Petty high school theatrics that made him sound like a foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic. It was especially disappointing compared to the class speech Brody gave.
Reply
post #30 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:11am
What Moore did was a mockery of the peace movement. Every other peace or anti-war sentiment even by the mexican actor who was in Y Tu Mama Tambien was more sensitive, thoughtful and eloquent than Moore. Moore's diatribe was more anti-Bush than anything much like the protests of late. Pedro's comments were much more classy as well as he thanked the peace protesters for speaking their voice on this conflict. He didn't spew any venom at his government even though they are key allies in this war.

Adrien Brody's comments about whatever god you pray to Allah or otherwise and then his comments about his best friend who is fighting in Kuwait were personal, heartfelt and above all classy.
Reply
post #31 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:12am
The Brody thing is another interesting point. His speech was quite good, but should he have been allowed to complete it? The 45 second rule seemed fairly strict, and others before him had been played off. Seemed like a nasty double standard.
Reply
post #32 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:13am
Others before him didn't make a conscious effort to do anything about it.
Reply
post #33 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:19am
I believe a pretty basic tenet of the international anti-war movement is that the Bush administration is bad, and doing bad things.

My feeling is that the other "anti-war" speakers were afraid to cross the Hallmark Card "Peace on Earth" sentiment, which is just lip service. Who ISN'T for Peace on Earth? Are they going to alienate the Satanist crowd?

This war is political in nature and needs to be addressed as such. Tackling abstract "peace" concepts becomes meaningless in this situation.
Reply
post #34 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:26am
Quote:
Al Manheim (wedway17):
The Brody thing is another interesting point. His speech was quite good, but should he have been allowed to complete it? The 45 second rule seemed fairly strict, and others before him had been played off. Seemed like a nasty double standard.
didn't Nicole and Chris Cooper go over too. The Oscar people know that most viewers at home want to see the big stars babble on and not the sound editor and costume designer thank their dogs. Kudos to Cathrine Zeta Jones for a under 45 sec speech.
Reply
post #35 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:27am
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war
I don't get this concept that people should "get over" what they view as an illegitimate election that was basically a courtroom coup d'etat.

If the charges are true, that the election WAS subverted and the will of the people not heeded (which IS true without any argument - Bush did not get a majority of the vote), then this is a big deal. To say someone should "get over" the fact that they believe that the current government does not legally belong there seems silly to me.
Bush DIDN'T win the popular vote; but by the rules of the electoral college, he DID manage to win enough states to carry the election (last evidence I heard was that he probably won Florida);

While this is disturbing, it represents more of a flaw in the system than any illegality on the part of the right...though they really botched the entire handling of the situation.

And truly, there legitimately or not, the Bush admin is NOT going anywhere, so it's best to not cry over spilt milk and fight a battle that's already been lost and instead focus on fighting for contests still to be decided.
Reply
post #36 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:28am
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
I believe a pretty basic tenet of the international anti-war movement is that the Bush administration is bad, and doing bad things.

My feeling is that the other "anti-war" speakers were afraid to cross the Hallmark Card "Peace on Earth" sentiment, which is just lip service. Who ISN'T for Peace on Earth? Are they going to alienate the Satanist crowd?

This war is political in nature and needs to be addressed as such. Tackling abstract "peace" concepts becomes meaningless in this situation.
Okay, I'm going to try to tread carefully here. You are saying that most of the anti-war folks are anti-Bush. based on your previous posts concerning the 2000 election, it seems like seeing Bush as illegitimate - a usurper - might be part of this anti-Bush sentiment.

Would you say that most of the anti-war folks see Bush as illegitimate?

A side question; is their a significant part of the anti-war movement, in your opinion, that sees the war - but not Bush - as bad? A part that perhaps feels he is misguided or is doing the wrong thing with good intentions?
Reply
post #37 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:29am
For those of you as confused about this thread as I was for the first 30 posts.

Quote:
Michael Moore: Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
Reply
post #38 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:33am
Quote:
We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times.
Is it just me or is this a pretty bad segue?

This stuff is pretty venomous.

Would have been nice if he could have talked about the film for which he won.
Reply
post #39 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:34am
Quote:
Al Manheim (wedway17):
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
I believe a pretty basic tenet of the international anti-war movement is that the Bush administration is bad, and doing bad things.

My feeling is that the other "anti-war" speakers were afraid to cross the Hallmark Card "Peace on Earth" sentiment, which is just lip service. Who ISN'T for Peace on Earth? Are they going to alienate the Satanist crowd?

This war is political in nature and needs to be addressed as such. Tackling abstract "peace" concepts becomes meaningless in this situation.
Okay, I'm going to try to tread carefully here. You are saying that most of the anti-war folks are anti-Bush. based on your previous posts concerning the 2000 election, it seems like seeing Bush as illegitimate - a usurper - might be part of this anti-Bush sentiment.

Would you say that most of the anti-war folks see Bush as illegitimate?

A side question; is their a significant part of the anti-war movement, in your opinion, that sees the war - but not Bush - as bad? A part that perhaps feels he is misguided or is doing the wrong thing with good intentions?
I don't want to speak for anyone other than myself. I would say that there is a feeling in general among the left (who makes up most of the anti-war movement in America) that Bush did not win fair and square.

I have never met any human being who thinks Bush is doing a bad thing for a good reason. I don't even believe that all that many informed pro-war people think he's doing it for a "good" reason.
Reply
post #40 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:34am
The Duct tape thing seemed silly, but in Israel they did have rooms incase of chemical attack. What did they use-plastic sheets and duct tape. Seems to me this was all a conspircy by Home Depot to get their sales up
Reply
post #41 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:36am
Quote:
Al Manheim (wedway17):
Quote:
We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times.
Is it just me or is this a pretty bad segue?

This stuff is pretty venomous.

Would have been nice if he could have talked about the film for which he won.
People are DYING. American civil liberties are eroding. American citizens are living in fear that has been CREATED by their own government. I don't think you can get venomous enough. This isn't a tariff debate. This is a conflict that is going to reshape everything we know about the world around us and our country's place in it.
Reply
post #42 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:40am
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
I don't want to speak for anyone other than myself. I would say that there is a feeling in general among the left (who makes up most of the anti-war movement in America) that Bush did not win fair and square.

I have never met any human being who thinks Bush is doing a bad thing for a good reason. I don't even believe that all that many informed pro-war people think he's doing it for a "good" reason.
I know many lefties who feel Bush won fair and square. In fact, I don't know any who feel he didn't.

A question; if, as you state, most of the current anti-war folks were formerly anti-Bush and viewed him as illegitimate, do you feel this might have considerably colored their view on the need for the war? The reverse may also be true, that being pro-Bush made one predisposed to support the war.
Reply
post #43 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:44am
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war
This is a conflict that is going to reshape everything we know about the world around us and our country's place in it.
A place which hopefully is not "Fortress America" fearful of and fending off terrorist attacks from 3rd world denizens fearful of imperialist tendencies.
Reply
post #44 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:45am
I would say that people who are anti-war are anti-Bush since it's HIS war.
Reply
post #45 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:47am
Quote:
Chavez:
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war
This is a conflict that is going to reshape everything we know about the world around us and our country's place in it.
A place which hopefully is not "Fortress America" fearful of and fending off terrorist attacks from 3rd world denizens fearful of imperialist tendencies.
Being imperialist certainly does not help alleviate those fears.
Reply
post #46 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:47am
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
People are DYING. American civil liberties are eroding. American citizens are living in fear that has been CREATED by their own government. I don't think you can get venomous enough. This isn't a tariff debate. This is a conflict that is going to reshape everything we know about the world around us and our country's place in it.
Be fair, part of that fear was caused by the massive terrorist attack on 9/11. I don't think America would be feeling just peachy if only were it not for that pesky "rainbow of doom".

A lot of this is simple perspective. I'm not sure you would have been pleased had someone stood up and shouted "protestors are all un-American. They want to help terrorists. They are commies with an agenda of disruption and destruction" (not my opinions, by the by).

Personally, I watch the Oscars for escapism. Between the Polanski win and the war stuff, I got little of that this year. These awards are for entertainment, not politics.
Reply
post #47 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:51am
Quote:
Al Manheim (wedway17):
Quote:
Devin hates Saddam, hates the war:
People are DYING. American civil liberties are eroding. American citizens are living in fear that has been CREATED by their own government. I don't think you can get venomous enough. This isn't a tariff debate. This is a conflict that is going to reshape everything we know about the world around us and our country's place in it.
Be fair, part of that fear was caused by the massive terrorist attack on 9/11. I don't think America would be feeling just peachy if only were it not for that pesky "rainbow of doom".

A lot of this is simple perspective. I'm not sure you would have been pleased had someone stood up and shouted "protestors are all un-American. They want to help terrorists. They are commies with an agenda of disruption and destruction" (not my opinions, by the by).

Personally, I watch the Oscars for escapism. Between the Polanski win and the war stuff, I got little of that this year. These awards are for entertainment, not politics.
I agree that 9/11 rightly has given people a taste of fear. The problem is that politicians are MILKING this for all its worth, squeezing every drop of terror out of it. Look at how this thing peaked at election time.
Reply
post #48 of 144
3/24/03 at 3:56am
Since when does anti-war speeches or sentiments have to be classy? I'm not always a fan of Moore, but at least he made an actual bold statement. Something other than "I'm pro-peace."

Reply
post #49 of 144
3/24/03 at 4:00am
Rewatching his speech I see that a lot of the awkwardness comes from him attempting to shout over boo-ers, which he didn't really need to do, being miked.
Reply
post #50 of 144
3/24/03 at 4:01am
All I have to say about Moores speech is FUCK YA! Someone needed to say it and he was the only one with the balls to do it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Michael Moore's Oscar Acceptance Speech...