Michael Moore's Oscar Acceptance Speech... - Page 2

thought it was brilliant, maybe not the words, or the way he did it, but he had the spotlight and he took it, free press is free press, and now everyone's talking about it, which is exactly what we need to be doing, talking about it...

Anti-war statements don't have to be classy. I don't feel, however, that the Oscars were the right place for it. A rally or a lecture, dandy. He was getting an award for a film. He should have mentioned the film.

Also, I think that calling these statements "anti-war" is an understatement. These statements called Bush illegitimate and insinuated that the whole anti-terrorist thing was a cynical act of manipulation and nothing more. Whether you agree with these comments or not, you have to admit they are fairly extreme and go beyond "anti-war"

That is almost literally what his movie is about. How the news manipulates us into fear and how American aggression is the real root of many of our problems.

I think we were probably already talking about the legitimacy of this war. And we already talked about the 2000 elections a couple years ago.

I missed that discussion on the news.

yeah, everyone here maybe, there's more to the world than chud, the oscars reach far more viewers nationwide and even worldwide than small nwesgroups and messge boards of inflated ego's and would-be know-it-alls, perhaps i should have clarified the 'we' as the human race "we", maybe that would have been less self-centered...

I think you miss alot generally when it comes to news Devin no surprise there.

What does that mean?

Do you watch politcal debate programs?

I tend to hope the news tries to state what is happening, not to give it a spin such as "the threat level was raised to Orange today in a cynical attempt by the parties in power to scare the populace and drum up support for an unjust war".

The discussion is taking place all over the place. On campuses, at protests, on the street. Moore added nothing. He shouted slogans at what I feel was an inappropriate time. He did not present evidence or make a series of well-founded claims. Essentialy, he yelled out bumper sticker messages.

Most Americans don't watch political debate programs. And I don't count O'Reilly as anything close to debate.

It means you should try to stop being such a partisan blowhard that only listens to one side of the debate.

Anti-war folks claim that there is a massive surge of activist feeling across the globe, that huge meaningful protests are emerging right and left, and that most of the world hates the war. Now you are claiming that no one is discussing it. I don't get it.

Please elaborate on what the fuck you mean. I am saying that the news programs watched by most Americans do NOT carry serious discussion of the legitimacy of this war. How is this being a blowhard?

Maybe you think a blowhard is someone who knows how to use punctuation?

Whatever you want to believe Devin you're an intellectual king of the highest order. Continue on with your spotless and fair comments.

No one mentioned O'Reilly (I despise the guy in any case). I was thinking of stuff like Chris Matthews and Crossfire and Washinton Week in Review along with the Sunday morning shows. You may not like these, but that's what I was thinking of.

Also, I pointed out that Americans are discussing this issue left and right in other places. My confusion expressed in my most recent post to New Order applies to your contention that there is no discussion.

Do you feel the news should make statements such as the one in my post, defining the way in which folks should interpret the news?

never said 'WE' weren't discussing it, just said it's what 'WE' need to be doing, it implies no time frame or reference point, in the middle of a conversation someone could say "we do need to talk about this," or if you're getting a massage and during said massage you say "wow i really need this massage," not unheard of, your inferences of my statements are concoctions of your own mind, i am not a mirror, but you are definitely arguing with yourself...

Also, I ask again; what did Moore add to this debate?

Daywalker: way to drop personal attacks without any real coherence or point

wedway: I don't think he COULD add anything in the 45 seconds he had. This wasn't the time for a teach-in. If I were him would I have said my piece differently, to get more across? I would hope so. But he made his statement, he reached millions and millions more people than he ever would through his normal means, and if even 100 people (a miniscule percentage of all viewers) thought about what he was saying and decided to find out more, then it's a victory. Now add to that the replays this will get on all the news shows...

Ok, I don't think you're playing fair. Earlier you stated;

That NOW in there implies to me that you were making the claim that people were doing something NOW that they hadn't done then. When you say "now the people are running" it clearly implies that people weren't running before.

When I said I felt that people were discussing the topic, you said;

This also implies that you felt the world was not talking about the issue but would now that Moore had raised it.

If in fact you do believe the world was discussing the issue prior to the Oscars, what in God's name did Moore add to that discussion?

is this to me? 'cause, i never said he added anything to it, there's that tricky inference again...

however... to ADD to what i've already said, just for fun, this thread for one, i'd say it 'adds' to present debate already going on at this site, and i'm sure there are many similar 'additions' going on elsewhere, AND, i think his appearance and his speech will make his documentary more widely viewed than it would have previosuly been, and his documentary is very relevant to the events and the debates going on...

I understand that he didn't have time for longer points. However, I'm simply not certain that the kind of shouted rhetoric he used will persuade anyone to seek out information.

By the way, call me Al. I'm trying to phase out my old Wedway name.

wedway... i'm done, infer what you want, pick it apart, believe what you want, give yourself a trophy after, you win, i suck, whatever...

I don't think shouted rhetoric ever sways people on the opposition, but it can help bring others off the fence. Or awaken those who just weren't paying attention.

Devin: I suppose we are doomed to disagree on this. I felt his comments were out of place, extreme, and useless. Anti-War statements were made by other winners, statements which, although I still felt the Oscars were the wrong place for them, were more potentially persuasive.

New Order: I tried very hard to be civil. I simply felt your writing was unclear. My intention was never to give offense.

no problems, i enjoy a good go, it just seemed to be going in bigger and bigger circles...

The statements by other winners were so wishy washy NO ONE could disagree with them.

I try dev really I do.

and the people have the right to boo him too.

sometimes it's smarter to say things a better way. adrien brody just about said the same stuff but in a more elegant way (and so did the "y tu mama tambien kid). jeez, 30 men/women just about died yesterday. he has no tact.

moore is just some redneck with money. i won't be surprised if our boys come looking for him when they come back.

Yeah, he's the new Hanoi Jane.

Do you have to be reminded to breathe?

I did not watch the Oscars' to be reminded of a war troubling our country. I turned on that television to celebrate film and the entertainment it can bring to those of us around the world.

I tuned in to be reminded of the amazing power of film, of that flickering in the theatre as the lights go down and the transportation to another world begins. I tuned in to watch people win something for thier skills, for thier talent and for thier experience.

I didn't tune in to hear a rambling, angry tirade that I've heard so many times before. I didn't tune in to be reminded of the war and of the conflict that has begun to tear the world and our nation apart. I didn't tune in to see those faces of those we lost. I didn't tune in to once more be reminded for a good three hours of the life outside this small television screen.

I tuned in to believe that for one night, one three hour broadcast, that we could celebrate film, celebrate the creativity within that WITHOUT bringing conflict into the Kodak Theatre. I tuned in to hear acceptance speeches and touching moments of concern and of hope. Not anger and bitterness.

I had hoped those there were there for the reasons we tuned in. But I was proven wrong. One man decided to take the possiblity of a reprieve from me and others. He may have the right, but perhaps for once, he might have the decency or perhaps the respect for the Academy Awards to do something different then yell and scream and whine. Perhaps concern about those lost today.

Perhaps looking into that camera lense, going over thousands of miles of earth to the middle east and expressing hope for a quick end to the war that now troubles the world.

Perhaps next year my hopes will be realized once more.

Seahawk - that was Dr. Seuss-ish.

Mystery of this year's Oscars, #42:

A man speaking up for what he believes is right is booed off the stage by his peers, and then those same peers turn around and give a standing ovation to a man who has fled the country for drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl.

That's my two cents.

I was talking to someone at work and we both came to the conclusion that Moore was the victim of organized booing set up by the Oscar producers. I don't think that crowd would have BOOED - sat in stony silence, maybe. But those boos made no sense, and were probably ready for ANYONE who made a strong political statement.

The both should've been booed offstage.

And I know Polanski wasn't actually there, but you get my point.

Yes, Moore said in the press tent that he thought it was about five people booing.

Anybody that disagrees with Devin is obviously an idiot, and anytime more than ONE person disagrees, it's obviously a conspiracy. Devin cannot be wrong.

How about Devin, that people in the cheap seats didn't agree with him? Hmmm? Maybe they were voicing their constitutional right of free speech? NO WAY THAT COULD BE POSSIBLE. It must be a conspiracy. Heh. So desperate it's laughable, although my cynical nature can almost grasp it.

NOW GETTING TO THE POINT...

The thing about Moore's speech is that it hurt more than helped "the movement". Almost everyone on the right believes that the anti-war movement is nothing but a very thinly veiled "anti-Bush" movement. Many moderate's suspect this or hear it from the right.

Moore's speech only affirmed these theories, and exposed, at least to those people, a supposed hypocritical nature of the anti-war movement.

Well, you must admit, it was pretty unusual hearing that sort of distaste for a comment about a president from primarily liberal Hollywood.

As I mentioned in a post yesterday, I suppose I can see some of the behind-the-scenes producer types booing, but most of the creative talent (at least the vocal segment) is undeniably liberal, and they seemed to have the seats closest to the stage. I tend to think the booers were just particularly loud rather than huge in number.

How is one who opposes Bush and opposes the war "hypocritical?"

It seems one might logically follow from the other.

Moore's speech was LOVED by the RNC. He helps Republicans way more than he hurt them, and he undercut the Hollywood message completely. Plus, his run in with Cujo didn't seem to work out too well.

He means "hidden agenda," rather than "hypocritical," though I've never found it to be hidden.

Odd that you say that with him having won an Oscar, written a best-seller, making one of the most profitable documentaries ever, and showing no signs of slowing down. If that's helping the people he opposes, how on Earth does he hurt them?

I never thought it was meant to be.

Now that Blo's on to me, I'll go slit my wrists.

He appeals to the far far left <cough socialists cough>. If we accept that the real diehard lefties or righties occupy about 30% of the country each, and the real fight is for the 40% in the center... how does a mouth-foaming tirade that made little or no sense, that showed an utter lack of decorum, tact, or compassion help the lefties to attract that middle 40? His message strokes the faithful but repels the undecideds.

Or maybe take that cyanide pill Saddam equipped me with.

He's not a recruiter. He speaks his mind because that's the way he feels. There's certainly nothing to be gained by attacking a President with wartime support.

But that reflects on him. Not Hollywood. not Liberals. No one else.

Besides, anyone "undecided" who lets their political ideology be decided by simply OPPOSING a non-elected, non-official public figure is a moron. No one can claim those sorts of people.

They're sheep, plain and simple, and they'll go where the day's wind blows them.

I don't think the radical socialists catapulted his book to the top of the bestseller charts. Or made Columbine the highest grossing documentary in history.

If they had that kind of power, Noam Chomsky would have taken both the bestseller lists and documentary crown long ago.

I agree with the "morons" bit. But I do think it's more than just "one man speaking his mind." He's emblematic of a distasteful part of the American left, much as there are distasteful sections of the American right. When someone has that much hate and rage and bile, it's a turnoff (or should be) no matter what part of the political spectrum you're on.