God bless those courageous stars
March 23, 2003 9:39 PM Subscribe

On a night like tonight, when the brightest stars have the courage to come out and shine, it's great to know I finally have a way to say "thank you" to celebrities for their tireless work behind the scenes to make our lives better.
posted by mathowie (102 comments total)

Hee hee! I was happy Adrien Brody won but I was deeply embarrassed when he said working on Polanski's movie had given him a deeper understanding of war.

Actors - gotta love them. But it gets harder and harder to respect them. I sense an imminent nomination for Private Eye's immortal Luvvies section.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:45 PM on March 23, 2003

God knows they often don't get the public recognition they deserve.

Hee.
posted by justgary at 9:47 PM on March 23, 2003

Our local news featured 3 minutes on the Oscars. Right after some war movie footage. I know I said "Thank You" when I saw Adrien Brody attack Halle Barry. I said "thank you" for not being Adrien Brody.

But I have to say Michael Moore wimped out.
posted by ?! at 9:47 PM on March 23, 2003

It wasn't the same without Uma's boobs.
posted by homunculus at 10:00 PM on March 23, 2003

But I have to say Michael Moore wimped out.

???

Don't you mean "flamed out" in an orgy of hatred, poor judgment, and blind rage?
posted by davidmsc at 10:02 PM on March 23, 2003

You think so, interrobang? I dislike Michael Moore but admired his gumption tonight. I like predictable people - you can trust them. Almodôvar, on the other hand, wimped out a bit.

Btw, I also liked that the much-maligned Academy gave Polanski the best director award. It was the most tedious ceremony I've ever seen, despite one or two good jokes from Steve Martin. But somehow that's fitting, in its own way.

If this was back in the Forties, it would have of course been staged on an improvised, floodlit stage in Umm Qasr. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:04 PM on March 23, 2003

Moore's a loudmouth, no doubt, but I thought he was courageous tonight in expressing the outrage most of the world is feeling right now at America's indefensible actions. There's lots more where that came from, so better get used to it.
posted by muckster at 10:08 PM on March 23, 2003

Thank you for your touching words and call to action, Matt. I hadn't realized just how selfish I was in dismissing the opinions of these true giants of our time.
posted by Vidiot at 10:16 PM on March 23, 2003

am i the only one that noticed u2 changed the lyrics of their song from:

It's early fall, there's a cloud on the New York skyline
Innocence dragged across a yellow line

to:

Yellow clouds on a desert skyline
is it his war or is it mine?

?
posted by centrs at 10:25 PM on March 23, 2003

What was with the recognition for past winners bit? Why did that go on so long? Holy crap. Steve Martin, god bless his halfway-between-lowbrow-and-absurdism self, said with an *apparent* straight face that the show was produced for the soldiers. Oh no. That was just what they needed.
posted by raysmj at 10:26 PM on March 23, 2003

Moore's a loudmouth, no doubt, but I thought he was courageous tonight in expressing the outrage most of the world is feeling right now at America's indefensible actions.

That would be the case if it had been someone else. People expect that type of thing from Moore. I would have been annoyed if 'joe blow celebrity' had done the same, but with him it's more like, "well, it's Michael Moore, no surprise there".

He wasn't risking anyone. He was just being, as someone else said, predictable.
posted by justgary at 10:26 PM on March 23, 2003

Here's Rick Lyman's report in the reg-requiring NYT. Spot the rare whopping typo before they do!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:30 PM on March 23, 2003

p.s. if you haven't seen frida, you should while it's still on the big screen. it's fantastic.
posted by centrs at 10:34 PM on March 23, 2003

At this point hating America is Moores main career talent. Let's face it... he had done some OK stuff in the past but now it's just more of the same old saw.

So he got up there and spouted some left wing weirdness... its about as predictable and heartfelt as a supermodel showing you she has a nice rack.
posted by soulhuntre at 10:54 PM on March 23, 2003

Point taken, justgary, but it was nonetheless refreshing to hear the truth spoken on TV. Very welcome indeed.

Soulhuntre, which part did you consider "weird?"
posted by muckster at 10:57 PM on March 23, 2003

Wow, the Times makes it sound like Moore was booed off the stage, and doesn't quote his strongest soundbite, "Shame on you, Mr. President." Did they see the same show I saw?
posted by muckster at 11:01 PM on March 23, 2003

I know it's easy to take shots at rich celebreties when they speak up for causes, but that's the crappy way things work. Janeane Garofalo sort of summed it up, "I would much rather [the media] talk to Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. I think that would be fantastic, and they certainly know a lot more than I do, but I have access to the media." I appreciate it when they speak up for a good cause...however ironic that is.
posted by pb at 11:09 PM on March 23, 2003

You know, there are billions of poor, unknown jackasses who are allowed to shoot their mouths off about any subject they know nothing about, so why can't our rich and famous jackasses do the same?

Seriously, though: why so bothered about celebrities expressing an opinion? Why does Barbra Streisand elicit such a response? Can't we just hate her for her music? Or are malformed, knee-jerk reactions based on filtered media reports the sole property of bloggers?

Good to see Michael Moore still playing the polemicist. Stretch that one note as long as you can! While he's doing what he's best at - pissing people off - a bit more eloquence would have worked a whole lot better, methinks. And he was indeed booed off the stage - which, of course, was the reaction he wanted, since it means more people pay attention to him.

And Polanski wins. Good gravy, but that was unexpected.
posted by solistrato at 11:17 PM on March 23, 2003

Hysterical, Matt. :) Thanks.
posted by dejah420 at 11:28 PM on March 23, 2003

I personally thought he was brilliant, even though I didn't watch the show...

"We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president,” Moore said. “We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts."

Couldn't be better said...
posted by mildred-pitt at 11:31 PM on March 23, 2003

At this point hating America is Moores main career talent. Let's face it... he had done some OK stuff in the past but now it's just more of the same old saw.

I'm always puzzled by this - heard the same kind of thing (on a different topic - in that case pro-Bush vs. anti-protesters in DC) on NPR today - where, exactly, do you get the idea that Michael Moore hates America?

He loves America. He loves it so much that he is willing to point out its flaws, to try to get it to understand how it could be a better country, to get it to change. He sees the both the best and the worst in it, unflappingly. He is willing to say what he believes is true not because he hates America, but because he wants so badly for it (us) to be the Country it could be - to see the promise of liberty and prosperity and justice and honor fulfilled, to the fullest extent possible.

The recent rhetoric from the pro-Bush "how dare you criticize this wonderful country that has given you so much" viewpoint makes me crazy. In my book, its the people who are willing to hide their heads in the sand, who say simply that America is Great and Right who will eventually destroy this country, not the truth-speakers or the protesters. Is America actually so weak that we can no longer tolerate dissent? Are Michael Moore and a half million protesters going to make the republic fall?

After all, who loves you more? The person who only says "you're great" no matter what you do, or the person who says "you have spinach on your teeth" or who urges you to be a better person, to try harder, to work harder, to meet your full potential?
posted by anastasiav at 11:32 PM on March 23, 2003

Michael Moore that is...
posted by mildred-pitt at 11:34 PM on March 23, 2003

The rich people playing make believe awards, Yay.
posted by HTuttle at 11:47 PM on March 23, 2003

Well put, anastasiav.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:58 PM on March 23, 2003

Here's the typo:

For best actress, the award when to Nicole Kidman(...)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:59 PM on March 23, 2003

And he was indeed booed off the stage

What is your proof of this? From what I saw, he had to stop speaking when the music was turned up really loud (as was done for some of the other winners who spoke for awhile). There were some boos, but as an AP story states: "He dismissed the jeers he received, telling reporters: 'Don't report that there was a split decision in the hall because five loud people booed.'"

It's not really that big of a deal in the larger scheme of things, but I am curious how many of the 2,200+ people there were indeed booing. Was it just five people? It's possible. I could hear Mickey Rooney shout out earlier in the show and he was just one little guy way in the back.
posted by gluechunk at 12:23 AM on March 24, 2003

I'm a fan of Moore's work but I can't help but think he obscured his message tonight through its acerbic delivery. Wouldn't his message resonated more if he offered a tempered (and unexpected) perspective? Probably would have resulted something more thought provoking than shocking.

Side note: he was joined on stage with all the other documentary film makers who undoubtedly supported his message.
posted by quadog at 12:44 AM on March 24, 2003

He loves it so much that he is willing to point out its flaws, to try to get it to understand how it could be a better country

Being a liberal or opposing a war doesn't make you "hate America". Being a conservative doesn't make you "hate America"

That said, Michael Moore loves one thing: himself.

Moore is nothing but the Ann Coultier of the Left; he isn't looking for nuanced arguments and costs and benefits, he is a hard-hearted, vitriolic, rabble-rousing, self-promoter.
posted by dgaicun at 12:48 AM on March 24, 2003

What part was weird? Well, the continuing tinfoil hat conspiracy theory of the election for one.

I am >NOT< someone who assumes that anyone who is anti Bush ro anti Gulf War is ant-America. I know many people of good conscience whi disagree with this war and with Bush as president. I myself am extremely leery of the Patriot Act.

I KNOW that not everyone who criticizes the USA hates it - but heres a news flash, not everyone who criticizes it does it out of love.

Every single thing Moore has done has been aimed at his paranoid fantasy that there is some large Illuminati conspiracy keeping the little guy down. He never proves any of it of course, he just pulls stunt after stunt like some manic form of performance art.

For a while it was poignant. Then it was witty. Now it is clear he doesn
posted by soulhuntre at 2:24 AM on March 24, 2003

(oops - continuing in this post)

. Now it is clear he doesn't know how to do anything else. It's ALL stunts.

Does Moore hate America? It sure seems it to me as he has so far managed to express hatred of the form of government we have, the form of market we enjoy and everything about out feriegn policy.

What part of the USA does he love? The dirt? The asphalt? Maybe the sales figures from his movies?
posted by soulhuntre at 2:25 AM on March 24, 2003

That said, Michael Moore loves one thing: himself. ETC. . .

My heart about jumped out of my chest when I heard what he said. "Does he want to get himself killed?", I thought.

Nope folks. Nope nope nope. Michael Moore, in these most heady of times, most obviously does not give a shit about his own wellbeing. Can you imagine the flak he is and will be getting come tomorrow? He spoke the truth straight and simple. He will pay indeed. But tonight he sacrificed himself to allow the world to see we still have a Constitutional democracy in these United States. Very heroic.

Most wafflers on the war that I know are singularly impressed by Moore's bravery. Bravery says something in these days of fear fear fear! At Wholsale Prices! Make fun of the conscientious liberal celebrities all you must, just don't ever let anyone see you enjoy one of their movies again.

The audacity of people in the spotlight, who have only been able to become so famous because of the consumerism that fuels the capitalistic leeching onto the human condition that sends us into media dictated wars to fit their will to urge others to think in the form of ever more media! Gahhhh.

We hate the celebrities against war now because who are they? But mere celebrities.

Where was this uproar while incremental half hours of humans' lives were fed lifetimes worth of gossip and glitz of and around said celebrities? ET, Extra, O'reilly's own Current Affair DINK?

There was plenty of news I assume about the danger of Saddam Hussein, I'd imagine, that would have mighty more pertinent to our lives than who Clint Faraway was screwing lo these last ten years+.

Now we hate 'em when they say something. Brilliant.
posted by crasspastor at 3:14 AM on March 24, 2003

Interesting. So this dude with the impressive user id of 1 on a site with 17,000+ registered members and countless thousands more of regular readers decides to tell us all how silly celebrities are, using their access and visibility to make a statement about issues they may not be experts in. Or maybe he's criticizing empty and hypocritical gestures made in the supposed service of noble causes, such as, um, little decorative ribbons or .gif files.

Irony: you're soaking in it!

Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo et al may not be PhDs, but they are citizens with a strong opinion, and have every right- even a duty- to stand up for what they believe in, to make their voices heard. Those folks happen to have access to a large audience, and would be foolish to not use it, just as a protestor goes leafletting on the busiest street corner, or as the usual collection of blowhards and gasbags (myself included!) like to blather and be heard in our little corner of the net, knowing it will be seeing by thousands and thousands of people.

And here we have this poster, with access to a pretty large audience himself, a fellow who is generally treated with great deference and kowtowing by the blue and gold rabble, and who happens to be the only one of 17,000 people who can absolutely guarantee he will be heard in this forum. I'm apparently the only person here willing to say this was the kind of one-trick-pony link, the kind of "yeah we get the point" boring FPP that are so often dragged into Metatalk. Somehow, I'll wager this is one post that doesn't end up in Metatalk. Just a hunch...

Are you ready for your close up now, Mr. Owie? :)
posted by hincandenza at 3:15 AM on March 24, 2003

Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo et al may not be PhDs, but they're bowling solid strikes for sanctimonious loons of the year!
posted by hama7 at 3:45 AM on March 24, 2003

May be a difference of audience Hamil, but so are you. Thank god for strategic targets and of course, bowling pins. The citizens will never know what hit them. Turkey.
posted by crasspastor at 4:01 AM on March 24, 2003

One other Oscar-related protest:

Dear Mr. Pearson,

I thank you for the invitation to Academy Awards Ceremony. However I am sure that You and the Academy are well aware that we are not living the most glorious moments of the history of the mankind. Therefore I nor anybody else from Sputnik Ltd can participate the Oscar Gala event at the same time the government of the United States is prepairing a Crime against Humanity for the purpose of shameless economical interests.

For those reasons we are not in a party mood.

I hope you understand that this decision in this horrible situation is not addressed against the Academy or the Citizens of the United States. It is solely a moral choice worth a grain of sand in this crazy world. Cinema should live - but this chance should also be given to Iraqi civilians: children, women and men.

Sincerely Yours,
Aki Kaurismäki.

posted by misteraitch at 4:23 AM on March 24, 2003

He [Moore] loves America. He loves it so much that he is willing to point out its flaws, to try to get it to understand how it could be a better country, to get it to change.

Merde de la vache! Or rather, Bravo Sierra. B.S. Sheep Dip.

Moore wants to change America into some anemic defenseless Denmark, Sweden, Holland or some other socialistic tax-piracy hellhole which "owes" a living to everyone from cradle to grave, based solely on their having been spawned into such a society regardless of accomplishment, study, or contribution.

In the real world, we work hard and we earn money to support our families. To demand that the government extract taxes to redistribute those earnings to "make a better country" is morally not only wrong, it's theft, and has failed now *how many times* under the insidious guise of "communism"? Not only that, the United States enjoys the most freedom, is the most prosperous country on earth, and is the most responsible and moral in the history of man.

Moore is a disgrace.

AND THIS HATE AMERICA NONSENSE GETS A SPECIAL NOTE ON THE SIDEBAR?
posted by hama7 at 4:43 AM on March 24, 2003

actually, the janeane garofalo quote was that "it wasn't very trendy" to listen to her when she was one of the few voicing dissent against former president clinton's military action in the middle east. if you're going to quote someone, quote the whole statement, not just the part that makes you look good.
posted by pxe2000 at 4:45 AM on March 24, 2003

So this dude with the impressive user id of 1 on a site with 17,000+ registered members and countless thousands more of regular readers decides to tell us all how silly celebrities are...

My heart about jumped out of my chest when I read what he said about Matt. "Does he want to get himself killed?", I thought.
posted by Mo Nickels at 4:51 AM on March 24, 2003

hama7: in your apoplectic rant you forgot to cite the references for all of the things that you claim Michael Moore stands for. It has always seemed to me that his primary goal is to stop major corporations from running roughshod over the law - I don't quite see how you have expanded this to more or less an accusation of being a communist.

By the way, do you have anything to back up taxation being morally wrong, being theft , not working, or that the US is the most responsible and moral in the history of man?

Or maybe you just got out of the wrong side of bed this morning?
posted by daveg at 4:55 AM on March 24, 2003

I always genuinely wondered how it came to be that you're such an angry person, hama7, posting with such vitriol. Your last post, in all its arrogant glory, has pretty much cleared it up for me. Thanks. P.S. get a grip.
posted by kahboom at 4:57 AM on March 24, 2003

The Oscars may have been a sanctimonious waste of time, but so were Peter Jennings's two "breaking" newscasts, an opportunistic way to remind the world that ABC News is covering the war with all the objectivity one expects out of a "nonfiction" filmmaker or, in this thread, our snarky proprietor. :)
posted by ed at 5:03 AM on March 24, 2003

hama, if you've got a point to make, then get to it.

This kind of axe-grinding rhetoric does you no good service. There's plenty of room to criticise Mike Moore, and there's room to criticise celebrities expecting the public to think they're more qualified to make political commentary on the war than anyone else, but you're not going the right way about making your case.
posted by backOfYourMind at 5:08 AM on March 24, 2003

hama7: Countries like Denmark, Sweden & the Netherlands tend to engage in a bit more social democracy than the US out of necessity. There isn't enough room to just move away from communities that are affected by social & economic problems so they have to be addressed rather than ignored.

Thanks for the laugh tho'. Its always fun seeing people flip out on MeFi ;-)
posted by i_cola at 5:19 AM on March 24, 2003

hama7 just does what all people do who think that "free market" capitalism isn't an ideology just like, for instance, communism: He declares everyone who slightly or strongly disagrees with his ideology as an enemy, or, in his terminology, a "communist".
Not only is this narrow-minded and one-dimensional perspective counterproductive to all forms of discourse, it sheds a very poor light on the actual benefits which the realities of the "free market" capitalism has given to many, but not most and certainly not all people who willingly or unwillingly, hard working or slacking, are participating in it.
I would advise everybody to ignore him on issues, just as I ignore communists who wave their manifesto in my face or christians who try to beat me with their bible. These people will always be ignoring the facts that contradict parts or the whole of their theories, just because it conveniently lets them swallow in the ideological set of mind which they chose a long time ago which they are either unable or unwilling to change. But that is a problem of psychology, and not of a political or economical discourse.
posted by zerofoks at 5:23 AM on March 24, 2003

Hey! Leave The Netherlands out of this!! Go solve your problems first.
posted by knutmo at 5:24 AM on March 24, 2003

swallow -> wallow
issues -> these issues

man, war makes me anxious to push the buttons. :-)
posted by zerofoks at 5:26 AM on March 24, 2003

Maybe the actors are the only ones voicing our concerns right now. Please tell me the names of the current politicians Democrat or Republican that are voicing the same concerns of those hundreds of thousands of protestors? Exactly who is representing them these days? I for one have yet to hear one of their voices as angry and upset as that growing segment of our population.
posted by SweetIceT at 5:31 AM on March 24, 2003

After all, who loves you more? The person who only says "you're great" no matter what you do, or the person who says "you have spinach on your teeth" or who urges you to be a better person, to try harder, to work harder, to meet your full potential?

I agree with you here about love of country, but I don't think that the people who'd benefit most from your comment would. Neo-Conservatives don't love thier country like one loves another human being; they love thier country like they love a god. It is best loved by obediance and suppression of skepticism and leaps of faith. Its divine mysteries, (for example, the fickleness of its market economy - which giveth and taketh away - rewards the "righteous" -people who have faith in it - the righteous are justified by faith- with its bounty. If the market has punished you in some way, downsized your job away, bankrupted you, then you must have sinned in some way.) are not to be understood, but only known as absolute truth.
You and I love America because it is a democracy. So when we find the democratic process failing (because of the Homeland Security Act, say, or when the President wants to make war without the consent of the people), we feel it necessary to try and repair it.
But neocons love democracy because it is American. Thus, democracy can be sacrificed at any time when the nation might be at risk. And thus, criticizing America because it is not living up to the potentail of democracy is hating America. It is blasphemy, after all, to demand the god live up to its own standard of justice.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:33 AM on March 24, 2003

Michael Moore backstage: "I love my country. I love this democracy."

He also points out that his win was the first standing ovation of the night, that his book Stupid White Men sold more than any other nonfiction book of the year and that, as a result, he believes that his view reflects the majority of America and that it is also his responsibility to speak his mind.

I have my own problems with Moore, but he is right on the money when it comes to taking the opportunity to express his point of view to a large audience. He may not have been eloquent. But then, honestly, how eloquent can you are speaking in front of millions of people, when you organize ALL THE OTHER nominees to go up there with you in the event that you win, and when you know that you will be cut off by an orchestra at any second?

I'd expect no less from a particularly austere war hawk who had the same piss and vinegar.

It's a very simple concept: This is a democracy. Take the opportunity to express your goddam voice instead of whining about others like a passive-aggressive coward. If you don't like an opinion, then ignore it. If you don't have an opinion, then just shut the hell up and let up someone on the dais who does.
posted by ed at 5:39 AM on March 24, 2003

I was ecstatic for Almodovar (and Miyazaki), but think Pedro was so happy to just have won and be up there that he didn't really have the heart to get all worked up about the Invasion. Plus, his less than stellar english didn't help the delivery of his "speech".
Good on him, though! Next year, Best Film.
posted by signal at 5:45 AM on March 24, 2003

Moore did indeed get a big standing O, and he did indeed get loudly booed during his moment on stage.

I'm very curious what the other documentary feature nominees thought would happen, how they felt about it, and how they'll represent the event afterwards. My impression was that all of those nominees had prearranged a stand together, and that they probably would have all taken the stage regardless of who won. Has anyone seen any more about this?
posted by Songdog at 6:11 AM on March 24, 2003

"Thank you for your fame. I grovel and prostrate myself before your radiantly shining, benevolent magnificence!"

*grovels and kisses celebrity foot*
posted by troutfishing at 6:12 AM on March 24, 2003

I think it's rather interesting that you guys are so hung up on a couple sentences that Micheal Moore said, but that you have no problems that a predatory pedophile won the "Best Director" award.

Oh, and hicandenza... wwkd?
posted by crunchland at 6:13 AM on March 24, 2003

Hama7: One of the questions Moore has raised that really made me think was why should companies who are doing very well be allowed to move their entire production lines out of the country. These are American companies who are keeping everything but production in the States. The argument is that it is done to "stay competative", but the only figures I really see changing are the salaries of the workers and the salaries of the higher ups.

Now you may agree that keeping these companies in America would be good, but argue that you can't just force them to stay. Moore says, why not? They're operating in our country, we should make the rules (paraphrasing).

On celebrities stating their minds in the media: sure, why not? We all say stupid things. If we had a camera in front of us a significant amount of time, we'd probably say stupid things on camera. We do get some awfully good soundbites from them though.
posted by ODiV at 6:13 AM on March 24, 2003

Moore backstage: " When he came backstage, there was applause from journalists, but Moore told them not to report that opinion in the ceremony's audience was split "because five loud people booed". "

I'm confused... I thought trying to tell the press what to report is what the other side did?
posted by PenDevil at 6:28 AM on March 24, 2003

How come no one is talking about the ribbon?

posted by Karl at 6:33 AM on March 24, 2003

No offense to Matt, but hincandenza just made probably the mot poignant comment I've ever read on this website.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:33 AM on March 24, 2003

Eustacescrub - very nice. Mr Nail, meet Mr. Hammer.
posted by notsnot at 6:36 AM on March 24, 2003

The stars of track and field, you are
The stars of track and field, you are
The stars of track and field are beautiful people
posted by the fire you left me at 6:45 AM on March 24, 2003

Was it just me, or was there an inordinate amount of chatter during Kidman's acceptance? I was like, "Were her protuberances showing?" But then I thought, "No, they're celebrities. They wouldn't get all worked up over nakedness." It went on for the whole speech.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 6:46 AM on March 24, 2003

The Oscars is rich people giving each other presents, which would be of utterly no interest to me except for the inane self-importance that always surfaces. So go ribbon!

As for Moore, he's established a very lucrative brand image, and his comments at the awards were just more brand support. What would have been notable would have been if he had refused to accept the award as a protest - actors used to do that, you know. I suspect he is too vain for that, though.

His flaws are too numerous to mention here, but when he gives up his multi-million dollar condo in NYC and takes his kid out of private school, I'll start to pay attention to what he says in his role as champion of the common man.

But you who admire him take notice - on 9/11 his comments on his website were words to the effect "hey, you stupid terrorists, you killed the wrong people - New York didn't vote for Bush". Yes, they were quickly removed & then he lied about having said them at all, but take notice - if MM disagrees with you, he's happy to see you dead. So don't cross him.
posted by Jos Bleau at 6:51 AM on March 24, 2003

if MM disagrees with you, he's happy to see you dead. So don't cross him.

Jos, that's a little melodramatic, unless you have access to some facts that I don't.

I agree that Moore is an egomaniac, and I also wonder about the whole bring-all-the-nominees-onstage move. I wouldn't put it past Moore to have convinced them he was going to say "We all accept this award together," and instead portrayed them as backing his cause. But I haven't heard any of them complaining to that effect so far.

But the amusing thing about this thread is the comments that try to dismiss Moore, as if his gaudy style and braying tone mean he's actually irrelevant. e.g. "Let's face it... he had done some OK stuff in the past but now it's just more of the same old saw."

Right. The same old saw that resulted in a book the publisher tried to supress going to Number One and staying there, that resulted in a documentary that's made history with both box office records and critical awards. He was onstage, folks, not because he ran up there while someone else was talking, but because he won an Oscar for Best Documentary. You may not like what he says or how he says it, but trying to paint him as irrelevant comes off as ridiculously desperate.
posted by soyjoy at 7:42 AM on March 24, 2003

...i predict a Mike Moore and Guns-n-Roses tour by years end...
posted by clavdivs at 7:46 AM on March 24, 2003

Thank you Crunchland, and lets not forget that the man who drugged and anally raped a 13 year old got a standing ovation.
posted by Mick at 7:47 AM on March 24, 2003

I am always proud of seeing people take a stand to protect our freedom.

Either love this country enough to keep it a democracy, or leave it.
posted by DragonBoy at 8:40 AM on March 24, 2003

but I was deeply embarrassed when he said working on Polanski's movie had given him a deeper understanding of war.

it was based on a true story, so he obviously had to do some research about living through a war - don't see why that wouldn't allow him a deeper understanding.

hama7, taxation isn't theft, it's pooled resources. We try to take care of one another because Life Is Not Fair - who gets born into wealth, who suffers disease, who ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc, is random luck for the most part. On a moral level, who is born with superior talents is even random luck.

I thought there was excess noise during Kidman's speech too, and wondered what was up when she turned away ostensibly because she was crying, even though she didn't seem to be crying.

Michael Moore was over the top, but what do you expect from him? I'm glad he added a little punch to it, but there was more booing than I expected (probably mostly because he wasn't being sufficiently dignified & acquiescent more than because of outright disagreement).

I was also surprised at the seemingly unified celebration of polanski - when he was nominated, thanked in other speeches, and when he won, there was unanimous cheering and no booing. If not for the reaction to michael moore I might have thought people just don't boo at the oscars, and the applause always sounds loud, but that doesn't seem to be so.

the celebrity / irony thing about this thread is spot on - no one else could've gotten away with this post.
posted by mdn at 8:47 AM on March 24, 2003

thanks, mick, and let's not lose sight of the wife beater who won for "best song", either.

and they called this "the year of the woman". HA.
posted by pxe2000 at 8:57 AM on March 24, 2003

Either love this country enough to keep it a democracy, or leave it.

People still say this? Christ, it's thirty years old, and it's still incredibly witless.

And speaking as a lefty, if Michael Moore is the best we can do, we might as well give up. The whole "fictitious presidency" crab is two fucking years old, and duct tape jokes were stale five minutes after it hit the newsweeklies. This is a coherent, relevant liberal position? No, it's just dumbass sloganeering: thanks, Mike, you stupid bastard.
posted by Skot at 8:59 AM on March 24, 2003

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet...

"We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president,” Moore said. “We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts."

Whoever typed that cleaned it up from what was actually said. I watched it last night, and I heard the sound bite on the radio this morning, and the end of his quote went,

"...whether it's the fictition of duct tape or the fictitious of orange alerts."

Not that it changes his message, but it's as good as any Bushism.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:59 AM on March 24, 2003

Don't you mean "flamed out" in an orgy of hatred, poor judgment, and blind rage?

What, he accused everyone with a reasoned stand against the invasion of being pro-rape room?

Fave quote:

Everytime an Oscar is given out, an agent gets his wings.

Kathy Bates
posted by y2karl at 9:06 AM on March 24, 2003

if you're going to quote someone, quote the whole statement, not just the part that makes you look good.

pxe2000, here's a transcript of the show where I heard the Garofalo quote. It doesn't have anything to do with clinton, and I don't think I quoted it in a strange context. Anyway, you can read the whole thing for yourself.
posted by pb at 9:15 AM on March 24, 2003

"Can you imagine the flak he is and will be getting come tomorrow? He spoke the truth straight and simple."

None that will matter. In fact, the day after the awards Moore announced that as a result of his speech he had received two new offers to finance his next project. Not surprisingly, his next project is about the current conflict with Iran.

Funny coincidence that :)

Of course, all the people who think that Bush would take the country to war to make some $$$ wouldn't even dream of thinking that St. M. Moore might be tailoring his high profile political antics for a profit motive. Right?

I mean, anyone who yells bad stuff on the sidewalk outside a skyscraper has got to be honest, he's one of "the people" right? Only "the man" is corrupt.

"Now you may agree that keeping these companies in America would be good, but argue that you can't just force them to stay. Moore says, why not? They're operating in our country, we should make the rules (paraphrasing)."

And this is what's scary about Moore and those like him.

They are absolutely livid if any regulation touches their lives but are more than happy to push us to a sort of mob think totalitarian state economically. The same thing that allows Moore to make films with a deliberately slanted view of issues is what lets a company move it's production out of the country.

The concept is "freedom". It's a word Moore invokes when it suits him, and is more than willing to trample whenever it means something he doesn't like.

"Not that it changes his message, but it's as good as any Bushism."

Moore looked distinctly uncomfortable... when the booing started he got rattles and you could see it. he had worked himself up into this frenzy and he was pretty sure it would all go OK, I mean, the man has a huge ego. When the audience started to boo him you could see him freak... he started to speak faster and looked like he was making the words up on the fly. He was sweating and there was a little bit of foam visible on his lip (almost) :)

In fact, the fact that he got so rattled by the booing is the only thing keeping me from deciding it was just a dispassionately planned publicity stunt. I mean, it was but it looks like he also had some real passion - though it could have just been anger and disbelief that he was booed. We have no idea how many yes men he is surrounded with during the day.

Let's be honest, if Bush had ever looked during a speech like Moore looked last night Moore and his friends would be doing a 2 hour movie about how crazy and out of control he was.

It was amusing later to see how fundamentally incapable Moore was to accept the reality of the booing. Then again this is keeping in the pattern of his view that he really can't imagine people don't agree with him or think him brilliant.
posted by soulhuntre at 3:41 PM on March 25, 2003

I will point out that the booing only started when they realised he was going to start being negative -- I'm not sure how many of them actually heard what he was saying.

I would have been disappointed if he hadn't said anything, simple because its just his style. And the fact that he dragged his fellow documentary makers on stage also gave it a bigness the Oscars are renouned for in a way.

[Although I do wonder about those kids who made the documentary about wild geese ... what was their position].

Just wondering ... am I wrong, but why hasn't anyone in this thread who is against what Moore said tried to dispute it on a line by line basis. Go on, convince me ...
posted by feelinglistless at 4:22 PM on March 25, 2003

Unmoored From Reality. The anti American propagandist, "Mr. Moore is naturally a big hit among the French". No amount of disdain is sufficient.
posted by hama7 at 4:29 PM on March 25, 2003

> No offense to Matt, but hincandenza just made probably the mot poignant comment I've ever read on this website.

Agreed. I won't even get into some the amazing charities that wouldn't exist or would be much more underfunded without these evil celebrities.

"Hilarious" site.
posted by skallas at 4:30 PM on March 25, 2003

So Hama7, you believe tax is theft?

Where do you get your money from? No really - where, down the economic chain, does your money come from to start with?

I bet that somewhere along the line, it stems from irreversible exploitation of natural resources (probably in another country), exploitation of underpaid human labour (probably in another country), or the taxes someone else has paid! Talk about profiting from theft. I challenge you to prove that your wealth comes completely from the work of your own hands, not (directly or indirectly) from investments in theft.
posted by Jimbob at 4:31 PM on March 25, 2003

From elsewhere ...

http://www.emmanuelle.net/ has some backstage mp3's of Brody and Moore. a little more interesting than his stage rant.
posted by th3ph17 at 12:16 AM GMT on March 26
posted by feelinglistless at 4:54 PM on March 25, 2003

Of course all tax is not theft. The public needs roads and sidewalks. All the rest of it is theft.

Also, please refer to The Truth About Bowling for Columbine.

It's bull to boot.
posted by hama7 at 5:16 PM on March 25, 2003

Thanks to Linnwood.org for the above link.
posted by hama7 at 5:28 PM on March 25, 2003

pb: sorry for my defensiveness -- i was actually addressing hama7's comment about how janeane is a jackass. a few right-leaning warblogs have had her over a barrel for this statement:

And I also argued the Clinton administration was big on unilateralism, and I think the Clinton administration's Iraq policy was despicable.

SNOW: Why didn't you protest it then?

GAROFALO: I absolutely did. I did not support Operation Desert Fox, it's just that you didn't know me very well back then. Nobody, really, was interested in listening to me back them.

(LAUGHTER)

It wasn't very hip to...

SNOW: Well, perhaps let me change the question, then. Why wasn't there an organized anti-war movement under Bill Clinton?

GAROFALO: Oh, there was, and Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins were at the forefront. You know, the thing is, this Hollywood thing is such a straw man, it's such a waste of people's time. But...

(ganked from foxnews.com).

i've said some heated things around here that haven't made me popular, and i just wanted to clarify this. :)
posted by pxe2000 at 5:38 PM on March 25, 2003

Thanks for the quote from Aki Kaurismaki, misteraitch. He's a great filmmaker, and the nominated movie, "The Man Without a Past" is very very good. He appears to be quite principled -- when Abbas Kiarostami couldn't enter the country last fall for the New York Film Festival because of Ashcroft's tighter rules for Iranians, Kaurismaki sent a similar letter (self-link) and stayed away.

If you like Jim Jarmush, make sure to check out "The Man Without a Past" when it opens, or any of his other movies.
posted by muckster at 5:47 PM on March 25, 2003

Hama7 has such a great plan for society, if things were run his way (no doubt he does wish things were). Hama7 obviously support private citizen militia groups for national defence and law enforcement. He obviously supports getting rid of public schools so the poor can stay supid and the rich and keep smart. He obviously supports getting rid of public hospitals so the poor can die in their homes and the rich can stay healthy. Certainly sounds like a noble cause to me!

Have you asked any people in northern Europe how they feel about their tax system and government expenditure? Or are you just assuming, like Marxists do about "oppressed workers", that these people need to be rescued from their pityful existence without taking into account their point of view.
posted by Jimbob at 7:11 PM on March 25, 2003

Hama7 obviously support private citizen militia groups for national defence and law enforcement.

Police and firemen are good reasons for taxes too, but now that you mention it.....

Speaking of celebrity goof-balls, here's a terrific site called Hollywood Halfwits, and would you believe it? The opening story is about none other than Mike Moore:

Michael Moore: KING OF THE HOLLYWOOD HALFWITS

How sweet it is.
posted by hama7 at 8:07 PM on March 25, 2003

Or you could join the online petition to Request Michael Moore go on a hunger strike in protest.

Purely a humanitarian effort.
posted by hama7 at 8:53 PM on March 25, 2003

Oh boy.
posted by muckster at 9:36 PM on March 25, 2003

It's nice to see the compassion in your conservatism, Hama: fat jokes, French-bashing, and general derision.

I think you're mean and it makes me not want to read your comments.

In more important news, I thought the link was funny.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 9:52 PM on March 25, 2003

>The public needs roads and sidewalks. All the rest of it is theft.

If everything else can be more ot less privatized why not roads and sidewalks? A toll based system for high-speed expressways or running your debit card through a reader on a gate to premium sidewalk access could be implemented in almost no time. Those who can't afford it can buy a licence to use public lands on a yearly basis. Or they can take the long way around through bad neighborhoods with little real estate value thus a low premium to " legally tresspass."

Why not the police too? They require tons of money and some would argue that lots of money is wasted on minor crimes and victimless crimes. Pay for a real investigation like we pay for decent lawyers. If you can't pony up the cash then its probably not worth it, right?

It seems to me that if the only socialization you defend is sidewalks and streets then you might as well join the nutty uber-laissez faire crowd and be done with it.

Also, word to the wise, if you want to co-op a thread and spew taxation theft crapola then post a new FPP. There's a huge disconnect between celebrities and taxation. In the end you're just derailing and arguably trolling.

Great book here about a very cynical and partly tongue in cheek view of a private everything America.
posted by skallas at 11:10 PM on March 25, 2003

In the end you're just derailing

It's not off-topic to explain the political goals of a conniving Marxist, and taxation (toward the elimination of private property) is one of those goals.

I think you're mean

Too bad. I think Moore is mean, and a liar. Did you read the links I provided? Some are very interesting, you might find.
posted by hama7 at 11:21 PM on March 25, 2003

toward the elimination of private property

The goal to eliminate private property is expropriation, not taxing. And expropriation is not theft, either. It's the abolishment of all property laws (it doesn't matter if the property is private or not for capitalism to work) so the ressources of all kinds of a country become mere posessions, all the time directly under the control of material force (naturally this force is in the hands of the state in any country nowadays) and not of the laws.
And it is because capitalism only works through enforced laws and the belief of many that these laws should be just, that taxes should not only make a society more effective but more just, too. As mdn said, most of the time random luck strikes. And if you don't correct this with taxes or at least try to, you are obeying the laws of social darwinism, which has been nothing but the pre-capitalism ways of nature.
posted by zerofoks at 12:42 AM on March 26, 2003

Hama7. For your own sake. Quit this. This has quickly turned into a question of humanity, love it or leave it. You're ill equipped. I love you. Love arguing with you. But this is absurd.
posted by crasspastor at 1:32 AM on March 26, 2003

that taxes should not only make a society more effective but more just, too.

Right. I believe that all but the most essential taxes are unnecessary. I want the garbage to go out and the cops to protect the innocent, but I fail to see how excessive taxes make a society more "just". In fact, I see just the opposite in countries with extraordinarily high taxation, which just means the government has more power to allocate taxes and authority as they see fit. I say the lower and fewer the taxes the better. Individuals have the freedom to choose rather than being forced toward a decision by extreme taxation. See Singapore.

Before I hear the high-pitched wails of health care (socialism and socialized health care is morally wrong, on the Ayn Rand side, with which I agree), South Korea has one of the lowest personal tax rates on the planet, yet ample and affordable health care coverage (probably because corporate taxation in so high, but that's a different beast) provided by a national agency.

**Double asterisk here! I don't think the government has any business subsidizing or nationalizing health care while lining its pockets, and privitization would be much, much better, yet, there you have it. And a similar system would be wholly inefficient if implemented in the U.S.because of size, population, et cetera.

And expropriation is not theft, either. It's the abolishment of all property laws

Think about that. You've worked for and earned what the gub'mint decides to "expropriate"? That's theft, man, on a colossal scale.

We, as free people, are absolutely responsible for ourselves, and the more control we have over our own destinies, and the less control the government can impose, the better. Less tax bloodsucking means more savings and more opportunities for oneself and one's family, and fewer inefficient sluggish government agency hacks and grubby politicians abusing and lengthening their claims on the public payroll.

This just seems like common sense to me.

I love you too crasspastor.
posted by hama7 at 4:13 AM on March 26, 2003

Police and firemen are good reasons for taxes too, but now that you mention it.....

crasspastor is dead on hama, if you want to talk about this stuff, then do it somewhere appropriate. Making a dick of yourself in a thread that, (it appears you've forgotten), is not about tax issues or Marxism, just undermines your cause.

I had read the link from S@L's blog grilling Bowling For Columbine, and although I don't agree with every point in there, the sections on the editing of Heston's speeches is a relevant critique of Moore's works.

Pity you'd already been given enough rope before you posted the link...
posted by backOfYourMind at 4:45 AM on March 26, 2003

Think about that. You've worked for and earned what the gub'mint decides to "expropriate"? That's theft, man, on a colossal scale.

It is only theft when there is a law which calls such a thing theft and which can be enforced on those who break it. Otherwise it's just moralistic jibber-jabber which could be contradicted by every Marxist's standard argument of the bourgeoise "stealing" the surplus value of the proletarian's work force.
posted by zerofoks at 5:33 AM on March 26, 2003

is not about tax issues or Marxism

Well sir, when it's about Michael Moore, it most definitely is about Marxism, and putrid, bilious anti-Americanism. No doubt about it. A can of bad worms has been stinkily opened. Where else shall we take it?

It is only theft when there is a law which calls such a thing theft

How "sophisticated". And I suppose when a North Korean law calls something "re-education", then it's really not "prolonged torture until death", right?

Good luck selling that yarn.
posted by hama7 at 6:00 AM on March 26, 2003

How "sophisticated". And I suppose when a North Korean law calls something "re-education", then it's really not "prolonged torture until death", right?

The actual differences between the letter of the law and how it is actually enforced and practised is a whole different issue, and you know it, troll. If you are unable to contradict my point (which is that the letter of the law with all its subsidiaries has to be installed first before something can even be called anything) then STFU.
posted by zerofoks at 6:21 AM on March 26, 2003

Coherent and understandable law is the neccessary premise for legal order which is the neccessary premise for legal justice. Simple as that.
posted by zerofoks at 6:23 AM on March 26, 2003

I think everything that Moore said was true, but that still doesn't stop me from wanting to see a regime change in Iraq.

A lot of these posts do the same thing the Moore post did - state that anyone who believes this war is the right thing to do is inhuman. Where is the logic in that?
posted by xammerboy at 11:18 AM on March 26, 2003

First, get
Bag of shredded cheese,
Poster of Stalin,
Gerbil wheel.

Hang poster of Stalin,
Move gerbil wheel next to and facing poster.
Leave trail of cheese to gerbil wheel.

Hook up gerbil wheel to generator. Wait.

Look at that baby go!

*Oil prices drop worldwide.*
posted by y2karl at 11:46 AM on March 26, 2003

posted by muckster at 1:57 PM on March 26, 2003

Does that guy have some kind of dispute going with his next-door neighbors, or what?
posted by soyjoy at 11:03 AM on March 27, 2003

While we're talking about M. Moore, you might find this article interesting as it compares and contrasts the image and his reality.

Michael Moore's Fictitious Life
posted by soulhuntre at 12:37 PM on April 3, 2003

« Older Build and evolve... | First Casualties? NATO, the U... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

God bless those courageous stars March 23, 2003 9:39 PM Subscribe

God bless those courageous stars
March 23, 2003 9:39 PM Subscribe