The Academy is snubbing Michael Moore:

From CNN.com:

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- ineligible for a best documentary nomination because the film was not submitted for that category -- was shut out across the board.

This is great on two counts:
1) Apparently whoever submits these things recognized that the picture wasn’t really a documentary, and shouldn’t try to compete as one.
2) The Academy doesn’t want to get any of whatever the picture IS on themselves.

There is current passing the contacts on the old clue-meter. The needle wiggled!

I’m happy.


19 thoughts on “Oh, GOOD.”

  1. Well, merits of the picture aside – I haven’t seen it, though I honestly have to guess that my reaction to it, given my political leanings, would be about as predictable as your reaction given yours – I have to guess that they really don’t want to give him more stage time to rant about things completely unrelated to movies like he did last year (or whenever). Hollywood generally leans liberal, but Moore doesn’t exactly give liberalism a good name.

    1. He wanted it nominated straight for “Best Picture”. His idea was, if submitted for Best Docu, it’d probably win (and he already has an Oscar for Best Docu, he says he doesn’t want one, plus he wanted the stage clear for Super Size Me) and the fact that you can’t have a “documentary” nominated for “Best Picture”. Not feasible, according to Academy regulations. So, to get a “Best Picture” nod, he had to forfeit the “Best Docu”.

      Basically, he wanted a bigger prize, ended up with none.

        1. It doesn’t make me happy, but I understand your opinion.

          I also understand the Academy for not choosing it, and it’s got nothing to do with politics. It’s not a particularly good movie. It’s entertaining, yes, it’s powerful, yes, but it’s definitely not a great cinematic achievement.

  2. Actually, as it works out F911 wasn’t eligible for Best Documentary, because it appeared on television in the calendar year, which rules it out for that category. Moore could probably have raised a stink and gotten it in, but he didn’t.

    And, though I’m a liberal and actually liked the movie… the unmitigated hubris involved in pushing to get your Editorial/Documentary a Best Picture nomination deserves what it gets.

    1. It didn’t actually appear on TV. Moore wanted it on Pay Per View on the eve of Election Day, but it got cancelled by PPV at the last minute.

      (Unless I missed something.)

    2. See, I think F911 is a little bit like the infamous CBS National Guard Memos. It’s a great story. It’s too good to NOT be true (to paraphrase Rather’s comments about memogate.) It’s the lie everyone WANTS to believe, because it looks so TRUE. Heck, it’s got truth infused in it like the blood infusing our bodies. But there’s more to it than that, and that’s where it crosses from being a documentary to being a propaganda piece.

      Enough of THAT rant.

      I have to agree with your assessment of Moore himself: “unmitigated hubris.” It extends beyond the Oscars, and into the very nature of his work — in film after film, he builds his own image on the broken images of other people. Whether or not they NEEDED to be taken down a peg (that’s not the issue here) Moore stains himself by never having anything good to say. He’s a sensationalizing doomsayer.

      And that’s enough of THAT rant.

      I’m happy his behavior is not being rewarded right now.

      1. I think you hit the head right on the nail there, Howard. It was an incredibly ambitious piece of film, powerful in its delivery, but ultimately it was propaganda.

        And that is not to say that it was al false. I think we are all adults here and understand that propaganda, in order to really work, needs to be based in truth. And Moore did his homework with accolades there. However being so one sided, only attempting to show the evils of the Bush Empire and glossing over Kerry entirely, he failed in the sense of the impartial necessary for his film to be taken seriously as a documentary.

        It was an editorial. It was a political tool. It was no documentary. And they do call that propaganda.

        Now if we can just harnes his powers for good…

        1. Propoganda

          There is a reason some on the right and center refer to Moore as Tubby Riefenstahl, or Michael Moorenstahl. He is a propogandist more than a documentarian.

  3. It wasn’t competing in the documentary category, only in the overall “Best Picture” category, so the semantics about it being a documentary or not (which are absurd) don’t matter.

    Quite bluntly, if you declare your film to have a specific goal (in this case, influencing the presidential election) you shouldn’t expect it to win any awards after it’s obvious that goal has failed.

    If Kerry had won, this film would very likely be a “Best Picture” nom. But he didn’t, so it’s obvious Moore didn’t do what he said he was going to with it, which kind of makes the film worthless.

    This is why most filmmakers don’t announce goals that accompany their films, other than to make money.

    1. And that’s just HILARIOUS. It reminds me of the time we took our Scout Camp Aquatics Director to “Kangaroo Court” for the charges of “impersonating an Aquatics Director.”


  4. I’m glad it’s not in contention for an Oscar. As much as I dislike Bush and his staff and their lying (and everything about Iraq is a lie as far as I can tell now) I thought F9/11 took what COULD have been thought provoking points and pushed them beyond all reasonable speculation into outright fabrication.

    It’s what Bush did to get us in Iraq. Lying. Exagerating. Make much of little or no evidence and ASSUMING intentions and interpreting everything in as one sided a way as possible.

    I find it an insult to our intellect no matter who’s doing it.

    So yah, I’m glad 9/11 isn’t in the running because it was more propaganda than documentary.

  5. The person who decided not to submit 9/11 as best documentary? Moore himself. Although I am sure that the academy appreciated this decision.

    This “propaganda” isn’t any more propaganda than what is spewing from the White House. I have yet to hear good answers to some of the questions raised in 9/11.

    1. This “propaganda” isn’t any more propaganda than what is spewing from the White House.

      …Which still leaves it as propaganda. You don’t beat people by sinking to their level.

  6. I don’t know; why does everyone who misses a nomination get “snubbed”? It’s like having a lifeboat that can only hold 5 five people. If I take the children and the pregnant woman am I snubbing everybody else?

    Although I’m definitely with Woody Allen on this one; artistic competition is just an all-round bad idea.

  7. F9/11 being rated R, I never saw it and never intend to, and now that the election and inauguration have both passed, it is of no consequence. In truth, I don’t see why this is even worthy of discussion. From what I can gather, people are saying that the movie was no big deal, and it not getting a nomination is no big deal, so no big deal all around. Let us talk about something that is truly worth our time. Like fresh, hot sub sandwiches.

Comments are closed.