Michael Moore: Why I Made That Speech

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

brettig

New Yorker
Joined
Aug 4, 2000
Messages
3,194
Location
heehee, ask george
Why I made that speech
March 31 2003

Something had to be said at the Oscars about the war. Michael Moore explains why he was the one to say it.


A word of advice to future Oscar winners: don't begin Oscar day by going to church. That is where I found myself last Sunday morning, at the Church of the Good Shepherd on Santa Monica Boulevard, at Mass with my sister and my dad. My problem with the Catholic Mass is that sometimes I find my mind wandering after I hear something the priest says, and I start thinking all these crazy thoughts like how it is wrong to kill people and that you are not allowed to use violence upon another human being unless it is in true self-defence.

The Pope even came right out and said it: this war in Iraq is not a just war and, thus, it is a sin.

Those thoughts were with me the rest of the day. I had not planned on winning an Academy Award for Bowling for Columbine (no documentary that was a big box-office success had won since Woodstock), and so I had no speech prepared. Besides, I had already received awards in the days leading up to the Oscars and used the same acceptance remarks. I spoke of the need for non-fiction films when we live in such fictitious times. We have a fictitious US President who was elected with fictitious election results. He is now conducting a war for a fictitious reason (the claim that Saddam Hussein has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction when in fact we are there to get the world's second-largest supply of oil).

We are continually bombarded with one fictitious story after another from the Bush White House. And that is why it is important that filmmakers make non-fiction, so that all the little lies can be exposed and the public informed. An uninformed public in a democracy is a sure-fire way to end up with little or no democracy at all.

That is what I have been saying for some time. Millions of Americans seem to agree. My book Stupid White Men still sits at No. 1 on the US bestseller list. Bowling for Columbine has broken all box-office records for a documentary. My website is now getting up to 20 million hits a day (more than the White House's site).

My opinions about the state of the United States are neither unknown nor on the fringe, but rather they exist with mainstream majority opinion. The majority of Americans, according to polls, did not want to go into this war without the backing of the United Nations and all of America's allies.

That is where the US is at. It's liberal, it's for peace and it is only tacitly in support of its leader because that is what you are supposed to do when you are at war and you want your kids to come back from Iraq alive.

In the commercial break before the best documentary Oscar was to be announced, I suddenly thought that maybe this community of film people was also part of that American majority and just might have voted for my film. I leaned over to my fellow nominees and told them that, should I win, I was going to say something about President Bush and the war and would they like to join me up on the stage? They all agreed.

Moments later, Diane Lane opened the envelope and announced the winner: Bowling for Columbine. The entire main floor rose to its feet for a standing ovation. I was immeasurably moved and humbled as I motioned for the other nominees to join my wife (the film's producer) and me up on the stage.

I then said what I had been saying all week at those other awards ceremonies. I guess a few other people had heard me say those things too because before I had finished my first sentence about the fictitious president, a couple of men (some reported it was "stagehands" just to the left of me) near a microphone started some loud yelling. Then a group in the upper balcony joined in. What was so confusing to me, as I continued my remarks, was that I could hear this noise but, looking out on the main floor, I didn't see a single person booing.

But then the majority in the balcony - who were in support of my remarks - started booing the booers. It all turned into one humungous cacophony of yells and cheers and jeers. And all I'm thinking is, "Hey, I put on a tux for this?"

I tried to get out my last line ("Any time you've got both the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, you're not long for the White House") and the orchestra struck up its tune to end the melee. (A few orchestra members came up to me later and apologised, saying they had wanted to hear what I had to say.) I had gone 55 seconds, 10 more than allowed.

Was it appropriate? To me, the inappropriate thing would have been to say nothing at all or to thank my agent, my lawyer and the designer who dressed me. I made a movie about the American desire to use violence both at home and around the world. My remarks were in keeping with exactly what my film was about. If I had a movie about birds or insects, I would have talked about birds or insects. I made a movie about guns and Americans' tradition of using them against the world and each other.

And, as I walked up to the stage, I was still thinking about the lessons that morning at Mass. About how silence, when you observe wrongs being committed, is the same as committing those wrongs yourself. And so I followed my conscience and my heart.

On the way back home, the day after the Oscars, two flight attendants told me how they had been stuck overnight in my home state - and wound up earning only $30 for the day because they are paid by the hour.

They said they were telling me this in the hope that I would tell others. Because they, and the millions like them, have no voice. They don't get to be commentators on cable news like the bevy of retired generals we've been watching all week. (Can we please demand that the US military remove its troops from ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/Fox?) They don't get to make movies or talk to a billion people on Oscar night. They are the American majority who are being asked to send their sons and daughters over to Iraq to possibly die so Bush's buddies can have the oil.

Who will speak for them if I don't? That's what I do, or try to do, every day of my life, and March 23, 2003 - though it was one of the greatest days of my life and an honour I will long cherish - was no different.

Except I made the mistake of beginning it in a church.

Michael Moore won an Academy Award for Bowling for Columbine. This article first appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
 
There's probably no reason for a new thread on this, but I find it hilarious that he thinks that people were "booing the booers". Ha ha ha ha ha... Nope they were just booing you. If they supported what you said they would have cheered, not booed the booers.
 
Maybe they did boo the booers. (boo-urns :sexywink:) With the camera pointed at Moore, we wouldn't have seen if the balcony was looking down at the original booers, making gestures. Instead, we get one sound.

Melon
 
womanfish said:
There's probably no reason for a new thread on this, but I find it hilarious that he thinks that people were "booing the booers". Ha ha ha ha ha... Nope they were just booing you. If they supported what you said they would have cheered, not booed the booers.


Last time i checked you werent there. So for you to say that isnt the most informed comment but you might be right, but i would take someelses word on it. Even though i dont agree with what he says i do think that many people agree with him and he does have passion for what he says, which is more then alot of other people who have the platform he has.
 
I don't really care either way what he said. Glad someone said something or it would have been a pretty boring show, and I think everyone was expecting someone to say something. Just saying that common sense-wise, I have never seen a group of people boo another group that was booing. It just seems strange. whatever.....
 
womanfish said:
I don't really care either way what he said. Glad someone said something or it would have been a pretty boring show, and I think everyone was expecting someone to say something. Just saying that common sense-wise, I have never seen a group of people boo another group that was booing. It just seems strange. whatever.....
i agree.

booing the booers was the lamest attempt of damage control ive ever seen.

diamond
 
Apparently, hearing Moore's defense has either A)Shut up all his opponents, because they can't form a grounded rebuttal, or B) Nobody cares anymore. I think it's a little from A and B, but in my opinion his words have proven his stance to the nth degree.

How can you aruge with the man when his beliefs are centered around a faith that the majority of his critics believe? Who's going to batter Moore when he's simply directing his Christian attitude toward a current debacle? No one.

Therefore, opponents of Michael Moore are wrong, and Michael Moore is right.

---Doesn't that sound beautiful. The ability to finally say those words? Ahhhhh.....(the sound of it!) :)
 
Actually, since most Americans are Christians and somewhere between 72 and 78% of Americans back the use of force in Iraq (depending on what poll you use). Then I would say that he is wrong. He says his Christian beliefs say never to kill anyone for any reason??? Believe me this is not the belief of most Christians. It is not my belief and it is not the belief of the minister at my Christian church. So in answer to your question of who can batter him for putting his Christian attitude in - Lots of people.
 
womanfish:

I don't think that you shall never ever kill someone, but read that quote from the bible:

Bible
James and John asked Jesus; "Lord , wilt thou that we command
fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as elias did?"

But he turned and rebuked them and said, "Ye know not what
manner of spirit ye are of,

For the son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

so for me Jesus is no pacifist (we can see this in other parts of the bible) but he knows that love is stronger than hate.

Klaus
p.s. not everyone who calls himself a Christian or even a reborn really is.
p.p.s. i don't agree on m.moore, most of his messages are more entertainment then presenting facts - but with this style he might convince people who believe their political entertainers.
 
Last edited:
Danospano said:
Apparently, hearing Moore's defense has either A)Shut up all his opponents, because they can't form a grounded rebuttal, or B) Nobody cares anymore. I think it's a little from A and B, but in my opinion his words have proven his stance to the nth degree.

How can you aruge with the man when his beliefs are centered around a faith that the majority of his critics believe? Who's going to batter Moore when he's simply directing his Christian attitude toward a current debacle? No one.

Therefore, opponents of Michael Moore are wrong, and Michael Moore is right.

---Doesn't that sound beautiful. The ability to finally say those words? Ahhhhh.....(the sound of it!) :)
Dano-
Moore showed that he was an imbecile that night.
He also showed he was a progandist that got booed off the stage.
He now looks like a desperate progandist trying to explain himself and only imbeciles believe his rubbish.:)

DB9
:wave:
 
The justification of killing is not biblical, it's political.

From the 3/30/03 edition of the L.A. Times:

"Nearly half of Americans (48%) said they think the United States has had special protection from God for most of its history, according to a poll a year ago by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Four in 10 took the opposite view.

That belief is strongest among white evangelical Protestants, a group that makes up about a quarter of the nation's population and that is a core constituency for the Republican party. Among that group, 71% said in the Pew center poll that they think the United States has special divine protection. Among white non-evangelical Protestants and Catholics, only four in 10 took that position."

Guess who's driving this war? Our Republican president, his advisors and, I would argue, his core constituency.

One of the primary ethos' behind Conservative evangelical tradition is the idea of "God and Country." This is where the American flag as well as servicemen and women are brought into church and "baptized," so to speak. This is the ethos that justifies killing in the name of protecting our country, a protection "ordained by God."

Klaus, you will never win this argument. The idea that this war is "just" and "righteous" is deeply embedded in our culture and nothing is going to change that.
 
pub crawler:

thanks for your hint, but i never want to "win" a discussion, i'll try to exchange ideas and perspectives and i try to see the world from the birds perspective by that instead of the mole's perspective

Klaus

ps. no i don't want to call anyone here mole, it's just the change of my view
 
pub crawler said:
One of the primary ethos' behind Conservative evangelical tradition is the idea of "God and Country." This is where the American flag as well as servicemen and women are brought into church and "baptized," so to speak. This is the ethos that justifies killing in the name of protecting our country, a protection "ordained by God."

I guess it helps your argument when you create your own definition for the group you are attacking.....
 
I, like Moore believe that starting a pre-emptive war is the antithesis of the Bible's message. That is where Michael, more or less stands on this issue.

Killing thousands of Arabs without being physically provoked is anti-Christian. Especially when our leader mentions the almighty God in virtually every war speech. And no, you can't blame Iraq for 9/11. I haven't seen one drop of evidence that would hold up in one of our courts of law that would materialize this bogus inaccuracy.

P.S. I also want to know what a prograndist is?
 
propagandist

- pro?pa?gan?dist /-dist/ noun or adjective

=Michael Moore

:down:

Mr and Mrs SpellCheck=
Dano and Diemen:down:

DB9
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:


I guess it helps your argument when you create your own definition for the group you are attacking.....

Hmmm, well, once again, according to the Times article I quoted, 71% of white evangelical Protestants polled said they think the U.S. has ?special divine protection.? Since the author also asserts that these white evangelical Protestants make up ?a core constituency for the Republican party,? I?m going to assume that most of them are Republicans. I am further assuming that they are part of the conservative evangelical church, not the moderate or liberal evangelical church, to the extent such churches exist.

Who is going to deny that themes and slogans such as ?God and Country,? ?Support Your Troops,? ?God Bless America? are important themes within the conservative evangelical church? My complaint is that the subject of war and the object of the flag do not belong in the Christian church. The church is supposed to be where we gather in the name of Jesus Christ. The church is supposed to be the house of God. Nowhere in the Bible is the Christian church described as the place where we exult the United States as the greatest power on earth, or the most benevolent nation on earth. Nowhere in the Bible is there any discussion of honoring the star spangled banner or blessing the outcome of our wars. The biblical church is supposed to be about God and compassion, not about destruction and, no, not even about patriotism (which is a term that can be and is defined according to one's political persuasion).

Yet the conservative evangelical church so often seems to be built upon a foundation of patriotism and flag waving. Again from the Times article I quoted:

?In 1992, for example, eight liberal evangelical scholars published a book, "No God But God: Breaking with the Idols of Our Age." In it, one author lamented that "many American evangelicals have been truly more American than Christian, more dependent on historical myths than spiritual realities, more shaped by the flag than the cross."

I couldn?t agree more with this scholar.

In my previous post in this thread, I stated that ?One of the primary ethos behind Conservative evangelical tradition is the idea of "God and Country." I made that statement based on my experience as a former member of a conservative evangelical church, as well as an evangelical ?para-church? organization. I?m not claiming the ?God and Country ethos? is exclusive to the conservative evangelical church, but I am saying that the theme of ?God and Country? is a major driving force within said church, and I believe it is a misguided, a terribly misguided interpretation of biblical Christianity.
 
pub crawler said:
In my previous post in this thread, I stated that ?One of the primary ethos behind Conservative evangelical tradition is the idea of "God and Country." I made that statement based on my experience as a former member of a conservative evangelical church, as well as an evangelical ?para-church? organization. I?m not claiming the ?God and Country ethos? is exclusive to the conservative evangelical church, but I am saying that the theme of ?God and Country? is a major driving force within said church, and I believe it is a misguided, a terribly misguided interpretation of biblical Christianity.

I am also a member of a congregation and para-church orgnaization that would be described as conservative and evangelical. I've never heard such hogwash as God giving the US "divine protection" or a God and Country ethos. I would wholeheartedly agree that it is a terribly misguided interpretation of Scripture.
 
Pub Crawler, I couldn't agree with you more. This is one more reason why organized religion has always left a bad taste in my mouth. It's bugged me ever since I was child. They always spoke about God coming first and not to worship false idols, yet they never lived up to their words. When it came down to it, in times like these they were Americans before anything else.
 
Killing thousands of Arabs without being physically provoked is anti-Christian. Especially when our leader mentions the almighty God in virtually every war speech.

Who is to say that those behind the scenes of this war are Christian.

Furthermore, who is to say that Bush is leading anything?

Also- what does a para-church organization do?








parachuting and religion do not mix.



:wave:
 
An interesting article in the NYT

April 6, 2003
The New York Times


Bowling for Kennebunkport

By FRANK RICH

POLITICS abhors a vacuum. Entertainers love center stage. And so it was only too predictable that once the Democratic party's marquee names proved M.I.A. during the White House march to war, show business's stars would answer the call, whether anyone wanted them to or not.

The ensuing cavalcade has been entertaining in its way, if not exactly edifying. "I keep asking myself where all this personal enmity between George Bush and Saddam Hussein came from," said Richard Gere in February. (Maybe it was time for him to start asking someone else.) "I just really hope we all are in agreeance [sic] that this war should go away," announced Fred Durst, the lead singer of Limp Bizkit, at the Grammys. Sean Penn toured prewar Baghdad, then purported to be victimized by a resurgence of "the dark era of Hollywood blacklisting" once he was dumped from a movie project in a contract dispute. (Never mind that the producer who "blacklisted" him, Steve Bing, is a major donor to the Democrats.) Martin Sheen was last seen at a Los Angeles vigil with duct tape emblazoned "Peace" over his mouth. Alas, we shall not see Madonna's long-awaited "American Life" video, whose premiere she abruptly canceled on Monday. According to an MTV News report, "the first and most obvious" statement the star had wanted to make about American life was "that regardless of whether or not she supports Bush, war is a cosmic bummer."

It is times like these that have prompted John McCain to observe, "If Washington is a Hollywood for ugly people, Hollywood is a Washington for the simple-minded." The ubiquitous comedian Janeane Garofalo complains that the media are deliberately focusing on antiwar actors to brand the entire antiwar movement as silly. Everywhere you turn there are sightings of a nationwide backlash against celebrities, with Exhibit A being Natalie Maines, the Dixie Chicks head chick who was driven by radio-station boycotts to apologize for dissing George W. Bush at a London concert.

Exhibit B in this supposed backlash is the morality tale of the Oscars. In its unvaried retelling, this was a pristinely decorous night until Michael Moore came along. Not content to keep with the down-low program of political activism typified by Susan Sarandon flashing a pro forma peace sign and Barbra Streisand congratulating the nation for having the First Amendment, he crashed and burned with his shouts of "Shame on you, Mr. Bush!"

Well, there were boos. But the filmmaker was not hearing them. "When you look at the tape, no one is booing on the main floor," Mr. Moore said when I caught up with him nearly a week later in New York. He attributes the ruckus largely to a shouting match that broke out between scattered booers and his own partisans. But he is not only unrepentant about calling Mr. Bush a fictitious president, he is busy toting up his subsequent good fortune. Box office for "Bowling for Columbine," already the longest-running commercial movie in current release and the highest-grossing documentary in history, was up by more than 100 percent on the Monday after Oscar night. His book "Stupid White Men," already the largest nonfiction best seller of 2002, is reclaiming the No. 1 slot on the Times best-seller list today.

"I don't think there's a backlash or a blacklist or anything like that going on," he said, "and I'd be the first to point it out if I thought it was." He has a point. If Mr. Sheen is encountering turbulence with network executives, it is probably not because of his views about the war, as he has insinuated, but because of the slippage in "West Wing" ratings. For all the tumult about the Dixie Chicks, their sales remain strong, with "Home" actually moving up the pop-sales chart, from No. 6 to No. 4 during last month's ruckus, according to Entertainment Weekly. The group's spring tour is virtually sold out, as I discovered by trying to find a seat for such venues as Greenville, S.C., and Tampa, Fla., through Ticketmaster. "If there's one thing I've learned, it's that if you tell a free people they can't hear something, read something or see something, they are going to want to see, read and hear it all the more," said Mr. Moore. "So please, boycott the Dixie Chicks, try to start a boycott of Michael Moore, and watch what happens."

Bush loyalists, of course, take a different view. Having bought into the myth that the Dixie Chicks are as easy to defeat as Saddam Hussein's troops, they are now busily consigning Mr. Moore to oblivion. "He'll probably be doing industrial training films in a couple of years and nobody ever will hear of him again," predicted Fred Thompson, whose own agreeable career as a character actor, whether as a Republican pitchman in his Senate salad days or more recently on "Law and Order," has yet to earn him an Oscar, Emmy or presidential nomination. The Fox News ticker on Sixth Avenue recently flashed the "news" headline: "Attention protesters: the Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street."

To Mr. Moore, the "virtual insanity" he has provoked in "the Bill O'Reillys and others" on the right is an indication that he, unlike many of his fellow showbiz antiwar protesters, has actually drawn blood. That's a shock to the conservative system. Liberals have been so lame in battling on the mass media's turf that Democratic fat cats in February ponied up $10 million to finance a talk-show radio network that will field hosts to counter Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Yet Mr. Moore, without a talk show, may be just the lethal heat-seeking show-business weapon they have been looking for. It's telling that conservatives who deride him as a big, fat idiot sound as worried about Mr. Moore as liberals were about Mr. Limbaugh when he began his rise to superstardom.

Like Mr. Limbaugh at his least grandiose best, Mr. Moore's persona is more funny than angry, more everyman than show-biz. He is not, as he puts it, "a didactic, wimpy kind of liberal" ? one of those whiners that makes audiences reach for the remote faster than you can say "Phil Donahue." Mr. Moore may not be subtle as a filmmaker or a polemicist, but the grandstanding glee of his broad strokes is precisely what makes him succeed as a showman. "Bowling for Columbine," with its wild (and sometimes dubious) leaps of logic and Kubrickesque juxtapositions of grim content (carnage-filled newsreels) with humorous trappings (Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World") makes a seemingly shopworn liberal gripe (the American culture of violence) seem like a lark. The film has a tone closer to that of the Christopher Guest school of "documentary" ? Mr. Moore cites "This Is Spinal Tap" as a favorite ? than to the fastidious oeuvre of Frederick Wiseman.

Mr. Moore's boorish Oscar night yelling, far from relegating him to obscurity, seems to have enhanced not only his movie's box office but his own magnitude of stardom. While Hollywood and its acolytes may believe that Mr. Moore was (in that now terminally overused word) "inappropriate," there may well be plenty of other Americans who find it more mischievous than scandalous to break etiquette at a glitzy awards show. Upending a ceremony at which the high priest is Steve Martin is not, after all, an act of sacrilege quite on a par with disrupting high mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral.

AT a time when polls show that most Americans support the war and the president, Mr. Moore goes so far as to argue that his contrarian position is "reflective of where the majority of Americans are." To support this questionable supposition, he harks back to the prewar polls in which more than half the country opposed a pre-emptive war without the approval of the United Nations and our allies. And so he lies in wait for the postwar President Bush to re-enact his father's post-Gulf War slide in time for the 2004 election. By then, Mr. Moore will have brought out a new book and a projected TV series (likely to land on HBO) and possibly appeared in his own Broadway show.

His next film, titled "Fahrenheit 911," is scheduled for release in the two months before Election Day. It tells "in part the story of twin errant sons of different oilmen," he says, and will stir together the pre-9/11 intersection of Bush and bin Laden family business interests when both had ties to the Carlyle Group. Such connections "may mean nothing," Mr. Moore concedes. But then he recalls Jane Mayer's article in the November 2001 New Yorker about the private Saudi jet that the Bush administration permitted to fly 24 members of the bin Laden family out of the country after 9/11, before they could be questioned in detail by the F.B.I. "Here's one question I want to pose," he says. "What if on the day after Oklahoma City, Bill Clinton, suddenly worried about the safety of the McVeigh family up in Buffalo, allowed a jet to pick them all up and take them out of the country, not to return?" You can already fantasize how Mr. Moore, once he is turned away from the White House, might travel to Kennebunkport to pursue the first President Bush in retirement much as he did Charlton Heston in "Bowling for Columbine."

This may sound unfair, but is it any more so than the rhetorical grenades that right-wing performers like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter lob at liberal targets? In America, at least, all is fair not only in love and war but also in entertainment. If Mr. Moore forgets his pact with the audience and makes a habit of preaching as he did on Oscar night, he might as well seal his own mouth with duct tape. But if he ambushes America with humor 16 months from now, he may be more of a factor in the next election cycle than all the other, more glamorous Oscar attendees now lining up at fund-raisers for Howard Dean.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
 
Mr. Moore's boorish Oscar night yelling, far from relegating him to obscurity, seems to have enhanced not only his movie's box office but his own magnitude of stardom.

In Mr. Moore's line of work, political statements are motivated as much by $$$ as they are his conscience.
 
"booing the booers" is perhaps the silliest thing i've ever heard since "can you explain what you meant by the word 'is'"

in all the sporting events, concerts, speaches, demonstrations, meetings, gathering, marches, parades, assemblies, etc. etc. etc. i have been to in my life... i have never once heard a crowd boooo someone else for boooing. i've heard people louuuuuuuuuuuuu a lou, moooooo a mookie, and bruuuuuuuuce a bruce... but i've never heard anyone booooo a booer.
 
Back
Top Bottom