Before Michael Moore heard some boos at last night's Academy Awards, he received a standing ovation when his award was announced. How many standing ovations for award announcements were there last night? I'm asking because I don't know. Was his the only one? It might have been.
In addition to his movie, Moore also wrote the #2 best selling non-fiction book in America, which has been on the best seller list for just about a year.
So, when we read "But the crowd grew more hostile and began to jeer heavily as he continued," we should ask ourselves, was the crowd really hostile, or was it just a few loud people booing? From the crowd shots I saw on television during Moore's short speech, I didn't witness a hostile crowd. But "hostile" is money-making spin for the news media... they get a juicy story when there really might not be one.
If you want to hear Moore's take on the reaction, go here and click under the link for DOCUMENTARY FEATURE.
Comments (4)
Partha, I would like to say that I am surprised that you are defending Michael Moore, but unfortunately, defending the indefensible, is something I have come to expect from you. I don't give a hoot what Michael Moore thinks of the reaction of the audience. I don't hoot what the Hollywood crowd thinks of Michael Moore. What bothers me is the fact that Michael Moore is a bombastic jackass without a brain in his head. Like a little child he couldn't keep his mouth shut. No, he had to show what a fool he is by making asinine comments about the war and the President. He thought that by acting like a smart aleck he was being so cleaver and he would get a standing ovation. After all, he was preaching to the choir, wasn't he? However, even with a Hollywood crowd as his audience, he managed to cross the line of good taste.
Posted by Richard | March 24, 2003 8:51 PM
Posted on March 24, 2003 20:51
The crowd shots, as I recall, were the audience on the floor - the "Hollywood ultra-elite," who of course are overwhelmingly liberal. The boos and jeers, I suspect, came from the balconies, which housed people a small step closer to mainstream opinion.
Posted by Poop | March 25, 2003 7:07 PM
Posted on March 25, 2003 19:07
And of course the funniest thing is that he won the Documentary Award for what is soem combination of fiction and comedy. A documentary is supposed to be a filmmaker observing events with the camera, not staging scenes and then filming people's reaction to the setup. If "Bowling for Columbine" was a documentary, so was "Jackass: The Movie." Even looking past Moore's persistent lying in his works, those who make actual documentaries must be horrified by this, which is a bit like "Everybody Loves Raymond" winning Best Picture.
Posted by Gary Collard | March 26, 2003 2:32 PM
Posted on March 26, 2003 14:32
Yes, "Bowling" is fiction compared to the real world, but we live in fictional times, so it's actually true! In fact, all the other so-called documentaries should have been disqualified as fiction, since they accurately portrayed our fictional world.
Posted by Poop | March 27, 2003 3:47 AM
Posted on March 27, 2003 03:47