Michael Moore and Kathryn Bigelow to become Oscar board members

[terry78]

http://www.hitfix.com/articles/2010-7-7-michael-moore-s-new-job-oscar-board-member?m=g


Either you love it or hate it.

 

[Golgo-13]

This should piss some people off!

 

[El Payaso]

This should piss some people off!

 

[Max J Power]

I guess they didn't think politics played a big enough role in award shows. It's not that big a deal, but it's still pretty lame.

 

[Octoberist]

i hope people are talking about Moore and not so much Bigelow with some of the comments here.

 

[Evil Twin]

Without knowing the full makeup of the board, it's hard to put it in context. But, Moore is one of the most prominent documentarians in the world and there's at least 2 documentary categories at the Oscars. Having a documentary representative on the board certainly makes a lot of sense.

 

[chaseter]

Moore's documentaries skew the truth...therefore they aren't really documentaries.

 

[Matt]

Moore's documentaries skew the truth...therefore they aren't really documentaries.

Exactly. A real documentarian would be insulted if they heard Moore being called one. Moore doesn't make documentaries. He makes propaganda.

Bigelow is deserving. Regardless of her politics she is an accomplished film maker. Moore is not.

 

[Evil Twin]

Moore's documentaries skew the truth...therefore they aren't really documentaries.

While I agree that Moore's documentaries wear his politics and opinions on their sleeves, that doesn't make them any less documentaries, it just opens them to criticism. Find me a documentary that doesn't have a point of view, through what it includes or excludes.

Heck, the first great "documentary" Nanook of the North is more fiction than reality.

 

[chaseter]

He chooses to only show one side of a cube. What he chooses to show may be fact/truth, but he doesn't want to show the other sides that contradict or challenge what he wants to show. Take his documentary about health care for example. He chose to show how American's healthcare was the devil and how Europe's system was God's gift to man. He never showed the downside to Europe's system and he never showed the upside to America's system.

 

[Evil Twin]

He chooses to only show one side of a cube. What he chooses to show may be fact/truth, but he doesn't want to show the other sides that contradict or challenge what he wants to show. Take his documentary about health care for example. He chose to show how American's healthcare was the devil and how Europe's system was God's gift to man. He never showed the downside to Europe's system and he never showed the upside to America's system.

Yeah, and Man On Wire painted the main character as more of a hero, than a trespasser/glory seeker that undoubtedly cost NYC a bundle in fees for emergency services, police, etc. that day. Was that a balanced film?

And March of the Penguins blatantly anthropomorphocized a bunch of penguins and attached a narrative.

And many documentaries go out of their way to paint their subjects in a positive light.

Moore deserves his fair share of criticisms, but the idea that all documentaries are these balanced bastions of unvarnished truth seems seeking a fictional ideal than an actual reality. Just because the other documentaries are more apolitical than Moore's, doesn't mean that they don't do the same thing.

And, more to the point, it presumes Moore is going to use his place on the board to make political statements rather than make sure the documentary awards are presented in a suitable and prominent manner and that the rules are fair.

 

[Octoberist]

I remember 'Man on Wire' and how I was so p*ssed off how the main guy deserted his friend and especially his girlfriend when he slept with the groupie. OMG, it was so sad.

 

[chaseter]

March of the Penguins had no blazing social agendas. Man on Wire didn't have overly blatant political bias to push on the viewer. Those were very terrible comparisons.

No one ever said that all documentaries are balanced bastions on unvarnished truth. Everyone has an opinion. But Moore is pretty much on the bottom of what documentaries should represent. No one should go to school to study to be a documentary film maker like Michael Moore. Michael Moore is like the Uwe Boll of documentaries. He tackles good subjects but he completely bastardizes the subject matter that is comes out a turd of what it should be.

I agree with your last sentence. Moore seems to be more of a political choice rather than a suitable member addition.

 

[Drizzle]

Kathryn Bigelow can board my member any day.

 

[DarthAlani]

SO the Academy decides to add another wacko far-left liberal nutcase, to a already very left-wing liberal Academy

 

[Kurosawa]

I'd say most documentaries have agendas. I mean, "the greatest enemy of _______ is man" is like cliche line #1 of every nature/animal documentary I've ever seen.