Did Michael Moore deceive Academy? [Recent Movie] failed to meet Oscar submission rules

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, September 2, 2003 | Joseph Farah

[JohnHuang2]

Michael Moore, winner of the 2002 Oscar for Best Documentary for his controversial "Bowling for Columbine," failed to meet submission requirements of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a WorldNetDaily investigation reveals.

While critics of the filmmaker and author have called on the academy to investigate whether Moore fabricated scenes in the movie, it also appears he misled the academy about the film's eligibility on purely technical grounds.

Candidates for Best Documentary feature have unique procedural requirements for eligibility. According to Rule 12, qualification for the 75th Annual Academy Awards in this category demanded that films be exhibited in a commercial theater for paid admission for seven consecutive days in either Los Angeles County or Manhattan prior to Sept. 30, 2002, and that the entire engagement of the theatrical run be displayed in a major newspaper's movie pages.

While "Bowling for Columbine" reportedly had its qualifying run at Laemmle's Fallbrook 7 in Los Angeles County from Monday, Sept. 9, through Sunday, Sept. 15, the required major newspaper ads were never published.

A search through a library microfilm archive of Los Angeles Times issues from Friday, Sept. 6, through Sunday, Sept. 15, 2002, turned up only four published performances of "Bowling for Columbine" in the movie pages. Those performances were at 10 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at Laemmle's Fallbrook 7. Laemmle's Fallbrook 7 had no films listed for either Friday morning, Sept. 6, or Friday morning Sept. 13. "Bowling for Columbine" had no listing at all in the days following Thursday, Sept. 12.

A run of only four days would fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 12. Even a run of seven days accompanied by published notice of only four days' performances would fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 12.

While in 2001, the academy required submission of photocopies of newspaper movie pages containing the qualifying ads or listings, in 2002, the photocopies were no longer required.

Michael Moore (courtesy United Artists)

Even before the latest findings, "Bowling for Columbine" was already one of the most controversial movies of its time. The film ostensibly blames the Columbine High School massacre on the U.S. military-industrial complex, as Littleton, Colo., is home to a Lockheed Martin factory. Moore suggests the factory makes weapons of mass destruction. In fact, it makes rockets that carry TV satellites into space.

At the March 23 Oscar festivities, Moore received a standing ovation when he won the award. But when he launched into a fiery criticism of President Bush and the Iraq war, his remarks were met with a cacophony of boos.

"We are against this war, Mr. Bush," he shouted. "Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you!"

Dan Gifford, an Academy Award nominee himself, has called on the academy to investigate whether Moore "fabricated scenes and video of real people that has been edited to manufacture a fictional reality intended to mislead viewers."

If it is determined those accusations are true, Gifford, the producer of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," wrote to Bruce Davis, executive director of the academy, Moore should be stripped of the Oscar and it should be awarded to the runner-up.

"Failure to conduct such an investigation and act according to its findings will diminish the stature of the Oscar, establish an exploitable precedent for future rule violators and be grossly unfair to the other nominees who did follow the rules," Gifford wrote. "That unfairness will be particularly bitter to those whose film would have been nominated in place of 'Bowling for Columbine.'

"Even the accusation of such rule violations taints the Academy Award with implications of politics and favoritism that are most damaging," he continued. "So, I again respectfully ask that you not delay your attention to this matter."

That letter was written April 21. Repeated attempts to reach Davis by telephone were unsuccessful.

Moore was unresponsive to e-mail requests for an interview and phone calls to his publicist.

As for the latest controversy over the film, Gifford was not surprised. Nor did he think the eligibility issue will have much resonance in Hollywood.

"On the political left, ends justify means," he said. "So, even if Michael Moore lied in his film to promote a leftist vision, his lies are defended as truth by those who agree with him."

Even if he lied in his submission to the academy, Gifford concluded, that deceit, too, would be overlooked by those who agree with him – including the vast majority of the entertainment-industry elite.

Los Angeles radio talk-show host and WorldNetDaily columnist Larry Elder is currently working on a documentary called "Michael & Me," patterned after Moore's "Roger & Me," but turning the tables on the filmmaker. He, too, is incensed about the way Moore has taken liberties with the truth in his "documentaries."

"As far as I know, the academy is doing nothing," Elder said.

At least two websites have been established to refute "Bowling for Columbine" and address other charges by Moore. They are RevoketheOscar.com and Moorelies.com.

Miramax, a Walt Disney Company, is bankrolling Moore's latest project, "Fahrenheit 911," a film that will reportedly show audiences the U.S. government and President Bush were culpable for Osama bin Laden's Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"Bowling for Columbine" has grossed over $21 million.

Besides his Oscar honors, the jury at the Cannes Film Festival in France created a special, one-time-only award to honor "Bowling for Columbine" and gave it a 13-minute standing ovation.

---

If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.

---

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, September 2, 2003

Quote of the Day by zygoat

[weegee]

Lest any believe that Disney/Miramax is not involved in the financing of Lumpy's next political smear, see this June thread: Is Disney Lying to America About Michael Moore?" (ABC-Disney-Miramax funding project)

[SteveH]

Michael Moore lies *bang

[Diddle E. Squat]

You have a way with keywords!

[Duke Nukum]

Someone loaned me this DVD last week and I'm a bit mystified at the appeal. I was hoping it would at least be on par with Reefer Madness but, honestly, the only thing I found entertaining was the edited clip from South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut.

I did laugh when Moore was making an ass of himself by blaming W2 for that six-year-old boy shooting the six-year-old girl near Flynt. And I only thought that was funny because I thought Moore was serious.

Then, while looking up the facts online, I found defenders saying its only a pseudo-documentary comedy and not meant to be taken seriously, so if Moore was goofing about the W2 thing, that's not funny at all.

The only coherent part of the movie was that racist cartoon, but it wasn't really funny either.

Really, what was it? And why is it so universally praised?

[Monty22]

I have the same questions. It's a depressing movie. It's boring. I mean, it's 2 hours of moore trashing America and guns. I've heard democrats talk before. What was the appeal?

[Duke Nukum]

Thanks for the sanity check, Monty.

I wanted to be positve so when my friend asked me what I thought I Bowling, I said: I liked the South Park clip.

The thing I hated most about the DVD is the clock didn't count backwards on my DVD player. I started listening to Moore's intro but it was smarmy and self-serving and I didn't know how long it went on for.

So, I just started the movie and payed as much attention as I could. I wasn't even sure what he was talking about a lot of the time.

He was talking about the murder rate and I couldn't tell if he meant all murders or just those involving a gun.

Then the whole "Wonderful World" montage, what was the point of that? He listed how many people the U.S. supposidly killed but didn't talk about American casulties. And there was no historical context. Like the U.S. just goes around looking for poor countries to invade for no reason.

Why is Moore even living in the States? The French gave him a 16 minute standing-O, why doesn't he go become a snail eating, Rainbow Warrior sinking, unbathed Frenchie?

How come we never hear about the French sinking a hippie ship?

[Monty22]

So, I just started the movie and payed as much attention as I could. I wasn't even sure what he was talking about a lot of the time.

Oh yeah, from killer bees to pollution killing the most people, to welfare to work.. I had no idea what he was saying either.

He was talking about the murder rate and I couldn't tell if he meant all murders or just those involving a gun.

He left this intentionally vague. Pure intellectual dishonesty.

Then the whole "Wonderful World" montage, what was the point of that? He listed how many people the U.S. supposidly killed but didn't talk about American casulties. And there was no historical context. Like the U.S. just goes around looking for poor countries to invade for no reason.

Clearly this was a bash on Bush and the American culture. He's saying that it's OUR fault that we got attacked. In fact, we deserved it.

Why is Moore even living in the States? The French gave him a 16 minute standing-O, why doesn't he go become a snail eating, Rainbow Warrior sinking, unbathed Frenchie?

Or at least go to Canada. I have no idea why he stays here either. His big success in the film is getting K-Mart to stop selling ammo. Wow, that really helps a lot. Helps put K-Mart into bankruptcy that is. ship?

I also want to know if this guy really is in the NRA. If he is, why is he still? Either he should've left, or better yet the NRA should throw his ass out for talking like he does. I've read the charter of the NRA, and you simply can't bash it like he does and stay a member.

[weegee]

Revisionist History 2.0:

(Michael) Moore alters "Bowling" DVD in response to criticism (& issues libel threat to his critics)

[maica]

I listened to a few minutes of C-SPANs open line program yesterday and heard a caller (supposedly only first-time callers on Labor Day) complain that the host, Peter, and Brian Lamb were tilting to the right. She said that she listened all the time and that the lack of representation of guests from the left was 'getting worse.'

The CSPAN host tried to remember who had been guests on Saturday and Sunday - one of the names he mentioned was Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth - then he asked the caller who she would like to hear on the program.

The only name that she could come up with was MICHAEL MOORE.

This led me to conclude that when lefties DO actually listen to conservatives discuss issues they feel the 'lack of balance' because libs do not give reasoned, articulate interviews as conservatives generally do. Libs deal in soundbites and personal attacks.

To this caller, the only person who could balance a Stephen Moore is a Michael Moore. Yet I think she was 'sensing' that she needed to hear someone from her political perspective give reasoned rebuttal to the ideas of a Stephen Moore.

WOW! That is so revelatory of the mind of a leftie.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Hollywood loves him. He gets a pass.

[scabbage]

Not only does he lie, he is your typical liberal who claims he isn`t a liberal. I saw part of that fictitious "Bowling for colum" at a friends house (for about 5 minutes...It was all I could take..) in one scene where he said something to the effect of 'Why go to war..Why not handle it like Ghandi?" OKaaaaay... let`s see..Ghandi was dealing with the likes of Winston Churchill. Just curious if Mikey can name any pacifists from Iraq or any who tried the 'non violence' method under Stalin. Oh wait, you can`t. Why? Because they`re DEAD. "Mr. Hitler, the pacifists have taken to the streets to protest you..".."Oh I am so scared".. I mean to quote Ghandi (if i remember)on the English in WW2 "I would like the British to lay down their arms as it is useless in saving them. Instead invite Hitler and Mussolini to take your country. If these gentlemen(his word)choose to take your homes please vacate them but show no allegiance to them"...Hey, everyone will be slaughtered like sheep but at least they won`t be showing any allegiance. These libs don`t understand the difference. What happened to some Iraqi who showed no allegiance to Hussein? immediate DEATH. What happens now? Yeah, violence never accomplishes nuthin.

[supercat]

I wonder if this failure to meet the advertising requirement gives the Academy an "out"? They can withdraw the Oscar® brand movie award for purely "technical" reasons without addressing the documentary accuracy of the film in question, and Michael Moore can claim he lost his Oscar® brand movie award for similar reasons.

[AmishDude]

It's like the Al Franken book. There's no pretense of intellectualism. The Left will get its 3 minutes' hate any way they can get it.

[mewzilla]

Rules are for the little people, don'cha know.

[FreePaul]

Fraud? You mean that MM committed a fraud on the fraud that is the Academy Awards/Oscar process? Shameful. Shameful that he did it and even more shameful that they willingly let him get away with it. Doesn't surprise me at all.