Posted on 05/27/2004 12:53:36 PM PDT by Tamzee
Filmmaker Moore Says He Has Berg Footage
Associated Press
NEW YORK - Filmmaker Michael Moore, whose incendiary new documentary lambastes President Bush's handling of the war, said Thursday that he has footage unused in the film of Nicholas Berg, the American civilian later beheaded in Iraq.
The footage, of an interview with Berg, "is approximately 20 minutes long. We are not releasing it to the media," Moore said in a statement. "It is not in the film. We are dealing privately with the family."
Neither Moore nor his representatives would describe the nature or contents of the interview with Berg, who held staunch pro-war views.
No one answered the phone Thursday at the home of Berg's parents in West Chester, Pa.
"Fahrenheit 9/11," which recently won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, accuses the Bush camp of stealing the 2000 election, overlooking terrorism warnings before Sept. 11, 2001, and fanning fears of more attacks to secure American support for the Iraq war.
Moore's assault on U.S. policy got him into trouble with Disney, which refused to let subsidiary Miramax release "Fahrenheit 9/11." He is still trying to work out a deal for U.S. distribution.
Still, it is evidence that should go to the FBI. It may contain information on contacts, planned trips, threats, etc.
Of course it also could contain clues as to WHO in Iraq was filming for Michael Moore. I bet that is another reason he doesn't want it released.
My advice to the FBI? Ignore him. That'll get his goat worse than anything.
You're right, excuse me... he interviewed Nick.
:o)
Ever since it came out that Nick Berg was climbing the communications tower at Abu Ghrab, I've wondered why, what was he doing up there, and, once the pictures and video came out, was he responsible.
Certainly your thoughts about Moore having people do filming for him makes me even more curious about Nick Berg.
If there is a chance that he has information they have to interview him.
First question: Do you have in your possession or have knowledge of a video of Nicholas Berg other than what has been released to the Arab press? The interview for Mr. Moore will be downhill from there.
Either Moore is lying about having the footage, in which case he's a crook, or it was given to him exclusively by al Qaeda, in which case he's a traitor.
The media needs to confirm (with some solid examples) Nick Berg's "staunch pro-Iraq war" views. Put up or shut up.
I suspect that what he may have is either street interview footage of Nick or prison interview footage. If he has acquired terrorist footage of Nick, Mike's days of freedom are limited. A cleric in England who had ties to the terrorist video just got arrested.
This is a real game. Hollywood liars shouldn't meddle.
What information could he have? He wasn't there when poor Berg got his head sliced off. I'd be willing to bet he's got nothing that is truly germane to the investigation.
Ignore him, I say. He's just baiting the FBI.
If the US government refuses to persue charges against Michael Moore, there is always the chance that the newly formed Republic Of Iraq could extradite Michael to Iraq to face charges of collaborating with the terrorists who killed a man in Iraq. He'll have a whole lot of prison experiences to make a documentary about. Maybe he can be Iraq's Mumia.
Does the Cannes Film Festival generally let films compete for the award that are unfinished works? The Oscars committe requires that a film be "locked" after it is shown in LA for its qualifying run.
Sounds like a publicity stunt. He says he has film of a crime, the feds come after him and Moore cries that Bush is after him, trying to censor his movie.
He may be. Then he would try to claim the President sent the fbi after him because of the film he made and can't find an outlet for.
This is what makes no sense to me.
Soaked in beer and pancake syrup, no doubt.
He would be demanding that panties be made available for his head.....and would enjoy the closest proximity to any he has had. A size 14?
As has been firmly established by the unheard voices that have throughly deconstructed Bowling For Columbine, Moore's girth is only exceeded by his propensity for deception. He's gained access to a lot of people by being deceptive about his motivation for interviews.
For example, on his short-lived NBC show TV Nation, the beauteous Karen Duffy interviewed insurance company executives who pioneered a practice which gave terminally ill AIDS patients a percentage of money their beneficiaries would have received so they could travel or spend in the waning years before a premature death. Because this saved the insurance companies money, the companies were not shy to potential investors about how this improved their bottom line.
In the final cut, Duffy's "report" showed grinning marketing executives who were profiting from the suffering of people dying of AIDS.
Conspiratorially, I think that the footage (if it exists) shows a very anti-war Nick Berg.
Remember the way that Moore made Charlton Heston sound like he was insenstitive to the feelings of the parents of Columbine victims by inserting excerpts from other Heston speeches out of context?
My guess is that had he survived, Moore's Nick Berg footage would have been carefully edited so that a pro-war Berg would sound like an absolute moron. However, after becoming an international symbol of the bloodlust of the figures targeted in the Iraq invasion, it would screw up Moore's narrative to have an ostensibly humanitarian Jew end up beheaded by Al-Qaeda in the middle of a Bush-bashing film.
I also think that Moore is making sure that whatever footage he has is only used to further the cause of Michael Berg's antiwar crusade. Michael Berg has been making a lot of disconnected allegations suggesting that the USA is responsible for his son's kidnapping and execution. You can be sure that only footage that will back that up will ever be revealed, and that all that wouldn't ended up on the famous "cutting room floor."
Interesting theory. The problem for Moore is that he does not "do" unedited film and that's all that people would care about. But why would Moore announce it if it makes him look bad (or Nick look good)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.