Think Fatboy is just trying to provoke a 'visit' from the authorities to give him more press for his 'movie?'
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.
Fair enough-but I still think he has stepped in it this time.
I still want to know what's on that tape, and I would bet the FBI does, too.
If he gives it to Berg, there is no reason to subpoena him. Go after Berg instead, with a public announcement that although they will keep the tape from the public at the father's request, they must examine it to see if there are clues which would help them find Nick's killers.
Michael Berg would make no points refusing to release it to the FBI. People aren't going to believe that a grieving father would keep evidence from the FBI that might help solve the crime.
IMO going in Moore would know if it was going to lean with or against the U.S. If it were favorable, he wouldn't have bothered firing up the vid. Again, IMO he didn't use the footage because Berg didn't turn out to 'big fish' enough to warrant it.
How long ago was Nick Berg killed? Why is this just now in the news? PR could be the reason, as beckett says. However, I find it suspicious that Moore kept this quiet until now.
Well the old man is definately not a Bush supporter.
Thanks Tamsey. I appreciate the update.
This bastard has no shame....look for him to win another Oscar this year.
Think Fatboy is just trying to provoke a 'visit' from the authorities to give him more press for his 'movie?'
Maybe some media outlet will pressure him into releasing it. That way the administration stays out of it (little or no free PR for Mikey), and we still get to see what's on the tape. Either way we can't ignore a taped interview with Berg in Iraq.
The lie is that he just found out that Disney was blocking the release, and that it was because Jeb Bush was pressuring Disney with promises to revoke their tax breaks. The truth is that Disney told him a year ago that they wouldn't allow Miramax to release the movie. He knew this before even an frame of film was shot.
I don't know the ins-and-outs of Disney's ownership of Miramax, but I believe Miramax typically makes their own decisions, which are subject to veto from Disney. This is a case where Disney told them they wouldn't be releasing a politically-charged propaganda piece in an election year (because nuts like us would perhaps boycott them over it), but Miramax went ahead and made a deal. I assume they were helping Moore fund his film. Now, Disney is carrying through on their promise and not allowing it to be released under the Disney/Miramax banner. All Miramax and Moore have to do is sell the movie to another releasing company, which I believe is what Moore did with Bowling for Columbine.
That's my understanding, anyway. I'm sure the folks at moorewatch.com could provide more information. And, to anyone else, if I got the specifics wrong, please post a follow-up to this.
But, make no mistake, this film will get released. I'm sure Moore already has a deal in the works and is just milking this because people on his side are more than willing to make the leap to "right-wing censorship" when they hear his sob story.
"then why announce it?" Is the same question I keep asking myself, also. And the only reason I can think of, is there's something in it for Michael, an alibi or cover-up perhaps, because he's afraid his connection with the prison photo's will ultimately be exposed. If my tinfoil hat fits, then it all makes sense, the photographs were posed and all taken on the same day, right? Michael Moore's MO is written all over the photographs. For example, the incident with the dog collar and leash, the man on the ground appears to be grimacing in pain, yet the leash is loose and hardly could have caused any pain. The photograph where the 'soldier' is 'punching' an iraqi lying on the ground, there is no sense of movement, the 'soldier' has his fist in the air...it's a posed position.
Who supplied the cameras? Who set up the shots? We know the motive was to discredit the US but we do not know the name of the 'director' do we? To me the whole thing looks like just another Michael Moore 'movie'.
Why was Berg wearing an orange prisoner jumpsuit? Why were the walls behind the killers the same colour as in the prison, as they appeared to be? Was the film of the 'beheading' staged, just like the photographs were?
What went wrong? I think Michael knows. And if he does, he is very very scared. Just my two cents worth...
I didn't read all the replies to this thread but I hope that someone has pointed out that this bastard has evidence in a murder investigation (if in fact he has it). If this is the case and he withholds it, he is obstructing the investigation and his wall of adipose should be incarcerated.
The article clearly states 'footage unused in the Berg film'
I take that to mean the film of the 'beheading'
That's the way I read it. It doesn't suggest a previous interview to me.
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?
Try a size 25, now that is fat enough to fit it.
Well, that sounds pretty suspicious to me: why would Moore have taken the time to interview a small-fry like Berg and how did he come to know him? Did he talk about where he intended to travel or who he intended to see? What was Mikey's interest in interviewing him? It seems to me to be more than a little strange that such a high-profile opponent of the war as Moore would have footage of Berg before he even went to Iraq. What could he have possibly hoped to gain from such an interview?
Lots of questions arise from the story, and I am not satisfied to let this drop with no comments.
Do you have an article with that information? What are the odds Michael Moore interviews a guy--a guy who has already had fishy ties to terrorists--and this guy winds up murdered in Iraq? I'm not even sure where that will lead. Moore involved with the terrorists? Moore creating a "human shield" type and getting him to put himself in harm's way? It all sounds ruinous for Moore.
please tell us where you got this information from. Surely a l5 minute interview with Berg before he went to Iraq would not be referred to as 'unused in the film' - THE FILM means the beheading video, right?
On another thread, someone pointed out that Nick Berg managed to come in contact with Zacharias Moussaoui, the Al Qaeda guy in Iraq, the Al Gharib prison, and Michael Moore. What are the odds of this? The coincidence factor is growing less likely every day.
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.