Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
Posted on 03/26/2003 9:56:24 AM PST by francisr
Shame on You, Mr. Moore! Shame on You! The 'Bowling for Columbine' auteur had every qualification to make his antiwar speech at the Oscars. That didn't make it any less stupid By JAMES PONIEWOZIK It may not be the most popular thing to say today, but Michael Moore had not only every right but every legitimate qualification to make an antiwar speech — "Shame on you, Mr. Bush! Shame on you!" — at the 2003 Oscars. The standard reason to discount political speeches from Hollywood celebs, after all, is that we don't give a crap about their political thoughts: their job is to stand up, look pretty, collect their $25 million and give US and People something to write about.
One can hardly say that about Michael Moore. In fact, there is not much reason that anyone cares about Michael Moore except for his political opinions. From "Roger and Me" through his Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine", his movie are less documentaries in the usual sense than artfully constructed and often hilariously funny editorials. Agree with him or not, he is, unlike Susan Sarandon, nothing if he is not a professional commentator; and thus it was not inherently stupid for him to make his speech.
No. His speech was stupid for entirely different reasons.
The first is that — and this is a characteristic flaw of Moore's movies — it was a shrill harangue that would make a person ashamed even for agreeing with it. By starting off his screed by attacking the legitimacy of George W. Bush's election, he committed the same mistake as too many leaders of the antiwar movement, such as the leaders of ANSWER: he couldn't resist the temptation to lump his antiwar stance in with the rest of his portfolio of grievances. As a result, he made a speech guaranteed to alienate even many people who are also against the war.
If Moore really wants to end the war — and not just boost the spirits of his Upper West Side neighbors — then mightn't he also want to win over people who oppose the war and yet don't believe that Bush is an illegimate president swept into office by skullduggery? Is he so insulated that he doesn't realize people like that exist? Or are people like that simply not simon-pure enough for him to want them in his antiwar movement?
That's the really annoying thing about Moore's speech. Moore often casts himself as a populist, and sometimes he's even convincing. He often makes a strong case against other progressives who out of touch with the hoi polloi — who can't lower themselves to listen to talk radio, can't identify a NASCAR driver or country singer, can't in any sense understand how the mass of America lives and thinks. This kind of liberal attitude, he has rightly argued, has kept the Left from building broad-based movements. But Moore's own clubby, we-all-know-Bush-is-a-liar attitude suggests that he's not interested in a broad-based antiwar movement.
I'm going to get a lot of e-mail from people who believe Bush stole the election in Florida, but before you press "send," at least consider this. A lot of smart people agree with you. But if someone disagrees with you, are they not worth allying with against the war? Would you rather have a war in Iraq than pass up a chance to bring up Florida again?
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
AND you're ugly!
A couple of months ago, he was performing at a theatre in London when he complained that at $750/night, he wasn't getting paid enough. And to top it off, he flew into a rage at everyone including the bar staff.
I'll bet it was. His website was down too. Never checked to see if it ever came back up.
And don't forget to mention all those absentee ballots he had thrown out from our military..
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.