Who Killed Michael Moore?
And why, what's the reason for? In the Oscar sense is what I'm talking about. Don't worry, you didn't miss a story.
Oscar nominations result from the choices of hundred (thousands?) of members of the Academy. There’s not a Secret Board issuing orders on the best way to advance liberal politics. I don’t think. Assuming I'm right, it means any "politics" involved in a decision to deny Moore his coveted nomination are politics playing out in all those individual brains, and in private conversations.
Here's what I deduce. It's a given that overwhelmingly, Academy members are liberal, and if I’m ever proven wrong on that I’ll let you know. Many of them take their own views very seriously. If they really, deeply believed that F9-11 was a courageous piece of truth-telling, that is if they bought into the heroicness of Michael Moore's rampaging malformed Id (to hear others explain the movie, I haven't seen it), Higher Duty would have called. A movement would have arisen. Most of them, even the political day-trippers, would have nominated it in spite of the controversy that could mean, and in spite of the election results. They would have been driven to nominate it because of those realities. They love noble defiance. As do we all in our ways.
If, as I say, they actually perceived the movie as courageous and true. And I haven't seen it, as I say, so I don't know
But if you are a devotee of a certain perspective, you can perhaps choose to pick a little hope out of the result, like the last bit of walnut out of an empty rancid shell. Sure, it means the movie's champions were lying to themselves and us back in the irritating summer of 2004. But at least it seems they understand reality to a larger extent than you might have thought.
Update: Okay, maybe not rancid.
Update: This reasoning also works on the logical level as clear and overwhelming if circumstantial evidence tending to support the view that the movie sucks on many levels. And again, I say this as a disinterested observer, because I haven't seen it. I've been busy or otherwise distracted.
Oscar nominations result from the choices of hundred (thousands?) of members of the Academy. There’s not a Secret Board issuing orders on the best way to advance liberal politics. I don’t think. Assuming I'm right, it means any "politics" involved in a decision to deny Moore his coveted nomination are politics playing out in all those individual brains, and in private conversations.
Here's what I deduce. It's a given that overwhelmingly, Academy members are liberal, and if I’m ever proven wrong on that I’ll let you know. Many of them take their own views very seriously. If they really, deeply believed that F9-11 was a courageous piece of truth-telling, that is if they bought into the heroicness of Michael Moore's rampaging malformed Id (to hear others explain the movie, I haven't seen it), Higher Duty would have called. A movement would have arisen. Most of them, even the political day-trippers, would have nominated it in spite of the controversy that could mean, and in spite of the election results. They would have been driven to nominate it because of those realities. They love noble defiance. As do we all in our ways.
If, as I say, they actually perceived the movie as courageous and true. And I haven't seen it, as I say, so I don't know
But if you are a devotee of a certain perspective, you can perhaps choose to pick a little hope out of the result, like the last bit of walnut out of an empty rancid shell. Sure, it means the movie's champions were lying to themselves and us back in the irritating summer of 2004. But at least it seems they understand reality to a larger extent than you might have thought.
Update: Okay, maybe not rancid.
Update: This reasoning also works on the logical level as clear and overwhelming if circumstantial evidence tending to support the view that the movie sucks on many levels. And again, I say this as a disinterested observer, because I haven't seen it. I've been busy or otherwise distracted.
posted by Lonesome Payne at
12:25 AM
