The latest M. Moore film "Fahrenheit 911" is about the obvious connection between Bush and the Bin Lauden terrorist and Mirimax (Disney) is doing it's best to kill it.
http://cbsnews.com/stories/stories/2004/05/entertainment/main615648.shtml

At some point you would think people would wake up and say "what the F?"

The hypocrisy of this country makes me sick. We have to make a stand and show that we do still value the freedoms we love to cite as the defining value of our country. Disney should be boycotted and villified. But it won't happen.

This summer’s biggest blockbuster will be great!
Michael Moore’s new movie Fahrenheit 911 which investigates links between the Bush & the Saudi families is stirring political controversy. Disney, Miramax and Jeb are all involved. I’m anticipating that they will only help create a tremendous amount of hype for this movie. Don't worry, this movie WILL be released in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?ei=5062&en=89983012bdce5ec0&ex=1084334400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=)
The implications of it being censored in NA would be too great. I can't even imagine that happening. Disney's not stupid. They know this very well. Michael Eisner is just going through the motions so he can tell Jeb that "Disney did everything it can" to stop the movie.

dsdsds do you work for micheal moore or something? lol.

Maybe it was just a stunt to keep Moores 'extreme' sort of image going.
It might be floundering by now, he needs to do something 'fresh' to make everyone notice him again.
Of course, thats sort of a bit capitalist etc...

It's not Moore & Co. creating all the hype. If Disney would never have objected to its distribution, the movie would not have gotten the publicity it is currently getting. Your reasoning is "logically unsound".

A film made by Michael Moore? The name of the maker already tells me that this film is more about propaganda than any other purpose. Michael Moore has the right to make his film but Disney also has the right to not endorse it. I agree with Disney on this because Disney is about entertainment, not propaganda.

Listen to your Bush for propaganda and spin.
Michael Moore always backs up his info with references..I guess you've never read one of his books.

The name of the maker already tells me that this film is more about propaganda than any other purpose.

Michael Moore always backs up his info with references..I guess you've never read one of his books.I would recommend, Guess Who, that you try the first chapter of his book, Dude, Where's My Country? You don't even have to flip to the back of the book for the notes on that particular chapter; all 97 of them are included as footnotes instead of endnotes. Yes, he's capable of brilliant propaganda, but that's only if we include facts that we don't appreciate the reality of as "propaganda."

Only in the US do we defeat free expression by discrediting free expression as "propaganda." It's art. You don't like art, live without art. Go ahead; I dare you.

I agree with Disney on this because Disney is about entertainment, not propaganda.Disney should have thought about that before acquiring Mirimax, which was and is a haven for statistically-deviant expression.

But Disney did not. Because Disney is not about entertainment. It is about money.

What utopiate America are we discussing where businesses exist for the reasons of their industry? The idea that "Disney is about entertainment, not propaganda" reminds me of another secondhand Disney scandal from fourteen years ago when Disney was about entertainment, not degradation. Of course, Pretty Woman has still gone on to provide Disney, through its subsidiaries, with much revenue, so no harm done.

Artists are about art. Disney, like any business enterprise, is about money.

Which makes this maneuver against Michael Moore exceedingly puzzling. Disney's action against the film is more political than the film itself can be, and will only serve to enhance its impact.

And we must remember to give credit where credit is due. Logically Unsound fulfills the moniker:

Maybe it was just a stunt to keep Moores 'extreme' sort of image going.I think that anyone who might undertake such an argument seriously would be proposing a breaking of Moore's pattern. His civil disobedience, agit-prop stunts, and protest actions generally leave no room for doubt:

• Taking Columbine survivors to K-Mart headquarters to ask the company to stop selling bullets.
• Sponsored a beach-landing by Jeannine Garofalo and volunteers to protest a private beach. (TV Nation)
• Sponsored writer/director Rusty Cundeiff's bid to buy black slaves in Mississippi. (TV Nation)

Subtle fraud just wouldn't be consistent with Moore's modus operandi.

Check this out, though ... I'm still not sure this is actually satire: Houston Review (http://www.houstonreview.com/articles/lohmeier/KL20010704.html). Looking at the site's current front page (May 5, #104) (http://www.houstonreview.com/), I still can't tell.

tiassa,


Yes, he's capable of brilliant propaganda
Enough said.


Only in the US do we defeat free expression by discrediting free expression as "propaganda." It's art. You don't like art, live without art. Go ahead; I dare you.
Now it is free expression and no longer propaganda? Art? I do like all arts including this art that you are referring to which appears amusing.


Disney should have thought about that before acquiring Mirimax, which was and is a haven for statistically-deviant expression.

But Disney did not. Because Disney is not about entertainment. It is about money.
So Disney acquired Mirimax. Does this mean Disney owns Mirimax? If yes, then if Disney does not like the "statisticlly-deviant expression" then Disney can change it.

I agree that Disney is about money but by entertainment. Also, most of its audience are kids so I think it is appropriate to leave kids out of politics.

Disney's primary audience may be children (although I think that is subject to debate as well), but Miramax produces a wide range of films including Clerks, Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, three films that are not appropriate for children either. I do not think that is a valid argument in this instance.

:m: Peace.

The latest M. Moore film "Fahrenheit 911" is about the obvious connection between Bush and the Bin Lauden terrorist and Mirimax (Disney) is doing it's best to kill it.
http://cbsnews.com/stories/stories/2004/05/entertainment/main615648.shtml
My, an implication of the incumbent in the 9/11 terror attacks! How groundbreaking! I have never heard such an accusation before!

Perhaps you could elucidate as to what this "obvious connection" is to the rest of us sheep?

Enough said.In theory, then, is it possible to make a documentary about events that bear political implications without creating "propaganda"?
Now it is free expression and no longer propaganda? In this specific case, only the content of the movie itself will reveal the answer.

But I don't think of Robin Williams' jokes about the cocaine--as funny and possibly disarming as they are--to be propaganda.

Doonesbury isn't propaganda.

Dr. Seuss making up lies in cartoon from during World War II? Admittedly propaganda. Who am I to argue with that?

There's a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon--a classic--in which they read that Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses, and wonder exactly what that means. The television thinks to itself, "It means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet."

Propaganda?

What doctrine or set of principles will Moore be advancing? What if ... and just work with me here ... what if the content of the film and its allegations are true?

Propaganda?

The Muppet Show? Propaganda?

Temple of the Dog? Propaganda?

"Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto. (http://www.styxnet.com/styxlyrics/roboto.htm) Mata ah-oo hima de."

Propaganda? (Actually, that's better asked of the rest of the album (http://www.styxnet.com/styxlyrics/kwh.htm).)
Art? I do like all arts including this art that you are referring to which appears amusing.And I'm glad. It's a harrowing thought, an artless world. But anything we don't like is somehow propaganda; have you ever noticed? Mel Gibson's not raising propaganda against the Jews; now, the Bible itself is another question entirely. (See Pagels, Elane: The Origin of Satan, an excellent volume.)

Films like Jeffrey and Birdcage were called "propaganda" (liberal, gay). Reading the names of war dead on television is apparently "propaganda" (liberal, anti-war/"pro-terror").

In the end, almost any artistic or creative product is propaganda by a certain definition. To the other, in the sinister context usually given the word, I just think you're closing yourself off to something a little too early. If Joel Schumacher can make a good film from time to time, then Michael Moore can eventually make one that sucks. We'll see what happens. But in the meantime ... what if what he alleges is true, and in proper context? Is it still propaganda?

The counterattack, in the meantime, is chilling:
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved." (New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html))

Michael Moore has the right to make his film but Disney also has the right to not endorse it.

Actually, Disney does not have this right. They are contractually bound to distribute it, since Miramax has agreed to distribute it. The contract between Disney and Miramax stipulates that a film must be either over-budget or rated NC-17 for Disney to forcibly block Miramax from distributing it. This is not the case with Moore's film. Disney is in breach of contract.


I agree with Disney on this because Disney is about entertainment, not propaganda.

Disney is about homogenous lifestyle branding for children and adults. It's not about "entertainment". It's about packaging and selling lifestyles and fantastical dreams for those who lack the imagination to do so themselves. Because of that, Disney - and every other major consumer corporation - *is* about propaganda. The doctrine they are spreading is the doctrine of consumerism and corporate "branding".

Again, this movie WILL be released. The more they try to block it, the gretater its ultimate success. At the end, everyone will be happy including Disney who, I imagine, are getting a cut of the profits. (Maybe Jeb and is bro will be a little ticked.)

Doh! I was just going to post this... :D
Disney Blocks Distribution of Moore Film (http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=157633)

But anyways... Yeah... I guess americans don't live in a democracy, do they...? :rolleyes:

From website:
"According to The New York Times, which first reported the story Wednesday, "Fahrenheit 9/11" describes decades-old financial links between the Bush family and prominent Saudi Arabian families. The film says the government helped members of bin Laden's family leave the United States after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

Not surprising... :rolleyes:

Doh! I was just going to post this...
Disney Blocks Distribution of Moore Film

But anyways... Yeah... I guess americans don't live in a democracy, do they...?
Yes, we do live in a democracy and this is why the U.S. government that represents its citizens did not stop Moore from making his film and did not stop Disney from blocking the film.

This conflict between Disney and Moore is strictly between these two and again, the U.S. government did not stop either of them from doing anything!

I guess you wished that the U.S. government should have prevented Disney from blocking Moore film? Since when does Moore have his freedom but disney does not?

This conflict between Disney and Moore is strictly between these two and again, the U.S. government did not stop either of them from doing anything!


Jeb Jeb ... JebaJeb Jeb ..

Jeb Jeb ... JebaJeb Jeb ..
[nodding head up and down]
Oh yep. Yes. Certainly... :D
[/nodding head up and down]

Anyways...


Yes, we do live in a democracy and this is why the U.S. government that represents its citizens did not stop Moore from making his film and did not stop Disney from blocking the film.
Did the government represent the citizens when the US went to war with Iraq....? :rolleyes:


This conflict between Disney and Moore is strictly between these two and again, the U.S. government did not stop either of them from doing anything!

I guess you wished that the U.S. government should have prevented Disney from blocking Moore film? Since when does Moore have his freedom but Disney does not?
Ok. Please tell me why would Disney be concerned enough with this film to censor it? How can they benefit with that at all!? Not only that, but why would the government censor it, if it were the case? Wouldn't the government gain much more the Disney (or actually, preserve itself)?

Oh well... :rolleyes:

Did the government represent the citizens when the US went to war with Iraq....?

Yep. As I recall the polls showed that most people living within the US supported the war.


Ok. Please tell me why would Disney be concerned enough with this film to censor it? How can they benefit with that at all!? Not only that, but why would the government censor it, if it were the case?
Disney has an image to maintain. They normally produce childrens movie, or family movies; the second they make something that'll piss people off, they'll start losing money. The Government hasn't censored it; Disney has.

Originally Posted by GuessWho
Yes, we do live in a democracy and this is why the U.S. government that represents its citizens did not stop Moore from making his film and did not stop Disney from blocking the film.
”
Did the government represent the citizens when the US went to war with Iraq....?

What's that got to do with the M. Moore/Disney argument?

You guys don't seem to understand that it is soooo critical for Disney's success to sleep with the government.
example1 (http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings97/brooks.html)
I also found this (http://www.publicampaign.org/publications/studies/buynowsavelater/taxstudy.htm) which is a comprehensive look at how critical it is for big business to lobby.

Here's some interesting news:

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901

Yep. As I recall the polls showed that most people living within the US supported the war.
Ahhh... well as I recall, most people weren't supporting the war. Americans did eventually started supporting it, but in the beginning, it was a no no...



Disney has an image to maintain. They normally produce childrens movie, or family movies; the second they make something that'll piss people off, they'll start losing money. The Government hasn't censored it; Disney has.
Why would that movie piss people off? Because people can't stand hearing the truth? :rolleyes:

Ahhh... well as I recall, most people weren't supporting the war. Americans did eventually started supporting it, but in the beginning, it was a no no...
Well, as I recall most people were.


Why would that movie piss people off? Because people can't stand hearing the truth?
Because people don't like having their opinions fucked with.

Well, as I recall most people were.
And I recall most americans saying that they didn't voted for that bastard!
But ince we seem not to get into an agreement, what about the "Patriot Act"? Do you think that is democratic at all?



Because people don't like having their opinions fucked with.
Oh, so people are submissive to the government. I wonder why? Maybe it is because they are brainwashed in school to think that they live in the greatest country in the planet and that the governemtn is always "protecting" its citien with "national security"...? :bugeye: :rolleyes: :D

TS:

Prove to me that people like to have their opinions fucked with. As for Disney blocking this movie, which is what I’m talking about (Disney not the Government); it’s their right. If they think that it’ll cause a big upset in profits or blah-blah then they can choose not to distribute it. This is not about free speech, this is about money.

Now, as for my memory, it may not be the best, but to my knowledge most of the people that I know (Not some poll- people I know) supported the war with Iraq. Now, stop trying to drag me off-topic by bringing up other things like the patriot act.

Nice try, though. Trying to lure a moderator into a debate/flame war. Bring all this other irrelevant stuff into this conversation just so you can flame or debase me, nice try. To bad it won't work.

When did you trun into a raving maniac?

Prove to me that people like to have their opinions fucked with.
That's not what I said. I said that people's opinions are shaped by the government and the media.



As for Disney blocking this movie, which is what I’m talking about (Disney not the Government); it’s their right. If they think that it’ll cause a big upset in profits or blah-blah then they can choose not to distribute it. This is not about free speech, this is about money.
Yes, it is always about money... :rolleyes:


for my memory, it may not be the best, but to my knowledge most of the people that I know (Not some poll- people I know) supported the war with Iraq.
And most of the people that I know of and that frequent sciforums didn't support the war...



Now, stop trying to drag me off-topic by bringing up other things like the patriot act.
It's not off-topic. We were discussing wheter the US is truly democratic or not, and the "patriot act" is a clear example that the US is not democratic.



Nice try, though. Trying to lure a moderator into a debate/flame war. Bring all this other irrelevant stuff into this conversation just so you can flame or debase me, nice try. To bad it won't work.
Well, that's not really my intention. I think this is a very simple debate. I just hope you understand that I'm debating democracy and ethics through simple examples. I'm not debating about Disney at all, if you pay attention to my words. My focus is what may be behind things such as Disney not releasing that movie, which could be quite profitable as ome of those webites have shown. Of course it could be an image problem, but as omeone else pointed out, Disney doesn't produce only children kind of movie, so it's more probable that the underlining problem is something else.



When did you trun into a raving maniac?
When another person abused me and I had to pay more money to that person because of what that person called "justice"... :rolleyes:

And most of the people that I know of and that frequent sciforums didn't support the war...

Well, that's what you get for living in a highly liberal area. I live in a highly republican area, so most of the people that I know supported the war. And I don't count sciforums.


It's not off-topic. We were discussing wheter the US is truly democratic or not, and the "patriot act" is a clear example that the US is not democratic.

I was discussing whether or not Disney has the right to block the film from distribution and why they're doing it; I wasn't talking about the government. So please do tell me how Disney blocking a film proves that the US ins't as democratic as it claims?


Well, that's not really my intention. I think this is a very simple debate. I just hope you understand that I'm debating democracy and ethics through simple examples. I'm not debating about Disney at all, if you pay attention to my words.

I am paying attention to your words, I'm also paying attention to the smilies you're using. When you use the rolling eyes smilies it makes it appear that you're being a smartass, if you're not, then I'm sorry.

Disney should be boycotted and villified. But it won't happen.

What if there is good reason to kill it? I'm no big fan of Disney, but Michael Moore? How is he more than a socialist propagandist? I think it's fair that if a company doesn't want socialist propaganda to represent them, they can pull the plug. Unless he signed a retarded contract, he'll likely get someone to distribute the thing. If he thinks it's that important, he can cough up some of his own dough to make it.

I don't see why disney should be reviled for this. Maybe you have other reasons.

After thinking about it for a bit, it's likely that he really believes in what he's doing. To me, his dogged socialist diatribe comes across and thick with propaganda, and will continue to do so... however, I get a little fuzzy on labelling something propaganda when someone really really believes it.

Hmm. Yeah nevermind. It's still propaganda - but that's not a bad thing if you're hep to the socialism deal I suppose. From my perspective, bad, from socialist - not.

Regardless, disney is free to reject his crap and if there are consequences, they'll have to pay them.

First of all, if you guys would bother to read the articles, Disney may not have any legal ground to "stop" the movie (although the goliath can by intimidation - Miramax will be commiting suicide if it goes to court against Disney).

Disney, which bought (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?ei=5062&en=89983012bdce5ec0&ex=1084334400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=) Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.
Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

Secondly, Disney is exercising its democratic right to block its film. US "democracy" is challenged when we look at why Disney is blocking it:
1. will make the Florida Governor angry - thereby jeapordizing future incentives for the company. (that's capitalism at work)
2. Distributing a movie which critisizes the government will be perceived by the American public as unpatriotic. This is undemocratic. If an individual or a powerful company feels like he needs to conform and support the government and the will of the government, then that's not democracy.

Imagine no American company decides to distribute the movie based on fear of upsetting the government .. we'd have censorship.

Imagine no American company decides to distribute the movie based on fear of upsetting the government .. we'd have censorship.

This theory doesn't work. You forget that some companies will distribute material no matter what people may think. Not to mention the internet. If Mr. Moore really wanted to distribute this film all he has to do is upload it.

And yes, I know that some things are not published through fear (The ads that compared Hitler to Bush – they can be found on memoryhole.org).

i like this one better:


Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 May 2004


Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office.

But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901

of course he'll find a distributor. his "creative editting" is hugely popular with the paranoid left, so someone is sure to pick it up to sell it to them.

Curious - from FOX News, of all sources: Gibson Pal 'Signed Deal' to Finance Moore Movie (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119253,00.html). I'm not sure what part of the article to cite. So ... let's try the bullet list:

• . . . before Miramax was involved in "Fahrenheit 9/11," the project had a different godfather. That was Bruce Davey, the Australian-born producer who runs Mel Gibson's company, Icon Productions.

• About two weeks later, Davey and Icon informed Moore and his agent, Ari Emanuel, that they were backing out of the project . . . . Icon would have been vulnerable to a possible breach-of-contract action from Moore had it not been for some fast diplomacy on the party of Emanuel. I'm told the very next thing he did when he heard that Icon was backing out was to call Miramax's Harvey Weinstein, with whom Moore had worked in the past.

• . . . not only did Davey make the $5 million deal with Moore, but that when it was announced, Gibson got calls from Republican friends urging him to back out of it right away.

• Miramax . . . merely stepped in and swapped their own contract for Icon's . . . "Harvey saved everyone a lot of grief," says an insider. "It could have gotten very ugly."

• What finally drove Gibson and Davey to renege on their deal? Does it have anything to do with a report this week in the New York Post that there are a group of investors who want Gibson to replace Eisner as president of Disney?

It should also be mentioned that neither Michael Eisner nor former Sen. George Mitchell, who is currently running Disney, have seen the film.

I was discussing whether or not Disney has the right to block the film from distribution and why they're doing it; I wasn't talking about the government. So please do tell me how Disney blocking a film proves that the US ins't as democratic as it claims?
Ok. We were jut discusing two different things... :p



I am paying attention to your words, I'm also paying attention to the smilies you're using. When you use the rolling eyes smilies it makes it appear that you're being a smartass, if you're not, then I'm sorry.
When I use the "rooleyes" I'm just chilling out
I-hope-you-understand... :rolleyes: :D

Sometimes M. Moore is like Abbie Hoffman reincarnated.....in the way he uses humor and good spirt to inspire his political views and suggest change. I really like what he stands for ....

[QUOTE=CounslerCoffee]Yep. As I recall the polls showed that most people living within the US supported the war.


As I see George Bush's poll numbers increase as his lies, blunders and war crimes go from bad, to terrible, to Oh-mi-God! I realize just how sick a nation we are.

People seem to think that the CIA practices the CONSTITUTION, the BILL of RIGHTS AND THE "AMERICAN WAY," after they leave our borders* (See the Ronald Reagan EL MOZOTE VILLAGE MASSACRES (Honduras) brought to you in bright RED elsewhere on Sciforums x the Whirlwind, of course! : ;)

Whirlwind....

*Remember GITMO? :mad:

Oh, so the KODAKS aren't in yet - careful, Rumsfeld will lose the negatives! (pun intended) :)

As you probably read in the Arts forum Michael Moore won the Palme D'Ore at Cannes (http://movies.yahoo.com/news/ap/20040523/108534210000.html) this weekend for Fahrenheit 9/11.
Quentine Taratino had this to say:

"When I was on stage with Michael Moore, I knew all this politics crap would be brought up" ..

So "I just whispered in his ear and said, `I just want you to know it was not because of the politics that you won this award,'" Tarantino said. "`You won it because we thought it was the best film that we saw.'"

Now - How can one vote for a film (especially a documentary) if they completely disagree with it's content? It's a politically charged documentary with some humor mocking the current administration. Tjhs movie is probably about the American foreign policy and Admin. and today, you either love it or hate it. If 6 of 10 judges hated bush, they definetly voted for the movie.
Although I agree with many of his views, I don't really see anything "Artistic" in Bowling for Columbine -- And I'm assuming Fahrenheit 9/11 is the same type of movie. I just don't understand how a non-fiction movie can win this award. I'm looking forward to watching it not for it's artistic or entertainment value but for its informative view point.

Also, Michael Moore was caught saying this:

"If I wanted to make a political speech, I'd run for office," Moore told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "I'm a filmmaker, and I wanted to make a movie for people to go see it."

I love you mike, but PLEASE -- That was a "political statement you just made.