?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Oscars

weather: clear
outside: 7°C
mood: nonplussed
Just one thing:

Adrien Brody has a lot more class and grace than Michael Moore ever will in his entire lifetime.

Thank you. Goodnight.


Comments

( 18 comments — Leave a comment )
tinyflamingo
Mar. 23rd, 2003 09:15 pm (UTC)
I agree.
bride
Mar. 23rd, 2003 09:22 pm (UTC)
It's even more inappropriate than "I'm the King of the World!"... >=O
amezri
Mar. 23rd, 2003 09:20 pm (UTC)
Agreed. Not that I ever expected Michael Moore to be classy. *G*
bride
Mar. 23rd, 2003 09:25 pm (UTC)
Not that I ever expected Michael Moore to be classy. *G*

Well, then the limo trunk suits him just fine then =}
katie_ah
Mar. 23rd, 2003 09:46 pm (UTC)
Oh, damn, I didn't watch. Oh well. What'd he do?

Did you see Bowling for Columbine? What'd ya think?
bride
Mar. 23rd, 2003 09:54 pm (UTC)
Re:
An AFP one and a Reuters one.

Susan Sarandon was specifically told not to mention anything about the war. She held up two fingers in a "peace" sign and in her introductory remarks, she made comments that were very much alluding to what was happening. She was so clever about it. It was incredible tact in compliance while getting her message across loud and clear.
katie_ah
Mar. 23rd, 2003 10:05 pm (UTC)
Re:
*sigh*

It's just ridiculous- the right AND the left's reaction to what's going on...Bah. Don't wanna think about it.
ntang
Mar. 23rd, 2003 10:10 pm (UTC)
I just read a little about it online, so I can't speak from first-hand experience, but from what I read, it doesn't sound like he was that bad. He only got to say about 1 line before he was cut off anyways. When it comes down to it, though, I'd rather have a country full of people without grace than people without courage.

(And that was in no way aimed at Canada, mind you; I'm saying that if the alternative to having people speak their mind, no matter how graceless, and being too afraid to say what they feel, I'll take the former. It's not just our right in this country to exercise our free speech, but it's our obligation, in my opinion.)

Having said that, I personally feel that at this point we're in way too deep to just pull out; I think we have no (reasonable) choice but to finish the job and take out Saddam and make sure things are at least semi-stabilized before pulling out - not to mention that we'll probably have to maintain a presence for quite a while to get to that point. I think protesting the war at this point is no longer a good response, and that frankly if we withdrew at this point we'd end up doing more harm than if we see the war through to its "completion", whatever that may entail.
bdspitapit31
Mar. 23rd, 2003 11:09 pm (UTC)
I saw it, and I think he was pretty out of line and deserved the boos he got. The Academy Awards is not the place to use for your political forum.
ntang
Mar. 23rd, 2003 11:33 pm (UTC)
Re:
You're right... forgive me, I forgot sometimes how sacred and solemn the Academy Awards are.

*cough*

*cough cough*

MM makes his career out of protesting and complaining about the things he doesn't like in America, pretty much. His documentary, the one that won, was along those same lines. I don't think it's that far-fetched for him to continue to express those views during his acceptance speech.

Now, having said that, I did NOT see it, so I can't discuss this on anything other than a theoretical level. It's pretty hard to point to the Academy Awards as being something with all that much class or grace to uphold, though.
bride
Mar. 24th, 2003 09:29 am (UTC)
It's pretty hard to point to the Academy Awards as being something with all that much class or grace to uphold, though.

Maybe not, but just as we can comment on the celebrities' fashion sense or lack thereof, we can comment on their conduct and behaviour as well.

If you see footage of the MM acceptance speech, they pan out to the audience (where the big name celebs were) and they're all being non-chalant about it, hands folded in their laps, expressionless faces, etc. Everyone knew MM was being an ass and they were not going to be on public record in that setting showing support for it, even if they agreed with him (and you _know_ a lot of them do).

These people are not cowards. It just wasn't the time or place for it.
ntang
Mar. 24th, 2003 09:36 am (UTC)
Re:
Heh, I'm not a big fan of the comments on their fashion sense either, actually. ;)

The way I see it, most people in Hollywood are spoiled and out of touch with reality. I sort of enjoy the thought of someone throwing a monkey wrench in their big fancy awards night, although I can definitely understand your point about there being more graceful ways to express their views and opposition to the war.
bride
Mar. 24th, 2003 09:42 am (UTC)
Re:
most people in Hollywood are spoiled and out of touch with reality

You're right on the money on that one. =)

I sort of enjoy the thought of someone throwing a monkey wrench in their big fancy awards night

As do I. If there was ever a need for humble pie and bigtime ego deflation, Hollywood is SO it. If nothing at all, the collective fashion sense this year was several notches higher than years past =)
bride
Mar. 23rd, 2003 11:24 pm (UTC)
I wasn't going to discuss the war at all here, but if there's anyone I'd be comfortable talking to about it, it would be you. I'm for the war for different reasons and against it for other different reasons. I'm trying to follow both sides of the argument. I don't trust that the media is giving us an accurate picture of what's going on.

Michael Moore said:
"We live in fictitious times. We live in a time with fictitious election results that elect fictitious presidents. We live in a time when we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. We are against this war Mr Bush. Shame on you. Shame on you!

-----

fictitious election results that elect fictitious presidents

My impression was that Bush did win the election, technically. According to the American Election Process, he did win. That process is apparently flawed, but that does not make the election results fictitious.

we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons

I'm not entirely sure it's fictitious reasons... If the reports are true and the Iraqi's are firing Scuds/Sunburns, then that means they actually have weapons that are on their banned list that they weren't supposed to have. And if they're threatening to use Anthrax and other chemical/biological weapons, and if that's not an empty threat, then that's another thing they were supposed to get rid of in the last 12 years as well, wasn't it?

Can someone, who is not privy to the national security/intelligence agency information and anlysis on these things, really make inciting statements like "sending us to war for fictitious reasons"? Is that not slander? Isn't slander presecutable? Where's the line between "speaking your mind" and "slander"?
ntang
Mar. 23rd, 2003 11:47 pm (UTC)
Re:
I wasn't talking about the war at all, I was just curious about how/why he provoked that response out of you. :)

fictitious election results: well, yes, he did technically win, although under obviously questionable circumstances. (The impression I got during the entire thing was that there was a lot of ad-libbing done due to lack of specific legislation to handle things like they encountered. I'm too tired to actually do any research and find out if that's true, though.)

fictitious president: again, he is, technically, president.

So yeah, those two parts probably shouldn't have been said. (Although if you feel that the law was not properly followed, you'd have some justification in calling it fictitious.)

fictitious reasons: I think this is is most likely an entirely true statement. In the end, it doesn't matter if Iraq has "WMD" or not - I do not believe that is the reason Bush sent us to war w/ Iraq. I don't think our national security is the reason he took us to war, either. I don't think that freeing the oppressed Iraqi people is why we're at war, either. The thing is, if Bush's intent does not match what he's said, then we're at war for fictitious reasons (using the "intent" or "motive" definition for reason).

Even if everything Bush has said about Saddam and Iraq is true, I don't think his stated intents are true, which means we are in fact at war for fictitious reasons.

(Not that has nothing to do with my feelings for or against war, mind you.)

I'm not sure if his comment could be considered slander. Does intent count in slander? If Moore believes it to be a true statement, does that make it slander? (I'm asking because I don't know.) The other problem is that it's pretty much impossible to prove someone's intents, so I'm not sure if it's possible to prove he was slandering (after all, if it was true, it can't be slander, right?) in this instance.

There's a fine line, sometimes, between free speech and slander. I don't think what he said falls into slander, but I might be wrong.
bride
Mar. 24th, 2003 09:19 am (UTC)
Re:
I was just curious about how/why he provoked that response out of you. :)

I just liked the way Adrien Brody, Susan Sarandon and others got it in without being so base about it. And this was a point of debate with W as well.

Even if everything Bush has said about Saddam and Iraq is true, I don't think his stated intents are true, which means we are in fact at war for fictitious reasons.

So, in your mind, it's not okay for Bush et al to "piggyback" their own private agenda on top of real [inter]national security reasons to attack Iraq? Which is fair enough...

"Freeing the oppressed people of Iraq" is not a valid reason to me, so I left that out of it.

Does intent count in slander? If Moore believes it to be a true statement, does that make it slander? (I'm asking because I don't know.)

I don't quite know either. I was threatened with prosecution for slander/libel once, but it was very confusing and it never got to a point where anything was cleared up before the issue just fizzled. I never even got to talk to a lawyer about it. I was made to believe that intent does not count - ie. _I_ thought my statements were true, but I was still allegedly guilty of slander.

But all I know is, I have infinitely more respect for Adrien Brody/Susan Sarandon for the way they expressed the same sentiment than Michael Moore. That's all I meant to say by my post =)
ntang
Mar. 24th, 2003 09:45 am (UTC)
Re:
"So, in your mind, it's not okay for Bush et al to "piggyback" their own private agenda on top of real [inter]national security reasons to attack Iraq? Which is fair enough..."

Well, the argument was more that if you believe that GW's stated reasons are not his actual reasons, then MM's statement about it being "fictitious reasons" is true. I wasn't making any judgement about whether it's ok or not for Bush to do it.

(Incidentally, I don't really think it is - I know, politicians lie, it's a given, but something as important and far-reaching as a war should be less duplicitious. The entire situation bothers me, mostly for that reason.)

(As another side note, I think "freeing the opporessed people of Iraq" is the only reason I would support this war at all. I think any other reason is utter and complete bullshit.)

Anyways, I'm veering way off topic. So ok, I can concede that SS and AB probably were much more graceful in their delivery than he was. :)
buttaflii
Mar. 24th, 2003 02:55 pm (UTC)
While I like Michael Moore and I adored Bowling for Columbine (and enjoyed 'Roger & Me', another documentary, and am currently reading 'Stupid White Men' which he wrote), I thought his "speech" was rather tactless. I wonder whether that was really the appropriate time and place to say things like that, but although I would never have said those things (purely because I think it lacks tact), I didn't mind watching him go up there and support his views. It was kind of funny. :)
( 18 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

eLouai
bride
The Bride of the First House

Latest Month

March 2015
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031