John Wayne USA
Duke says 'Lets Roll!'
Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore won an Oscar for last year's "Bowling for Columbine" An anti-gun rights documenary.
In the film, he goes on to blame 9-11 on US foreign policy, tries to embarass NRA president Charlton Heston, a man suffering from Alzheimer's and edits different speeches in the film to make him look arrogant and mean.
Other people were outraged that Moore used his Oscar night speech to violently attack President Bush and spout anti-war slogans as our brave troops were already in combat.
Since then, outraged citizens have formed campaigns to revoke Michael Moore's Oscar. http://www.revoketheoscar.com explains that
But what do you think?
Should Moore keep his Oscar? Should the rules be enforced? Should people like Michael Moore be given Oscars for questionable documentaries?
In the film, he goes on to blame 9-11 on US foreign policy, tries to embarass NRA president Charlton Heston, a man suffering from Alzheimer's and edits different speeches in the film to make him look arrogant and mean.
Other people were outraged that Moore used his Oscar night speech to violently attack President Bush and spout anti-war slogans as our brave troops were already in combat.
Since then, outraged citizens have formed campaigns to revoke Michael Moore's Oscar. http://www.revoketheoscar.com explains that
"The 75th Academy Awards® handed the Oscar® for "Best Documentary" to Michael Moore for Bowling for Columbine. Bowling is a nasty bit of anti-American propaganda. Viewers are taught that: America was founded on violence and fear, as quarrelsome pilgrims fled to the new world, where their paranoia led them to massacre the Indians, then the British, and then each other;
The Columbine murderers' violence might have its roots in the fact that one had a father in our military (American soldiers are presumably murderers, and it must rub off on their kids) or that there was a defense contractor in the area;
Charlton Heston (one of Hollywood's few upstanding men) is a callous fool;
The terrorist attack on 9/11 is related to past American foreign policy -- in short, America's own fault;
It's time we take back the stage. Bowling for Columbine violated the Academy's own rules. These limit the documentary competition to nonfiction films. Bowling isn't nonfiction. Whenever it was necessary to his theme, Moore invented facts, fabricated events, staged scenes, or doctored the depiction of what actually happened. When Heston, for example, gave a mild and concilliatory speech, Moore simply edited the footage (and inserted footage from a different speech a year later) to make it sound arrogant.
But what do you think?
Should Moore keep his Oscar? Should the rules be enforced? Should people like Michael Moore be given Oscars for questionable documentaries?