The man who bested Barbra Streisand at being the most narcissistic Hollywood activist has struck again.
Michael Moore, whose movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” made a big splash this summer, has decided to seek the Oscar for Best Picture instead of for Best Documentary.
He claims his reason for changing the category is so he can influence the presidential election in key battleground states by releasing his movie on VHS and DVD, something he can’t do under the Best Documentary rules.
Moore said, “I have already won a Best Documentary statue. Having a second one would be nice, but not as nice as getting this country back in the hands of the majority.”
This man is a textbook case of having a bloated sense of self-importance.
“Fahrenheit 9/11,” like the Swift Boat ads, has probably had its impact on the short memories of the American people. The “Fahrenheit 9/11” DVD is not going to erase Bush’s five percent to 13 percent lead in the polls.
Also, if the Best Picture voters factor intellectual honesty and solid facts, then Moore will lose in a landslide.
The problem with “Fahrenheit 9/11” is that it is the most dishonest but successful movie since “Birth of a Nation,” which portrayed blacks as bloodthirsty savages hell-bent on raping white women over a century ago. Even this movie was a hit with Hollywood and had the acclaim of President Woodrow Wilson.
I have never seen a political attack documentary, liberal or conservative, that is even half honest.
The movie itself can be classified as a docucomedy. Moore is a master of juxtaposing conflicting images and emphasizing half-truths to win over audiences largely uneducated on the movie subject.
In the movie, he claims that America invaded Afghanistan not to destroy al-Qaeda and capture Osama bin Laden, but to secure a gas pipeline for the Unocal Corp.
The truth is that the Unocal pipeline idea, which was facilitated by the Clinton Administration, was scrapped in 1998 after Afghanistan decided to provide aid and comfort to al-Qaeda.
His faux pas assertion is a slap in the face to all those whose family members’ blood are on the hands of bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers.
This statement is not surprising considering that he believed we got what we deserved on 9/11 because America enjoys killing by air strikes.
Even one year after America was attacked, Moore still asserted that bin Laden, admitted 9/11 architect, was innocent until proven guilty.
After watching the movie, one leaves with the implanted impression that Saudi Americans flew out of the country unquestioned while airspace was closed. The truth is that the critical 9/11 commission determined that the flight occurred after airspace was opened and that no one of interest was allowed to leave the United States unquestioned.
What’s more interesting is that Richard Clarke, former counter intelligence czar and newly-anointed patron saint of Bush haters, took sole responsibility for authorizing the flights and declared he would do it again.
The movie does feature one powerful scene with Lila Lipscomb, a self-proclaimed conservative Democrat who believes in the military and formerly detested war protesters. Later in the movie, her son dies in Iraq. Moore then shows her in a state of despair which leads her to the front barrier of the White House where she vents her frustration.
Lipscomb has a right to want answers and every American should sympathize with her.
Moore’s compassion is quasi-admirable, but what’s interesting is that he previously took the position that, “I’m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, the majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe-just maybe-God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.”
The film should be approached as an entertaining piece with several erroneous points and a few serious scenes that makes one think.
Edward Sanders is a junior political science major. He can be reached at [email protected].