Roger L. Simon: Propaganda at the Academy

Two events in the last few days concerning documentary Oscar winners should be of interest to the Motion Picture Academy, though I doubt my fellow members will pay much attention. The first is the debut of a new film about Michael Moore (by left-wing filmmakers!), revealing more lies in Moore's documentaries. One of the more astonishing is Roger Smith actually was interviewed twice by Moore. (The entire "plot"... and now we see that it is indeed a"plot"... of the documentarian's "Roger and Me" revolves around the GM chief executive's refusal to be interviewed. The entire documentary is thus built on a lie.)

Today we find the first inklings of suspicion in the New York Times (of all places) that Al Gore may have exaggerated the dangers of anthropogenic global warming in "An Inconvenient Truth." I have written elsewhere that film was, to put it mildly, aesthetically weak. Actually, it was like giving an Oscar to one of those didactic movies about tooth decay we are forced to watch in grammar school. Intellectually, it is not dissimilar. It simplifies an important and complex issue and treats its audience like nitwits. No wonder many of the scientists quoted by the Times are getting edgy. Reading the article I thought back to the treatment of Gore on Academy Award night - all those movie stars panting for him to run for president and save the planet from imminent annihilation. Who says they don't give Oscars for comedy?

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Two more demagogues, the country is crawling with them. Michael Moore is the reincarnation of P.T. Barnum and i am not sure what Michel Moore is. A liar, that much is for sure.

Interesting UK Channel 4 video piece. Really I think the first of its kind on the global warming rap ... and in some sense the first major media analysis that runs contrary to the narrative.

Coming soon, Al Gore teams up with Eric Estrada selling vacation condos on cable tv infomercials.

Another great example of people finding patterns. The movie 300 is based on a graphic novel which was published well before 9/11. The movie does a great job of following the book. What Frank Miller is telling us has, I think, little to do with the bullshit arguments between conservative and liberal, and much more to do with a damn fine story about one hell of a battle.

I think people read far more into some movies than they need to. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

dclydew, normally I'd agree with you, but a $70mm March opening in a flick without stars, about an event that relates to the overriding concern of today, means that patterns will be sought, and if found, that itself means they are there--if only subjectively. That the 1971 date of the book predates OIF has no bearing--the battle itself was what, 480 BC? IMHO, of course--

Finding out-and-out lies in Roger and Me just doesn't surprise me. Anyone who's looked into the rhetorical tricks Moore has pulled to shade the story knows that he's all too willing to distort. That one about actually being able to interview Roger Smith is just the topper, that's all.

His distortions in Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11 are legendary, too. Those I don't need to go into; anyone can find them explained on the net.

Roger, what the hell ever happened to truth in documentaries? The majority of them still do their best to show the truth, to be fair, and to paint the situation as it is, not as the author wishes it should be, but those aren't the ones that seem to get all the accolades. What happened to docs like "Hoop Dreams"? So many now are just soapbox lectures on film.

Such things are timeless, and thus pre-911 or post-911 is irrelevant to the patterns.

"...little to do with the bullshit arguments between conservative and liberal..."

Such thigs are also timeless, ancient Greece being a particularly good example. There have always been people thinking you could buy off all the bad guys--somehow, one way or the other--and thus fighting was unnecessary, bad for business, and/or evil itself. And then there have been people that recognize human nature and the will to power for what they are, and plan accordingly. Properly understood, "conservative" and "liberal" factions have always had people on both sides. Unfortunately for the liberal label today, sensible liberals get tagged with "conservative" anytime they show signs of accepting reality.

The other day I was watching a History channel show about the Dark Ages. According to that Europe tried to buy off the Vikings until they literally ran out of currency and were forced to barter. The Vikings went right on killing people. Buying people off usually earns their contempt and little more.

Think about it – there is not that much of it around, and the little there is found it in the pockets of big oil doing it's bidding.

Saddam didn't have any Co2, but Bush went after him anyway, after Joe Wilson told him he didn't have any.

Joe Lieberman's speech, yesterday, at AIPAC, is a perfect example of Steven Mitchell's posting (above) that "[u]nfortunately for the liberal label today, sensible liberals get tagged with 'conservative' anytime they show signs of accepting reality."

Lieberman: There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism. There is something profoundly wrong when there is so much distrust of our intelligence community that some Americans doubt the plain and ominous facts about the threat to us posed by Iran. And there is something profoundly wrong when, in the face of attacks by radical Islam, we think we can find safety and stability by pulling back, by talking to and accommodating our enemies, and abandoning our friends and allies. Some of this wrong-headed thinking about the world is happening because we're in a political climate where, for many people, when George Bush says "yes," their reflex reaction is to say "no." That is unacceptable.

The esteemed historian of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, was in Washington this past week. He said that, when he looks at the world today and the threats we face, it reminds him of the 1930sï¿½and that he hears far more voices that sound like Chamberlain than like Churchill. And so I challenge each of you to find the voice of Churchill inside yourself, and let it be heard this week on Capitol Hill and throughout the nation in the days and years ahead.
Stand up for your arguments. Stand up for your principles. Stand up for your values. Stand up for America. Stand up for Israel. Stand up for freedom. And have confidence that in the end, our cause will, with God's help, prevail.

Powerline comment: Is it any wonder that Lieberman became the special target of leftists in the Democratic party or that the Democrats of Connecticut rejected him?

Every time there is more news about how awful this administration is, I come back to see if you have taken a reality check...but no, still ignoring it all by picking and choosing issues and causes.

As far as Roger and Me goes, I remember the credibility trouble with that movie as a documentary a LONG time ago which is why I never went to his subsequent movies. I didn't see Fahrenheit 9/11 but I didn't need to see it to know what an incredibly horrible leader Bush was - I knew that in a pre-9/11 world.

For one - pre 9/11, Bush rolled back fuel economy standards for cars to the worst they had been since the '80s. He stopped regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Cheney gave a wink and a nod to his buddies in the oil/car industries when anyone talked about CAFE standards. These men are environmental nightmares and our car industry that didn't want to look at hybrids are fools. The good news is Cheney has become a VERY rich man (he wasn't hurting before but nothing like this). I wonder how much he can take with him.

So - good idea to worry about some points in An Inconvenient Truth...let's throw the whole thing out because if the environmentalists are wrong some businesses might not make exorbitant profits and, if they're right - well, the ecosystem - let's just get another. Just think, then our children can call us the Stupidest Generation.

As far as why they are putting so much money into 300, I heard it was because Sin City did so well... but if you like to see all the men who would never serve in war (nor have their children serve) as these battle heroes, the bar you've set is so low I can only infer your normal standard is pure milquetoast and, yep, I'd agree - they are above that. They have done exactly what they've wanted to do regardless of the Constitution, the facts, the health of our nation. That takes some kind of crafty and evil nerve.

And, it isn't that anyone feels you don't have to do battle some time, it's that it is a last resort instead of a first (you are expending other people's LIVES after all), you try to be smart about it and at least fight the right enemy, you try to build a coalition, some basics that I think any good CEO would know. Wasn't Bush a CEO - oh, yeah, he even sucked that. And, of course, he didn't want advice from his Papa Bush - only from his other Father.

I used to think the right and the left really were in agreement as to what outcome they wanted, we just had different ideas how to achieve the desired results but now I think people just want to have been right (and I would put that on many people on both sides).

Sorry you feel that way, Jill. Your accusations are really distorted, you know. It's a little hard to understand your closing call for comity (with which I agree) after reading the poison in the preceding sentences. Sigh.

Thanks for posting that Fred. No one can say the word's haven't been said. No one can say they didn't get the word. Joe knows. A fight for our lives.

Giuliani/Lieberman 08? Though I despair at giving up on Rice. Never a real contender I realize. But, none the less, she has disappointed lately.

Now all we need is people to listen and then have people think. And I mean really think about what to do and how to do it. In doing so, we may all find a little Churchill inside.

We may debate it vigorously, but at least this idiotic, reflexive rejection of the true threats to our society, and, yes, our civilization, will cease.

Jill, where are you coming from? You drink the Kool Aid of the Left, make distorted and emotional attacks that are largely devoid of facts and then call for comity?

Forget Michael Moore. Al Gore's Incovenient Truth would be okay except for a few inconvenient facts.

I would wager that there is not a single individual here that does not care about the environment. I would also wager that there is not monolithic thought about about how to solve some of our environmental problems. However, I do know that people here care about methodology and an accurate and comprehensive assessment and disclosure of the facts.

It does not take much digging to find out that there is little scientific consensus regarding global warming despite the political dogma surrounding the issue. In fact, scientists really do not know whether the increase in CO2 is a function of human activity or an increase in temperature associated with natural variability driven by increases in solar radiation.

Of course, human activity impacts the environment. However, making policy decisions that will have a huge economic impact on both the developed and developing world based upon bad or at best incomplete science is not necessarily intelligent either.

I, for one, would love to see the replacement of the combustion engine. Not because I "hate" the oil companies as you seem to, but because it would make our environment cleaner. I am also a capitalist and require that the technology be economical. I do not consider that a paradox.

HERE IS an 8 minute video REFUTATION of Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" - side-by-side with some of his film's falsehoods.

It also cites the scientific literature, some of which has appeared since his film and book were first launched.

THIS ought to disabuse any "AlGore, Truth-Teller" hagiography - which is what most of his film is, anyway.

March 12, 2007: Propaganda at the Academy

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post