Subject:
|
"Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:59:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
89 times
|
| |
|
|
The consequences for Tim Robbins' recent unpopular ramblings are miniscule
compared to the potential humiliation MM faces if the Academy is convinced that
his "documentary" Bowling For Columbine is in fact not eligible under its own
rules for qualification.
The arguments for revoking MM's Oscar, from the web site
http://www.revoketheoscar.com/ are thusly:
=================================
1. This is not a documentary--it's fiction. Rule 12.1 of the Academy Awards
competition defines what is entitled to compete in the documentary class, and
it begins: "An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released
non-fiction motion picture. . . ." This is the core rule which separates the
documentary competition from all other competitions.
2. The documentary class is set aside so that creators of nonfiction, of
education rather than entertainment, would not be competing against
entertainment and fiction. To award the Oscar to a film which employs lots of
fiction does an injustice to the other competitors in the class. They played by
the rules and submitted creations which stuck to the facts.
3. Maybe the Academy found Bowling entertaining -- but that's why they have a
separate class for documentaries. A real documentary on battlefield surgery
shouldn't have to compete against "MASH;" a real one on the Holocaust shouldn't
compete against "Schindler's List."
4. Rewarding such a film will only encourage future submissions of
"documentaries" which play faster and looser with the truth. The precedent has
been set; the core rule can be discarded, so long as the result is
entertaining. Clever editing of audio, false statements about events,
re-enactments which diverge from fact, will be rewarded. The further the
creator departs from truth, the more freedom he has to be entertaining, and the
result will either lead to greater corruption of the documentary class or cries
of "you let Moore do it, why restrict me?"
5. It's understandable that the Academy didn't do an investigation before it
gave the award. It doesn't have teams of researchers, and might assume that a
documentary creator isn't inventing what he shows on-screen. The givers of the
Grammy to Milli Vanilli were entitled to assume that the people in the album
actually were singing and not mouthing the words. But now that serious question
has been raised as to whether Moore was cheating, it is essential that the
Academy investigate the charges and decide whether to revoke the award and
whether it needs to tighten its rules.
=============================
Pass the popcorn. *This* is going to be interesting! The irony would almost
be too much. Fictitious times indeed!
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
6 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
