"Fahrenheit 9/11" Shut Out of Academy Awards Nominations

[Lyle]

The Academy Awards nominations were announced (http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/25/oscar.nominations/index.html) today and:
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- ineligible for a best documentary nomination because the film was not submitted for that category -- was shut out across the board.This surprised me a bit. Moore decided back in the fall not to submit the movie for the documentary category because the Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release -- and he was working to make that happen (i.e. get the movie shown on TV). I'm not sure which other categories it might have been eligible for, but expected him to get some kind of nod from the Academy (maybe best director?)

The movie did win best picture in the recent People's Choice awards.

[stevietheb]

Huzzah!!!

[IJ Reilly]

I don't invest any interest in the Academy Awards. They have always been nothing more than the industry's opportunity to congratulate themselves for doing good work (read: making piles of dough). Why a single movie-goer cares a fig newton about who gets Oscars has always mystified me.

I'm not sure I understand why Moore refused to submit his film as a documentary, but I think it was a commentary on the special, screwy rules the Academy places on films in this category. Moore doesn't really make "documentaries" anyway. He makes editorial films.

[zimv20]

Huzzah!!!
yes! it is indeed important that you celebrate and participate in the politics played at the academy awards. you should celebrate any system which judges art by its meta-merits and not simply its merits. as a conservative, you should celebrate a system that sees fit to influence what people see by pre-judging what's good for them and bad for them.

you should celebrate its fascist and totalitarianistic tendencies.

you should celebrate getting your way -- others telling you what you want.

you should celebrate the world which caters to and encourages your intellectual laziness.

you should celebrate that you and your kind are winning.

now please tell me what kind of art i should enjoy. oh wait -- you've left that to others.

[Lyle]

yes! it is indeed important that you celebrate and participate in the politics played at the academy awards.So do you believe that this was some kind of political statement by the Academy members (or whoever makes the nominations)? It was Moore's decision not to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for consideration as Best Documentary, but I don't know if he deserved (or was eligible) to be nominated for any other categories (say, Best Picture or Best Director).

[jadam]

Moore is a sham.

[zimv20]

So do you believe that this was some kind of political statement by the Academy members (or whoever makes the nominations)?
i think it was a combination of moore being too much of a hot potato, moore not being much liked, his previous acceptance speech, and a bit of self-censorship.

however, my commentary was directed at stevietheb, who obviously is delighted that moore is being punished. more power to him and his browncoats.

[Xtremehkr]

Moore is a sham.

because....

[IJ Reilly]

A sham is something you hide a bed pillow in during the day. You could probably hide a couple of pillows in Michael Moore, so maybe he is a sham after all.

[solvs]

To be fair, they snubbed Mel Gibson as well. Maybe they just want to stay away from controversy, although I'm sure it will just cause more. Plus, it was an editorial, not a documentary, as IJ said.

What do you wanna bet those who are criticizing him have never even seen his movies?

[blackfox]

As somewhat of a movie buff, I think:

a. That I couldn't care less about the Academy Awards, for many of the reasons Zim stated, and only occasionally do they award an excellent performance either in front or behind the camera.

b. While I liked Farenheit 9/11 and felt it's release was needed to throw out some other information to a lazy public, I have never thought it was that good of a movie. I did enjoy it, but there were certainly other movies made that were considerably better. In the "documentary" category, "Corporation" was much better, as were a couple others. I actually enjoyed "farenhype 9/11" also, btw.

[zimv20]

the only nominated documentary i saw was Supersize Me. i thought it was well done.

too bad paul giamatti didn't get a nod for his work in Sideways. or Sandra Oh, for that matter. i've liked her work for some time and am glad to see her getting such a great role.

[jadam]

the only nominated documentary i saw was Supersize Me. i thought it was well done.


Wow a vegetarian started eating meat like crazy, and on top of that it was from mcdonalds... Not exactly the greatest way to go about it.

Other than that, his point still stands though, McDonalds = horrible, I will never feed my kids McDonalds more then once a week if that much. I prefer to cook myself anyways.

[zimv20]

I prefer to cook myself anyways.
do you taste like chicken? :-)

[Xtremehkr]

To be fair, they snubbed Mel Gibson as well. Maybe they just want to stay away from controversy, although I'm sure it will just cause more. Plus, it was an editorial, not a documentary, as IJ said.

What do you wanna bet those who are criticizing him have never even seen his movies?

Well, examine the movie objectively, it wasn't anything special. Really, it was not an exceptional movie. Maybe best in class for lead actor receiving most unrealistic amount of physical punishment? Best adaptation of a period that little is known about? Best ouchy face during beating?

[zimv20]

from the linked article:

Mel Gibson's controversial box-office hit "The Passion of the Christ" missed out on a best picture pick, but it earned three nominations: for cinematography, makeup and original score.

[blackfox]

perusing the nominations, I do somewhat agree with:

The Incredibles (animated)
House of Flying Daggers (cinematography)
Enternal Sunshine...(writing [original screenplay] )

All were excellent examples in their nomination categories.

The story of the weeping camel is also nominated in the documentary category, and I rented it, so perhaps it is also worthy, as far as my humble opinion is concerned.

[Savage Henry]

F9/11 - to be honest, although he made a few interesting points, it was a rather inferior documentary to his previous works (ithought the editing was choppy and the pace rather laborious) and with the contending pieces like Super-Size Me; just mho.

For my money, Eternal Sunshine has been outrageously neglected. Just the Screenplay and Actress categories does not do the film justice; it will be lucky to win either; Swank-Actress, and Aviator will be the uninspired choice from the play-safe academy.

I've got other moans but they would drift the subject way beyond the original intention of the thread. :(

[IJ Reilly]

All the nominations for The Aviator is a case in point for why I don't put any stock in the awards. This picture was good, and enjoyable to watch, but hardly great. The screenplay was only so-so, the narrative was kind of weak, and in the end, it's came off pretty much as typical, soulless Hollywood product. And Paul Giamatti not even nominated for Sideways? Case closed!

[mactastic]

So do you believe that this was some kind of political statement by the Academy members (or whoever makes the nominations).

It's because Hollywood is sooooo liberal. Right? Just like we're told?