OSCAR LEAVES SICKO ON THE WAITING LIST

Michael Moore’s ridiculous SiCKO was apparently not anti-American enough for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The political fashion plates at AMPAS let the porcine provocateur languish on the waiting list while awarding the best documentary Oscar to Taxi to the Dark Side:

[Moore's] health-care study “Sicko” lost the documentary prize to “Taxi to the Dark Side,” a war-on-terror chronicle that centers on an innocent Afghan cab driver killed while in detention.

I haven’t seen—-or even heard of—-this “documentary.” But, considering the Academy’s well-documented taste for BS, I’m willing to bet it’s an exercise in mendacity. One doesn’t have to speculate, however, on the chutzpah of Oscar night producers. Kyle Smith explains:

Given that the most recent statistics show that approximately 97.4 percent of all documentaries present America as a scary place and of those 97.4, most are meant to present the troops in Iraq as overmatched at best and as abusive, sadistic criminals at worst, it’s pretty cheeky of the Oscars to have troops serving overseas present the Oscar for best documentary short subject.

Nonetheless, the defeat of Moore’s schlockumentary offers no small amount of schadenfreude. SiCKO is, like its director, an egregious fraud. It makes claims about Cuba, for example, that have been repeatedly debunked. And that’s just the tip of the mendacious iceberg.

In the end, however, it was apparently too dishonest and smarmy even for the fantasy mongers of Hollyweird.

UPDATE:

Here’s a clip showing acceptance comments of the guy who made the winning “documentary.” If this smug, sanctimonious and dishonest little speech is any guide, his film is a disgrace:

[HT Hot Air]

Comments 8

  1. drmatt wrote:

    I actually enjoy this type of commentary, the problem is that he looses all credibility when he writes “97.4% of all documentaries present America as a scary place” CMON, I watch documentaries on a regular basis and that is just ridiculous. This type of commentary would have a great deal more power and impact if the writer did not feel the need to embelish to make a point!!!!! is that because he actually has a rather weak position? or is he just plain ignorant?

    Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 8:29 am
  2. Marc Brown wrote:

    ‘Sicko has been named the third-highest grossing documentary in the USA since 1982 excluding concert movies, reality films, and “large-format” documentaries.’

    ‘The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 93% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 181 reviews’

    Referenced sources from Wikipedia.

    Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 8:55 am
  3. Matt Horn wrote:

    I think that stat is tongue in cheek.

    Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 10:34 am
  4. Matt Horn wrote:

    Marc, I note you didn’t dispute that it was widely debunked. Documentaries should be primarily about information and truth. Mr. Moore gets a big box of FAIL on both counts.

    Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 12:13 pm
  5. Catron wrote:

    “Rotten Tomatoes reported that 93% of critics gave the film positive reviews.”

    Just more proof that David Hannum was right.

    Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 12:17 pm
  6. Marc Brown wrote:

    I think the 93% reflects very well those who want decent healthcare reform and the 7% – those who try – but are now failing miserably – to take the vast majority for suckers.

    Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 1:42 pm
  7. Rich wrote:

    I think the 93% reflects a certain bias in the media.

    Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 2:27 pm
  8. Stuart Browning wrote:

    “smug, sanctimonious and dishonest” is certainly right.

    Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 6:57 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *