Fatass won't seek Best Documentary Oscar

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-06 10:13pm

Dear Friends,
I had dinner recently with a well-known pollster who had often worked for Republicans. He told me that when he went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" he got so distraught he twice had to go out in the lobby and pace during the movie.
"The Bush White House left open a huge void when it came to explaining the war to the American people," he told me. "And your film has filled that void -- and now there is no way to defeat it. It is the atomic bomb of this campaign."
He told me how he had conducted an informal poll with "Fahrenheit 9/11" audiences in three different cities and the results were all the same. "Essentially, 80% of the people going IN to see your movie are already likely Kerry voters and the movie has galvanized them in a way you rarely see Democrats galvanized.
"But, here's the bad news for Bush: Though 80% going IN to your movie are Kerry voters, 100% of those COMING OUT of your movie are Kerry voters. You can't come out of this movie and say, 'I am absolutely and enthusiastically voting for George W. Bush.'"
His findings are similar to those in other polls conducted around the country. In Pennsylvania, a Keystone poll showed that 4% of Kerry's support has come from people who decided to vote for him AFTER seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- and in an election that will be very close, 4% is a landslide. A Harris poll found that 44% of Republicans who see the film give it a ?positive? rating. Another poll, to be released this week, shows a 21-point shift in Bush's approval rating, after just one viewing of the movie, among audiences of undecideds who were shown "Fahrenheit 9/11" in Ohio.
My pollster friend told me that he believes if Kerry wins, "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be one of the top three reasons for his election. Kerry's only problem, he said, is how many people will actually be able to see it before election day. The less that see it, the better for Bush.
But 20 million people have already seen it -- and the Gallup poll said that 56% of the American public has seen or plans to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" either in the theater or on home video. The DVD and home video of our film, thanks to our distributors listening to our pleas to release it before November, will be in the stores on October 5. This is very good news.
But can it also be shown on TV? I brought this possibility up in this week's Rolling Stone interview. Our contract with our DVD distributor says no, it cannot. I have asked them to show it just once, perhaps the night before the election. So far, no deal. But I haven't given up trying.
The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction).
Although I have no assurance from our home video distributor that they would allow a one-time television broadcast -- and the chances are they probably won't -- I have decided it is more important to take that risk and hope against hope that I can persuade someone to put it on TV, even if it's the night before the election.
Therefore, I have decided not to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for consideration for the Best Documentary Oscar. If there is even the remotest of chances that I can get this film seen by a few million more Americans before election day, then that is more important to me than winning another documentary Oscar. 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.
The deadline to submit the film for the documentary Oscar was last Wednesday. I told my crew who worked on the film, let's let someone else have that Oscar. We have already helped to ignite the biggest year ever for nonfiction films. Last week, 1 out of every 5 films playing in movie theaters across America was a documentary! That is simply unheard of. There have been so many great nonfiction films this year, why not step aside and share what we have with someone else? Remove the 800-pound gorilla from that Oscar category and let the five films who get nominated have all the attention they deserve (instead of the focus being on a film that has already had more than its share of attention).
I've read a lot about "Fahrenheit" being a "sure bet" for the documentary Oscar this year. I don't believe anything is truly a "sure bet." And, in the end, I think sometimes it's good for your soul to give up something everyone says is so easily yours (ask Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps why he gave up his spot in the last race to someone else equally deserving, and you'll know what I am talking about).
I have informed our distributors of my decision. They support me (in fact, they then offered to submit our film for all the other categories it is eligible for, including Best Picture -- so, hey, who knows, maybe I'll get to complete that Oscar speech from 2003! Sorry, just kidding).
Don't get your hopes up for seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" on TV before the election. In fact, I would count on NOT seeing it there (you know me, I'm always going after something I probably shouldn't). Get to the theaters soon, if you haven't already, or get it from the video store in October and hold house parties. Share it with everyone you know, especially your nonvoting friends. I have included 100 minutes of extras on the DVD -- powerful footage obtained after we made the movie, and some things that are going to drive Karl Rove into a permanent tailspin -- more on this later!
Thanks for all of your support. And go see "Super Size Me," "Control Room," "The Corporation," "Orwell Rolls Over in His Grave," "Bush's Brain," Robert Greenwald's films and the upcoming "Yes Men." You won't be sorry!

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-06 10:53pm

Rummaging through that self-congratuatory mess was painful, but there still is a loophole for him to get his Oscar even if it is televised.

Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction).

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-06 11:54pm

Glocksman wrote:Rummaging through that self-congratuatory mess was painful, but there still is a loophole for him to get his Oscar even if it is televised.

Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction).

BRILLIANT!

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-07 01:45am

Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore as a person, by editorializing in his documentaries he's managed to do what no other documentarian could: Make documentaries an accepted mainstream genre of popular film.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-09-07 04:02am

Iceberg wrote:Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore as a person, by editorializing in his documentaries he's managed to do what no other documentarian could: Make documentaries an accepted mainstream genre of popular film.

Wrong.

That honour belongs to Ken Burns and his epic Civil War.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-09-07 10:42am

MKSheppard wrote: That honour belongs to Ken Burns and his epic Civil War.

After all, it shaped documentaries as we know it.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-07 11:21am

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore as a person, by editorializing in his documentaries he's managed to do what no other documentarian could: Make documentaries an accepted mainstream genre of popular film.
Wrong.

That honour belongs to Ken Burns and his epic Civil War.

Wrong, Shep. You're confusing quality with popularity.

The Civil War was an excellent piece of film, but (a) it's dry as hell to somebody who isn't already interested in the Civil War, and (b) it never received a wide theatrical release. BfC got popular because it was controversial, and controversy sells because people want to see what the fuck the controversy is about.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-09-07 11:52am

Iceberg wrote:Wrong, Shep. You're confusing quality with popularity.

Incorrect.

The Civil War was an excellent piece of film, but (a) it's dry as hell to somebody who isn't already interested in the Civil War, and (b) it never received a wide theatrical release.

Incorrect.

The Civil War was watched by 40 million people when it premiered
in 1990 on PBS stations.

*sound of Iceberg's argument being sodomized by dolphins*

"Carry on people, nothing to see here"

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-07 12:20pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Wrong, Shep. You're confusing quality with popularity.
Incorrect.

The Civil War was an excellent piece of film, but (a) it's dry as hell to somebody who isn't already interested in the Civil War, and (b) it never received a wide theatrical release.
Incorrect.

The Civil War was watched by 40 million people when it premiered
in 1990 on PBS stations.

And this changes the fact that it was never released in theatres ... how?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-07 12:32pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Wrong, Shep. You're confusing quality with popularity.
Incorrect.

The Civil War was an excellent piece of film, but (a) it's dry as hell to somebody who isn't already interested in the Civil War, and (b) it never received a wide theatrical release.
Incorrect.

The Civil War was watched by 40 million people when it premiered
in 1990 on PBS stations.

No theatrical release. Where was the huge wave of widely-released, commercially-successful documentaries released to movie theaters in the wake of The Civil War? Oh, that's right, there wasn't any.

BfC's success made it possible for a documentary to succeed in wide theatrical release. TCW did not.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-09-07 12:53pm

Iceberg wrote:
MKSheppard wrote: Incorrect.

The Civil War was watched by 40 million people when it premiered
in 1990 on PBS stations.
No theatrical release. Where was the huge wave of widely-released, commercially-successful documentaries released to movie theaters in the wake of The Civil War? Oh, that's right, there wasn't any.

BfC's success made it possible for a documentary to succeed in wide theatrical release. TCW did not.

Um... which documentaries have succeeded in theatrical release? Besides BfC and F911?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-07 01:32pm

Beowulf wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
MKSheppard wrote: Incorrect.

The Civil War was watched by 40 million people when it premiered
in 1990 on PBS stations.
No theatrical release. Where was the huge wave of widely-released, commercially-successful documentaries released to movie theaters in the wake of The Civil War? Oh, that's right, there wasn't any.

BfC's success made it possible for a documentary to succeed in wide theatrical release. TCW did not.
Um... which documentaries have succeeded in theatrical release? Besides BfC and F911?

Fog of War and Super-Size Me come immediately to mind. There are more, but I'll have to look them up.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-09-07 01:54pm

I believe "Metallica: Some Kind of Monster" did pretty well also.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-09-07 02:09pm

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this one yet because its sweetly ironic. But Roger & Me was that documentary that everyone was talking about that you needed to see and was the first documentary I could remember (and this is going back years when he wasn't so fat or greasy or disgusting) that people were talking about in school, at work, in other people's homes.

So I think that Roger & Me actually set the pace for the possibility of mainstream success of documentaries.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-09-07 05:08pm

How someone can call "Fahrenheit 9/11" a documentary is beyond me. You may call it spin doctoring or whatever you may call it, but MM should be handling the truth better.

As I see it, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a well-produced and well-performed piece of inlay in the debate.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-07 05:10pm

It's an op-ed column stretched out into a movie, essentially.

Melkor · Post by **Melkor** » 2004-09-07 05:33pm

Moore isn't going for the best documentary Oscar because he's after the best picture Oscar. I kid you not.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-07 05:59pm

Iceberg wrote:
Beowulf wrote:Um... which documentaries have succeeded in theatrical release? Besides BfC and F911?
Fog of War and Super-Size Me come immediately to mind. There are more, but I'll have to look them up.

What now? I've never heard of either of them.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-07 06:00pm

Joe wrote:It's an op-ed column stretched out into a movie, essentially.

And on occasion, like the Playboy Interveiw, he's admitted that's exactly what it is he produces.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-07 06:05pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
Beowulf wrote:Um... which documentaries have succeeded in theatrical release? Besides BfC and F911?
Fog of War and Super-Size Me come immediately to mind. There are more, but I'll have to look them up.
What now? I've never heard of either of them.

Fog of War is about Robert McNamara and the decision making that led to the US becoming enmeshed in the Vietnam War. It did reasonably well at the box office.

Likewise, Super Size Me, a documentary about obesity in America and the fast food industry's hand in it, is doing remarkably well at the box office, making ten-plus million dollars a week for the past two months.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-07 06:07pm

Iceberg wrote:No theatrical release. Where was the huge wave of widely-released, commercially-successful documentaries released to movie theaters in the wake of The Civil War? Oh, that's right, there wasn't any.

And the only measure of a documentary's sucess is that it was big in theaters? Frankly, The Civil War was seen by more people that BFC was and while I don't know how many people F911 has taken in (pun intended) I'd be suprised if it hit 40 million.

And might I point out that as far as commercial successes, BFC isn't much of one. By studio standards it made a tiny amount of money, and even it's return on investment is wasn't that much greater than some big hit indy films.

Iceberg wrote:BfC's success made it possible for a documentary to succeed in wide theatrical release. TCW did not.

No, it didn't. BFC and F911 didn't get much bigger releases than a fair amount of indy movies and lasted a very short time in any non-art house theater. As I understand it the average length of showing was a three weeks. Not a very big sucess and it was far more a gimmick showing on the theaters part.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-07 06:13pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Iceberg wrote:No theatrical release. Where was the huge wave of widely-released, commercially-successful documentaries released to movie theaters in the wake of The Civil War? Oh, that's right, there wasn't any.
And the only measure of a documentary's sucess is that it was big in theaters? Frankly, The Civil War was seen by more people that BFC was and while I don't know how many people F911 has taken in (pun intended) I'd be suprised if it hit 40 million.

And might I point out that as far as commercial successes, BFC isn't much of one. By studio standards it made a tiny amount of money, and even it's return on investment is wasn't that much greater than some big hit indy films.

The numbers don't lie.

The week of 28 October to 3 December 2002, Bowling for Columbine made back its whole budget. And unless you want to try to argue that everybody who's seen F9/11 has seen it at least 20-30 times, it's definitely been seen by more people than The Civil War.

F9/11 and BfC were both highly commercially successful films based on return on investment. Based on return on investment, F9/11 is one of the most successful films ever made (and keep in mind that F9/11 is still in theatrical release).

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-09-07 08:57pm

Melkor wrote:Moore isn't going for the best documentary Oscar because he's after the best picture Oscar. I kid you not.

What I'm wondering is this: if Kerry wins the 2004 election and F911 wins the best Picture Oscar, what will Moore attack in his acceptance speech?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-07 09:11pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
Melkor wrote:Moore isn't going for the best documentary Oscar because he's after the best picture Oscar. I kid you not.
What I'm wondering is this: if Kerry wins the 2004 election and F911 wins the best Picture Oscar, what will Moore attack in his acceptance speech?

He'll laugh, thinking that he managed to tip the election.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-07 11:08pm

Iceberg wrote:The numbers don't lie.

The week of 28 October to 3 December 2002, Bowling for Columbine made back its whole budget. And unless you want to try to argue that everybody who's seen F9/11 has seen it at least 20-30 times, it's definitely been seen by more people than The Civil War.

Unless you can corrolate that to an average ticket price that doesn't give us much for numbers. Especially considering it played for the most part in pricy art houses for most of it's run.

Iceberg wrote:F9/11 and BfC were both highly commercially successful films based on return on investment. Based on return on investment, F9/11 is one of the most successful films ever made (and keep in mind that F9/11 is still in theatrical release).

And it is a big return on investment. So what? It's still a relatively small movie all things considered.

And it might still be in release, but it's been dropped from most mainstream theaters by now.