Rotating Header Image



Entertainment – Reuters
Cuban ‘Fahrenheit’ Telecast Raises Oscar Questions
1 hour, 32 minutes ago 1:35 PM PST 08/04/04 – By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – A recent broadcast on Cuban television of Michael Moore’s film “Fahrenheit 9/11” has raised questions about the Oscar eligibility of one of America’s most talked-about and critically acclaimed movies of the year.

Under Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences rules, films are disqualified from competing in the Oscar race for best documentary if shown on television or on the Internet within nine months of their theatrical release.

However, an unauthorized or pirated display of a film would not render the movie ineligible, academy spokesman John Pavlik said on Tuesday.

“If somebody steals your movie and puts it on TV, we’re not going to penalize you for it,” he told Reuters.

Pavlik added that the Academy had not looked into the circumstances surrounding the film’s prime-time broadcast last Thursday on state-run television in Cuba.

Moore’s blistering critique of the President Bush and his conduct of the war in Iraq also played to packed movie houses on the communist-ruled island for a week.

A spokesman for one of the film’s U.S. distributors, the Fellowship Adventure Group — formed by Miramax Films co-chairman Bob and Harvey Weinstein — told Reuters the TV broadcast in Cuba was “not authorized.”

And entertainment trade paper Daily Variety reported that the French-based overseas distributor for the film, Wild Bunch, denied that it had made any TV deal in Cuba.

Because the Academy rule restricting TV or Internet display of Oscar contenders applies only to documentaries, “Fahrenheit 9/11” could still qualify for nomination as best picture, best director or best original screenplay.

Variety speculated that backers of the film might regard the movie, which has been popular among Hollywood’s liberal-leaning elite, as having a better chance of clinching a nomination in the best picture race if it was disqualified from the documentary contest.

Producers of Moore’s film have another month to decide how they want the film to be entered in Oscar competition. The deadline for submission of documentary candidates is Sept. 1. Pavlik said the academy typically receives about 60 submissions for that category.

Last year’s Academy Award for best documentary feature went to the Errol Morris film “Fog of War,” about the difficult lessons of military conflict learned by former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. Moore won the year before for his study of gun violence in America, “Bowling for Columbine.”

22 C O M M E N T S

  1. justaguy says:



  2. justaguy says:

    Theresa Heinz Kerry’s behavior is very strange. It’s nearly like she’s drugged out. -justaguy

  3. justaguy says:

    Let’s say a couple of the Swiftboat veterans for truth are Republicans…what’s the difference between them….and Max Cleland…who’s labeled a vietnam vet hero (he dropped a grenade on himself)…Max has been hired by the Kerry campaign and is calling Bush a “draft dodger.” Kerry gets in front of the convention and says “He’s reporting for duty”…taking swipes at Bush, etc. At least these Swiftboat guys have some pretty hard evidence. -justaguy

  4. -S- says:

    Yeah, this is one book I’m buying a few copies of:

    UNFIT TO COMMANDHahaha, is right. No wonder Kerry’s trying to be “preemptive” about his military record and denounce his mates, which is, unfortunately, the line he’s sold everyone who votes for him, plans to. It’s amazing how struck-dumb people on the Internet are at present about this issue, of Kerry’s incredible lack of credibility about the “military service” — no wonder he won’t (or hasn’t, at least, up to now) released his military record for public access.

    That article from the Drudge Report is…is…priceless (and says about the same thing that the surviving mates from Kerry’s Vietnam service have to say [links are here from a week or so ago] about Kerry and his “wounds”:


    A veterans group seeking to deeply discredit Democrat John Kerry’s military service will charge in the new bombshell book UNFIT FOR COMMAND:

    –Two of John Kerry’s three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire.

    –All three of Kerry’s Purple Hearts were for minor injuries, not requiring a single hour of hospitalization.

    –A “fanny wound” was the highlight of Kerry’s much touted “no man left behind” Bronze Star.

    –Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of “heroism” by filing a false report on the incident.

    –Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter.

    –Kerry’s reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go — becoming the only Swift Boat veteran to serve only four months.

  5. -S- says:

    Yes, I agree (can’t you tell?) about THK. I’d say that there’s a person who’s cloistered in a personality cacoon…the quotes by her I’ve read, also, about various vague mysticisms and distortions of persons, places, defies the “I am a Catholic” and sure does seem like she’s on some maintenance or another. The biggest jarring of the recent public moments to me have been her low-toned pitches on stage about “praying” and “love,” followed immediately in the same moments by her rants / personality flares, whatever they are (“outbursts”?).

    Then, last evening, I watched B. Bush on O’Reilly and the differences between them were glaring…there’s Mrs. Bush, intelligent, poised, incredibly sincere and personable, kind, sweet, who ACTUALLY had “something to say” and that was about understanding and compassion (even for THK), her family, it was really warming to listen to her. No grandiosity, no false spiritualities, just a clear person with a great family life and intellectual interests. Really startling by comparison with THK.

  6. -S- says:

    Err, sorry, that’d be (First Lady) LAURA Bush, who was on O’Reilly yesterday.

  7. justaguy says:

    Yeah…Kerry takes his religion seriously.

  8. justaguy says:

    See, you were right! -justaguy

    “When President Bill Clinton recounted on Monday night that when it was time to go to Vietnam, John Kerry said, “Send me.” When it was time to serve in public office, John Kerry said, “Send me.” When it was time to return to Vietnam to rebuild bridges, John Kerry said, “Send me.”

    Many people of faith hearing that phrase, know that it comes from Isaiah 6:8 where God says, Who will I send and who will go for us?”

    In this most critical election, will you raise your hand and say, “Here am I, God, send me to do the work of electing a responsible, moral candidate to lead our nation, and our world.”

    God bless and keep each of you and let me hear from you!”

  9. justaguy says:

    Kerry and this Rev are disgusting. -justaguy

  10. -S- says:

    The thing is, people such as (both) the Clintons, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc., are educated ~just enough~ intellectually to be able to abstract salient key points from *the literary canon* (of which, the Holy Bible — New and Old Testaments, are a significant part of, given that they are inspirations for much of what’s been written since, even by avowed “anti religious” authors), anyway, people such as this are talented at abstracting (using, copying, plagiarizing, if you will) whatever salient points from the literary canon they can inorder to capitalize (love that word) on the sentiments involved, but apply those sentiments (copied, plagiarized, otherwise referenced) to their private focus (meaning, for “political gain,” even if it’s a job interview, or sales job in the back yard).

    And, when you hear politicians who speak out about suppressing personal religious expression, instead pushing to ENFORCE (meaning, they apply social force to that end, to attempt to engineer into application, that which they intend) their own version of “be everything but express nothing” (that is, to enforce SECULAR “religion” as the religious, homogenized religion that supplants individual religious freedom), it’s almost without fail a case of them using actual religious symbolism and actual texts in (mis) application to their own needs.

    Notice that THK can refer to what she dislikes (that SHE dislikes, I emphasize that) as being “hell,” and yet people such as herself disavow that hell exists — I conjecture that here because TKK and even John Kerry seem to use Catholicism as a social nametag, but disavow the instructions and responsibilities that being a Catholic involves. She can rely on religious symbolism (such as describing that which she wants to replace as “hell”) while supporting ideologies that disavow that the so-called “Christian myth” that “hell” even exists. But, when it’s timely and supportive of her own needs to refer to Christian terminology, she’s on point to do so, blurting out that stupid statement as THK did. And as John Kerry often does, also, certainly as did and does Bill Clinton, relying on the safety and social acceptability of Christian concepts and actual words abstracted from Scripture when it motivates emotionally, but motives toward THE OPPOSITE INTENT OF SCRIPTURE and the references used.

    It’s demonology, in my experience, that which they engage in. If for no other reason than “people of faith” would NOT BE so motivated to follow or even tolerate anyone’s bastardization of Scripture or anyone who does so, particularly in the case of the DNC, in that quote you provide there.

    Notice that the “people of faith” is never defined as to what, exactly, and Who, exactly, that there is faith in. Handy for the DNC.

  11. -S- says:

    However, I do hope that “God” does “bless and keep (them)(all people),” but unfortunately, many people know the truth but chose to follow the lie, as in this case, the DNC and aligned leading them so far astray, while piping their tunes of faux fellowship and faux religiousity.

    “…the cares of the world…”

  12. -S- says:

    HA! I saw that article early in the morning…as to Kerry’s recent “pick” for “religous advisor,”

    and it reminded me of what the following Catholic theologian and author has to say about Kerry, much less that “advisor” (among many others who agree with this theologian) :

    Phil Brennan,
    Friday, April 16, 2004

    Sen. John Kerry is deliberately misrepresenting the doctrine of the Catholic Church, of which he claims to be a faithful member, says author George Weigel.

    Weigel is a prominent Roman Catholic theologian and one of America’s leading commentators on issues of religion and public life.

    He is the acclaimed biographer of Pope John Paul II and a Senior Fellow at Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he is the director of the Catholic Studies program.

    In an exclusive interview with, Weigel said the real issue facing America’s Catholic bishops is not the question of banning Kerry from receiving Communion, but the Democratic presidential candidate’s willful distortion of Church teaching on abortion and his responsibility to follow Catholic doctrine.

    “The most important issue at this point is for the bishops as a group to make clear that Senator Kerry is systematically misrepresenting the nature of Catholic teaching on the life issues. The question of his reception of the sacraments, however, is something that belongs properly to his local bishop, Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston.

    “What belongs to everyone, since this is a national candidacy, is the responsibility to make clear that when Kerry says the Church’s pro-life teaching is a sectarian position which cannot be imposed on a pluralistic society, he is willfully misrepresenting the nature of the Church’s position

  13. -S- says:

    Another thing — in my experience — is that the DNC and most who write the various liberal/DNC funded sites trolls public opinion on the Internet and then writes the “opposite” as meaty content to throw to their own.

    In other words, it’s a political operation: read the conservative opinion, any criticism about specific liberal opinions, and then spin it to the contrary. SAME THING, by the way, that they do with Holy Scripture.

    Notice that no one was calling, say, “F:9/11” a “documentary” until it was pointed out that the film was an op/ed piece (as per Moore himself, and I’ve got the quotes and dates to support that, by Moore) and that the film was created inorder to mislead by piecing together unrelated and even wrongful information to equal a greater statement…as soon as people began speaking up about the “it’s not a documentary” with specific reasons why on the Internet, in the media, the liberal sources began trumpeting the thing as “a documentary.” It’s the predictable madness that is the liberal group personality, in my experience: find that which is stated and “rework it” to state the opposite. Psychological operations, the liberal madness.

    Conservatives could start saying that which they mean the opposite of and see if it would make any impact to the contrary throug the liberal madness…might be interesting to see take place.


  14. justaguy says:

    I really hate it when artists (actors/musicians) get into politics. I see Springsteen is on a big tour supporting Kerry.

    The other day I saw on the official NIN site that they have a link to Chomsky. I then read an e-mail in which Trent recommended Chomsky to a young fan. Give me a freakin’ break. I can’t take anyone seriously who follows Chomsky. This is the same guy that doesn’t believe the Holocaust happened, etc. I also read that Bono performed for Ted Kennedy. I enjoy these two musicians, but…when I read stuff like this…it makes me want download their music instead of pay for it (which I don’t advocate). When Pearl Jam came out and started their liberal b.s….I stopped buying their music. -justaguy

  15. -S- says:

    That ad…, from

    should be being shown anywhere, everywhere…amazing that liberals just won’t see what’s in front of them. Blinded by fears and obsessions for power. If not that, then what? How can ANYone support this guy for even the Senate? I mean, if one or two of those who served with Kerry had negative opinions of him, that’d be somewhat dismissable if someone was prone to do so, but, the MAJORITY of these guys share the same opinion. First hand testimony, and liberals don’t even make a mention of these fellows, except to try to make their experiences invalid.

    And WHO is altering information “for political purposes”? I get the impression here about Kerry that he really has had one intention for a while now and that is to alter (why, is the key question here) American history to suit…what? Why do this? Among those other Senators who have pushed Kerry as the candidate, also, I now have taken a new look at them as individuals. Of all the people in the country who are available for the Presidency, they focus on Kerry…really does make me question why, given his history, given the first hand testimony of people who actually knew the guy in times of challenge.

  16. -S- says:

    I agree about those “entertainers” out “politicizing the art forms” — I also, like you, get turned off by the leftwing push by those you mention here, among others.

    Not that they can’t, shouldn’t express themselves but that, as entertainers, they do have a privileged position within our culture and societies, worldwide. So, by using that privilege for specific political purposes, they weaken their creative voice, their positions as entertainers becomes one of activists and that’s what bugs people who only access these folks by paid venue (concerts, CDs, films, print).

    Springstein’s not someone I pay much attention to any longer, creatively, and Bono doing what he’s doing seems to actually work against the message by U2…so now both of them look creatively hypocritical, like forgeries of one venue or another.

    I don’t have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion(s), but, that’s not what these people are doing once they start speaking on behalf of a candidate and a campaign…they take on an “unofficial official” personna when they act like this, and that is what then makes their original popularity as ENTERTAINERS then conflicted, if not hypocritical, and therefore false in the perceptions of others. You and I aren’t alone in this perception, to put it mildly.

    It really does look to me that people today among the American Left are confused about what is “right” and what is “wrong” and who made what, what and why. They do appear to focus on America and Americans as the nemesis for whatever their goal is, but it’s some idealization about a Utopia that is, actually, not a good ideal but a bad one, some standard of monotony, cult of personality, that is oppressive and destructive, not at all creatively liberating or unusually insightful. I lag at adding this, but, it truly is the standard of socialism as a heavy weight that crushes the individual.

    That these “entertainers” engage as they do to my ear, eye and perception seems to indicate their lapse in creative abilities. I really dislike having to label Springstein and Bono thus, but, they seem to have degenerated into Lounge Lizards.

  17. -S- says:

    Ha, talking about that very thing…Sharon Stone was just mentioned on FOX as having said that “George Bush” “prevented” her from engaging in a filmed lesbian love scene with Hallie Berry in “Catwoman,” that Stone didn’t perform/engage in the scene because she blames “the America” that exists “because of George Bush.”

    She’s SUPPOSED to have a high I.Q. On the other hand, I can’t believe anyone with the intelligence above a bunny rabbit would attempt to draw that conclusion, to make that foolish a statement.

    Stone alleges that Bush prevents her from filming the “love scene” that she says she felt/feels motivated to do…she says she wanted to/wants to (otherwise physically be intimate with) Hallie Berry but blames Bush because she hasn’t.

    Wait, wasn’t she saying it was in the context of a FILM that she withheld her base motivations? Ohh, she finds Barry sexually attractive but Bush is to blame because Stone feels reservations…I’m confused.

    On the other hand, people such as Stone are confused, just based upon what they say, themselves.

    It does emphasize to me over and over again, every time I hear or read statements like that, just how much the liberal left is out of touch with American humanity. They appear to exist in some isolated privilege, a reality that’s compounded and encouraged by peers of similar perceptions, but it’s cloistered to such an extent that no influences ever get through to them that they’re very much in some altered reality, compared to other humans.

    I know, I KNOW, that my perspective here is ridiculed by many in the left entertainment community, I’m so aware of it, but, instead, it is they who are out of touch. They decry their loss of industry but don’t seem to comprehend that the industrial changes are indicative of audience disenchantment with what they’re providing, what they’re, ahem, selling. People don’t want to financially contribute beyond a certain point of insult. So many in entertainment assume that the special care they receive as entertainers is not the natural state of human response to who they are, but mere industrial helps. So, they assume some mega-position that doesn’t really exist, within society, as “spokespeople.” It’s offensive to most others outside entertainment industry concentrations or related interests.

  18. -S- says:

    Error in above:

    What I meant to write is that:

    “…So many in entertainment assume that the special care they receive as entertainers IS the natural state of human response to who they are, and aren’t aware that it is mere industrial helps. So, they assume some mega-position that doesn’t really exist, within society, as “spokespeople…”

  19. justaguy says:

    I agree totally.

    Check it out —

    I’m gonna have to buy the book.


  20. justaguy says:

    The stuff about Cambodia is really disturbing in that excerpt. -justaguy