And The Oscar Goes To...

In March of 2003, Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine won the Oscar for Best Documentary. It was the first popular documentary to win in something like thirty years. Then again, it was the first popular documentary in something like thirty years.

Of course, this year is very different. Not only is there F911, but other polemic documentaries, such as Control Room, The Corporation, The Hunting of the President, Outfoxed, and Super Size Me have also received, or are about to receive, significant, widespread attention.

Let's enter into a wonderful hypothetical world for a moment where all six have been nominated for Best Documentary. Which one do you think would win? Which one would you want to win? Take the poll, and discuss.

Tags: Media (all tags)

Comments

5 Comments

Re: And The Oscar Goes To...
Of the bunch, I've seen only F-9/11 and Outfoxed.  In terms of preaching to the unconverted, Outfoxed isn't all that great, so F-9/11 wins in a walk.  I am looking forward to seeing the Hunting of the President.
by drlimerick 2004-07-22 05:55PM | 0 recs
Not Control Room
I was a little disappointed in that. I thought it could've been done better.
by claw 2004-07-23 08:21AM | 0 recs
The list would never be the nominees but ...
The Corporation
by eRobin 2004-07-23 09:43AM | 0 recs
And the Oscar Goes To
[Chris wrote:]

>In March of 2003, Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine won the Oscar for Best Documentary. It was the first popular documentary to win in something like thirty years.

This is true.

[Chris also wrote:]

>Then again, it was the first popular documentary in something like thirty years.

This is not true. For example, there was an excellent popular documentary maybe 20 years ago called The Thin Blue Line, about  police officers. AND there was Michael Moore's brilliant first documentary, Roger & Me.

Neither was nominated for an Oscar in the year it appeared, but that was not because they weren't very good and pretty popular. The reason they were not nominated was because the procedure for nominating Oscars for best Documentary (and Shorts) was very weird, and different from other films--people had to attend private screenings, or something like that. Because of these odd procedures, popular documentaries were often overlooked in the nominations. Critics like Roger Ebert complained about those oversights too; I distrinctly recall him being sharply critical that neither Thin Blue Line nor Roger and Me were nominated for Best Documentary when, according to Ebert, they were clearly the Best Documentary of their respective years.

I believe by the time Bowling for Columbine came out, the Academy had corrected their odd Documentary nominating procedures.

BTW, I though Fahrenheit 9-11 was an excellent film, cinematically, so incredibly emotionally powerful, and with an epic quality Moore's earlier works lacked. I also think we have to give Moore a lot of credit for GETTING a lot of this rather amazing footage--Bush's infamous 7 minutes, for instance, and Wolfowitz with the spit on the comb, and some of the stuff in Iraq. So anyway, I perfectly understand why this film won the award at Cannes. I think it should be nominated as Best Film for the 2003 Oscars and think it WILL be IF Kerry wins the election. (If Bush wins, some Hollywooders may be afraid to nominate it)

by sybil 2004-07-23 04:18PM | 0 recs
You left out "The Letter"
Excellent documentary on racism, media exploitation and common decency in small-town America (specifically Lewiston, Maine and the Somali refugees who settled there, ironically just a couple towns over from the home town of one of the "Black Hawk Down" casualties.)

Non-polemic, remarkably edited, lets the protagonists tell the story, gripping and moving and horrifying and ultimately life-affirming and hopeful. Has won awards all over the place.

by rationalist 2004-07-24 05:37PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads