Should Fahrenheit 9/11 Be Allowed To Compete For A Best Picture Oscar?

[Antonio]

Okay, I finally caught Michael Moore's two-hour tirade on DVD this past week, and although it is one of the best films of the year, I believe its competition should be limited to the Documentary category. Depending on how the election goes, I have a feeling that those pissed-off left wing extremist celebs will be championing this film all the way to the Kodak Theatre, while more worthy underdogs like KILL BILL-VOLUME TWO are left out in the cold.

Plus, what didn't work for HOOP DREAMS shouldn't be allowed this year.

[Briare Rabbit]

It's a movie like any other. It should be able to compete in best picture should Moore choose it to compete there. Movies shouldnt be stricken to categories- and the same thing for best animated and foreign film applies.

[ANavissi500]

I say yes, not because I think it deserves it, but because the categories shouldn't be restrictive.

[Shockwave]

Not a chance in hell. Preference shouldnt be given to a documentary just becuase its political.

[Mav-Man]

I could go either way.........like a bisexual:)

[Haddonfield]

I say yes but for only one reason, because it is a movie. Regardless of its subject matter ALL movies should be concidered.

But I dont think its good enough anyways.

[Cyclonus]

A question--there's no rule that eliminates any particular kind of film from being nominated for Best Picture, is there?

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
A question--there's no rule that eliminates any particular kind of film from being nominated for Best Picture, is there?

Unless it's a short film, there is not.

Like I said: if Moore wants to compete with the big boys, than why not?

[A.J. Hakari]

Yep.

[ilovemovies]

I prefer movies to documentaries for sure and Fahrenheit 9/11, though a very good doc, is no exception.

Having said that I agree with everything Briare Rabbit said.

[Slim_JGE]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
It's a movie like any other. It should be able to compete in best picture should Moore choose it to compete there. Movies shouldnt be stricken to categories- and the same thing for best animated and foreign film applies.

Agreed. Films should be able to compete in their specific categories as most of you think, but ANY film should be able to compete in the best picture category regardless of genre, or subject matter.

[AceD]

Yes, it should be allowed. NO WAY it should get a nomination, because it doesn't deserve it. A decent doc, but not nearly one of the year's best movies.

However, if Kerry is elected, I wouldn't put it past the Acadamy to give it a nomination/win to pat themselves on the back as if they contributed it it.

[wyodebbie]

In the doc entry only!!!

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by wyodebbie
In the doc entry only!!!

Elaborate.

[therealjohng]

I think it should be allowed as a contender, but I don't think it's worthy of a nomination. It's one of the worst films of the year.

[Lazy Boy]

Sure, why not? I don't think documentaries should be discriminated from the Best Picture race, as well as animated films. That doesn't mean it deserves to be in the final five, as it would eliminate several possible (better) candidates from making that final spot.

[free]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
It's a movie like any other. It should be able to compete in best picture should Moore choose it to compete there. Movies shouldnt be stricken to categories- and the same thing for best animated and foreign film applies.

I completely agree, and I don't think it would even be an issue if not for the subject matter.

[Pumpkin Smeller]

No.

I'll tell you why. There is a reason there is a special category for documentaries. If documentaries were allowed to be nominated for best picture, the Academy Award winner for best picture would often become nothing more than a political battle, and who honestly wants politics to infringe upon art?

[SAI]

If people sincerely believe it is one of the 5 best films of the year (I dont' not by a long shot) they should be allwoed to nominate it as such but, given the crop I've seen this year, I'd not even nominate it for Best Documentary Feature

[Cronos]

i dont see why it souldnt be allowed to be nominated for best picture

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by Pumpkin Smeller
No.

I'll tell you why. There is a reason there is a special category for documentaries. If documentaries were allowed to be nominated for best picture, the Academy Award winner for best picture would often become nothing more than a political battle, and who honestly wants politics to infringe upon art?

Now, were it ANY other year, except this one, would you still feel this way? Not all documentaries are pure politics. Would a movie like Spellbound, Kid Stays in the Picture or Super Size Me be restricted to doc. because it would become a giant "politics" battle?

With that said, would a movie about, say, George Bush, a biopic, would you want it out of BP because it is "political.

This "restriction" rule is retarded.

[Pumpkin Smeller]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
Now, were it ANY other year, except this one, would you still feel this way? Not all documentaries are pure politics. Would a movie like Spellbound, Kid Stays in the Picture or Super Size Me be restricted to doc. because it would become a giant "politics" battle?

With that said, would a movie about, say, George Bush, a biopic, would you want it out of BP because it is "political.

This "restriction" rule is retarded.

I actually don't have a problem with a documentary that is not so blatantly politically slanted, but, lets be honest here . . . do you really think Fahrenheit 9/11 would be judged by the academy from a purely objective standpoint? Probably not. This movie has fired up the most heated controversy of any other documentary that I know of . . . and how are most people divided in this controversy? Along their political party lines . . . that's how.

Anyway, Fahrenheit 9/11 does not even qualify as a documentary if you go by the strictest definition of the word. The film is more of a propaganda piece. Note that I am not promoting a political viewpoint here. Republicans put out plenty of propaganda as well. I'm just calling it what it is.

So the question really should not be, "Should the movie be nominated for Best Picture, or Best Documentary." The real question is, "Should the academy nominate propaganda films?"

Anyway, that is my humble opinion. If anyone thinks it's stupid, they are free to think that.

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by Pumpkin Smeller
I actually don't have a problem with a documentary that is not so blatantly politically slanted, but, lets be honest here . . . do you really think Fahrenheit 9/11 would be judged by the academy from a purely objective standpoint? Probably not. This movie has fired up the most heated controversy of any other documentary that I know of . . . and how are most people divided in this controversy? Along their political party lines . . . that's how.

Anyway, Fahrenheit 9/11 does not even qualify as a documentary if you go by the strictest definition of the word. The film is more of a propaganda piece. Note that I am not promoting a political viewpoint here. Republicans put out plenty of propaganda as well. I'm just calling it what it is.

So the question really should not be, "Should the movie be nominated for Best Picture, or Best Documentary." The real question is, "Should the academy nominate propaganda films?"

Anyway, that is my humble opinion. If anyone thinks it's stupid, they are free to think that.

Well, I really don't think it should be nominated in either category, as it blows but I just think that if Moore wants it in Best Picture, than he should be able to enter it there. Thats what I thought you were saying.

Of course some would vote for it based on purely political opinions, because it is a very politically charged film. I also agree it isnt really a documentary, even less than Bowling for Columbine.