Is anyone unhappy about the Oscars' snub of Michael Moore?

Let's be honest. Is there really anyone who is up in arms over Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" being left off the Academy's 15-title short list for the best feature documentary? In fact, I would argue that when it comes to a snub of a much-ballyhooed film, the Academy has never managed to make more people happier. Let me count the ways: 

Conservatives are positively dancing in the street, with the New York Post's Lou Lumenick leading the way, gloating over the fact that Moore's "paen to socialism" missed the cut. Next to seeing Barack Obama's health care bill fail, it's hard to imagine any other event making everyone's day on the right, which has been hammering away at Moore for years, always looking for a new chink in his armor.

Liberals aren't all that sad either. For many on the left, Moore has been something of a quiet embarassment for years, coming off more like a carny barker than a serious filmmaker as he has made the media rounds, shilling for his latest Big Event documentary. Liberals like filmmakers who fall into the self-effacing category. When it comes to obnoxious self-promotion, Moore is just as shrill as Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck or anyone on the right.

The Academy itself is way too coy to ever take sides on something like this, but I'm betting the vast majority of its membership is pretty delighted by the Moore snub as well. Remember, his breakthrough film, "Roger and Me," wasn't nominated by the Academy either, largely because Academy insiders have always been wary of Moore's overtly personal "the filmmaker as star" style of documentary filmmaking. Lord knows, the Academy has no problem with Moore's politics. But its purists prefer giving the Oscar's seal of approval to more obscure progressive films, as is evidenced by the short-list nods to socially relevant films like "The Cove," "Food, Inc." and "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers."

And last but not least, America's ever-dwindling array of movie critics are positively ecstatic. On Metacritic, "Capitalism" earned a 61 score, which is pretty dreary considering that even a mainstream studio programmer like "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" scored five points higher. If you read the reviews, you'll see that many critics view Moore as being far more talented at marketing than at movie making, especially with "Capitalism," which meandered all over the global landscape in search of a common thread for its story.

So, finally, the Academy has gotten something right. They've found just the right filmmaker to snub without ticking anyone off in the process.

RELATED STORY: FRUSTRATION OVER OSCAR'S DOCUMENTARY SHORT LIST

Photo of Michael Moore by Sean Kilpatrick / Associated Press

Comments

[Lou Lumenick]

Patrick, just for the record I am one of those liberals who regard him as an embarassment to the cause.

[m zier]

Moore, whether you are left or right, does not appear to be a desirable poster child for any group...and he gets rich on his films and he will never acknolwedge his financial gains that result in his hypocriticism (sp?).....

[Eric of Reseda]

Not happy about the snub. Moore has more courage than any number of filmmakers, politicians, pundits, etc., combined. "Roger & Me?" Well, he warned us about GM 20 years ago. "Bowling for Columbine"? Few movies combine such hilarity with such darkness. "Farenheit 9/11"? C'mon. Great film, and there's more truth in that film than what we got form Capitol Hill. Moore somehow became the the guy people love to hate, and largely because people jumped on some bandwagon. he is wonderful on camera, and I only wish he'd be more outspoken in the media. Moore is great, and the criticism is unwarranted.

[Marge]

Writers like this are why our country is going downhill. Pure ignorance and journalism based on fear. Michael Moore's movies are the truth. Have you seen Capitalism? If there is anything to snub it is self-interested, greedy Media looking for a story. Media, government and business = corruption. Of course your only way to get people to advertise in your paper is if you write articles that do not speak for the people or the truth. Your only interest is trying and put more money in your pocket.

[c wag]

In my little town of cookeville,tn. Carmike Highland 12 refused to show the movie. I even checked the closest place it showed. Carmike censored the movie from being shown in my area. So, good movie or not I'll have to wait for the DVD.

[Greg Varner]

I, for one, am unhappy. I can't think of a more important, timely, or high-profile documentary this year. Perhaps it will get a "Best Picture" nod.

[Cesar]

I actually enjoyed the film. It made perfect sense and showed us what is really going on in this idiotic country we live in. A lot of the people in the theater enjoyed it as well. Not many films I go to get a round of applause after the film is over.

[Lars]

Moore is indeed the Coulterbeck of the left. An embarassment to a thoughful liberal. Good for the academy.

[Vicki Percival]

Michael Moore is the next Lou Dobbs...not afraid of politically incorrect issues!!!! Let's go Michael..the Oscars are now for PU>>>>>>>sys...People afraid to upscale global crporations..................

[Christian Toto]

I think we're talking about some creative history here ... Moore has been the darling of the Left and liberals for quite some time. His 'Fahrenheit 9/11" screening in DC was stuffed with major Democratic players. He sat next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC (2004? I'm not sure the exact year). He's been subject to more fawning press over the years than most filmmakers.

And yet ... now people are starting to realize he's not the documentarian they thought. Why? That's fodder for a well researched article.