I am Starting to Like Lawyers
Another filmmaker with a loose grip on reality gets sued. The NY Post, via Hot Air.
A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming the portly peacenik recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America’s invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.
In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded vets.
“They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene,” Damon said yesterday. “They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition.”
posted by James B. @ 12:04 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Gotta make ya wonder how much of a slam dunk case these guys say they have if they always end up resorting to bogarting crap that doesn't belong to them only to use it out of contect.
James and Chad,
We agree!
"FahrenHYPE 9/11" did an excellent job of debunking Moore's flick, and Sgt Damon is featured in it talking about this incident. It's not at all surprising that hes going ahead with this lawsuit considering the ammount of emotion he displays when talking about Michael Moore's misrepresentation of his words. There are also other people in the same video complaining about the same types of mis-quotations and misrepresentations; personaly I hope all of them decide to sue as well. Maybe when moore is flat broke, more of the CT crowd will think twice before publishing outright lies.
I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and, IMO, the weakest part of that movie was the focus on US soldiers injuries and deaths.
What about showing Iraq as a paradise prior to invasion?
Or showing the destruction of palaces and military structures and inferring these were the areas children were just shown playing in?
Or the pipeline, which was going to be built under Clinton?
Or that tired claptrap that Saddam was a secular leader who never aided or abetted the murder of Americans?
If Michael Moore legally used NBC's footage, how does this fellow have a claim?
Apparently you missed the part where Moore twisted this man's interview into some anti-war rant. Moore gives the impression that this man is against the war when he is clearly not.
I'd say that's a pretty substantial claim.
Joan, you are obviously unfamiliar with how Michael Moore operates.
There's this crazy, new-fangled film technique called editing. It allows the film-maker to cut out parts he doesn't like or rearrange segments to make the movie more to his liking.
Obviously war isn't all that pleasant. The beef this guy has with Moore is that he cut the interview to make it look as though he PERSONALLY was against the war. Which he wasn't and isn't.
Do you honestly think that Moore showed the entire interview?? Especially if he wasn't anti-war??
Of course not. He's only going to show the shit that emphasizes the point he's trying to make in the film. Which is fine for an op-ed piece.
Not for a "documentary".
Post a Comment
<< Home