Letter to the Academy (Awards)

July 6, 2007

Bruce Davis
Executive Director
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
8949 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211

RE: ACADEMY POSITION ON INTENTIONAL DECEPTION IN DOCUMENTARY FILM

Dear Mr. Davis:

I have been asked to speak to a group of documentary filmmakers at UCLA
next Wednesday about the integrity of the documentary form and would
appreciate a statement from you regarding the Academy's position on
intentional deception, otherwise known as lying. It's a subject I raised
with you regarding "Bowling for Columbine" 4 years ago in the letter
below dated April 21, 2003.

At that time, there were claims circulating about a number of
intentional deceptions in "Columbine" that appeared to violate the
Academy's documentary eligibility rules. If true, many thought that
should have made "Columbine" ineligible for Oscar consideration, let
alone for a win. Since then, those claimed deceptions have sadly been
proven true many times over and have become widely known in common
culture through various articles, books and films, the most recent being
"Manufacturing Dissent"
and "Shooting Michael Moore" .

Since the Academy must be aware of what seemingly everybody else knows
has been found but has made no clarifying statement about standards or
taken any punitive action, the apparent conclusion being drawn by
documentary filmmakers at large is that intentional deception is
perfectly acceptable in documentary films considered by the Academy for
filmdom's highest award. As University of Texas film professor and indie
doc filmmaker John Pierson put it:

"Has documentary film pretty much reached a point where anything goes?
Nobody has any particular standards. It's tainted. There's no purity, so
why worry about these things anymore? It's all a game."

John Pierson
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0682775/
http://www.filmdependent.com/johnpierson/johnpierson.html
iW VIDEO: John Pierson on Michael Moore at SXSW '07
(South By Southwest Film Festival)

Does Pierson express the Academy's position on documentary film? It's a
natural assumption being made considering the contrast of the Academy's
inaction with the well known moves of some other prestigious
organizations in defense of the integrity of their awards.

The Recording Academy revoked the Grammy awarded Milli Vanilli when it
discovered it's eligibility rules had been violated.

Columbia University rescinded its Bancroft Prize for journalism from
Emory University professor Michael Bellesiles for committing academic
fraud in a book he wrote. He additionally had his tenure revoked and was
fired by Emory.

The list of journalism awards revoked and journalists fired for
reporting fraud -- intentional lying and deception -- is long
and is common knowledge.

It's easy to dismiss some of Moore's critics for having political
agendas, but that does not change the fact that the intentional
deceptions they are pointing out that appear to violate the Academy's
own rule against documentary fakery are real. And while some (but by no
means all) of the examples can, I think, be accepted as hyperbola or
shtick, the others are clear intentions to deceive, especially when it
comes to one of the most egregious practices of all, the demonization of
individuals by altering their words in the edit room. Among other
examples, does the Academy countenance the fact that Moore edited
together two speeches given a year apart by Charlton Heston in order to
vilify him for saying something he did not say?

As you can see from the attached "Columbine" clip, Heston is wearing two
different suits. Viewers are prevented from noticing that by the cutaway
shot. Arguments that Heston has said things like that before or even
that he has said that before are irrelevant. Heston either said what the
audience sees and hears him saying at the place and time the audience is
told he said it or he didn't. And Heston didn't. Speaking as one who has
been in journalism since 1965 at the likes of the Baltimore Sun, ABC
News, MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour and CNN, that is a firing and banning
offense.

Please understand that it is not my intention to be a wise guy
provocateur in asking you for a comment, but this is an issue that is on
many documentary filmmaker's minds now and I believe they deserve a
straight answer. Speaking for myself, I think Moore is a clever and
funny guy, but the films he's making just aren't documentaries since
they have next to nothing to do with the journalistic standards on which
that genre is based. What he's making is really reality fiction in which
video of real people and events is altered to make political / social
commentary. Perhaps it would behoove the Academy to have a separate
category for that.

Looking forward to a statement from you that can be read to the
assemblage next week.

Sincerely,
Dan Gifford
Producer, “Waco: The Rules of Engagement”

---

April 21, 2003

Bruce Davis
Executive Director
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
8949 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211

RE: “BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE” INVESTIGATION REQUEST

Dear Mr. Davis:

This is a letter I had hoped not to write. However, the disturbing
amount of credible evidence published in reputable venues such as “The
Wall Street Journal” and “Forbes” that “Bowling for Columbine”
violates the Academy rules which define a documentary feature can no
longer be ignored.

Therefore, as a prior Academy Award nominee who is concerned about the
integrity of the Oscar, I hereby respectfully request a fair and
complete formal Academy investigation as to the eligibility of this
year’s winner.

Should that investigation determine that “Bowling for Columbine”
contains, as claimed, fabricated scenes and video of real people that
has been edited to manufacture a fictional reality intended to mislead
viewers, then the director and producer of this film should be stripped
of their award. That Oscar should then be awarded to the runner up.

Failure to conduct such an investigation and act according to its
findings will diminish the stature of the Oscar, establish an
exploitable precedent for future rule violators and be grossly unfair to
the other nominees who did follow the rules. That unfairness will be
particularly bitter to those whose film would have been nominated in
place of “Bowling for Columbine.”

Even the accusation of such rule violations taints the Academy Award
with implications of politics and favoritism that are most damaging.
So, I again respectfully ask that you not delay your attention to this
matter.

Sincerely,

Dan Gifford
Producer, “Waco: The Rules of Engagement”