In an interview last October 9th on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, the renowned and award-winning documentarian, Michael Moore lied vulgarly about his encounter with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez during the Venice Film Festival this past September. In the interview, Moore responds to Kimmel’s request for an explanation of a photo of Moore with President Hugo Chávez. Apparently embarrased about the encounter with one of Latin America’s most prominent and influential heads of state, Moore proceeded to completely make up a fairy-tale, attempting to pass it off as reality.
With a straight face, Moore stated he met President Chávez at 2 o’clock in the morning, after he and his wife had settled into bed in their Venice hotel room and heard a scandalous noise coming from the floor above. Moore states that he called down to the reception to find out “what the hell was going on”. “It’s the president of Venezuela”, the hotel clerk allegedly told Moore. Well, Michael couldn’t believe it, so despite his wife telling him “don’t go”, Moore set out, determined to find out if the true source of the scandal was really the Venezuelan president, the polemic Hugo Chávez.
Incrediously, Moore says he went upstairs and knocked right on Chávez’s door and a large man answered, who Moore claims was the president’s “bodyguard”. Chávez was right behind him and caught a glimpse of Moore and yelled out “Michael Moore, come on in!”. Anyone who has ever traveled or been close to President Chávez knows very well that it is absolutely impossible to just “go knock on his door”. Presidential security lines the hallways, elevators and all entrance points. Take it from someone who knows first hand. Moore’s story is complete and utter fiction. Also the man Moore identified in the interview as Chávez’s “bodyguard” is actually Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro, but hey, all latinos look alike!
The tale continues. Moore says he entered the room and a “bottle and a half of tequila later”, he was writing Chávez’s speeches! Of course, Michael, all of us Latin Americans drink tequila! Man, he couldn’t even get his alcohol right in his fairy tale! Tequila is Mexican, Michael. Venezuela makes rum. Get it straight. And anyway, President Chávez does not drink at all and is well known for his anti-alcohol position. But in Moore’s story, latinos are all a bunch of partiers! No work, just party, drinks and fun at 2am!
Moore is exceptionally full of himself towards the end of the interview with Jimmy Kimmel. He says Chávez asked him for advice about his upcoming United Nations speech. Moore sternly told the South American president to “say sorry for calling Bush the devil, “el diablo”” during his last UN intervention. And to say this time around it’s all about the “hope”! Way to defend Bush, Michael! Wait, didn’t you write, direct and film Farhenheit 9/11? Right, but when someone “non-US” tells it like it is, you get way patriotic. I get it.
The interview ended with Michael fully praising himself for yet another one of President Chávez’s brilliant United Nations’ speeches. “When I heard the first few lines of his speech”, says Moore, “it was exactly what I had written for him!” Michael, Michael. Don’t you know that Chávez doesn’t use a teleprompter? Where we come from, speeches are made from the heart and soul, and not written by an elite team of 20 writers and then read from transparent screens. And Michael, do you really think that flattering yourself at this point, after you have lied so tremendously, is appropriate? Arrogantly, Moore joked that Chávez should give him a “year of free gasoline” for writing his speech. At least he didn’t say bananas.
Michael Moore has been known for his documentary work; filming and telling “facts”. But on this ocassion, Moore has turned into the worst of yellow journalists, a liar and story-teller on the big screen. Despite the fact that Moore insisted ”no cameras” document his meeting with President Chávez in Venice, the official Venezuelan presidential press snapped a few photos, and there were many witnesses. The photographs evidence a Michael Moore and a President Chávez serenly sitting in two chairs talking. No tequila, no parties, no scandals, just a normal meeting between a head of state and an invited guest. In fact, the real meeting lasted three hours, without tequila.
Michael Moore prohibited cameras in the meeting because, per his own words, it wasn’t “convenient” for him to been seen with Chávez. Despite the fact that every presidential meeting has been documented by the official press, this time, they defered to Moore with respect. He was, after all, an admired figure by millions of Venezuela. But, the presidential press was able to capture a few photos of the encounter. These photos now are the key evidence to expose Michael Moore’s vulgar lies about his meeting with President Chávez.
Moore’s comentaries about President Chávez asking him to “help” write his United Nations speech demonstrate Moore’s extreme ego. President Chávez is one of the most brilliant speakers in the world, with an immense capacity to bring together a variety of ideas while being coherent. Of course, Chávez nourishes his speeches and talks with ideas, experiencies and the writings of many, but for those of us who spend almost every day listening and watching President Chávez, we know that nobody writes his speeches, not even him! He speaks from his heart, and not from a teleprompter!
Moore’s declarations against President Chávez are offensive and insulting and a clear sign of his hipocresy and lack of ethic. How many times has we heard President Chávez acclaim Moore’s books and documentaries? And most recently, Chávez announced that Moore’s latest documentary, “Capitalism, a love story”, would premiere here in Venezuela.
Moore’s response to this admiration, acclaim and support is to lie and ridicule President Chávez and the people of Venezuela, and to attempt, lamely, to justify his meeting with Chávez. Because in the end, this whole ridiculous tale told by Moore about his “meeting” with President Chávez is an attempt to avoid admitting before the US media that he met for three hours with the South American “dictator”. And he probably learned a lot, and liked it!
Michael Moore is a most unfortunate coward.
(See the videoclip here [1])
Taken from: http://www.chavezcode.com/2009/10/lies-of-michael-moore-about-hugo-chave… [2]
Links:
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOEPzRY2H2Q&feature=player_embedded
[2] http://www.chavezcode.com/2009/10/lies-of-michael-moore-about-hugo-chavez.html
——-
Commantary: I am, frankly, dismayed to have to post this here. I did, however, watch Michael Moore’s interview with Jimmy Kimmel and his account is absolutely not credible as anybody who has some personal knowledge of Latin American can easily confirm. I have no idea why Micheal Moore told all the idiotics stories he did, but I can only come to one conclusion: he is trying to get some “brownie points” from some powerful individual or circles. This is very sad. I can forgive Michal Moore for his frankly, shall we say, naive support for the “bomber of Kosovo” Gen. W. Clark, but I cannot find an excuse of calumnies against a man whose courage Michael Moore would do well to tr to emulate. I like Moore’s movies, they are not perfect, but they are good, I think, at making the semi-comatose American public think a little about important issues. But what Michael Moore did with Jimmy Kimmel is an absolute disgrace. I have to agree with Eva – Michael Moore is a most unfortunate coward.
The Saker
Hi Saker,
I don’t understand why you guys are taking this so seriously, I watched the clip and to me it was obvious that Moore was just bullshitting (knocking on the door of a head of state just like that? really?).
I can see how the average US mouth-breather would take his comments for the truth about the meeting, but what would any “powerful individual” have to gain by having Moore “confess” to the audience that he got wasted with Chavez and wrote his UN speech? Besides, it’s just a dumb late night show, not a congressional hearing or something.
Regards.
Speaking of cowardly individuals, here is another one. The founder of Human Rights Watch says “I must publicly join the group’s critics…[Human Rights Watch] has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.”
-AA
@david: you know, I did think about that. Maybe MM was just trying to be funny. But this is what bothers me: MM cannot be unaware of the context – he just made a full movie about capitalism and he must realize that Hugo Chavez is THE symbol of resistance to capitalism and THE symbol of one of the very few articulated alternatives paths of socio-economic development: Bolivarian Socialism. Thus, if MM is serious in his opposition to capitalism, he should use EVERY OPPORTUNITY to pass the message and explain the issues. Instead, he issues an ugly screed replete with not so subtle cliches about Latin America. I would expect this kind of crap from, say, McCain or Dubya, but to hear such nonsese from MM is not funny. If MM has any decency at all he will issue an apology and explain that he was misunderstood. But if he does not do that, he is indeed an unfortunate coward, at least in my mind.
Kind regards,
VS
I’m closer to David on this.
See Eva’s blog for my full response.
Regards
Maybe Moore was doing Chavez a bigger favour with a large US audience that sees Moore, not Chavez, as THE symbol of resistance to capitalism. Ideological speeches are all great and everything, but they don’t always work and Kimmel’s audience is the last place to find a receptive audience.
Stereotypes aside, Moore talked about Chavez as a guy who likes to let loose and have a friend over for a drink. ie a human being. Moore’s persona’s and I would venture personal success in the US has been his continued connection to an important segment of working class America, who see him as someone who has not given up on their causes and not left them behind for Hollywood. He doesn’t do the theory-talk, he makes an emotive connection to people, the issues, and the need to do something different. For a brief moment, Chavez was not an ideologue in the eyes of a young white-male adult audience but someone who parties and you could have a beer with. Latin American revolutionaries learnt this a while ago – context is everything.
@Renegade Eyes: See Eva’s blog for my full response
Same here ;-)
@Matthew Hawkins: a large US audience that sees Moore, not Chavez, as THE symbol of resistance to capitalism
Good point. Then what we need to do is to show them otherwise, I suppose. Nevermind what MM did on the Jimmy Kimmel show, but the fact that he called to vote for a Democrat for President should be the real proof that MM is not the symbol some think. I would say that anybody who calls to vote for either faction of the Republicrat/Demoblican Party (“two factions of the Business Party” as Chomsky says) is part of the System and, thus, part of the problem. As David Rovics put it in his song “whoever wins in November”:
That whoever wins in November
Neolib, neocon
Stands only for death
Whichever face he has on
We will build a new world
And set us all free
Once we drive the whole lot of them
Right out of DC
I say let’s make Rovics into a symbol of *real* anticapitalism in the USA :-)