Berg's Family Discusses Michael Moore Footage (Moore "a total class act")

[Barrett808]

Berg's Family Discusses Michael Moore Footage
Brother Credits Moore's Handling Of Footage
POSTED: 12:20 pm EDT May 29, 2004

In a 16-minute interview shot for Michael Moore's latest film, slain American Nicholas Berg talks about his travels to Africa and the work he hoped to find as an independent businessman in Iraq, Berg's brother said Saturday.

Moore's crew shot the footage at an Iraqi business conference in Arlington, Va., on Dec. 4, David Berg said. Nicholas Berg's decapitated body was found in Baghdad on May 8, and a video of his killing was posted on an Islamic militant Web site several days later.

Moore on Thursday confirmed he had footage of Berg -- shot for the anti-President Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- but said he would share it only with the family. Nicholas Berg's brother and sister praised Moore for that, and said they would also keep the footage private.

David Berg said it was "weird seeing Nick talk," but described the interview footage as dry. He said the first thing he noticed was that his younger brother -- who was most comfortable in casual clothes -- wore a suit.

"It's one of the few times I've seen him dressed up, and he looked really good," David Berg said.

(more)

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/3360942/detail.html

[chookie]

1. "Michael Moore has really been a total class act "

David Berg said Moore has handled the situation with "dignity, respect and discipline."

"Michael Moore has really been a total class act with this whole thing," David Berg said. "He could have sold this to the media or stuck it in his movie."

Not a surprise. Mike's got a big, golden heart. I think he handled this odd episode appropriately and respectfully.

[gmoney]

3. Anything to the MM "Prima Donna" reports?

I read a few terrible reports about Moore being a real prima donna when he does speeches and stuff, as well as becoming a greedhead. Not trying to troll, and I hope Mike is keeping his feet on the ground despite all his success, but the stories have been a little disturbing. Granted, the sources haven't been rock-solid.

Of course, I do wonder why, if the budget for F911 was only $6Million, why didn't Moore just pay for it himself and own 100% instead of turning it over to corporate control? I know there will be a lot of advertising and distribution costs, too, but isn't that what the distributor is for?

[Raenelle]

4. I've seen Michael Moore speak, and he's nothing like what you've heard

The worst you can say about him is that he was a Nader supporter in 2000. And I wouldn't take any bets on his longevity if he flies in small airplanes.

When I saw him, it was a book signing, and there were so many people there that they told us that he would give a second talk to accommodate those who couldn't fit in for the first. The second talk, 2 hours later, was full. He was absolutely wonderful, and he stayed very late that night signing books.

[Columbia]

5. I don't suppose it was this book-signing

http://www.kynn.com/politics/moore/

[DrWeird]

10. Oh, what an asshole.

How dare he sign autographs.

:eyes:

Really, the more desparate MM's detracters get the funnier they look.

[Columbia]

13. Yeah you're right

Screw the workers, I just want a scribble of ink from the great Michael Moore.

[Rex]

29. Had me until this line...

"The crowd started to grumble and complain. They wouldn't get the great Michael Moore's signature on their books. That's just not fair. "There are more of us than there are of them!" called a voice near the start of the line. "They can't stop us!""

Great Michael Moore? As in Peter the Great? Alexander the Great? Ivan the Terrible? I love it when a writer lets their true agenda slip.

Thanks for the Great read, it was entertaining. :eyes:

[Columbia]

34. Yeah, who needs the truth, when you have an infallible hero.

Anything negative against him must be automatically false. Michael Moore would never do such a thing.

[Rex]

35. Infallible hero or hero envy?

Moore is not an infallible hero, at least not to me...funny you should call him that.

[Columbia]

37. He's not?

Well, he certainly seems that way to you since you can't seem to stand criticism of him.

[Rex]

38. Obviously your impression of me is wrong.

You can criticize Moore to your hearts content. I just pointed out how the author of your posted article let his true agenda be shown by sarcastically referring to Moore as the 'great Michael Moore'. Sorry if you cannot handle me pointing out that one fact.

You may fire when ready. :eyes:

[Columbia]

39. Then persuade me otherwise

Actually the author is a she and her name is Kynn Bartlett (the daughter of an old science teacher of mine) and she has long been an activist on liberal issues and she also runs this progressive website - http://inlandantiempire.org/.

Now, what is her true agenda again?

[Rex]

40. I have no desire to influence your mind.

If you dislike Moore then that is your business. This lady might be a liberal and still dislike Moore...envy seems to be infectious.

Good luck trying to get anyone to argee with you, so far you're batting zero on this thread.

[Columbia]

41. Suit yourself

Here's the end of her article:

"Without mentioning the reason the cops showed up -- Michael was asked to stop for the night, and simply did not -- Moore implies that this was some sort of government censorship of ideas; that he was so dangerous to the nasty conservatives of bad ol' San Diego that they sent the cops to harass him; maybe even Bush was behind it! In his zeal to make a mountain out of a molehill, he paints himself as an innocent victim oppressed by San Diego.

I still like Michael Moore, even if my respect for him is twice-tarnished. I think he got caught up too much in the fun and enjoyment of signing the books, and he became thoughtless about the needs of others -- the janitors (who he doesn't mention at all) and the Activist San Diego organizers. He is way too quick to leap on the tack of "I was victimized by the police!", presumably because he feels it would give him some sort of street crediblity, or maybe just because he was clueless about what was going on. But his inflammatory account paints a picture with little connection to what really went on, even if it might sell more books by claiming he "just escaped being arrested by the San Diego police."

If he'd called it a night just 5 minutes before, there wouldn't have been an issue. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Lay, Ashcroft, and the rest of that corrupt bunch aren't the only people who can be Stupid White Men at times. Sigh."

The truth shall set your free...

[jdj]

49. Clinton got his dick sucked.

But he also balanced the budget and left us with a 5 trillion dollar surplus, among other things. Which is more important?

I don't care if Moore is a stark raving asshole, it's his message that is important, and his talent for conveying this message has been unmatchable from the beginning.

The only person I know of that is portrayed as an all-around likeable guy a majority of the time is George W. Bush. Grown ups know better than to place such a high value on personality.

[psychopomp]

36. PPFFFFhhhhhhhttttt!!!!!!!!

[msmcghee]

6. A possible reason . .

. . is that some people have a greater sense of responsibility and are therefore more motivated and will do a better job when they are trusted with an investor's money - and they know it.

It's like most of us would not have done as well in school as we did if it were not for our parents' expectations (and money).

Not everyone is like that. Some are the opposite. But I suspect Michael is.

[msmcghee]

11. Just in case anyone misunderstands . .

. . I am suggesting why he chose to use investor's money rather than his own to produce F911.

Not why he chose not to capitalize on the Berg footage - which I agree along with the Berg family, is really a class act.

[leesa]

28. Why shouldn't he?

[msmcghee]

31. Which one?

I'll assume you are asking why he shouldn't use investor's money.

I can't think of any ethical reason why not.

OTOH it is harder to maintain control of your project. But that depends somewhat on who the investor is, how much control they demand, and what kind of arrangements you have made.

Also, the project is more likely to go south if too many egos are competing. These things always start out very friendly and with a sense of shared duty. But, as success finally comes into view it's been my experience that everyone who possibly can will make a bid to takeover the project and control the profits.

But there's nothing unethical about that approach IMO.

[SmokingJacket]

20. The guy's a human being, not a saint.

Most of our greatest artists, politicians, and other public figures are far from perfect. Fact is, he does good work.

Bill Clinton: great president, flawed husband.
Van Gogh: great artist, tortured soul.
T. S. Eliot: brilliant poet, anti-Semite.

There are few saints in the world. No one has spoken as loudly and cogently as Moore on left-wing issues. The guy's movie could bring down Bush -- so what if he's a prima donna, egotist, or whatever? You don't have to live with him.

Appreciate the work.

[5thGenDemocrat]

48. I ran in the same alternative newspaper circuit as Moore did

Twenty years ago (give or take). I worked for the Bay Area Review here in Saginaw while Moore still ran the Michigan (Flint) Voice -- before he went to San Francisco for his unhappy stint with Mother Jones.
I didn't know him well. He's an okay guy == a bit of a prima donna but still blue collar. I never thought of him as unduly egotistical or arrogant at all.
He WAS an absolute slob -- he's cleaned up a mite for his film career.
I don't know that we would be "friends." His personality and mine would clash in fairly short order. But the Michael Moore you see today is consistent with the guy I knew here in Flint and the Tri-Cities.
John
I'm glad he's done well. He's earned it fair and square.
It is now 20 days, 13 hours and 40 minutes to FUNDAY.

[Dookus]

26. it's extremely rare for any filmmaker to use

his or her own money to make a movie. Hell, even Woody Allen doesn't finance his own films.

[TexasBushwhacker]

33. Because that's how the business works

While I'm sure that Michael Moore is financially secure, there's simply no reason to cash out his investments, mortgage his home, etc. in order to fund this film unless he absolutely has to. Occassionally directors will do that in order to have complete creative control. Sometimes it works out, as was the case for Francis Ford Coppola when he made Apocolypse Now, but he didn't start making any profits on that film until it was released a second time. It ended up making him a very wealthy man, but he almost went bankrupt.

Moore originally had funding from Mel Gibson's Icon, but then they pulled out. Miramax funded Moore's "The Big One", which was pretty much a documentary of the issues he covered in "Downsize This". It didn't make a big profit, but Miramax thought that Fahrenheit 9/11 was a good investment and provided the $6 million for the completion of the film in exchange for the US distribution rights. BTW, the cost of prints and advertising can easily double the cost of the film.

[crossroads]

8. I think so too...

Moore deserves a lot of credit for this unselfish act of decency.

:thumbsup:

[flewellyn]

2. Moore IS a class act.

He's clearly got real compassion, real sensitivity, and a real sense of what's appropriate and what isn't, as far as public disclosure. I understand completely why he didn't make this video available to the general public, and I heartily approve.

I really really really want to see Fahrenheit 9/11.

[Columbia]

7. What is the reason?

"I understand completely why he didn't make this video available to the general public, and I heartily approve."

[FlaGranny]

9. Sensitivity to the needs of a grieving family

by any chance?

[Columbia]

12. Doubtful

Letter to the editor, Rocky Mountain News:

Recently, a co-worker asked me if I had seen the movie Bowling for Columbine yet, I told her absolutely not! My answer surprised her, given the fact my son, Matthew, was one of the 13 murdered during the deadliest school shooting in our country's history. I explained to her that prior to the public release of the movie the families of the injured and dead were invited by Michael Moore to attend a preview screening. How thoughtful.

Our family and others considered attending because we were genuinely interested in his message to the public regarding gun control and school violence.

However, once we discovered he was going to charge us admission we refrained from doing so.

It's laughable that Moore attempts to portray himself as an anti-establishment liberal who is the voice of the common folk, when in fact he is no better than the greedy capitalists he shuns. Maybe now that he has made millions of dollars off the blood of our children he could toss a DVD or two our way to view.

Ann M. Kechter
Evergreen

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

14. Are you sure about that? Just because some wackjob writes

it, does not make it so.

I seem to recall other families praising MM for NOT charging them.

[Columbia]

16. I didn't write it

Matthew Kechter's mother, Ann, did.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

17. No, I know that... but have we heard that from other victim's

families, or does she have an agenda?

[Columbia]

18. I did a google and didn't come up with anyone else

[DemBones DemBones]

15. Charge admission to Columbine victims' families?

Sadly, that sounds consistent with other accounts of Michael Moore, accounts that show he can be a NO class act.

I'm glad he behaved properly in this case but it was anticlimactic to learn that Nick Berg was filmed back in early December in the U.S., not shortly before his death in Iraq, as the initial story led one to believe. I don't know if Moore was responsible for the miscommunication but it wouldn't surprise me if he was.

I applaud Moore's efforts to bring public attention to the greedheads who run too much of the world. I wish he were less of an egotistical jerk, though.

[hlthe2b]

19. Even with the best intentions, oversights will occur...

It would be one thing if the COlumbine families had written Moore and asked to arrange a free screening (and was turned down), but I don't think it fair to assume such arrangements would be automatic. So much Columbine coverage locally made nearly all the family members of those lost a household name and I think some assumed that was the case nationally. Perhaps this is partially at play in the assumptions this family member may have made. Regardelss, I don't see any evid3ence presented that Moore has been intentionally insensitive-- quite the opposite, actually.

[JNelson6563]

32. I'll look for you to take issue with

a far worse example considered a star right here at DU in the future then.

Julie

[Democat]

21. Do you also believe quotes from "veterans" saying Kerry evil, Bush great?

Who knows if that person, if she really wrote the letter, is a right wing activist?

One unconfirmed letter to the editor of the paper and you are willing to attack Moore over it?

What do you think of all the "veterans" who are against Kerry in the election?

Do you think Kerry is a bad person too?

[Columbia]

23. Yes, I know several who think that way

"Who knows if that person, if she really wrote the letter, is a right wing activist?"

She could be, but ultimately she is the mother of a slain child and I think that is something far greater than politics.

"One unconfirmed letter to the editor of the paper and you are willing to attack Moore over it?"

One blip on the radar may seem meaningless, but add them all together and they hold a greater significance.

"What do you think of all the "veterans" who are against Kerry in the election?"

I think they are excercising their right to free speech and association. What does this have to do with Michael Moore?

"Do you think Kerry is a bad person too?"

Well I certainly think he is far from perfect, but he's better than Bush. Again, where is the relevance?

[donco6]

22. I don't believe it.

These people have been fountains of misinformation since the event occurred.

[Columbia]

24. Families of slain children have been fountains of misinformation?

[donco6]

43. These particular ones certainly have.

I live here.

[Columbia]

44. Interesting

Could you enlighten us further?

[Cocoa]

25. assume this is misinformation

Moore does have flaws, but at the same time he is a huge target of false rumors.

The big one is that he made up the story about the Saudis being flown out of the country. For about two years, the line was that this was a false story, I heard it all over the place including Snopes, who has since kind-of-but-not-quite-retracted their harsh item on Moore.

Anyway, this Columbine thing smells like a lie that a lazy editor failed to catch.

[0007]

45. I don't buy this story that Ann M. Kechter wrote.

This sounds like freeper propagada.

[Cocoa]

27. how many people would do this?

Imagine if a Stone Phillips or a Geraldo Rivera had this tape.

We'd be seeing months of teases for the big show when the Berg Tape would be played, probably during Sweeps Week. :puke:

[Dover]

30. Did the Bergs do an autopsy on their son's remains?

I just wonder if it had been possible to determine when he'd died and how. (I'm wondering if he was already dead prior to infamous video).

[Judi Lynn]

42. Couldn't be clearer!

From Barrett808's article:

Given Moore's political leanings, David Berg said he was "really nervous" about what the footage of his brother might show. Nicholas Berg was in favor of bringing democracy to the Middle East, his family has said, but David Berg said his brother wasn't overtly political.

"He went to Iraq because he had certain beliefs about helping people in messed up situations, but it's not like he was trying to help the Bush administration," David Berg said.

David Berg said Moore has handled the situation with "dignity, respect and discipline."

"Michael Moore has really been a total class act with this whole thing," David Berg said. "He could have sold this to the media or stuck it in his movie."
(snip)

You don't have to get an ouija board to divine the message here. Michael Moore was very respectful in the way he conducted his dealings with David Berg and his family.

We ALL know it could have gone far differently had Moore been someone else. He could have really exploited this film, and he chose to reject that idea.

Moore's detractors are right-wing psychopaths who violently despise anyone who presents a momentary stumbling block to their hate-filled, power-craving, bloodthirsty ambitions. Not content to get over it, they need to try to bully others who believe Michael's doing very well. Now THAT's rigid.

[jmcgowanjm]

46. the odds of Moore, Berg, Moussaoui being closely linked

The film will have to be made public.

This is a Zapruder film.

[K8-EEE]

47. I Have TWO Thumbs Up MM Expreriences...He IS A Class Act!

My husband (who is a voting member of the Academy) sat next to him at a screening for one of the other nominated shorts. You have to verify that you've seen ALL the nommed shorts theatrically, so in order to vote, he had to go; but he said he was the nicest, most low-key guy, he had a nice talk with him.

The other one is when I emailed MM about a lot of the soldiers on Books For Soldiers requesting BFC & Dude...and he got back to me within an hour and ended up making his stuff free to anyone sending a military address. In his email to me he said that the letters he gets from our soldiers routinely reduce him to tears.

I really think, regardless of what you think of his work (I love it, especially Roger & Me) this guy is 100% the real deal...really sincere.