Bowling for Columbine

[TxFilmMkr]

Anyone see this yet?

I think Michael Moore is a big, fat, bleeding heart liberal moron. He should be making training videos for the ACLU. I really liked Roger & Me the first time I saw it, then I actually read the whole story behind the movie. That enlightened me on how Moore is just as one sided as any other retarded Hollywood Eutopian.

[atropfunk]

I couldn't disagree "Moore". Even if you don't agree with him, his films help make people talk about stuff they might not think about. Plus, he's a documentary filmmaker who is getting his films in theaters, something we need more of. It's films like Roger and Me that help get films like DOgtown and Z Boys and Scratch into theaters.

[TxFilmMkr]

Yeah, by definition he's a documentary filmmaker, but he's so one sided that any credibility he ever had is thrown out the window by anyone with a subjective mind. He's actually nothing more than a leftist propagandist with a movie camera.

Case in point, he's interviewing Charlton Heston in his own home and starts blaming him for the death of a 6 year old girl who was shot by a 6 year old classmate, shoving her picture in Heston's face and putting it on his wall. If he wanted to do a less "Springer-like" stunt, he would have gone to the house of the boy's uncle, who was the one who left a firearm unlocked for a child to take. But of course, Mikey boy conveniently fails to mention any part of that. After all, it's easier to blame Charlton Heston, the NRA, and all the other law abiding, responsible gun owners in America.

Roger & Me was funny in parts, but it was so ridiculously objective that it lost all credibility as a documentary and became more of an expose. The same goes for BFC.

[scottkimbal]

I stand by MM on two points. #1) the American media does overreport crime and creates a climate of fear in the US.

#2) I like the fact the he is getting debates started about gun control.


I dont like the fact the he makes false associations, for instnace, gun deaths = earning a living, gun deaths = military action, Lockheed-Martin had something to do with the Columbine Massacre.

Watching this movie actually made me more pro-gun.

[betelgeuse]

I really enjoy Michael Moore's films and books and I think that Bowling was Moore’s best film as of yet. It was different from his other films...much less tongue-in-cheek...but still very, VERY funny.
He made great points; not blaming America’s gun-problem on any one thing. Instead he made (somewhat) objective observations by exploring the facts and showing examples.
In response to his Heston thing, i thought that it was NOT an aggressive tactic on Moore’s part. Heston decided to go to pro-gun lobbies twice, both on the days of terrible tragedies, in the very towns that the tragedies occurred. I think Moore was not trying to "Springer-ize" Heston, but rather make him see the ramifications for his pro-gun beliefs. Heston, in his own right did get back at Moore. How could you not feel bad for the poor guy? I couldn't help but sympathize with Heston, who came across as such a tragic and broken old man who was desperately trying to hold on to an rural America with old-fashioned ideals...Old America. He seemed to be like a William Jennings Bryan of our time. It was quite sad.
In the end, Moore doesn't blame the gun problem on any one thing. He says that the same things that make us "Americans” make us gun-totting lunes...which i can see, but don't totally agree with.
i saw this movie with a friend of mine from Colorado Springs, (knowing that he'd never see this in Colorado), and he was moved to tears basically because he lives in the America that Moore depicts. He sees the plane that Moore showed which dropped the bombs on Christmas Day in Vietnam, he lives right next to the weapons plant, he lives near Detroit and knows kids from Columbine. And his friends and family all love their guns.
I personally was most moved by the brief history chronicling America's political tampering in other countries and the all the catastrophic tragedies that resulted. Other moments that had me was when he went to return the bullets that were lodged in Columbine survivors bodies back to K-Mart. And when he was interviewing the Principle from the school where the little girl was shot. There were many poignant moments that had me at a loss for words, but I never felt I was being manipulated into thinking one thing. Moore was fair. He let both sides do the talking…which is why Moore is so great. Moore knows when someone he is interviewing is proving his point, he knows when to shut-up and let the a$$es act like a$$-holes.
I saw this in a theater in NYC, and people were applauding and crying at the end. I really thought it was a great film, and i think Moore explored his issue sincerely and honestly and did an amazing job.
Whether you liked it or hated it; agreed or categorically disagreed with Moore...SEE IT. It is quite an education. Just see it.

[scottkimbal]

I fail to see how the NRA is responsible for gun deaths. Guns dont kill people, people do.

Michael Moore skews the facts to suit his version of the truth.

Why didnt he go after the owner of the gun which killed the little girl instead of Dick Clark.

[Madness]

You guys are all missing the point! If the gun laws weren't there in the 1st place then people wouldn't be dying!!

Case in point, he's interviewing Charlton Heston in his own home and starts blaming him for the death of a 6 year old girl who was shot by a 6 year old classmate, shoving her picture in Heston's face and putting it on his wall. If he wanted to do a less "Springer-like" stunt, he would have gone to the house of the boy's uncle, who was the one who left a firearm unlocked for a child to take.

And TxFilmmkr, he didn't blame Heston for the death of the girl, he was just saying how could he come and do a NRA rally in the girls hometown the next day!!! It's like rubbing it in!!

Man, you know what pisses me off?? People who use the same idiom over an dover, "Guns don't kill, people do" Bullsh1t!! The guns do the killing! If you sleazy Americans didn't have guns the death rate would be exponentially lower. What's it gonna take to open your eyes people?!?!?

[todd philip]

why are there two bowling for columbine threads!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[slinger]

Originally posted by betelgeuse
I really enjoy Michael Moore's films and books and I think that Bowling was Moore’s best film as of yet. It was different from his other films...much less tongue-in-cheek...but still very, VERY funny.
He made great points; not blaming America’s gun-problem on any one thing. Instead he made (somewhat) objective observations by exploring the facts and showing examples.
In response to his Heston thing, i thought that it was NOT an aggressive tactic on Moore’s part. Heston decided to go to pro-gun lobbies twice, both on the days of terrible tragedies, in the very towns that the tragedies occurred. I think Moore was not trying to "Springer-ize" Heston, but rather make him see the ramifications for his pro-gun beliefs. Heston, in his own right did get back at Moore. How could you not feel bad for the poor guy? I couldn't help but sympathize with Heston, who came across as such a tragic and broken old man who was desperately trying to hold on to an rural America with old-fashioned ideals...Old America. He seemed to be like a William Jennings Bryan of our time. It was quite sad.
In the end, Moore doesn't blame the gun problem on any one thing. He says that the same things that make us "Americans” make us gun-totting lunes...which i can see, but don't totally agree with.
i saw this movie with a friend of mine from Colorado Springs, (knowing that he'd never see this in Colorado), and he was moved to tears basically because he lives in the America that Moore depicts. He sees the plane that Moore showed which dropped the bombs on Christmas Day in Vietnam, he lives right next to the weapons plant, he lives near Detroit and knows kids from Columbine. And his friends and family all love their guns.
I personally was most moved by the brief history chronicling America's political tampering in other countries and the all the catastrophic tragedies that resulted. Other moments that had me was when he went to return the bullets that were lodged in Columbine survivors bodies back to K-Mart. And when he was interviewing the Principle from the school where the little girl was shot. There were many poignant moments that had me at a loss for words, but I never felt I was being manipulated into thinking one thing. Moore was fair. He let both sides do the talking…which is why Moore is so great. Moore knows when someone he is interviewing is proving his point, he knows when to shut-up and let the a$$es act like a$$-holes.
I saw this in a theater in NYC, and people were applauding and crying at the end. I really thought it was a great film, and i think Moore explored his issue sincerely and honestly and did an amazing job.
Whether you liked it or hated it; agreed or categorically disagreed with Moore...SEE IT. It is quite an education. Just see it.

I watched the film I agreed with some points and brought to the table some facts but Moore made a biased film which manipulated the facts. I was shocked at the Heston interview, but the thing that bothered me was the camera angles when Moore wants to talk to Heston about the little girl. If it was happening 'live' then we would've saw one camera in the shots since Moore claims it was two. If it was a movie you could do those shots, but if you watch it again you have to realize that Moore staged that final part.

And The NRA rallies. It's like The Simpsons episode when Homer goes on Rock Bottom. Watch again. The footage is from a meeting after the Denver one. (rewind and watch Heston has a different suit on) And the Denver one was scheduled well in advance. They did a 'low profile' in Denver cancelling all other events related to the rally. The one in Flint wasn't NRA related but to deal with Bush and Gore. No NRA.

As a Canadian I enjoyed watching him visit Ontario (perhaps he should've visited elsewhere not the Centre of the Universe, Sarnia and Windsor.) We lock our doors,but at night. During the day when you are home you leave it unlocked. But when you go out yeah ya lock it. I guess Americans lock it when they're at home during the day. As for the zero homicide rate in Windsor I find that questionable.

The cartoon was great. I did like some parts and just like the film JFK [which is in my top 10 but is movie, not a Oscar winner for best doc] Bowling adjusts the facts and alters what really happened.

Now is Dick Clark a douchebag? Well he did seem to be busy but as soon as his restuarant was mentioned he heard enough and wanted to get away.

I did wonder what happened to the young black child that killed this girl. Where is the family in all this? Turns out the family has problems and the child had already injured a fellow student before.

If You Watch The Documentary, atleast read this (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

[Johnnys Apples]

Originally posted by TxFilmMkr
Anyone see this yet?

I think Michael Moore is a big, fat, bleeding heart liberal moron. He should be making training videos for the ACLU. I really liked Roger & Me the first time I saw it, then I actually read the whole story behind the movie. That enlightened me on how Moore is just as one sided as any other retarded Hollywood Eutopian.

I couldn't agree more.:cool:

[Johnnys Apples]

Originally posted by Madness
You guys are all missing the point! If the gun laws weren't there in the 1st place then people wouldn't be dying!!



And TxFilmmkr, he didn't blame Heston for the death of the girl, he was just saying how could he come and do a NRA rally in the girls hometown the next day!!! It's like rubbing it in!!

Man, you know what pisses me off?? People who use the same idiom over an dover, "Guns don't kill, people do" Bullsh1t!! The guns do the killing! If you sleazy Americans didn't have guns the death rate would be exponentially lower. What's it gonna take to open your eyes people?!?!?

So if it's the guns faults, then what about people who get stabbed to death? And why is it always "Americas" problem, seems to me people are getting shot all over the world in every country.

[Faithless Eye]

People suck.

And I loved Bowling For Columbine...I have the poster for it hanging on my wall at home.

The most alternately emotional and hilarious film I have ever seen...EVER.

[The Moose]

i haven't seen it, but i know people who have, and they say it's really good. i need to see it

[movieaddict]

I really like this film and have seen "the big one" as well.
Michael Moore is not an objective documentary filmmaker, but he sure as hell gets people to think and talk about stuff and he does something about the stuff he thinks is wrong. That's more than most people do ever. and for that I respect the man even though I can't always agrre with his actions.

-Mel

[sphericthor]

I've seen it once but after reading this thread I need to watch it again to form an opinion

[Riddle]

Originally posted by Johnnys Apples
So if it's the guns faults, then what about people who get stabbed to death? And why is it always "Americas" problem, seems to me people are getting shot all over the world in every country.

It isn't the NRAs fault, but they should be looked at. Considering they are one of the only associations that promote something that kills. I particularly enjoy how everyone says tobacco companies are evil, and yet say that the NRA are innocent.

And it IS more of a problem for America, since they have more gun related deaths then any othey country in the world.

[Barrett]

Originally posted by Johnnys Apples
So if it's the guns faults, then what about people who get stabbed to death? And why is it always "Americas" problem, seems to me people are getting shot all over the world in every country.
1)there are way more murders caused by guns than by knives

2) the majority of these murders happened in america.

michael moore is only trying to get people more interested in more important problems in the world, rather than the latest news on bennifer. he addresses serious issues because he is one of the precious few who has the balls to. i couldn't agree more with betelgeuse. i hope moore never stops, cause i for one will keep listenning

[Fanible]

Well either way, I enjoyed Bowling For Columbine. Was very interesting and had good points.

[Barrett]

this arguement will never be settled.

[Barrett]

for the people who enjoyed this movie, i suggest you read Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. i am reading it right now and am really enjoying it.

[Marvin Nash]

Originally posted by atropfunk
I couldn't disagree "Moore".

:lol: :applaud:

[sunflower03]

i haven't seen seen any of his films so i won't comment on them. but he was completely disrespectful at the oscars i am very glad he was boed, when he was receiving his award.

[Faithless Eye]

his new book's coming out soon: "Dude, Where's My Country". it features on its cover an image of Moore pulling down a statue of George Bush, a la what happened in Baghdad. Also has the White House with lots of tanks lined up outside it and a huge banner saying "LEAVE NO BILLIONAIRE BEHIND."

I will buy it as I did Stupid White Men.

Personally, i applauded what he said at the oscars - he was the only one with balls enough to say what everyone in their right mind was thinking.

[Johnnys Apples]

Originally posted by Faithless Eye
his new book's coming out soon: "Dude, Where's My Country". it features on its cover an image of Moore pulling down a statue of George Bush, a la what happened in Baghdad. Also has the White House with lots of tanks lined up outside it and a huge banner saying "LEAVE NO BILLIONAIRE BEHIND."

I will buy it as I did Stupid White Men.

Personally, i applauded what he said at the oscars - he was the only one with balls enough to say what everyone in their right mind was thinking.

uuummmmm.... right

[Durden]

Originally posted by TxFilmMkr
Case in point, he's interviewing Charlton Heston in his own home and starts blaming him for the death of a 6 year old girl who was shot by a 6 year old classmate, shoving her picture in Heston's face and putting it on his wall.

1. He did not at any point blame Heston for the death of that girl. He simply wanted to know if Heston felt any shame for bringing a huge pro gun ralley to Flint right after the shooting.

2. Heston didn't even look at the photo, much less have it shoved in his face.

The entire point of the interview was to see how Heston acted when asked about an issue involving his beloved guns. And an important one at that. Heston (Obviously feeling shame and embarasment) walked away without even bothering to share his thoughts. The truth is that he is simply a scared old man that finds false comfort in the form of firearms.

If you plan on bashing Mr. Moore at least get your facts straight.
Poking fun at his looks and work with false info just makes you look silly.

[Durden]

Originally posted by sunflower03
i haven't seen seen any of his films so i won't comment on them. but he was completely disrespectful at the oscars i am very glad he was boed, when he was receiving his award.

He was also offered a new TV show, movie deals, his book sales rocketed, his website got over a million hits, O and he presold hundreds of DVD's. Aslo if you see it again you will notice that the Booing was done by about 20 people in the back of the theater. Hardly enough to ruffle any feathers.
...Just a Thought...

[Faithless Eye]

yeah, i thought the whole point was that he didn't look at the picture.

and come on, you have to admit that holding a pro-gun rally in Flint RIGHT AFTER the shooting was just a tad insensitive.

[Durden]

Originally posted by Faithless Eye
his new book's coming out soon: "Dude, Where's My Country". it features on its cover an image of Moore pulling down a statue of George Bush, a la what happened in Baghdad. Also has the White House with lots of tanks lined up outside it and a huge banner saying "LEAVE NO BILLIONAIRE BEHIND."

Personally, i applauded what he said at the oscars - he was the only one with balls enough to say what everyone in their right mind was thinking.

1. I really enjoyed "Stupid White Men" can't wait for the new book!

2. Ditto.:applaud:

[ctorg]

I'd heard so much about this movie, and finally saw it over the weekend. I was expecting it to be much more one-sided and worse than it was.

Yes, Moore is very one-sided in his approach. With that in mind, he brought up some interesting points about the US. Why do we have so many gun deaths? Why are we a nation of people who live in fear? He doesn't give any clear answers, and actually debunks the idea that it's because of access to guns by pointing out that countries like Canada have access to guns but don't kill each other.

I've liked Moore since his TV Nation days because, whether you agree with him on issues or not, he's very upfront about his beliefs and isn't afraid to go after anyone he wants. Sure, he's very biased, but I'd rather watch something by someone whose bias I know than watch something that claims to be unbiased and isn't.

[Gastric ReFlux]

Moore is a leftwing tool.

[Name Taken]

Originally posted by Gastric ReFlux
Moore is a leftwing tool.

Gastric, while I certainly respect your opinion, please attempt to keep your responses to the topic. Your post clearly was nothing more than an attempt to bait other members into some sort of argument. For what purpose I don't know, nor want to.

Bowling for Columbine was a powerful film that should make everyone stop and think.

Thank you,

Name Taken :alien:

[slinger]

Originally posted by Durden
1. He did not at any point blame Heston for the death of that girl. He simply wanted to know if Heston felt any shame for bringing a huge pro gun ralley to Flint right after the shooting.

2. Heston didn't even look at the photo, much less have it shoved in his face.

The entire point of the interview was to see how Heston acted when asked about an issue involving his beloved guns. And an important one at that. Heston (Obviously feeling shame and embarasment) walked away without even bothering to share his thoughts. The truth is that he is simply a scared old man that finds false comfort in the form of firearms.

If you plan on bashing Mr. Moore at least get your facts straight.
Poking fun at his looks and work with false info just makes you look silly.

Look at these facts It wasn't a huge pro gun rally

B. Mt. Morris shooting/ Flint rally. Bowling continues by juxtaposing another Heston speech with a school shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint. Moore makes the claim that "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."


Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting ( Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Moore creates the impression that one event was right after the other so smoothly that I didn't spot his technique. It was picked up by Richard Rockley, who sent me an email.

Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically, done,. Let's deconstruct his method.

The entire sequence takes barely 40 seconds. Images are flying by so rapidly that you cannot really think about them, you just form impressions.

Shot of Moore comforting Kayla's school principal after she discusses Kayla's murder. As they turn away, we hear Heston's voice: "From my cold, dead hands." [Moore is again attibuting it to a speech where it was not uttered.]

When Heston becomes visible, he's telling a group that freedom needs you now, more than ever, to come to its defense. Your impression: Heston is responding to something urgent, presumably the controversy caused by her death. And he's speaking about it like a fool.

Moore: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

Moore continues on to say that before he came to Flint, Heston had been interviewed by the Georgetown Hoya about Kayla's death... Why would this be important?

Image of Hoya (a student paper) appears on screen, with highlighting on words of reporter mentioning Kayla Rolland's name, and highlighting on Heston's name (only his name, not his reply) as he answers. Image is on screen only a few seconds.

Ah, you think you spot the relevance: he obviously was alerted to the case, and that's why be came.

http://www.hardylaw.net/hestonfilming.html

[sunflower03]

my problem with him is that when he receieved his award he should have been more respectful, especially his comments about the president. also i have never seen any of his documentaries or anything else he has done that is why i am not commenting on those, because i can't comment on something i haven't seen.

[Il Duce]

While it's easy to see why many folks don't like Michael Moore (walking into people's homes being a case in point) he makes several very good points.
Seperate the ideas from the person saying it.
And for god's sakes, open your mind a little bit before watching a movie. Being a close minded stubborn jackass helps no one.

[Riddle]

Most of the problems that people have with Bowling for Columbine, have no relevance to the points Moore makes in the movie.

Case in point: Look at the Heston rally, posted above. Does that make Moore a liar? Did Heston go to Flint or not, after the death of Kayla Rolland?

[Riddle]

Originally posted by sunflower03
my problem with him is that when he receieved his award he should have been more respectful, especially his comments about the president. also i have never seen any of his documentaries or anything else he has done that is why i am not commenting on those, because i can't comment on something i haven't seen.

Why should he have been respectful to the president? Moore didn't agree with what Bush was doing (and done), so he voiced his opinion.

[sunflower03]

he could have voiced his opinion in a more respectful way. also that isn't the time or place to do it, if he wants to voice his political opinion do it in his documentaries and in his books, or on a talk show like crossfire.

[Johnnys Apples]

Originally posted by sunflower03
he could have voiced his opinion in a more respectful way. also that isn't the time or place to do it, if he wants to voice his political opinion do it in his documentaries and in his books, or on a talk show like crossfire.

I agree, it's called tact, which MM didn't show.

[sunflower03]

i never said that i agreed with charleton hesston or what my political opinions are, i think moore is too agressive about getting his point across, and, at times, like at the oscars, isn't a time for a big political speech.

[JohnnyBgood]

Funny satire. I especially enjoyed the American historical skit: European settlers encounter new world, kill the inhabitants(Natives), they then became lazy and abduct Africans for slavery, in duration the African Americans outnumber the whites, whites become scared so fortunately for them Samuel Colt invents a multi loaded pistol, but wait, law is passed granting African Americans freedom, so it was too late to use this against them(I would assume thats what was implied), then skip a ton of decades to the civil rights and we witness the equality of the blacks into mainstream America, in turn whites respond in fear by settling into suburbia with firepower galore and are now thankfully safe from their fellow human race, the blacks of course!

Wow, what a hilarius cartoon hightened by that frantic score...this is worth the viewing alone!

[CapricornDevil]

Ok, I have read several posts by people saying that those of who dislike Moore should "get our facts straight." Let me start out by saying that the fact of the matter is he is NOT a documentary film maker. Documentaries, by design, document the world as it is. What Moore does is quite different.

What Moore does is decide on a point he wants to make, interview people, twist their words, and distort their interviews so they sound like they agree with him. People Moore "interviewed" for his movies are stating that Moore twisted their words, deleted large sections of their interviews, and "cut and pasted" to make it seem as though they were agreeing with him when, in fact, they weren't.

Moore reminds me alot of a man by the name of Bunuel. If anyone has ever seen Bunuel's "documentary" A Land Without Bread you should be able to see the similiarities. Through Bunuel's work he was making personal judgement calls on the situation of villagers in Spain. He referred to them as helpless urchins, vile wrecks, and miserable humans. THAT is hardly documentary film making. What it is, is stating one's opinion and twisting evidence to make others feel the same way.

What Moore does is no different and no better. It saddens me that people put trust in Moore to be an honest film maker when he is doing nothing more that espousing his views on a subject, twisting the evidence to make it seems that others agree with him when they don't, and trying to endoctronate America's youth to follow him.

I find it disturbing that people hail him to be one of the greatest film makers of the day. People did the same to Bunuel, now his work is barely a faded memory. People will eventually feel the same about Moore. So, he might as well live it up in his 15 minutes of fame.

[Barrett]

could you give some examples of people who moore has lied about in bowling for columbine?

[Tim37ninjageniu]

I have a friend who is an ignorant guy who thinks America is infalible. The part of the movie where they talk about how America has WAY more gun deaths than any other country and when they talked about all the horrible things America has done, those parts kicked ass. I showed it to my friend and he completely denied all of it. He just said no that can't be true and started with all of the America the Beautiful bull****. I liked that this film dealed with issues noone else will talk about. I liked how he pointed out that blaming things like Marylin Manson was completely asinine.

He got in C. Heston's face because they were such *******s rallying in her hometown the next day. They kind of said well she died but it was worth it because we get to have guns. And I'm glad he pissed off Dick Clark. I laughed my ass off.

[chen shen]

Originally posted by TxFilmMkr
Anyone see this yet?

I think Michael Moore is a big, fat, bleeding heart liberal moron. He should be making training videos for the ACLU. I really liked Roger & Me the first time I saw it, then I actually read the whole story behind the movie. That enlightened me on how Moore is just as one sided as any other retarded Hollywood Eutopian. Your on Crack!

[The Inc]

wow. i feel like ive walked into the Republican National Convention 2004

Moore made an AMAZING and TRUE film about the state of this nation. Bealive it or not. You seem unable to Take what hes saying. OH NO. WAR IS BAD! GUNS KILL! THIS CANT BE TRUE!

and i would check alot of your sorces and see WHO has pushed these articles and storys.

Someone here make me a list or just tell me a thing or two he lied about. PLEASE!

[Johnnys Apples]

Originally posted by The Inc
wow. i feel like ive walked into the Republican National Convention 2004

Moore made an AMAZING and TRUE film about the state of this nation. Bealive it or not. You seem unable to Take what hes saying. OH NO. WAR IS BAD! GUNS KILL! THIS CANT BE TRUE!

and i would check alot of your sorces and see WHO has pushed these articles and storys.

Someone here make me a list or just tell me a thing or two he lied about. PLEASE!

Well, I guess it's obvious what party you vote for.

[sunflower03]

nobody wants war and in an ideal world there would be no war, but sometimes you have to war in order to get peace. sometimes the only way to defend yourself and get someone evil out of power is a war.

[Pinesol13]

I was going to post my thoughts on this jackass's 'documentary' , but I thought i couldn't say it any better than this guy:

username: Notorious N.A.G
forum: www.honda-tech.com


quote - "Every time some ignorant teen watches that ass master spew his facts they have to run and make a thread about their new truth they've found.

Get in line. "



:applaud:

[Longshanks]

Haven't seen the film yet - but I'm definitely going to.

[Citizen Kane]

Originally posted by CapricornDevil
Ok, I have read several posts by people saying that those of who dislike Moore should "get our facts straight." Let me start out by saying that the fact of the matter is he is NOT a documentary film maker. Documentaries, by design, document the world as it is. What Moore does is quite different.

What Moore does is decide on a point he wants to make, interview people, twist their words, and distort their interviews so they sound like they agree with him. People Moore "interviewed" for his movies are stating that Moore twisted their words, deleted large sections of their interviews, and "cut and pasted" to make it seem as though they were agreeing with him when, in fact, they weren't.

Moore reminds me alot of a man by the name of Bunuel. If anyone has ever seen Bunuel's "documentary" A Land Without Bread you should be able to see the similiarities. Through Bunuel's work he was making personal judgement calls on the situation of villagers in Spain. He referred to them as helpless urchins, vile wrecks, and miserable humans. THAT is hardly documentary film making. What it is, is stating one's opinion and twisting evidence to make others feel the same way.

What Moore does is no different and no better. It saddens me that people put trust in Moore to be an honest film maker when he is doing nothing more that espousing his views on a subject, twisting the evidence to make it seems that others agree with him when they don't, and trying to endoctronate America's youth to follow him.

I find it disturbing that people hail him to be one of the greatest film makers of the day. People did the same to Bunuel, now his work is barely a faded memory. People will eventually feel the same about Moore. So, he might as well live it up in his 15 minutes of fame.

Here's the thing. Even if Moore cut parts of the interview, does it change the fact that these people said what they said? It does not. In many, if not all of the interviews, the subjects explicitly make important points that couldn't easily be distorted. Besides, even if some of the interviewees don't agree with him, this presentation of their own words will piss them off and make them think about the issues I think, which were two of Moore's objectives.

PS: Bunuel is not a faded memory. He has three films in the Criterion Collection, and people still eagerly flock to Un Chien Andalou to be shocked and outrage. Hell, he even gave me my avatar!

[Longshanks]

"Guns don't kill people - people kill people" - People WITH guns kill people.

And try sniping a US President with a knife, or going on a slaughter spree at a high school with your bare hands....

[Citizen Kane]

Exactly.

Very well put Shanks.

[tedward]

I saw this movie in the sports and hobby section of a departments stores dvd section.

[Longshanks]

Hmmm - that wouldn't be an attempt to 'bury' the DVD so that anyone wanting to buy it can't find it ...would it?

Of course not - how cynical of me, it was obviously a simple oversight by the store and should have been placed in the 'Popular Political Critisism' section ;)

I'd be really interested to see what their reaction was if you happened mention the 'oversight' to them.

[Citizen Kane]

Bury it...Now there's an interesting contradiction. Make money, or surrender to politics? You would think the video stores, greedy as they are, would want to make cash. But...who knows?

[Longshanks]

Yeah - political ideology VS capitalist drive....does.not...compute......DOES. NOT. COMPU..*fzzptzzzz.....* ;)

[Spidey_Freak]

One Sided? yes
Biased? yes
Hillarious? yes

[Longshanks]

Sorry - are you talking about US politics or Michael Moore? ;)

[slinger]

Originally posted by tedward
I saw this movie in the sports and hobby section of a departments stores dvd section.

They probably don't have a documentary section, so it would either be that or comedy.

Mr.Moore was The View today, hoho, he exploded when he was questioned about if he staged the bank/gun thing. "Why would you slander me?!" Just his tone, volume and body language would make you think he was accused of raping babies. A potential permanent host asked the question, not one of the regulars.

I found his interview on The Daily Show to be great. He talked about how he was RECALLED at age 18! He ran for the schoolboard and wanted to change things, so 6 adults ran to make sure he didn't win. The adults split the vote, and he won with the 18-25 stoner vote. Then he learned about illegal activivites and wanted to name a new elementary school after MLK, but it was a white community so that didn't fly. Eventually secret meetings were held without him knowing. They got a recall but he still remained on the schoolboard. He offerred advice to Gray Davis, but Mr.Davis never returned his call.

[necronon99]

this movie was awesome

[Wolfgang]

I'm all for gun control but Bowling For Columbine was just embarassing in how blatantly Moore ignored facts and skewed what he presented. Comparing military engagement meant to halt genocide to Columbine? Sorry, that doesn't quite work. Also, no matter how much Moore hates guns, Heston is not responsible for how people use them. He's just not, and Moore should be punched in the face for trying to make him feel guilty like that. That's like blaming camcorder manufacturers and film societies for the creation of child pornography.

The film was great entertainment, but I don't even think it should qualify as a documentary. So at the end of the day, Moore's overall point is appreciated, but I found the way he approached it to be utterly deplorable and mere sensationalism.

[Wolfgang]

Mr.Moore was The View today, hoho, he exploded when he was questioned about if he staged the bank/gun thing.

I've seen reports online that while not staged, those incidents were hardly filmed at the same time. Same goes for a lot of the other pieces of the film. A lot of the situations and arguments created were done so by means of clever editing.

[Pinesol13]

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I think that link finally proves that Moore is a jackass

[ambrosia]

Originally posted by Pinesol13
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I think that link finally proves that Moore is a jackass

Somebody had mentioned this website on another website I visit and it's pretty damn damning. Despite this, I found the movie entertaining and didn't take it at all seriously. I can form my own opinions without his aid.
And some of it was darn darn funny. :)

[Riddle]

Originally posted by Pinesol13
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I think that link finally proves that Moore is a jackass

Everything on the site is true.

BUT.

Moore never tells a lie in the movie. He might use editing tricks and clips from other rally's to get his message across easily, but he never says anything that is untrue.

[Longshanks]

Err - how do you know that everything on ANY site is 100% true exactly?

Sure Moore has probably skewed things to enhance his argument - but he's only playing on the exact same field that everyone else plays on.

If you think that the gun lobby, Michael Moor's critics, the tobacco industry or even any bloody government in the world don't 'bias' their reports on issues that they want to push, then you're living in dreamland I'm afraid.

The fact still remains, whatever anyone says, that people with guns kill more people than guns without people. Sure guns per-se are just inanimate lumps of metal with no will of their own, but once they're picked up by anyone they become devices with the sole aim of wounding, destroying or killing anything or anyone they're fired at.

Guns were designed to shoot bullets. Bullets were designed to inflict damage. People with guns are potentially dangerous if not lethal. End of story.

[Wolfgang]

If you read, no one is trying to say that guns aren't used to kill people. No one is even bashing gun control. I'm even for it. That doesn't change the fact that Moore's film is a deplorable way of trying to get his point across. At the same time, no one is saying other highly manipulative arguments are any better.

[Longshanks]

The whole 'Guns don't kill people - people kill people' response which has been voiced here doesn't exactly help the discussion though.

Alas I'm at a disadvantage to judge whether Moores film is biased or not having not seen it yet - however it doesn't change the fact that 'the right to bear arms' hasn't exactly worked out for the best in the US - does it?

[lotr_moviesrule]

to all those who point out that america has far more gun deaths than any other country, well, maybe you should use your BRAINS, if you have any! Moore points out that canada has only 160 or 180 deaths, around there, and puts it in normal sizing, no dramatic emphasis, then after hes done, he shows us the states # of deaths, and it is some 11,000 deaths. he purposefully puts a ton of empahis on this. which is ok, BUT he fails to point out that the states has some 300,000 million people, and canada had 32,000 million!! BIG difference. So he sows no comparison. He is not showing both sides, and by the way, did any of you bother checking out http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html?????????? The list goes on...

[Citizen Kane]

Originally posted by Longshanks
Err - how do you know that everything on ANY site is 100% true exactly?

Sure Moore has probably skewed things to enhance his argument - but he's only playing on the exact same field that everyone else plays on.

If you think that the gun lobby, Michael Moor's critics, the tobacco industry or even any bloody government in the world don't 'bias' their reports on issues that they want to push, then you're living in dreamland I'm afraid.

The fact still remains, whatever anyone says, that people with guns kill more people than guns without people. Sure guns per-se are just inanimate lumps of metal with no will of their own, but once they're picked up by anyone they become devices with the sole aim of wounding, destroying or killing anything or anyone they're fired at.

Guns were designed to shoot bullets. Bullets were designed to inflict damage. People with guns are potentially dangerous if not lethal. End of story.

Wow, Shanks. It seems you've gotten to the very soul of Moore's film and his message without having seen it

And for the record: If Canada has 32 mil and America has 300 mil, your argument, lotr, would mean that the U.S. should have about 300-500 gun deaths a year, if population really affects it that much. No matter which angle you look at it from, the amount of gun deaths in America (especially when compared to other countries) is apalling.

[Wolfgang]

Are you awake? I haven't seen ANYONE in this thread arguing that Moore's MESSAGE was wrong. People simply find his methods, mainly manipulation and clever editing, appalling. Is that hard to understand?

It's not about bias. Bias is unavoidable in all of journalism and any kind of investigative work. The fact is that Moore cheated and twisted facts, quotes and events to serve his purposes.

I stand in saying it was a great piece of entertainment, but a deplorable documentary.

[Citizen Kane]

My gosh, are we not allowed to discuss Moore's message? I've had it up to here with all of this whining and crying about a bunch of supposedly truthful allegations about Moore's methods. The fact is that he makes a powerful and chilling point with the film, and no re-edited footage can change that fact. Michael Moore has created an important document, one that will always remind us of how terrible America's obsession with guns is. Nearly everyone on earth sees this, why can't you folks just look past your complaints and try to understand what Michael Moore is trying to say?

[Wolfgang]

We do, but everytime someone raises the point that Moore fudged some things you guys come in accusing them of being for guns or not understanding the message.

As I said before, I agree wholeheartedly with the message (except for blaming Heston) but Moore negates himself by the fact that he cheated to create most of his points.

[Citizen Kane]

I wouldn't say he really cheated facts. He didn't somehow dub words into the people mouths. No matter how you look at it, these people really said these things.

And BTW: Every time any of us try to point out that Moore's message transcends its presentation, you guys try to undercut it by presenting the same old tired arguments.

[ip_guru]

Whever you take a hot-button subject such as gun control or abortion, there are going to be heated opinions, and that is to be expected. For this post, I do not want to introduce an opinioin on the content of the movie, only the execution.

I strongly feel that you cannot call a movie a documentary when you splice together events to create a speech that never happend in real life. Even doing that once, to me disqualifies a movie from being called a documentary.

As soon as things are created, through video or audio editing, I believe the movie must be listed as docu-drama, or another category, but not a pure documentary.

I highly doubt that there is any film teacher or film textbook that will instruct students on making a documentary and include a section on how to splice together a subject's comments to create a new speech that makes a point for you. That is simply not documenting, that is creating.

In this movie, he does utilize that skill very well, and what he does with that skill makes his message very strong.

It concerns me though, that this won for documentary. I do not like that precendent. I do hope that in the future, they refuse any documentary that has even one scene that has been created, and not documented.

If you want to respond to this, please keep it on the concept of what is a documentary, etc.. I don't want to discuss the content, that is an endless debate, which turns into yelling, etc.. and has no bearing on my little post here.

[Longshanks]

Originally posted by Wolfgang
Are you awake? I haven't seen ANYONE in this thread arguing that Moore's MESSAGE was wrong. People simply find his methods, mainly manipulation and clever editing, appalling. Is that hard to understand?

It's not about bias. Bias is unavoidable in all of journalism and any kind of investigative work. The fact is that Moore cheated and twisted facts, quotes and events to serve his purposes.

I stand in saying it was a great piece of entertainment, but a deplorable documentary.

And I'm saying that EVERYONE bends the 'fact's to suit their purposes - just look at the Iraq war - do you honestly think your government didn't twist the facts to fit their argument? I damn well know mine did - and with any luck it'll bring down the government here.

Yes Moore probably is guilty too (I'll really have to see this film soon), but try spreading your appalled outrage round at a few more deserving targets with a LOT more deadly intent behind their truth-editing.

[Wolfgang]

Last I checked this thread was about Bowling For Columbine, so this seems to be the place for me to bash Moore for what he did to create his movie. I'll be the first to say that the US administration twisted things to get the war going, but that doesn't matter here. This isn't a 'best of two evils' thing where Moore's work is suddenly responsible and morally upright just because some other things are much worse.

Frankly, Bush and Moore did an equal amount of fudging in both their respective fields. Both are deplorable in that specific regard.

"Bending facts" is also a world apart from mixing footage of different speeches to create a new speech. If Moore were a real investigative reporter, which he pretends to be, the entire industry would shoot him down for his lack of journalistic integrity. But since it's film and the thing made money, his practices are somehow justified. It's the same thing with Bush, no one would complain if he had no evidence but ended up finding weapons of mass destruction. Justifying piss-poor means for some ends is just not the right thing to be doing.

[Longshanks]

OK - then as you have the advantage over me of actually having seen the movie - perhaps you could tell me exactly what points in the film get your back up so much that he deserves so much condemnation from you in his attempt to point up the downsides of the US gun controls? What has he done that makes his argument against the gun-fans so awful?

[Wolfgang]

He splices together different speeches to create new ones.

He tries to blame racism for the fact that bees from Africa are deadly. Somehow I don't think Europeans determined where deadly bees were going to come from...

He compares US military action in Kosovo, an effort to halt genocide, to a school shooting. I guess war against the Nazis was also just as bad as shooting kids in a school...

He directly confronts Heston and blames him directly for the death of the Michigan girl. He's no more responsible for her death than P2P users are responsible for proliferation of child porn.

He also tried to blame Dick Clark for having that boy's mother be away from home working rather than keeping her child's hands away from the gun at home, which is just bogus.

I know there were a lot of other factual inconsistences with the Michigan case, as I live there now and many of my friends were just flatout surprised at how Moore mischaracterized and misinformed viewers about what was going on in Flint and whatnot.

Anyway, I saw the film ages ago but that's what I recall as being particularly of bad form. A lot of it provided some great comic relief, but it just wasn't right in other ways.

[Longshanks]

I guess all I can say is 'Welcome to Hollywood' - I just hope you're as critical about films such as 'Pearl Harbour' and 'The Patriot' which purport to be 'historical-based' movies rather than sheer propeganda.

I would still say that Moore's heart is far more in the right place than any of the gun-lobbyists

[Wolfgang]

I question his motivation... he seems to be more concerned with his own popularity than his messages. For instance, on The Daily Show the other night he claimed to have taken out the wrong speech when he got up to accept his Oscar, but he didn't read from anything at all. If he truly believed in his causes he'd stand up and admit it rather than trying to cover it up months later. It was also clear that he wasn't joking, he was attempting to make himself more acceptable to people rather than sticking to his beliefs. It's not like people can't find the footage again. I get the feeling he just loves the attention and hunts down controversial topics. Of course, he was probably more into the topics earlier before he received nationwide recognition, but now I think it's gone to his head.

But with Bowling I give him credit for a good overall message, and generally he at least manages to bring topics into discussion that weren't at the forefront of thought.

And you can be damned sure I'm not a fan of those movies you mentioned. Pearl Harbor was utterly disgusting, and didn't even have an ounce of entertainment in it.

[Longshanks]

I'm gald to hear it - Hollywood has an unhealthy influence on a society which seems to take it's history more from media than fact - Hollywood is the best propeganda machine a world power ever had.

[Longshanks]

...and i have to say I have a soft spot for anyone who dares to go against the flow of 'popular' belief.

[sunflower03]

well you know some people do like those films, such as me, plus longshanks your user name (i could be wrong) looks like you got your name from braveheart.

[Citizen Kane]

I don't see the relevance of people liking conforming films. It doesn't really affect the argument, but that could be just me. Also, Shanks didn't get his name from Braveheart.

[sunflower03]

well i was only saying that he might off because the king in braveheart is called edward the longshanks. plus his thread seemed to say that there was something wrong with liking those films, because he considered them propeganda. i know some people see the patriot as propeganda, but i disagree. any film made about the american revolution would show the english as the enemy, because that is who america fought during the revolution. it is just like a movie set during ww II would show the germans as the enemy.

[Longshanks]

Sure the English were the 'Bad Guys' in that film, (Good Guys/Bad Guys - a very American-movie concept) - but you conveniently seem to forget thay they were also a hell of a lot of the 'Good Guys' too, along wth the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Dutch, Germans, Italians, Spanish and every other European settler that was fighting to claim that lump of land for themselves.

In fact I think it illustrates my point quite well, that the whole genre of 'Fronteer/Wild West' movies has established the idea that the 'Americans' were the pioneers, when actualy it was the European settlers who later decided to call themselves 'American'.

I've said this before, but it's still worth saying that it always makes me laugh to hear contemporary US accents in films depicting that 'pioneer' period, whereas what you would really have heard is a mix of English, Dutch etc...but that doesn't sit so well with the idea the films are trying to sell that the country was won by true-blooded mythic 'Americans'. As far as I can see, the 'classic' American accent is a mix of English, Irish and Dutch with variations upon that theme.

Like I say - US movies and media are constantly trying to sell the 'American Dream' both to their home audiences and to the world in general, and the danger is that we start to believe what we're told rather than read the history books.

And just before we go off the track of the thread completely, the issue of US gun culture seems to me to be intrinsically tied up with the 'American Dream', enshrined in the constitution (I'm presuming it's not an amendment?) and glorified in movies for pretty much the entire history of modern cinema. It seems it's become part of what it means to be 'American' for a hell of a lot of people, and that to go against that is somehow 'Un-American' - it's no wonder you have problems.

Consider this: The UK has probably the most stringent gun controls in the world. Gun crime accounted for 0.04% of crime committed here last year. I hate to think what proportion of crime it accounts for in the US - perhaps someone could tell me?

And CK is right - I didn't get Longshanks from Braveheart.

[Citizen Kane]

It is an amendment to be able to own a gun (if that's what you were referring to).