Managed to sit through about 2/3's of this little tributary to the mundane and hackneyed vision of Michael Moore. This was a documentary with a ton of potentional and lousy execution. I didn't even make it to the part where Hesty stormed off. The foreign policy retrospective was thorough and should have been a central focus, however Moore still managed to find a way to soften it up with trite sentimentality and bullshit surface-level examinations of the role of foreign policy and terrorism. But its a movie about guns right? Ok, still I wish that somebody would have wrestled the microphone away from that whining monotone simp and gotten someone better to WRITE the script and READ the voiceovers. Horrible - amateur - cringingly bad. Also the way he portrays Canada is a farce, so is the questioning of the T.V. executive. Newsflash: EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT VIOLENCE SELLS, TELL US SOMETHING WE DONT KNOW. I think this is a topic and a documentary that is completely out of Michael Moores depth. What a lousy film. And what a damaging expose of the hollow tendencies of the left - no wonder they gave him the Oscar for it. It did more damage than good. Somebody tell this guy to stick to harassing Nike executives. He at least seemed knowledgeable about that topic, unlike this film.

thanks for sharing.

NEXT!

i heard that his film didnt actually meet the Academy's requirements for a 'documentary.'

>i heard that his film didnt actually meet the Academy's
>requirements for a 'documentary.'

because the radical jihadist anti-american marxian hard left controls the media with an iron fist...

dont you see, thats why that reagan miniseries got cancelled and why that "dc-911" film was recently made and broadcast for all americans to see.

corporate control? manufacture of consent? limiting the terms of debate? conformity to status quo? whats that stuff??

thats the kind of sarcasm that keeps me coming back

Its obviously in the best interests of the powers-that-be to allow Moore to win. Attempting to stifle him would go against the notion of 'free speech' and 'democracy'. Why would they want to fan those flames when they can prop up this husky fella's shitty documentary, thereby strengthening the position of the rightwing.

Its not a convincing doc, because it doesn't really SAY anything. The film is apolitical in its conclusions, but Moore is readily associated with the leftwing, irregardless. That means they can increase their own power without damaging themselves and make the left look bad, all in one fell swoop. Moore is such a pawn. And predictably naive in believing his own press.

i dunno about academy reqs, but in a lot of film circles his flicks are NOT considered documentaries

>> I didn't even make it to the part where Hesty
>stormed off.

In that case, you're not a very credible source, are you?

>> But its a movie
>about guns right?

Wrong. But I can see how you would get that impression from just watching half the film.

>>>. Also the
>way he portrays Canada is a farce,
Farce can be cool. You know a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, don't you?

And I know, I know, it's a "documentary." A lot of people will tell you that those are supposed to be objective. Well I don't buy that. I'm sure you're all intelligent enough to figure out the reasons why. I thought it was a great film. I would recommend it to anybody.
Of course I would advise that they take it with a grain of salt, and perhaps do further research on the topics covered in the film, if they felt so inclined.

Well I had actually seen the Hesty Moses part in the trailer. And yes, if its a documentary it has to be accurate. If you blur the line between farce and truth you damage the forcefulness of the entire argument presented.

But I meant farce in a derisive way. Its just obvious that it was beyond Moore to cope with this film in a intelligent and rigorous way. In terms of the content, and in terms of the filmmaking. The production values were shit, sentimental, and amateur to the fullest degree. His interviewing techniques were laughable - especially the way he provides responses that HE thinks the person is talking about before they finish saying their answer (a method which garndered him alot of criticism for sculpting the peoples responses). I just criticize him for being dumb and naive. Dumb in his approach to the very serious topic of foreign policy transgression and the terrorist issue, dumb in his approach to the media relation, dumb in his reasoning about the psychology for the murders and the way he presents that argument, and naive for believing the hype about him was actually true. He sucks, everything he has touched post-Nike has sucked (got a good laugh when I saw the title of his new book 'Dude, wheres my country' - no doubt it will be laden with suprious claims and poor writing.)

We need to evict this man from the leftwing because he is damaging to our cause. He should be evicted because he is a lazy pseudo-intellectual. We need better minds than this slouch.

>And I know, I know, it's a "documentary." A lot of people
>will tell you that those are supposed to be objective. Well
>I don't buy that.

- And you're right.

One of my biggest beefs is when people hold up docs like they're supposed to be crystal clear and completely objective. They're not, at all. You CANNOT make a documentary that isn't biased, it goes against the whole foundation of the genre.

and yet, you haven't posted higherquality films/filmakers or individuals more in line with YOUR thgouhts about the way things SHOULD be done.

are you sure you're not some shadow marketer?

A good documentary looks something like Dark Days. Good because it does not interfere with the study of the individuals it films, good because it blends emotion without sentimentality, blends art with presentation, and evokes interest without being condescending or overly simplistic. That is what a good documentary should contain. You know what we call heavily biased 'journalism' in the real world? Propaganda. Bowling for Columbine was a left wing propaganda film.

I am a leftwinger myself, incidentally.

but now i definitely will, thanx

Leave the film school garbage at the door.

Good film...no matter how "left" it seemed.

Fast forwarding "Finding Forrester" to the scene where Sean Connery yells "You're the man now, dog!!!!" and watching it over and over for two hours straight.

Debating the philosophical value of "Tron"



Pure fucking hillarity, plain & simple.
Peace

I wasn't criticizing the film for being too 'left wing'. I was critizing the film in terms of its veracity and presentation. Its not 'film school garbage' to note how poorly Moore presents his thesis... anybody with with a critical thinking ability could see how hollow his moral posturing was.

You manage to strike at the core of what is wrong with the leftwing today. Its the belief that any supporter of the left is good as long as they support the left. This has lead to alot of feeble leadership and amateurish theses (such as Moores 'Bowling' debacle). Just because somebody supports the left does NOT mean they should be supported. The leftwing needs more critics - more people willing to step up and say 'no, that film was a gigantic sack of bullshit, here's why'. Dont even try to front as if the film was any good. I have seen better attempts made by film school students, but thats not the point exactly. The point is that Moore has come to embody a large portion of the left-wing who are lazy minded and uncritical simply because he himself is left wing. As a result he releases childish books and childish documentaries which make the left look silly as a whole. Again, I move to expell this man and to encourage more SERIOUS CRITICISM from individuals in the left wing who are capable of thinking critically and seeing beyond the ridiculous bullshit moral posturing that the left suffers from today.

you havent brought anything to the table....dont waste the space.....

It about time for a tell-all documentary about how is so fashionable fo hate on people's work. I mean, yeah, everything is gonna be disliked by someone. If you don't like it you don't like it. But a lot of what goes on here is people gettin' hard ones for hatin' shit.

As for MM's movie, I effectively did what it was intended to do. It mocked America's facination with guns and used that mockery to say that the shit is out of control.

As long as it means a critical approach from the left wing in terms of other people in the left wing. All you leftwingers should quit the limp-wristed apologetics and face the fact that this movie was shitty through and through.

In terms of it 'doing what it intended to do'... I have to disagree. Its intention was marred by its presentation, which was to provide a framework for justification of American socio-cultural trends. It didn't do this. In fact it bearly held itself together thanks to the half-assed satire and unexplained leaps of logic that Michael Moore (aka 'the fictition') presented. He never 'connected the dots' to provide a direct correlation to anything, and as a result the entire thesis is loose if not non-existent.

They let this dummy win the Academy Award because it looked great for the republican fascists who could then claim that 'there are critics' and that 'they are recognized by and large'.... however shitty and limited these critics might be. So really Bowling For Columbine was a victory for the right wing because it made the left wing look so awful by default.

>As long as it means a critical approach from the left wing
>in terms of other people in the left wing. All you
>leftwingers should quit the limp-wristed apologetics and
>face the fact that this movie was shitty through and
>through.

It was the highest grossing documentary ever. Something was on point.

>
>In terms of it 'doing what it intended to do'... I have to
>disagree. Its intention was marred by its presentation,
>which was to provide a framework for justification of
>American socio-cultural trends. It didn't do this. In fact
>it bearly held itself together thanks to the half-assed
>satire and unexplained leaps of logic that Michael Moore
>(aka 'the fictition') presented. He never 'connected the
>dots' to provide a direct correlation to anything, and as a
>result the entire thesis is loose if not non-existent.

I thought he wanted to make a point about the prevailance of guns in America. I figured it out after five minutes.

>They let this dummy win the Academy Award because it looked
>great for the republican fascists who could then claim that
>'there are critics' and that 'they are recognized by and
>large'.... however shitty and limited these critics might
>be. So really Bowling For Columbine was a victory for the
>right wing because it made the left wing look so awful by
>default.

It's kind of hard not to notice a documentary that took in the amount of money Bowling for Columbine did. I'm pretty sure the other nominees were grateful for his film's success. Just think about what his movies will do and have already done for the genre.

"It's kind of hard not to notice a documentary that took in the amount of money Bowling for Columbine did. I'm pretty sure the other nominees were grateful for his film's success. Just think about what his movies will do and have already done for the genre."

In a society where Britney Spears makes millions for stuffing her tits into a pushup bra and shaking her ass suggestively I dont think you can make any reasonable correlation between how good something is and the amount of money it takes in.

Think about what his movies will do for the genre? Think about what his movies have done for the role of the leftwing! It only takes so much as a reference to Moore for any right winger to dismiss the entire stance of the leftwing offhand. He is a menace and a child, we all saw how poorly he handled his brief time on stage at the Academy Awards. His movies are also shit.

Read what I wrote about how the left needs more critics.

>In a society where Britney Spears makes millions for
>stuffing her tits into a pushup bra and shaking her ass
>suggestively I dont think you can make any reasonable
>correlation between how good something is and the amount of
>money it takes in.
Are you serious?
Documentaries hardly ever make any real money. When one pulls in tens of millions of dollars (more than any other ever)you really cannot conclude it was shitty through and through. Something must've been done really well, whether it was the subject matter, the humour, M.M. himself, or weak competition at box office.
>
>Think about what his movies will do for the genre? Think
>about what his movies have done for the role of the
>leftwing! It only takes so much as a reference to Moore for
>any right winger to dismiss the entire stance of the
>leftwing offhand. He is a menace and a child, we all saw how
>poorly he handled his brief time on stage at the Academy
>Awards. His movies are also shit.

I'm sorry, but if Micheal Moore was such idiot why do right-wingers spend so much time trying to pick him apart. I actually think MM is on of the best things the left has got going for them right now. Personally, I think he just uses the same tactics a lot of right wingers use. I think they're just better at disguising it.

>Read what I wrote about how the left needs more critics.

>All you
>leftwingers should quit the limp-wristed apologetics and
>face the fact that this movie was shitty through and
>through.

- That's your opinion. Moore has an academy award, widespread crticial acclaim, awards from every major film festival and the highest grossing doc of all time to prove otherwise.

You don't get all of that from a really bad film.

>He never 'connected the
>dots' to provide a direct correlation to anything, and as a
>result the entire thesis is loose if not non-existent.

- He never tried to answer why it happened, he didn't have an answer. The whole point of the film was there is no clear answer and it's probably a whole range of issues that he addressed in the film. Gus Van Sant came to the same conclusion in his new film about it, Elephant, there is no straight answer for an insane act like that.

>They let this dummy win the Academy Award because it looked
>great for the republican fascists who could then claim that
>'there are critics' and that 'they are recognized by and
>large'.... however shitty and limited these critics might
>be. So really Bowling For Columbine was a victory for the
>right wing because it made the left wing look so awful by
>default.

Explain that one again. Republicans let a bad film win the academy award so that Democracts would look bad? Exactly how did Bush and Cheney infiltrate the academy awards to pull this one off? And since so many people obviously love the movie, more than any other documentary ever made, how is it making anyone look bad?

> - That's your opinion. Moore has an academy award,
>widespread crticial acclaim, awards from every major film
>festival and the highest grossing doc of all time to prove
>otherwise.
>
>You don't get all of that from a really bad film.
>

Critical acclaim? Nobody can reasonably assert that there is any 'criticism' that exists in a serious manner in the US Newsmedia. Dont simply dismiss this as chomskean ranting, I am serious. The critical acclaim of the US Newsmedia is as cheap and easy to secure as a Haliburton oil deal.


> - He never tried to answer why it happened, he didn't have
>an answer. The whole point of the film was there is no clear
>answer and it's probably a whole range of issues that he
>addressed in the film. Gus Van Sant came to the same
>conclusion in his new film about it, Elephant, there is no
>straight answer for an insane act like that.
>

I wasn't speaking about Moore attempting some convoluted psychobabble about the Columbine killers (which he did actually, when he talked about the munitions plant employees and how 'daddy goes to work and builds missiles, how is this any different' *cringe*). The entire topic of the columbine killings seemed ancillary to the greater issue of gun violence, to me.

However what I was talking about was his treatment of the Foreign Policy retrospective, the links between availability and death, the implication of the U.S. on a global scale (apart from the Canada part, which got a double *CRINGE* for its cornball portrayal). He should have ATTEMPTED to connect the dots, because his incoherent thesis was weak and it proved him to be impotent in his capabilities.


>Explain that one again. Republicans let a bad film win the
>academy award so that Democracts would look bad? Exactly how
>did Bush and Cheney infiltrate the academy awards to pull
>this one off? And since so many people obviously love the
>movie, more than any other documentary ever made, how is it
>making anyone look bad?

Its making them look bad because the Right Wing tends to seek critical proofs whereas the left tends to waffle and strike a moral pose. The reason it is damaging, and I have explained it thoroughly above so I wont get way into it again, is because it gives the Right the freedom to claim that there is a *critical reproach* in this 'democracy'. But they only allowed it because it was so poorly done and unconvincing. They dont speak about Chomsky or Said on the news because that is a REAL threat to the minds of those watching and learning, but they can speak about Moore until the cows come home because he sucks and he typefies everything that is wrong with the leftwing today.

While you may be surprised that I agree with much of what you are saying here, I don't think that Chomsky and Said are fully censored from the media because they are intellectual threats. Chomsky and the late Said, while they are great intellectual threats in their own right, I think that their extreme intellectualism makes them inaccessible to the vast majority who are pop culture mush brains. My point is that they don't need to censor people like Chomsky as long as the media and pop culture and dumbing people down enough so that they wouldn't understand a word that Chomsky is talking about anyway. Further, I respect Moore for the same reasons why he is not someone I look to for information. Moore is great for explaining the political mess of the world to a general dumbed down population that doesn't have the attention span for Chomsky and Said.

That said, while I agree that Moore's analysis is pretty shallow, I do believe that he raises some very important questions that the average movie going population would not be thinking about. I especially enjoyed the parts where he talked about the culture of fear and that it is not necessarily gun control that is the problem, but the perpetual fear that the average American is filled with as a result of all the sensory material that passes through his/her brain everyday. I also thought he explained, quite well, what could happen when a single mother is forced to labour an obsene amount of hours a week and thereby has no time to nurture her child. The result was the child who brought that gun to school and shot his classmate.

Just some thoughts.

>> - That's your opinion. Moore has an academy award,
>>widespread crticial acclaim, awards from every major film
>>festival and the highest grossing doc of all time to prove
>>otherwise.
>>
>>You don't get all of that from a really bad film.
>>
>
>Critical acclaim? Nobody can reasonably assert that there is
>any 'criticism' that exists in a serious manner in the US
>Newsmedia. Dont simply dismiss this as chomskean ranting, I
>am serious. The critical acclaim of the US Newsmedia is as
>cheap and easy to secure as a Haliburton oil deal.
>
>
>> - He never tried to answer why it happened, he didn't have
>>an answer. The whole point of the film was there is no clear
>>answer and it's probably a whole range of issues that he
>>addressed in the film. Gus Van Sant came to the same
>>conclusion in his new film about it, Elephant, there is no
>>straight answer for an insane act like that.
>>
>
>I wasn't speaking about Moore attempting some convoluted
>psychobabble about the Columbine killers (which he did
>actually, when he talked about the munitions plant employees
>and how 'daddy goes to work and builds missiles, how is this
>any different' *cringe*). The entire topic of the columbine
>killings seemed ancillary to the greater issue of gun
>violence, to me.
>
>However what I was talking about was his treatment of the
>Foreign Policy retrospective, the links between availability
>and death, the implication of the U.S. on a global scale
>(apart from the Canada part, which got a double *CRINGE* for
>its cornball portrayal). He should have ATTEMPTED to connect
>the dots, because his incoherent thesis was weak and it
>proved him to be impotent in his capabilities.
>
>
>>Explain that one again. Republicans let a bad film win the
>>academy award so that Democracts would look bad? Exactly how
>>did Bush and Cheney infiltrate the academy awards to pull
>>this one off? And since so many people obviously love the
>>movie, more than any other documentary ever made, how is it
>>making anyone look bad?
>
>Its making them look bad because the Right Wing tends to
>seek critical proofs whereas the left tends to waffle and
>strike a moral pose. The reason it is damaging, and I have
>explained it thoroughly above so I wont get way into it
>again, is because it gives the Right the freedom to claim
>that there is a *critical reproach* in this 'democracy'. But
>they only allowed it because it was so poorly done and
>unconvincing. They dont speak about Chomsky or Said on the
>news because that is a REAL threat to the minds of those
>watching and learning, but they can speak about Moore until
>the cows come home because he sucks and he typefies
>everything that is wrong with the leftwing today.

I hear a similar apologist refrain from alot of left-wingers but it always gives me pause in its implications. I wont disagree that Chomsky can be inaccessible, but its not beyond the realm of comprehension. The difficulty with Chomsky is his use of irony and implied meaning, he's not full clarity but you've gotta respect how nuanced it is. But again, serious theorizing is not completely inaccessible. Herman's 'The Real Terror Network' is a great example of serious leftie business that is comprehensible for everyone.

Even then I think people are willing to settle for Moore and that is wrong. People are not giving enough credit to individuals in the mainstream. I dont think its a matter of not comprehending, its a matter of not giving people a reason to care. As long as Moore posits nothing and throws his hands up in the air in terms of his examination people have no reason to care.

>While you may be surprised that I agree with much of what
>you are saying here, I don't think that Chomsky and Said are
>fully censored from the media because they are intellectual
>threats. Chomsky and the late Said, while they are great
>intellectual threats in their own right, I think that their
>extreme intellectualism makes them inaccessible to the vast
>majority who are pop culture mush brains. My point is that
>they don't need to censor people like Chomsky as long as the
>media and pop culture and dumbing people down enough so that
>they wouldn't understand a word that Chomsky is talking
>about anyway. Further, I respect Moore for the same reasons
>why he is not someone I look to for information. Moore is
>great for explaining the political mess of the world to a
>general dumbed down population that doesn't have the
>attention span for Chomsky and Said.
>
>That said, while I agree that Moore's analysis is pretty
>shallow, I do believe that he raises some very important
>questions that the average movie going population would not
>be thinking about. I especially enjoyed the parts where he
>talked about the culture of fear and that it is not
>necessarily gun control that is the problem, but the
>perpetual fear that the average American is filled with as a
>result of all the sensory material that passes through
>his/her brain everyday. I also thought he explained, quite
>well, what could happen when a single mother is forced to
>labour an obsene amount of hours a week and thereby has no
>time to nurture her child. The result was the child who
>brought that gun to school and shot his classmate.
>
>Just some thoughts.
>

But do you not atleast believe that Moore is starting some sort of dialogue that may have previously been lacking? I mean, if for example, one feels that Moore's accounts of things are incomplete then a more competent leftist arguing the same issues might be able to complete the thoughts that Moore brings to the table.

Moore has consciousness raising on his side, but I think its in vain because it presents such a feeble perspective. If anything it makes people think that there IS no correlation between these things. You say that people are too stupid, essentially, to grasp a serious argument. Someone mentioned that Moore had chose to let the viewers 'draw their own conclusions by not interfering with that process'. But I ask you... if the people are too stupid to get it, how can anyone expect them to draw the conclusions? Bowling for Columbine is a exercise in futility. Somebody watching it could just as easily blame the 'towelhead sand niggers' for the heightened fear and increased tension. The problem with the film is that it presents no framework.

Maybe if Moore were apolitical it would be ok, but affiliating himself with a group (whether or not he chooses that affiliation) means that he should be more responsible in his presentation - OR - not make one at all.

Well, when I say the public is too dumbed down and someone else says "people can draw their own conclusions" it doesn't necessarily mean both of us think these things and you can mold us together to make a conclusion. I am not responsible for what others say.

>Well, when I say the public is too dumbed down and someone
>else says "people can draw their own conclusions" it doesn't
>necessarily mean both of us think these things and you can
>mold us together to make a conclusion. I am not responsible
>for what others say.

No but you admit that people are dumbed down. And irregardless of what the other person said, the audiences are clearly left to draw their own conclusion because Moore didn't tighten the screws on his thesis.

The larger point is that since he didn't tighten the thesis, this group of stupid people will never be able to draw the conclusions. Or if they do draw them they will be completely wrong or misunderstood. Thats how you get the 'towelhead sand nigger' rebuttal from people. Because Moore didn't have the cojones or the brains to actually put together a STATEMENT to present. Its really just a nihilist's film.

well, i think everyone should be critical of statements, doctrines, art etc even if it "agrees" with them in terms of broad orientation. but let's face it the republicans dont let that shit get to them, they are onward marching mufuckas and that is why they succeed. democrats tryingt to copy that are failing though, "the party line" doesnt pull because to get that across we have to break out insincere dipshits who bring the left right and only make things much worse.

as far as B for C, it was OK, it was not really a documentary, nor are any MM films. The Big One got its point across a little better, but I dont think this flick was TOTALLY worthless

http://www.hyperial.com/MyViews/Content.asp?ID=81

Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' - Documentary or Fiction?
04/10/2003 at 7:51:02 PM

-David T. Hardy-

The first misconception to correct about Michael Moore's The Big One is that it is a documentary. It's not. Moore doesn't make those.

The Michael Moore production "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition.

The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which receives but a fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." The award of the documentary Oscar to a $4 million entertainment piece is unjust to the legitimate competitors, and sets a precedent which will encourage others to play loose with the truth.

Bowling makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered. Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.

A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be amusing. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary is a non-fictional movie.

The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or incorrect. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive. A viewer cannot count upon any aspect of it, even when the viewer believes he is seeing video of an event occurring or a person speaking. Let's look at the evidence.

1. Lockheed-Martin and Nuclear Missiles. Bowling for Columbine contains a sequence filmed at the Lockheed-Martin manufacturing facility, near Columbine. Moore asks whether knowledge that weapons of mass destruction were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooters. Moore intones that the missiles with their "Pentagon payloads" are trucked through the town "in the middle of the night while the children are asleep."

After Bowling was released someone checked and found that the Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes rockets for launching satellites.

Moore's website has his response:

"he Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them). "

Nice try, Mike.

(1) that some are spy satellites which might be "used to direct the launching" (i.e., because they spot nukes being launched at the United States) is hardly what Moore was suggesting in the movie. Quote:

"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Dad goes off to the factory every day, he builds missiles of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"

It's hard to envision a murderer making a moral equation between mass murder and a recon satellite, right?

(2) In fact, one of that plant's major projects was the ultimate in beating swords into plowshares: taking the Titan missiles which originally had carried nuclear warheads, and converting them to launch communications satellites and space exploration units.



2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. A major theme in Bowling (and certainly the theme that has attracted most reviewers) is that NRA is callous toward slayings. In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket over his head and happily proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

The portrayal is one of Heston and NRA arrogantly holding a protest in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." The portrayal is in fact false.


Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links in next para.), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held.


Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was a response to his being given the musket, a collector's piece, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.

Moore then goes to show Heston speaking in Denver. His second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."



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.

Let's examine how Moore creates the impression that one event was right after the other. He does this so smoothly that I didn't spot it. It was picked up by Richard Rockley, who was kind enough to send 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."

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 just long enough for the viewer to skim the highlighted words and gather that Heston was asked about her and replied. Ah, the relevance.

Okay, you think, he obviously was alerted to the case, and that's why be came.

And, Moore continues, the case was discussed on Heston's "own NRA" webpage... Again, your mind seeks relevance....

Image of a webpage for America's First Freedom (a website for NRA, not for Heston) with text "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was prounced dead" highlighted and zoomed in on. The image is visible so briefly that only highlighted text can be read.

Your impression: Heston did something 48 hours after she died. Why else would "his" webpage note this event, whatever it is? What would Heston's action have been? It must have been to go to Flint and give the speech.

Scene cuts to protestors, including a woman with a Million Moms March t-shirt, who asks how Heston could come here, she's shocked and appalled, "it's like he's rubbing our face in it." (This speaker and the protest may be faked, but let's assume for the moment they're real.).

This caps your impression. She's shocked by Heston coming there, 48 hours after the death. He'd hardly be rubbing faces in it if he came there months or years later, on a purpose unrelated to the death.

The viewer thinks he or she understands ....

One reviewer: Heston "held another NRA rally in Flint, Michigan, just 48 hours after a 6 year old shot and killed a classmate in that same town."

Another:"What was Heston thinking going to into Colorado and Michigan immediately after the massacres of innocent children?"

Let's look at the facts behind the presentation:

Heston's speech, with its sense of urgency, freedom needs you now more than ever before. As noted above, it's actually an election rally, held weeks before the closest election in American history.

Moore: Just as at Columbine, Heston showed up in Flint to have a large pro-gun rally. As noted above, it was an election rally actually held eight months later.

Georgetown Hoya interview, with highlighting on reporter mentioning Kayla and on Heston's name where he responds.

What is not highlighted, and impossible to read except by repeating the scene, is that the reporter asks about Kayla and about the Columbine shooters, and Heston replies only as to the Columbine shooters. There is no indication that he recognized Kayla Rolland's case.

"His NRA webpage" with highlighted reference to "48 hours after Kayla Robinson is pronounced dead." Here's where it gets interesting. Moore zooms in on that phrase so quickly that it blots out the rest of the sentence, and then takes the image off screen before you can read anything else.

The page is long gone, but I finally found a June 2000 usenet posting citing the "48 hours" webpage. Guess what the page really said happened? Not a Heston trip to Flint, but: "48-hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead, Bill Clinton is on The Today Show telling a sympathetic Katie Couric, "Maybe this tragic death will help.""

Yep, Moore had a reason for zooming in on the 48 hours. The zooming starts instantly, and moves sideways to block out the rest of the sentence before even the quickest viewer could read it.

Moore is a genius here. But if this is artistic talent, it's not the type that merits an Oscar.

C. Heston Interview. Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview. Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he says it was a morning event and he "then went on to wherever we were going." In fact the rally was 6 - 7:30 PM and the last event of the tour.). Heston's lack of recall is not surprising; it was one rally in a nine-stop tour of three States in three days.

Moore, who had plenty of time to prepare, continues the impression he has created, asking Heston questions such as: "After that happened you came to Flint to hold a big rally and, you know, I just, did you feel it was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?"

Moore knows the real sequence, and knows that Heston does not. Moore takes full advantage.

Moore's purpose here is to convince the viewer that Heston intentionally holds defiant protests in response to a firearms tragedy. Judging from reviews above, Moore succeeds. In fact, when Heston says he did not know about Kayla's shooting when he went to Flint, viewers see Heston as an inept liar:

"Then, he and his ilk held ANOTHER gun-rally shortly after another child/gun tragedy in Flint, MI where a 6-year old child shot and killed a 6-year old classmate (Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared)."

Bowling persuaded these viewers by deceiving them. Moore's creative skills, which could be put to a good purpose, are instead used to convince the viewer that things happened which did not and that a truthful man is a liar when he denies them.



3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK. In an animated history send-up, with the narrator talking rapidly, Bowling equates the NRA with the Klan, suggesting NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict Klansmen becoming the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross. This sequence is intended to create the impression either that NRA and the Klan were parallel groups or that when the Klan was outlawed its members formed the NRA. And viewers pick up just that message. "Throughout the film Moore mentions the history of the NRA and ties it closely with the history of white Americans' fear of African-Americans. He points out that the NRA was "coincidentally" founded in the same year that the KKK was founded." Source

Both impressions are not merely false, but directly opposed to the real facts.


Fact: The NRA was founded in 1871 -- by act of the New York Legislature, at request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an "illegal" such with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the President to use troops to suppress the Klan.


Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

Fact: Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

Fact: After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.

Fact: After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.

Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.

Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.

.4. Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan. Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter who killed Kayla Rolland as a sympathetic youngster, from a struggling family, who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school. "No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl."


Fact: The little boy was the class bully, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.


Fact: The uncle's house was the neighborhood crack-house. The gun was stolen and was purchased by the uncle in exchange for drugs.The shooter's father was already serving a prison term for theft and drug offenses. After the event, the shooter's uncle went to jail. A few weeks later police busted his grandmother and aunt for narcotics sales. After police hauled the family away, the neighbors applauded the officers. These was not the nice but misunderstood family Moore portrays.


Links:1., 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

5. The Taliban and American Aid. After discussing military assistance to various countries, Bowling asserts that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001, and then shows aircraft hitting the twin towers to illustrate the result.


Fact: The aid in question was humanitarian assistance, given through UN and nongovernmental organizations, to relieve famine in Afghanistan.

6. International Comparisons. To pound home its point, Bowling flashes a dramatic count of gun homicides in various countries: Canada 165, Germany 381, Australia 65, Japan 39, US 11,127. Now that's raw numbers, not rates, but let's go with what Bowling uses.

Verifying the figures was difficult, since Moore does not give a year for them, but I kept trying. A lot of Moore's numbers didn't check out for any period I could find. As a last effort at checking, I did a Google search for each number and the word "gun" or words "gun homicides" Many traced -- only back to webpages repeating Bowling's figures. So far as I can find, Moore is the only one using these numbers.

Germany: Bowling says 381: 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it claims: it's either far too high or far too low. (And that is just murder: if you add in accidents and suicides it becomes 12,888 for all, or about 1,207 for firearms.)

Australia: Bowling says 65. This is very close, albeit picking the year to get the data desired. Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied from 64-123, although never exactly 65. In 2000, it was 64, which was proudly proclaimed as the lowest number in the country's history. If suicides and accidents are included, the numbers become 516 - 687.

US: Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. (2001 UCR, p. 23).

Going back 1997 (earliest year listed in the 2001 FBI report), I couldn't find Bowling's U.S. number anywhere.

After an email tip, I finally found a way to compute 11,127. Ignore the FBI, use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are based on doctor's death certificates rather than police investigation, and give figures about 2,000 higher than FBI.

Then -- to their gun homicide figures, add the figure for legally-justified homicides: self-defense and police use against criminals. Presto, you have exactly Moore's 11,127. I can see no other way for him to get it.

Since Moore appears to use police figures for the other countries, it's hardly a valid comparison. More to the point, it's misleading: when we talk of a gun homicide problem we hardly have in mind a woman defending against a rapist, or a cop taking out an armed robber.

Canada: Moore's number is correct for 1999, a low point, but he ignores some obvious differences.

Bias. I wanted to talk about fabrication, not about bias, but I've gotten emails asking why I didn't mention that Switzerland requires almost all adult males to have guns, but has a lower homicide rate than Great Britain, or that Japanese-Americans, with the same proximity to guns as other Americans, have homicide rates half that of Japan itself. Okay, they're mentioned, now back to our regularly scheduled program.

7. Miscellaneous. Even the Canadian government is jumping on Moore. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).

While we're at it: Bowling shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy, while Moore scornfully intones that the plaque under it "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972."

The plaque actually reads that "Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas eve 1972." This is pretty mild compared to the rest of Bowling, but the viewer can't even trust Moore to honestly read a monument.

8. Race. Moore does not directly state that Heston is a racist--he is the master of creating the false impression --but reviewers come away saying "Heston looks like an idiot, and a racist one at that" Source. "BTW, one thing the Heston interview did clear up, that man is shockingly racist." Source.

The remarks stem from Heston's answer (after Moore keeps pressing for why the US has more violence than other countries) that it might be due to the US "having a more mixed ethnicity" than other nations. and "We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning." A viewer who accepts Moore's theme that gun ownership is driven by racial fears might conclude that Heston is blaming blacks and the civil rights movement.

But if you look at some history missing from Bowling, you get exactly the opposite picture. Heston is talking, not about race, but about racism. In the early 1960s, the civil rights movement was fighting for acceptance. Civil rights workers were being murdered. The Kennedy Administration, trying to hold together a Democratic coalition that ranged from liberals to fire-eater segregationists such as George Wallace and Lester Maddox, found the issue too hot to touch, and offered little support.

Heston got involved. He worked with Martin Luther King, and helped King break Hollywood's color barrier (yes, there was one.). He led the actors' component of King's 1963 march in Washington, which set the stage for key civil rights legislation in 1964. Source.

Here's Heston's comments at the 2001 Congress on Racial Equality Martin Luther King dinner (presided over by NRA director, and CORE President, Roy Innes). More on Heston.

Most of the viewers were born long after the events Heston is recalling. To them, the civil rights struggle consists of Martin Luther King speaking, people singing "We Shall Overcome," and everyone coming to their senses. Heston remembers what it was really like.

9. Fear. Bowling probably has a good point when it suggests that the media feeds off fear in a search for the fast buck. Bowling cites some examples: the razor blades in Halloween apples scare, the flesh-eating bacteria scare, etc. The examples are taken straight from Barry Glassner's excellent book on the subject, "The Culture of Fear," and Moore interviews Glassner on-camera for the point.

Then Moore does exactly what he condemns in the media.

Given the prominence of schoolyard killings as a theme in Bowling for Columbine, Moore must have asked Glassner about that subject. Whatever Glassner said is, however, left on the cutting-room floor. That's because Glassner lists schoolyard shootings as one of the mythical fears. He points out that "More than three times as many people are killed by lightning as by violence at schools."

10. Guns (supposedly the point of the film). A point worth making (although not strictly on theme here): Bowling's theme is, rather curiously, not opposed to firearms ownership.

After making out Canada to be a haven of nonviolence, Moore asks why. He proclaims that Canada has "a tremendous amount of gun ownership," somewhat under one gun per household. He visits Canadian shooting ranges, gun stores, and in the end proclaims "Canada is a gun loving, gun toting, gun crazy country!"

Or as he put it elsewhere, "then I learned that Canada has 7 million guns but they don't kill each other like we do. I thought, gosh, that's uncomfortably close to the NRA position: Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Bowling concludes that Canada isn't peaceful because it lacks guns and gun nuts -- it has lots of those -- but because the Canadian mass media isn't into constant hyping of fear and loathing, and the American media is. (One problem).

Which leaves us to wonder why the Brady Campaign/Million Moms issued a press release. congratulating Moore on his Oscar nomination.

Or does Bowling have a hidden punch line, and in the end the joke is on them?

One possible explanation: did Bowling begin as one movie, and end up as another?

Conclusion

The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or lacking in objectivity. The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest. It is fraudulent. To trash Heston, it even uses the audio/video editor to assemble a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and sequences images and carefully highlighted text to spin the viewer's mind to a wrong conclusion. If there is art in this movie, it is this art -- a dishonest art. Moore does not inform his readers: he plays them like a violin.

David T. Hardy , to include the Second Amendment.

dthardy@mindspring.com

Excellent. Thank you.

You critique his lack of thesis, but it seems to me he was simply attempting to address the insane prominence of gun violence in America and the possible causes. The way he correlates violence by the American citizen with the brutal violence carried out through US foreign policy was a very good point (though I personally wish he would have elaborated on it more). It is true that Americans are pumped full of fear by the media, and perhaps the response to this fear is reflected by gun violence. Moore points to our government … what do they do when they perceive a threat, they reach out to destroy that threat, regardless of whether there was indeed an actual threat or not (the recent Iraq operation being a paradigm of this phenomenon).

I applaud Moore for making this film, not because making a leftist argument is an end in itself, but because it’s a rare occasion in American cinema where a film has provoked many Americans to question and explore the role that media, government, foreign policy, economics and consumerism play in societal violence. Moore poses a lot of poignant questions without ramming an answer down the viewers throat. You attack him for lack of thesis, yet insists the documentary is agenda-ridden and manipulative.

"You fasten all the triggers,
For the others to fire,
Then you sit back and watch,
As the death count gets higher"-Bob Dylan

"Maybe you'll be president,
But know right from wrong,
Or in the flood,
You'll build an Ark,
And sail us to the moon"-Thom Yorke

"I'm in heaven trying to figure out which stack they're going to stuff us atheists into,
When Peter and his monkey laugh and i laugh with them,
I'm not sure what at,
They point and say we'll keep you in the back polishing halos, baking manna and gas"-Modest Mouse

What moore does is touch on (with kid-gloves) the interrelation of these things. He doesn't pose poignant questions, he makes empty-handed guestures which appropriate the more rigorous discipline espoused by individuals like Chomsky, Said, Herman, Zinn, and others. He is a leftie everyman who leeches the substance of their arguments and then tosses it into a film (as mentioned, a very poorly done film). Giving credit to him for the substance of the film is in ignorance of a great history of intellectual dissent. He bearly even understands dissent, as evidenced in his ridiculously weak dialogue with those interviewed ("why is this so", asks Moore? "I dont know." Moore replies, "I dont know either" etc.) and his waffling stance overall, which is predicated on his fear of actually SAYING or MAKING tight logical correlations between trends.

Lefties need to quit dick riding this man simply because he is a leftie. His material sucks and his creativity is nil (note the cheesy fifties archetype appropriated wholesale which he feebly attempts to pass off as satire). What we learn from him is how dangerous a feeble mind can be to the cause of the leftwing. Serious intellectuals only need laugh at the incompleteness of nearly everything he says or produces. Sentiment does not garner respect, and thats something that Moore needs to learn.

>What moore does is touch on (with kid-gloves) the
>interrelation of these things.

Okay, perhaps, the American populace requires 'kid-gloved' approaches to these issues. He is in fact reaching the public and causing them to look at issues which they’d typically have no interest in. You may chide him all you want, but he has reached a broader audience then any of the intellectuals/activists mentioned below. Sure, he didn’t make the Citizen Kane of documentaries, but really, he obviously is not the complete cinematic farce you condemn him as, for the Academy gave him an Oscar, which in one of the few artistic awards around that carries actual merit.

>He doesn't pose poignant
>questions, he makes empty-handed guestures which appropriate
>the more rigorous discipline espoused by individuals like
>Chomsky, Said, Herman, Zinn, and others.

Yes, these guys are clearly out of his league, but are they doing as much to catalyze thought among the masses?

>He is a leftie
>everyman who leeches the substance of their arguments and
>then tosses it into a film (as mentioned, a very poorly done
>film). Giving credit to him for the substance of the film is
>in ignorance of a great history of intellectual dissent.

Who the hell said he was a novice in intellectual dissent? Sure, I'd love to see Chomsky make an accessible film that the public eats up, but he hasn't (Manufacturing Consent was obviously the superior film, but has had little influence on the population).

He
>bearly even understands dissent, as evidenced in his
>ridiculously weak dialogue with those interviewed ("why is
>this so", asks Moore? "I dont know." Moore replies, "I dont
>know either" etc.) and his waffling stance overall, which is
>predicated on his fear of actually SAYING or MAKING tight
>logical correlations between trends.

I see where your coming from here, but I think he is trying to leave an opening for the audience to reach their own conclusions. I personally thought Marilyn Manson did an excellent job of breaking down the correlations.

>Lefties need to quit dick riding this man simply because he
>is a leftie. His material sucks and his creativity is nil
>(note the cheesy fifties archetype appropriated wholesale
>which he feebly attempts to pass off as satire). What we
>learn from him is how dangerous a feeble mind can be to the
>cause of the leftwing. Serious intellectuals only need laugh
>at the incompleteness of nearly everything he says or
>produces. Sentiment does not garner respect, and thats
>something that Moore needs to learn.

'Serious intellectuals'? Moore may be extremist, but he is no more extreme than the intellectuals you champion. I've read many chomsky claims that are much more farfetched than the arguments implied in Bowling for Columbine.

Either way, you have conceded that Moore is presenting intellectual leftism that has been done bofore. You do support the intellectuals you say he's leaching off of, so how can you be so upset with him, even if he is merely a conduit to get pre-existing intellectual leftism to the masses?

"You fasten all the triggers,
For the others to fire,
Then you sit back and watch,
As the death count gets higher"-Bob Dylan

"Maybe you'll be president,
But know right from wrong,
Or in the flood,
You'll build an Ark,
And sail us to the moon"-Thom Yorke

"I'm in heaven trying to figure out which stack they're going to stuff us atheists into,
When Peter and his monkey laugh and i laugh with them,
I'm not sure what at,
They point and say we'll keep you in the back polishing halos, baking manna and gas"-Modest Mouse

>"he obviously is not the complete cinematic farce you condemn >him as, for the Academy gave him an Oscar, which in one of the >few artistic awards around that carries actual merit."

Merit? No. The quality of the Academy Awards has been notoriously low in terms of recognizing achievement in the realm of filmmaking, including documentary filmmaking. He award was a token guesture from the rightwing influences who wish to keep a stronger grip on the population while still being able to claim the 'freedoms of democracy'. As in, "Look... Michael Moore made a (crappy) film which is highly critical of the United States and its government, ergo there IS a democracy at work here." If the Oscars were about artistic achievement then Dark Days would have won, or City of God, or Baraka perhaps. The Academy Awards are nothing but starry-eyed basking in the vaccuous glamor of hollywood and special effects and celebrity. For you to think otherwise is naive. Lets face facts about Moore's 'winning documentary' here and just admit that it DOES make the leftwing look feeble, both in its inept thesis, overarching moral posture, and limited factual content. Many right-wingers were smiling as the Moore took to the stage to publicly embarras himself during the acceptance speech.

>"Yes, these guys are clearly out of his league, but are they >doing as much to catalyze thought among the masses?"

I will grant you the sheer numbers, however not in ignorance of how views are influenced by the way an individual presents them. I would say that Coppola's Apocalypse Now had a greater influence then BFC did in its approach artistically and intellectually in its dealing with the theme of human recklessness during the Vietnam war, and throughout history overall. However it could be argued that yes they are. That the intelligensia responds more acutely to well-reasoned and thorough arguments, and that by and large those who are in a position to influence public policy are individuals of this sort.

>"I see where your coming from here, but I think he is trying to >leave an opening for the audience to reach their own >conclusions. I personally thought Marilyn Manson did an >excellent job of breaking down the correlations."

I think that Moore, in the position he is in and as shown by his incisive dealings on the nike issue, had a responsibility to step up to the plate (like a man) and actually suss out the conclusions of his work in a more direct way. Its that same kind of open ended wishy-washy posturing that is the reason for the lack of leftwing strength. Be risky, be intelligent, be willing to actually DRAW a conclusion.

As always, Manson was on point in his commentary. He wont be remembered as the prophetic forebearer of a new-era consciousness because he is based on social-critique, but you cant deny how straight-forward and to the point he is in his dealings. Great stuff from him.

>'Serious intellectuals'? Moore may be extremist, but he is no >more extreme than the intellectuals you champion. I've read >many chomsky claims that are much more farfetched than the >arguments implied in Bowling for Columbine.
>
>Either way, you have conceded that Moore is presenting >intellectual leftism that has been done bofore. You do support >the intellectuals you say he's leaching off of, so how can you >be so upset with him, even if he is merely a conduit to get pre->existing intellectual leftism to the masses?

Chomsky makes farfetched claims but supports them with book-length references in turn. You cannot take issue with that because he offers you every opportunity to follow up and learn for yourself. Moore doesnt do that at all, bearly makes a coherent argument at all.

How can I be upset with him? Because I have standards which I feel are a requisite for any serious argument. They are references, logical coherence, clarity, decisiveness, tact. Moore exhibits none of these things with his faux-intellectual scribbles, which are really just moral poses that he strikes without TELLING us why or HOW or WHAT is equal to what, and how he feels things interrelate. I chide him for being weak and ineffectual. His 'greatness' or ability didn't cause the movie to reach such a wide audience, the public's interest in anything that is contrarian or extreme did. If Moore had made a film about cross-dressing feltchers that played to general audiences it would have been just as successful. Thats because it really had nothing to do with Moore. But its a shame that he actually had something to do with it, because in the end it turned out poorly as a result.

that most mainstream-praised shit is just a 101 intro to problems. take a look at traffic, some nice cinematography and decent acting, but if there was any new info in that movie for you then you really dont have a fucking clue about what is going on in America. On top of that, many of its points were WAY oversimplified and the pictures and solutions it offered were typical of today's clueless democrats who are just as clueless about drug use as their conservative peers, only slightly more "compassionate." It seems like anything with a point is earth-shattering in this watered down society where dialogue is dead and thought has followed suit...

>The foreign policy retrospective was thorough
>and should have been a central focus, however Moore still
>managed to find a way to soften it up with trite
>sentimentality and bullshit surface-level examinations of
>the role of foreign policy and terrorism.

gotta agree with that. all the right-wing "debunking" of the documentary doesnt touch that part with a ten-foot pole (except the questionable aid to the taliban)... even those fucks know its all true.

The reason Moore doesn't make these tight connections that you seem to desire is because it's not possible, and the film admits that. The issue is more complex than simply blaming it on Cause A or Cause B. The whole purpose of the film is to ask questions, not answer them. I think Moore does a great job of posing possible answers, but leaves the viewer to make up their own mind. Maybe it's not the style you'd like, but it works effectively as far as I'm concerned.

Also, your critiques on the film making are just poorly constructed. I watched the film again today, and noticed not only good voiceovers, but perfectly timed editing. On top of that, the film is very well soundtracked. But I think these criticisms are missing the point.

Finally, in regards to the portrayal of Canada, please explain to me what was such a farce. I didn't think it was that far off. I'm interested to hear this.

>The reason Moore doesn't make these tight connections that
>you seem to desire is because it's not possible, and the
>film admits that. The issue is more complex than simply
>blaming it on Cause A or Cause B. The whole purpose of the
>film is to ask questions, not answer them. I think Moore
>does a great job of posing possible answers, but leaves the
>viewer to make up their own mind.

First of all it is possible to provide some coherence to the events and to relate the geopolitical implications of US policy upon the mindstate of fearful individuals. All the film admits is that it is *incapable* of providing that coherence to the argument. What, just because the film told you so you thought it was true? Secondly, nobody thus far (myself included) has referenced the idea that the issues dealt with are understandable in absolute immutable terms. The A/B analogy is a bit ridiculous seeing as how I have been arguing for a greater complexity and depth to Moores thesis this entire time. The kind of depth that addresses a complex interrelation of trends (foreign/domestic, economic/social, and geographic) leading to the current situation in America. Moore doesnt attempt this, or even attempt a simple crystallization for the viewers to digest, he just throws his flabby arms up into the air and concedes defeat. He is a coward for that reason - for not even attempting a complex understanding in the first place.

>Also, your critiques on the film making are just poorly
>constructed. I watched the film again today, and noticed not
>only good voiceovers, but perfectly timed editing. On top of

My critiques are apt. Each and every one of them. You enjoy the nasal monotone delivery of Moore's voiceovers? The man's voice isn't fit for a cable access show, and his choice of reading the voiceovers was clearly a vanity play. Still awful no matter how you flip it. And perfectly timed editing? Is that the litmus test for a good documentary film? Perfectly timed editing is the LEAST I expect from any production. Its how it was edited, spliced with cheery 50's vomitus and Moore wheezing nasally, and how the piece presented its ideas through the editing. All of it was trash.

If there is any reason for the film getting acclaim it is simply because people are SETTLING for Moore because of a nicely timed historical co-incidence. Nobody in their right mind would consider this film worthy above its historically contingent political context.

>Finally, in regards to the portrayal of Canada, please
>explain to me what was such a farce. I didn't think it was
>that far off. I'm interested to hear this.

Do you live in Canada? The portrayal of Canada was a farce for a number of reasons. Firstly because of the locations that Moore choose. Sarnia - a city in the boonies with a low crime rate, which seems to suit Moores thesis about Canada well even if it is completely fallacious. Then Windsor, also a low-key urban metropolis in Canada. Its handy for him to use Windsor as an example because its right across from Detroit so it gives the impression that the mean differences are not geographically but culturally defined. They're not, especially to the extent that Moore says they are. Lastly, and most importantly, he goes to Toronto because Toronto is a big Canadian city with the highest crime rate. BUT - and this is crucial to how Moore manipulates his version of the truth to suit his hypothesis on Canada - he goes to a bougie neighborhood to knock on peoples doors, probably the Annex, or the Esplanade, which doesnt speak for the majority of Torontonians in terms of the locking door issue. Secondly, he interviews people in middle-upper class neighborhoods with little racial diversity, in order to suit his thesis. He visited a 'ghetto' - didn't cite the name, it looks like some place on Finch in the north end of the city, but he DIDNT go knocking on doors there or interview people there.

Apart from the upper class neighborhoods people in Toronto generally do lock their doors, do take steps to protect their own safety, and also do commit violent acts against one another (a highschool gangwar just killed 1 17yearold teenager here after he was stabbed in the gut admist a throng of people carrying bats and chains and other weapons). It happened, funnily enough, near the 'ghetto' which Moore placidly strolls through at 2pm in the afternoon.

Moore's presentation of Canada is propagandistic and false.

I agree with the airy fairy Canada portrayal thing. I live in Vancouver and would be a considered an idiot if I left any of my doors unlocked. I even lock my bedroom door when I leave the apartment.

>First of all it is possible to provide some coherence to the
>events and to relate the geopolitical implications of US
>policy upon the mindstate of fearful individuals. All the
>film admits is that it is *incapable* of providing that
>coherence to the argument. What, just because the film told
>you so you thought it was true? Secondly, nobody thus far
>(myself included) has referenced the idea that the issues
>dealt with are understandable in absolute immutable terms.
>The A/B analogy is a bit ridiculous seeing as how I have
>been arguing for a greater complexity and depth to Moores
>thesis this entire time. The kind of depth that addresses a
>complex interrelation of trends (foreign/domestic,
>economic/social, and geographic) leading to the current
>situation in America. Moore doesnt attempt this, or even
>attempt a simple crystallization for the viewers to digest,
>he just throws his flabby arms up into the air and concedes
>defeat. He is a coward for that reason - for not even
>attempting a complex understanding in the first place.

Obviously we disagree here. I'm not believing because the film told me to. I just don't think there is a conclusive answer to the questions Moore poses. Sure, he could have presented a hypothesis, but that's all it would be. Is there a concrete answer? Maybe, maybe not, but I haven't seen a convincing one yet. I think you're criticizing Moore for not making the film you wanted to see. He's taking an approach you didn't like, and that's the problem. I don't think the content is the real issue here. And let's not forget, Moore knows his audience. They are not the people who frequent Okayactivist. They are average people, who will quickly change the channel the minute he starts using words like geopolitical. Maybe that's an upsetting thought, but as a film maker, it's something he has to take into consideration.



>My critiques are apt. Each and every one of them. You enjoy
>the nasal monotone delivery of Moore's voiceovers? The man's
>voice isn't fit for a cable access show, and his choice of
>reading the voiceovers was clearly a vanity play. Still
>awful no matter how you flip it. And perfectly timed
>editing? Is that the litmus test for a good documentary
>film? Perfectly timed editing is the LEAST I expect from any
>production. Its how it was edited, spliced with cheery 50's
>vomitus and Moore wheezing nasally, and how the piece
>presented its ideas through the editing. All of it was
>trash.

This is all a matter of opinion. I totally disagree about everything regarding the voiceovers. I thought they were well done, and carried a certain sense of concern about the issues. Obviously it's something we won't agree on, since it's all subjective. As for the editing, I think you're underestimating its importance. But I'll save that, it's not really relevant to the discussion.

>If there is any reason for the film getting acclaim it is
>simply because people are SETTLING for Moore because of a
>nicely timed historical co-incidence. Nobody in their right
>mind would consider this film worthy above its historically
>contingent political context.

I think the film got acclaim because it was well done, nothing more. If it was really as poorly done as you thought, it would not have been so popular among critics(whether you hate them or not, they do have expertise on film making).


>Do you live in Canada? The portrayal of Canada was a farce
>for a number of reasons. Firstly because of the locations
>that Moore choose. Sarnia - a city in the boonies with a low
>crime rate, which seems to suit Moores thesis about Canada
>well even if it is completely fallacious. Then Windsor, also
>a low-key urban metropolis in Canada. Its handy for him to
>use Windsor as an example because its right across from
>Detroit so it gives the impression that the mean differences
>are not geographically but culturally defined. They're not,
>especially to the extent that Moore says they are.

I do live in Canada, Ottawa to be exact. I would hardly describe Windsor as an urban metropolis. Let's be realistic here. Windsor is the butt of jokes here in Canada. It is seen as dirty and unappealing. However, it doesn't even compare with Detroit, in terms of violence and crime. The point was to show how different two cities of relatively equal size are so different, when they're only separated by a river, and artificial border. You don't think the differences are culturally defined? How do you explain the monstrous difference in gun deaths?

Lastly,
>and most importantly, he goes to Toronto because Toronto is
>a big Canadian city with the highest crime rate. BUT - and
>this is crucial to how Moore manipulates his version of the
>truth to suit his hypothesis on Canada - he goes to a bougie
>neighborhood to knock on peoples doors, probably the Annex,
>or the Esplanade, which doesnt speak for the majority of
>Torontonians in terms of the locking door issue.

He didn't go to an upscale neighborhood, he went to a middle class neighborhood. The same middle class neighborhood that in the United States that would have a big fence and 5 deadbolts on the door. I lived around Hamilton for a long time, and most people there didn't lock their doors either. I know our door was almost always open. To me, this depiction was totally reflective of how things were for me. It's just a different mentality here, all you need to do is ask someone who has lived in both countries.


Secondly,
>he interviews people in middle-upper class neighborhoods
>with little racial diversity, in order to suit his thesis.
>He visited a 'ghetto' - didn't cite the name, it looks like
>some place on Finch in the north end of the city, but he
>DIDNT go knocking on doors there or interview people there.

They showed that ghetto because in most Canadian cities, that's the extent of a ghetto. Don't get me wrong, I don't suggest there is no poverty here, but nothing on the level of a New York or Chicago ghetto. Maybe there are worse ghettos here in Canada than the one Moore depicted, but not many, and I think that was the point.


>Apart from the upper class neighborhoods people in Toronto
>generally do lock their doors, do take steps to protect
>their own safety, and also do commit violent acts against
>one another (a highschool gangwar just killed 1 17yearold
>teenager here after he was stabbed in the gut admist a
>throng of people carrying bats and chains and other
>weapons). It happened, funnily enough, near the 'ghetto'
>which Moore placidly strolls through at 2pm in the
>afternoon.

Again, middle class neighborhoods also practice the unlocked door policy, I've seen it myself. Of course their are acts of violence, the film didn't say violence was non-existant. Of course people have security systems, locks, etc. That's not the point. The point was that there wasn't violence on a scale anywhere near that of what happens in the US. I think you've misinterpreted a lot of what the film said about Canada.

I don't think the
>content is the real issue here.

Well the content is the issue, as I have been stressing over and over. You can say that its not the issue but I've made my case quite clearly as to why it IS the issue.

>As for the editing, I think you're
>underestimating its importance. But I'll save that, it's not
>really relevant to the discussion.

Underestimating its importance? I am stressing its importance in terms of Moore's overall presentation. I am taking issue with the actual STYLE of the editing itself. You used the term 'perfectly timed' which, although I might have mistook your meaning, is only a weak indicator of a well-edited film.

>If it was really as poorly done as you
>thought, it would not have been so popular among
>critics(whether you hate them or not, they do have expertise
>on film making).

I've already responded to this argument in the thread. Critics are notoriously cheap and easy to come by, especially in American newsmedia. And again, I dont think anyone praised the documentary itself, more the political relation it bore to a shitty prez in office and a lousy term and that is, as I said, only historically contingent. There is nothing good about the actual documentary itself, nothing that makes it stand out. And additionaly, as I also mentioned, Moore is taking credit for a long history of intellectual dissent in a very empty-handed way with the film. So there is no room to give credit at all in this case.

>He didn't go to an upscale neighborhood, he went to a middle
>class neighborhood. The same middle class neighborhood that
>in the United States that would have a big fence and 5
>deadbolts on the door. I lived around Hamilton for a long
>time, and most people there didn't lock their doors either.
>I know our door was almost always open. To me, this
>depiction was totally reflective of how things were for me.
>It's just a different mentality here, all you need to do is
>ask someone who has lived in both countries.

Actually he did go to an upscale neighborhood. Rent is upwards of 1500 a month in the Esplanade for a 1 bedroom. Same with the Annex. It looks a bit downtrodden but it is definitely upscale, which again, suits Moore's deceptive hypothesis to a tee.

You are citing Hamilton as an example? That doesnt really count. Any decentralized area of sprawl will always experience less crime. But most importantly, you are obsfucating in the same way that Moore is. If Canada is really as he portrayed it in the film then why wasn't he in Regent Park knocking on peoples doors?

>They showed that ghetto because in most Canadian cities,
>that's the extent of a ghetto. Don't get me wrong, I don't
>suggest there is no poverty here, but nothing on the level
>of a New York or Chicago ghetto. Maybe there are worse
>ghettos here in Canada than the one Moore depicted, but not
>many, and I think that was the point.

Ever been to New York? Any project development with a parkette looks the same at 2pm in the afternoon. Have him go to Jane/Finch at 10pm and see if he can draw the same conclusions.

>Again, middle class neighborhoods also practice the unlocked
>door policy, I've seen it myself. Of course their are acts
>of violence, the film didn't say violence was non-existant.
>Of course people have security systems, locks, etc. That's
>not the point. The point was that there wasn't violence on a
>scale anywhere near that of what happens in the US. I think
>you've misinterpreted a lot of what the film said about
>Canada.

So let me get this straight. Moore's point about the difference between the amount of violence in the US and in Canada is proven by him knocking on doors in a upperclass suburb of Toronto, and by filming a ghetto parkette at 2 in the afternoon? Dont you see how assinine that is? Further proof that this film is utterly weak.

> I don't think the
>>content is the real issue here.
>
>Well the content is the issue, as I have been stressing over
>and over. You can say that its not the issue but I've made
>my case quite clearly as to why it IS the issue.

What I was trying to say was that your complaints don't seem based as much on the content as on his techniques. Maybe I'm misreading you, but that's how it seemed. I haven't read the rest of the post in-depth, just scanned it. But you didn't respond to my point about the content depth. Do you really think this film would have had much of an impact if Moore went as deep as you would prefer. Like I said, you start tossing around words like geopolitical, and the average guy changes the channel to see what's on ESPN.



>Underestimating its importance? I am stressing its
>importance in terms of Moore's overall presentation. I am
>taking issue with the actual STYLE of the editing itself.
>You used the term 'perfectly timed' which, although I might
>have mistook your meaning, is only a weak indicator of a
>well-edited film.

I don't think it's a weak indicator at all. It is crucial to the film. Editing is the crux of the presentation. If you don't like his voice, that's your opinion. Obviously most don't share it, since the film did so well. It's not really worth debating though, because the aspects you object to are completely subjective.


>I've already responded to this argument in the thread.
>Critics are notoriously cheap and easy to come by,
>especially in American newsmedia. And again, I dont think
>anyone praised the documentary itself, more the political
>relation it bore to a shitty prez in office and a lousy term
>and that is, as I said, only historically contingent. There
>is nothing good about the actual documentary itself, nothing
>that makes it stand out.

This is a cop out. Critics dislike films just as often as they praise them. Whether you agree with their decisions is another matter. I read over some reviews and almost all of them comment immediately on how "hilarious" or "sorrowful" the film was. These are comments that reflect the presentation of the film, not simply its subject.

And additionaly, as I also
>mentioned, Moore is taking credit for a long history of
>intellectual dissent in a very empty-handed way with the
>film. So there is no room to give credit at all in this
>case.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

>Actually he did go to an upscale neighborhood. Rent is
>upwards of 1500 a month in the Esplanade for a 1 bedroom.
>Same with the Annex. It looks a bit downtrodden but it is
>definitely upscale, which again, suits Moore's deceptive
>hypothesis to a tee.

In a comparative neighborhood in the US, do you think those doors would be unlocked?

>You are citing Hamilton as an example? That doesnt really
>count. Any decentralized area of sprawl will always
>experience less crime. But most importantly, you are
>obsfucating in the same way that Moore is. If Canada is
>really as he portrayed it in the film then why wasn't he in
>Regent Park knocking on peoples doors?

Because Regent Park is not reflective of the average Canadian city. It's the exception, not the rule. And Hamilton is hardly decentralized. This is not Mississauga. There is a very big downtown core, surrounded by suburbs. Hamilton or Windsor is far more representative of the average Canadian city than Regent Park would be.


>Ever been to New York? Any project development with a
>parkette looks the same at 2pm in the afternoon. Have him go
>to Jane/Finch at 10pm and see if he can draw the same
>conclusions.

Please. Compare the worst ghetto in Canada to the worst in America, and it's not even close.


>So let me get this straight. Moore's point about the
>difference between the amount of violence in the US and in
>Canada is proven by him knocking on doors in a upperclass
>suburb of Toronto, and by filming a ghetto parkette at 2 in
>the afternoon? Dont you see how assinine that is? Further
>proof that this film is utterly weak.


No, you've missed the point here. The purpose of the scene was not to show the difference in the amount of violence. The purpose was to show the difference in culture and mentality between Americans and Canadians. Canadians don't live under this same culture of fear is what Moore is arguing. Obviously, this is debatable, but I think his portrayal of Canada still stands.

Did you ever watch Panama Deception? That is a great documentary that won an "best documentary" oscar back in 1991. The film was remarkable, so I don't necessarily agree with you when you say that the academy awards do not select proper documentaries.

But 1991? The political and cultural climate has changed alot since that time. Hollywood has gotten more vaccuous since then, pandered more to base interests, and ignored the true art of filmmaking, even though it seemed impossible to me in 1991 that they COULD even sink lower. The academy awards are basically a macrocosm of Hollywood gossip and gross sales figures.

If you want to look to good filmmaking you have to turn to festivals nowadays.

Have you seen the film though? If not, I suggest you check it out.

thanks.

it obviously served it's purpose- which is, getting people to talk about it, and -implicit in this- the issues that it raises.

i mean, you're all talking about it. If you reply to this message, you've reinforced it as being a documentary that worked. The best doco's exist to stimulate debate- every reply to this post is therefore another reason why it's an effective documentary.

tohunga- stating the obvious since.. i started.

Sorry but in the real world that kind of simplistic reasoning doesnt work. We have standards and ethics for a reason. Anyone can evoke a response, that takes no skill. The point of a documentary is an informative one.

The media only lets information out like this that is non threatening to the agenda of the right(see the cancellation of the reagan special they won't no challenging of there story book heroes).

Besides if I wanted to do a documentary pertaining to a contriversal subject I would keep it simple to because the average american is not a good critical thinker. The states love style over substance and they just lock the thinkers away to create things that make the figurehead idiot of the day look good.

on anything that does more good for the world than bad... period. ESPECIALLY when it comes to cinema. peace,