In the film, Moore explores gun violence in America and particularly the question of gun ownership vs gun control. Basically, Moore's conclusion is that the problem in America is not gun ownership but a culture of fear. While he is critical of how easy it is to purchase weapons and ammunition, he does not see this as the ultimate problem. In fact, he doesn't even see violent films and video games as the problem. Instead, he talks about a culture of fear in America: fear of your neighbour, fear of the unknown, fear of terrorists, fear of different ethnic groups, fear of war.
In comparing America to Canada, he notes that Canada has approximately 10 million homes and about 7 million guns - i.e. it's not like there are no guns in Canada. Canadians also watch just as many violent movies and play just as many violent video games. Canada had abou 150 gun murders in 2001 (can't remember the exact number).
America, with 10 times the population of Canada, had over 11,500 gun murders in 2001 - that's 75 times as many as Canada. Why?
Well, according to Moore it's because the American media teaches American people to be afraid. The government does the same thing.
I don't know whether Moore is right but his arguments certainly are interesting. What is more, his film is utterly brilliant. The way it cuts clearly and carefully into a complex debate is very interesting, particularly in the way it doesn't just fall into the trap of lambasting gun owners for America's violence (Moore himself is an NRA member and has been all his life).
Has anyone else seen this film and want to share their thoughts?
His gun murder statistics are a perfect example of this - he should have provided per capita numbers. And did we really need to see the airplanes hit the WTC again, especially in a movie about gun control? Also, it was clear that several of his interviews had been heavily edited so that you couldn't really tell what the interviewee had actually meant to say.
While I enjoyed it, I felt that the middle (the exposition on fear) was by far the best part. The beginning and the end just weren't worth my while.
My dad was a marine, and for most of his years in and out of the corps held every certification the NRA gave. He has since let his membership lapse, not because he has stopped believing in gun safety, but because he believes the NRA has. We still have a moderately impressive arsenal in the house (well secured and mostly disassembled, of course) which he very occasionally takes out and cleans, but really never shoots. I couldn't tell you exactly why, but I think a large part of it is a conscious aversion to what has become so violent that doesn't need to be.
While I personally dislike the politics of the film, it is provocative. Unfortunately it is also dishonest to both the viewer and the director/star.
I would really have liked a lot more statistical information...
While it certainly didn't seem to make a point, I think that was the point - my companions and I were left to draw our own conclusions.
quote:
I saw it and didn't think it was all that. I felt that Moore tried to pass his film off as a documentary but that he used sensationalist tactics rather than straight facts.
quote:
Also, it was clear that several of his interviews had been heavily edited so that you couldn't really tell what the interviewee had actually meant to say.
Like EG, these are my biggest beefs with Moore in general. I've never seen the flick myself, mostly because the man annoys me a great deal. It's not that I think he's constantly wrong-headed, it's his constant sensationalism and distortion of the truth to suit his own agenda.
He would be better off, by me at least, by dropping the never-ending diatribes and preaching, to make his points. My gut reaction, even on issues I agree with him on, is to want to go out and vote for someone who disagrees with him. Of course that could be because I used to participate in the message boards on his website, and read his letters...and let's just say the people over there on that message board are ten times as mean and 1/10th as smart as good ole Hatrack
I wholeheartedly agree with-and am constantly annoyed by-the love of sensationalism in American (indeed, the world) media. I think that does contribute a good deal to all violence in America, at least that violence that isn't obviously different such as domestic violence or things like that. Violence between strangers, actually, is what I mean.
My one complaint would be that I felt the conclusion was a bit vague. He illustrated the problem well, but was somewhat unclear on exactly what the cause of it was, and hence I think it would be difficult to apply what he is saying to solving the problem.
Overall, I think the movie should be taken as a persuasive essay, not as a mere presentation of facts (and I think Moore is very clear in showing that that is his intention.) It's the sort of film I'd very much like for all Americans to see - to get them thinking about the need for change in our culture. Hopefully they'll show it on TV sometime, where it would get a much wider audience.
[This message has been edited by Tresopax (edited January 20, 2003).]
Tres, I don't think Moore knows why the US is so much more violent than other countries. That was his point in comparing the US to Canada -- we're alike in almost every way, but Canada's seen very few deaths (and in that one city, the lone murder had been committed by an American). Gives you food for thought.
And I can name tons of places that have seen many nasty murders as well.
I haven't seen this film. And I've never really paid too close attention to murders in Canada compared to the USA, but I have a feeling generalizing all of Canada as having seen very few deaths is slightly off. Especially if you are going to use one community as an example.
I agree with Jaiden though that generalizing Canada with one community is wrong. While we don't have as many events the impact from such events seems to be much worse when you have been insulated from incidents.
quote:One way to do that is to have more rational and proportionate fear. Rational fear may seem like an oxymoron. My point is if society in general had a better understanding of real risk, it might be afraid of the appropriate things, rather than the media topic d'jour.
So exactly how are we supposed to stop being afraid of all the legitimate dangers out there?