I watched Bowling for Columbine recently. I had been putting it off because seeing Moore's cocky face holding the world in his hand was really a turn off. I was surprised at how interesting I found the film. I was "digging" it.
The most interesting part for me was when he was asking why America is so much more violent, in regards to shootings, then other developed countries. I thought it was because we more were armed. However, Moore did a great job of showing how Canada has just as much guns as we do and almost no shootings.
Again the question was posed: "Why do Americans kill each other with guns so much more then Canada or Britain?" I was so poised to delve into that very important question....AND THEN...Moore spends the rest of the film trashing the NRA and Charlton Heston for defending America's right to own guns.
Moore posed an interesting question, showed why gun ownership is NOT the problem, and then trashes the organization that protects gun ownership. I finished the film and felt so dissatisfied, manipulated, and disappointed. Why go through that again?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
You may be surprised to know Moore's a member of the NRA.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Not if you believe she actually watched the film. He stated this quite clearly within.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
He's a lifelong member. I think he was in the boyscouts and became quite a good marksman.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
If I recall, Moore doesn't trash those organizations for promoting gun ownership, he trashes them for promoting the culture of fear. He also lays heavily into the media for this. For example, I think I remember him pointing out that the murder rate in the nation was down recently but the reporting of murder was on the rise. Which prompted what response from people? The assumption that murder was on the rise, even though the numbers show otherwise. Maybe you missed it in the first viewing of the film, but the culture of fear was the point of the movie, it wasn't anti-gun.
fil
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
A lot of his Canada comparisions sound good--however, from what I've heard, are invalid.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
There was no distinguishment between rifle ownership and handgun ownership to start with.
[ June 27, 2004, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
aspectre, now THAT is fascinating. I guess it's true that you never see a gang of thugs running around with hunting rifles ... Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote: he trashes them for promoting the culture of fear.
I guess I missed "how" Heston was promoting fear. I will re-watch it. I was not confused about Moore belonging to the NRA. I did think it was cheap of him to use his membership to Corner Heston.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Having an NRA membership card in no way proves that Moore shares any beliefs in common with the organization. Given that he quite loudly condemns them, I'm pretty sure they're justified in considering him an opponent Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
As someone who saw Farenheit 9-11 I can tell you it is almost NOTHING like "The Big One" or "Bowling for Coumbine." 9-11 is a factual movie with good analysis and almost no hyperbole from Moore except in the first 30 seconds.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I think we're to the point now where you can say anything you want about a Bush, and no one considers it hyperbole.
"President Bush eats babies for breakfast? Eh, figures."
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Geoff, you saw it? Seriously, a lot of this movie is public knowledge that is simply heavily buried and de-emphasized by the Bushes.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
No, I haven't seen it yet. Mostly, I'm just surprised at what intelligent people are willing to believe about George W. Bush these days. It's getting ridiculous. It's like they're competing to see who can believe the most inflammatory, unfounded allegation.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Maybe you should see this film before assuming it must be full of incredible subject material?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
That's what everyone always says to me when I express skepticism about something. Weirdly enough, I usually end up being right to have doubted
Incidentally, my comment was meant to be general, not specifically about this film.
[ June 27, 2004, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I caught part of one of Moore's movies on cable while visiting a friend. It was very humorous, but probably not intentionally.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Seriously Geoff, see it. Its a really, really well made film from a non-ideological standpoint, and it does have several parts that are worth listening to even if there are others that aren't. I think you'll be surprised if you just let yourself listen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'll see it either on cable or if someone else rents the DVD while I'm around.
I won't do anything that increases the amount of money he makes from the film.
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: I guess I missed "how" Heston was promoting fear.
"They will pry this gun from my cold, dead hands" might be what you are missing. As the President of the NRA, Heston continues the long line of "the Guv'ment is out to steal our guns" rhetoric. By setting up the NRA as the armed last line of defense against the government trodding on their rights, they promote fear. Fear of government. Since this is a bit heavy handed, I would say this is promoting fear where none is necessary. Most reasonble people what reasonable laws about gun ownership and gun usage. Very few folks are interested in people never owning any guns for anything, yet Heston was responding as if ATF agents were outside their doors ready to come pounding in (why say 'pry from my dead hands' if not?).
Heston's NRA and gun sales folks benefit from a culture of fear so promoting it just makes sense.
fil
Posted by dawnmaria (Member # 4142) on :
I don't like Moore and don't usually agree with him, but I will see this film if for no other reason then to be able to argue it with my friends at work. You can't argue about it if you haven't seen it and like I tell the kids that work for me, you can't bitch about the gov't if you don't vote! So like who ever you want but I hope you all vote this year!
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote:That's what everyone always says to me when I express skepticism about something. Weirdly enough, I usually end up being right to have doubted
humility, much?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Guys, when did I ever say I wasn't going to watch it? Sheesh. Though I gotta say, the more people pester me about it, the less fun it sounds.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote: "They will pry this gun from my cold, dead hands" might be what you are missing. As the President of the NRA, Heston continues the long line of "the Guv'ment is out to steal our guns" rhetoric. By setting up the NRA as the armed last line of defense against the government trodding on their rights, they promote fear. Fear of government.
I don't think that is the kind of fear that prompts gang members to shoot each other. How much of our gun deaths, by any stretch of the imagination, are caused by feeling the NRA is the last line of defense?
Fear of the government is a good argument for the bombings of government buildings, but not a strong one for homicide. The only point about fear he made I found noteworthy was in regards to the content of our news broadcasts. I will be interested to see how reliance on alternative media will affect our culture.
The worst thing about the NRA I got from Bowling for Columbine was that they were insensitive pricks for having gun rallies in the towns of tragedies. Moore's attempt to equate that with increased homicide was as frumpy as his physical appearance.
EDIT
quote: For example, I think I remember him pointing out that the murder rate in the nation was down recently but the reporting of murder was on the rise.
If Moores logis holds true, then shouldn't the increase in the media's reporting of murder keep our murder rate up?
[ June 27, 2004, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
quote:Guys, when did I ever say I wasn't going to watch it? Sheesh. Though I gotta say, the more people pester me about it, the less fun it sounds.
Then maybe you shouldn't have said the movie was stating lies from the start without having any information about the movie. It's understandable to be skeptical of Moore, the king of all hyperbole. What you did, though, was more like "I already know he's lying before even seeing it." Instead of claiming simple skepticism before seeing it. You would probably be more believable in just admitting that you don't believe Moore could put out an unbiased and hyperbole free piece of work to begin with. You didn't sound skeptical, you sounded just as derisive as Moore is by basically making an opinion known without offering a reasonable explanation outside of claiming that "everybody" believes the worst against Bush, when it's a pretty well-known opinion that the US is pretty much split fifty-fifty, and not the "everybody hates Bush" picture you seemed to have painted with your own hyperbole.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not nessasarily... It's just that just because they report it a lot doesn't mean it happens all the time. I got relatives, my father, for example that watches a lot of America's Most Wanted and fears sniper attacks and home invasion. Even if the chances of any of that happening are slim.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: (why say 'pry from my dead hands' if not?).
According to a website I read detailing the ways in which Moore twisted the facts in his movie, Heston was saying that to a group of people who had just gifted him with a rare firearm. Apparently, that's the kind of thing you say in suhc a situation.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Then why, Ryuko, has Hesston approved that bit of media to be reproduced many times in movies, literature, ads, etc., all endorsing guns and defense of the 2nd amendment?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Fear of Government is one reason the NRA continues to justify its existence, although not without some valid concern in that respect.
And in that continued justification, a "gun culture" continues to be made manifest. While the NRA is not the single motivating factor in the American gun culture, it continues to figure prominently in that culture.
Which would be ok, if all gun owners practiced safe and responsible gun ownership - but not all do. In fact, I would speculate that while the average NRA member is indeed responsible and handles his or her weapons around the house with all the safety one could want, there are many more who buy guns for the chance to "feel safe" without ever considering the ramifications of that purchase.
These "reactive purchases" by people who fail to take the proper safety precautions contribute to scenarios like children killing themselves or each other because they weren't taught about gun safety.
Not that I would presume to understand Moore's motivations or intent, but this is one interpretation on the influence of the NRA on personal gun ownership although it must be noted that even without the NRA which is an easy figure for attack, people would still buy weapons recklessly and without learning basic shooting skills or safe handling procedures.
-Trevor
Edit: "Pry it from my cold, dead hands" is usually a statement of personal attachment or refusal to surrender. I've used the phrase a number of times, although never in conjunction with a firearm even though I happen to own one.
Unfortunately, it has come to be associated with the gun lobby and rabid gun ownership in the face of perceived or actual government regulations.
It has a "last cowboy, defiant in the face of overwhelming odds" and "dying with his boots on" feel to the phrase.
[ June 27, 2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Brian: Press? I don't know. I actually haven't seen the movie.
quote: 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 his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Altho I will not watch the film, unless I can check it out from the library, I am dissapointed that this 'ol Utah town of mine is not showing the number one movie at the box office this week. GooooooooooooooSoutherrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnUTAH!!!!! The cultural hub of the west!
Edit: At least "The Home Teachers," :The RM," and "The Book of Mormon Movie" made it here.
[ June 28, 2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I don't have any intention of seeing this in the theater, either. I've been preached to enough about how Bush is the Devil Incarnate or a blithering idiot who's going to "destroy America," so if I'm going to go to a movie, I'd like to escape the Bush hating fad for a bit.
Might see it otherwise, but I expect I'll be doing a lot of
Michael Moore isn't all that bad. He has some interesting insights and points to make, but he can be as staunchly narrow-minded and tunnel-visioned as, say, Michael Savage.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
What he said. The "Darth Vader" Bush thing is so 2003.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:humility, much?
Suneun, I don't mean I'm always right. I mean it's usually a good idea to doubt something until you've had a chance to confirm it. I'm surprised at people who pride themselves on their intellectual prowess and then jump wholeheartedly on any purported "fact" that backs up their preconceived ideas. Usually, when they wave these "facts" in my face, a quick check shows them to be overblown, out of context, or false. It doesn't mean I'm right or they're wrong in the larger debate. But distrusting a "fact" offered by a zealot is usually a pretty good idea.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
quote: But distrusting a "fact" offered by a zealot is usually a pretty good idea.
Again, what he said.
Posted by Mr.Gumby (Member # 6303) on :
Micheal Moore movies aren't truelly documentaries but more of docu-tainments.
Posted by Bekenn (Member # 6602) on :
This is the information that made me forever stop listening to Moore:
All the other information on that site could be perceived as being presented poorly, finding fault where none really exists, but this is something that couldn't have been done by accident and clearly twists what was said.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
quote:Then maybe you shouldn't have said the movie was stating lies from the start without having any information about the movie. It's understandable to be skeptical of Moore, the king of all hyperbole. What you did, though, was more like "I already know he's lying before even seeing it."
Yeah, imagine the audacity of someone suggesting that Moore is lying in this new movie. He hasn't, like, done it before or anything.
Hyperbole is one thing. Cutting and pasting interviews and then deliberately presenting it as though the cut'n'pasted interview were the original is not 'hyperbole', it's a lie. A deliberate effort to distort what was said in order to convince people something ELSE was said.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Odd that it don' bother you none when Heston or Dubya lies. Admittedly, they can't say a full sentence without lying, but it's still taking affirmative action a bit far.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I just don't think Moore is impartial, which is what I would tend to expect from a documentary maker. It's okay for someone to be passionate and outspoken. I just don't consider what they tell me to be "news".
Posted by Bekenn (Member # 6602) on :
Give me an example of a Heston lie, please (genuinely curious).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, aspectre. Don't bother me one bit. Even though I've never even TALKED about Heston outside of this issue before, and even though Dubya's lies do bother me a great deal-particularly when they're to stupid, harmful ends as they have been before.
Affirmative action. Yup
Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
Pooka, I don’t think most documentary makers are impartial – many have an agenda of their own or they wouldn’t be making the documentary (aside perhaps from most nature documentaries). The problem arises when they claim to be. Moore has flagged his opinions quite clearly, meaning that anyone who watches this film will be aware of this beforehand. In this way, in declaring his opinions and prejudices, he’s actually an honest documentary maker. It’s quite all right to be biased, as long as everyone knows.
I haven’t seen “Bowling for Columbine”, but I probably will some time soon, before watching “Fahrenheit 9/11”. It would be nice to have a little prior knowledge of the American attitude towards guns (and being informed by actual people, not the media). What has puzzled me beforehand in what little I have seen/heard of the debate is that much seems to centre around the question of whether owning a gun to protect oneself is a constitutional right. Am I misinformed? If that is an issue, how do you feel?
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i was arguing that a few days ago (about how documentaries are always inherently biased), but having seen the movie i have to admit it was more propoganda than film-making. to my mind, the crucial difference between bowling for columbine and f9/11 is that columbine presented a bunch of information, explored a few possible explanations for a social phenomenon, then left you to make your own conclusions. it didn't try to tell you what the answer to the issues it raised was. there was none of that in f9/11, it was pure soapboxing. it was interesting, and i saw a lot of stuff i wouldn't have seen otherwise and i'm glad i saw it, but it i was ultimately dissapointed.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)