posted
On Saturday night I saw the brilliant Michael Moore documentary, Bowling for Columbine.
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?
posted
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.
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.
posted
I second everything twinky said. I left the film feeling irritated and manipulated. What was with the ending? You leave feeling, "Yeah, he made a point." then you think about it and realize, no, no he really didn't. Meh.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
I saw the movie and I thought it was NOT a documentary, more of a commentary that really centered on a chubby little man's self aggrandizement. He is funny and clever in parts, but generally seems more concerned about his own holier than thou attitude and general sanctimonious sniveling thant he issues themselves. What bothers me is how condescening he was to regular working people. I can understand his sanctimonious attitude towards people who don't share his general political views, but these people are the ones he was supposed to champion.
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.
posted
My main complaint with the film was also what you point out, Twinky, but I felt that Moore did an amazing job of trying to understand the underlying issues of a complex problem rather than simply pointing the finger at the obvious.
I would really have liked a lot more statistical information...
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
posted
Re-reading that, it might sound like I'm completely disregarding the message Moore was trying to send, and that would be my fault, not his, particularly given that I somewhat agree with it.
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.
posted
I though the film was EXTREMELY good. It was extremely effective in illustrating what is wrong with traditional explanations for why gun violence is such a problem specifically in America. It was somewhat less effective in giving its own explanation for the true cause of the problem, but I thought it made very good points in linking domestic violence with a violent foreign policy and a culture of fear.
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).]
posted
The only real sensationalism I saw in the film was at the end, where he left the picture of the little girl at the wall. Emotional crap. But the rest was damn informative.
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.
posted
Wow. One community in Canada has only seen one lone murder, and that happens to be by an American. I can name tons of places in Canada that haven't even seen one murder.
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.
posted
Yeah that's horrible what's happening in Vancouver. Jaiden, what was that you were saying about London in my Our Town thread.
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.
posted
I don't think that the movie is about gun control, per se. It is an exploration into America's epidemic of fear.
And there is a solution offered. Just turn off the big media. Refuse the violence, the fear.
Like it or not as a documentary, it is entertaining, but, as with other entertaining things, it may be offending to some.
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Beren, the problems I had with the movie are: Some of the text over the pictures were flat-out false.
And, I also thought it was in very poor taste that he blamed the governments poor wellfare programs for that little girls death. It's the uncle's fault for leaving a loaded gun within reach of the kid.
That's like saying, "It's not the murders fault for stabbing the person, it's the person who sold him the knife that is to blame!"
Totally irrational.
Mainly the Southeast Asia stuff bothered me.
Your thoughts Beren?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yes, there were some very entertaining portions, like when he interviewed that wacko who put a magnum pistol to his head off camera, and then stated that he had guns to fend off the "wackos".
Also, the fact that he got a free gun from the bank.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nick, even as a liberal I am weary of some of the "facts" Moore uses to support his allegations. Moore is obviously not the objective observer he sometimes claims to be. As other posters pointed out, this movie fails miserably as an objective documentary but it is rather entertaining in a thought-provoking kind of way.
I also loved the "Wacko" scene. That was pure movie magic.
Sorry I didn't say good bye to you in the Chat Room. I was busy typing this response! Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's okay, I guess you can tell by the fact that I'm posting that I'm not getting far in my efforts to study. Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So exactly how are we supposed to stop being afraid of all the legitimate dangers out there? *bubious about the movie's position, but hasn't seen it*
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: So exactly how are we supposed to stop being afraid of all the legitimate dangers out there?
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.
For example, many people are terrified of flying. Not me, I love it. Yet statistics prove that car travel is many, many times more likely to end in death and disfigurement. If people understood this better road rage, tail-gating, insane speeding, reckless driving, and drunk driving might decline.
Greenpeace and other environmental groups have spread untrue propaganda about genetically modified food, to serve their agenda. As a result, a government in Africa with starving citizens recently refused distribution of food suspected of being genetically modified! The western media portrayed it as the rich west foisting off unclean or tainted food to starving third worlders.
Studies have been done in the past 20 years that indicate few people are afraid of things that might warrant fear, while being terrified of statistically unlikely events like lightning, nuclear plant meltdowns, airplane crashes, shark attacks, etc.
I include myself in this. I speed when I drive, eat poor food, and have other self-destructive bevaviors. Yet I'm likely to die of a car crash, cardiovascular problems, or possibly cancer.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My wife and I were left with mixed feelings over this film. Half the time, we were like, "Wow! What a great point! That was awesome! I wonder what we can do about this problem ..." and the other half of the time, we were like, "I can't believe he used those Columbine victims to extort K-Mart and expected to be admired for it! Did he think it was subtle to leave that murder victim's picture in Charlton Heston's house? What the crap was with that cartoon?"
So he's a self-aggrandizing jerk who made a really good point. You know what I would have rather seen, though? An extended episode of South Park, with guest star Marylin Manson. All the really good ideas in the film came from those guys ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
