|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Bowling For Columbine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-14-2002 03:21 PM
Conversation overheard between elderly, deaf Colonel Blimpish man and his wife walking into the cinema this afternoon…
Man: ‘So what is this film then, Harry Potter?’
Wife: ‘No, we saw Harry Potter last week. It said in the paper that this film is left wing propaganda.’
Man: ‘Left wing propaganda? I don’t want any of that bloody rubbish!’
Wife: ‘And I don’t want to see Harry Potter again, so you’ll just have to put up with it.’
Even though she was passing judgement on a film she hadn’t even seen at that point, I think this does illustrate a valid criticism. As Darren points out, the anti-gun movement was depicted as being either highly articulate, or had an emotionally powerful story to tell, or both. By contrast, those arguing for the private ownership of firearms were bigoted, inarticulate and in some cases clearly had mental health issues. And there was obvious bias in some of Moore’s questioning, too. For example, in the interview with the Michigan farmer who had once known Timothy McVeigh, Moore appeared to be trying to trick him into saying that he should be allowed to own weapons grade plutonium too, and was visibly disappointed when he refused to walk into the bear trap. In fact, the farmer’s last argument was quite a powerful one. At the end of that interview the farmer holds a loaded handgun to his head, in order to make the point that guns are harmless unless someone makes the conscious decision to pull the trigger. But the scene portrays him as a moron who held a gun to his head without realising the risks.
This technique is carried through right to the film’s climax, the interview with Charlton Heston. In this scene Moore puts forward the crunch question of the film, one which to me is a crucial one: that the United States does not have a substantially higher number of privately owned firearms per head of population than many other countries (Canada being cited as the main comparator), but it does have a far higher level of gun-inflicted homicides – why? Heston is not given time to seriously consider the question and from then on is treated pretty much as a hostile witness.
I also felt that the combination of making fun at the far right gun culture (e.g. the Michigan Militia calendar) whilst at the same time pulling no punches over the emotional impact of Columbine and the Michigan primary school didn’t really work. I don’t know why, because similar documentaries which have done the same thing manage to combine humour and straightforward presentation of argument very effectively. For example, the moment in The Atomic Café at which the anti-communist Country and Western song cuts to news footage of the Rosenbergs’ execution makes for a brilliant contrast. But the scene in Columbine when the home security consultant suddenly broke down in the middle of explaining how he’d fortified a suburban house did not work the same way. I was just left asking myself why the hell he was doing that in the first place.
There were some very good things in the film, and it’s good to see non-fiction breaking through into the cinema. But Michael’s right – this is propaganda (i.e. it’s putting forward a specific political viewpoint), not a documentary.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"
Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 12-14-2002 05:12 PM
Very good analysis from Mr Enticknap here. It is strange, I am opposed to people owning guns myself, but the more I think about this movie, the less I like it (the movie, not the opinion)...
On the other hand, Mr Moore probably didn`t want to present an in-depth analysis of the gun issue, but just to provoke people to start thinking about it. Most of the pro-gun people presented in this movie were clearly idiots, and I don`t think they should have guns, but then I don`t think idiots should be allowed to drive cars either.
So this movie leaves me with a stale aftertaste. As I wrote earlier, some very interesting and entertaining moments, but not enough substance for such a serious subject.
The scene with that farmer is a good example. There is a moment when he talks away about I don`t remember what, building bombs maybe, and the camera cuts to Moore with a brilliantly acted face of wide-eyed horror. Lots of laughs in the cinema, Moore scores a few sympathy points again. But what about the subject?
In my eyes, it would have been much wiser to present a few more articulate pro-gun people to make this a really thought-provoking documentary rather than just a piece of brilliant infotainment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Turner
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 115
From: Corvallis, OR, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-29-2002 02:04 AM
BFC is playing in my theatre right now as I write this and I’m having trouble seeing it as a documentary – as many others have said. It’s a feature length editorial shot in DV. Documentaries document. This film created the situations that were documented. It seemed all the interviews were not to expand the knowledge base for the film, but to either agree or disagree with Michael Moore's point. His interview with Chuck H. wasn’t to get the NRA’s view on kids having access to guns, it was to try to embarrass him on tape and argue with him (makes one wonder if, A: Has Mr. Heston ever seen a Michael Moore film, or 2: if he hadn’t, didn’t one of his handlers warn him what Moore does for a living?). I wanted Moore to let Moses talk and then challenge his position. I want to know if Michael Moore still owns any guns.
But, even though the film didn’t stand up to my providential definition of a documentary, I thought it did hint at an answer to the question of gun violence in the U.S.: We live in a culture of fear. Our culture is based on consumption and fear is a damn fine motivator to get us to consume. Interesting that it was a shock-rocker that made that point.
And I did really enjoy the interview with Marilyn Manson – though it struck me as terribly rehearsed (I have nothing to base that on). He wore the most convincing façade of insanity, yet spoke with surprising clarity. All the interviewees seemed to be selected for their lack of intelligence or ability to articulate in favor of Moore’s views. The animation did a grand job of dumbing-down a lot of the points and taking off enough of the edge so that the anti-gun people didn’t leave the theatre wanting to shoot every gun-owner in town. . . . or something like that . . .
Personally, I’m uncomfortable with my ability to celebrate this film because it agrees with my views: How would I feel if this was a film, taking the same liberties had advocated, say, bombing the shit out of Iraq? Would I be this forgiving? Probably not.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man
Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-02-2003 08:52 PM
I had the opportunity to see that movie at the Fargo Theatre while I was in North Dakota.
It is a great movie. I was appalled at some of the interviews near the end of that film.
If this movie is technically correct with its facts, statistics and accuracy, we should reassess where we came from and where we are going.
Wondering about the truth of the statistics, I ran across an interesting link. Here it is:
http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/4589.php
For those who cannot get into the link, here is what it says based on per capita:
A citizen of the U.S. is:
-- 8.7 times as likely as a citizen of Germany;
-- 9.3 times as likely as a citizen of France;
-- 7.7 times as likely as a citizen of Canada;
-- 35 times as likely as a citizen of the U.K.;
-- 11.9 times as likely as a citizen of Australia;
-- 129 times as likely as a citizen of Japan
to be murdered by a gun.
Michael Moore's stats:
Germany, 381 gun murders.
France, 255 gun murders.
Canada, 165 gun murders.
UK, 68 gun murders.
Australia, 65 gun murders.
Japan, 39 gun murders.
U.S., 11,127 gun murders.
CIA World Factbook 2002 population stats:
Germany, 83,251,851
France, 59,765,983
Canada, 31,902,268
U.K., 59,778,002
Australia, 19,546,792
Japan, 126,974,628
U.S., 280,562,489
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man
Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-03-2003 11:41 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/guns/guns_romance.html
I don't think Michael Moore is too far out of line. The above ABC link cites 35,000 firearm murders in the US in one year.
More Americans are killed in gun homicides in one day than in an entire year in Japan.
Texans own 68 million guns. There are 17 million Texans. That's four guns for every man, woman and child.
There are more than 10 times as many licensed gun dealers in America than McDonald's restaurants: 142,000 to 12,000.
More people are shot and killed in America in one week than in all of Western Europe in one year.
And yet, I might add, the sniper rifle used on the East Coast was purchased in Tacoma, Washington.
Ouch! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I have to admit, I own 4 handguns myself. A .44 Mag Colt Anaconda, a .357 S&W, and two .38 S&W's.
But when I had to go and obtain a Concealed Weapons Permit so I could carry a weapon because of some job location areas, it really hit home. I kept asking myself, "Why should I have to do this????"
In a theatre, I looked down the bore of a pistol used during an armed robbery. When taking proof of performance readings of a radio transmitter in a god-forsaken area, I was escorted off someone's property with a rifle, and the reading taken was in that person's driveway, about 10 feet from the road! Later, I found out it was a suspected illegal drug lab.
Maybe it is time to move somewhere else.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"
Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 01-03-2003 07:52 PM
Japan is a very safe country. But people`s lifes are also much more controlled and regulated by the government than in the US. That is no cliche, I have been to Japan, speak the language a little, so I could get a good impression. I still don`t think that people should have firearms, but it is quite impossible to make comparisons of countries just based on naked numbers.
Maybe there is a culture of fear in the US, but there is fear in people everywhere. It seems to me that the higher number of conflicts "solved" with guns in the US might come from the traditional independence that people enjoy there. That this results in people taking problems in their own hands which hold weapons is not a nice thing, but MAYBE this is one price that has to be payed for the higher degree of freedom.
edit- just checked the review that David pointed to. It sums up what I think very nicely. This is an intersting and serious subject. But Moore just highjacks it for his self-peformance.
Many here have seen the film and as a result, they think that Americans spend a good deal of their time shooting each other. Hell, when I went to CA, even I caught myself asking people which neighbourhoods were safe and where I could go. Moore instrumentates the same tactics of spreading fear that he criticises... ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man
Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-03-2003 08:50 PM
Michael said:
quote:
Many here have seen the film and as a result, they think that Americans spend a good deal of their time shooting each other. Hell, when I went to CA, even I caught myself asking people which neighbourhoods were safe and where I could go. Moore instrumentates the same tactics of spreading fear that he criticises...
Michael, the unfortunate truth is that we do shoot at each other. You flip some jerk off on the freeway, and you stand a good chance of getting shot doing it.
Not too long ago, there was a senseless shooting on Highway 20 outside of Anacortes, Washington. Some guy just decided he was going to shoot someone for the thrill of killing, and he killed a young Naval Officer by shooting him through the rear window of his car as he was traveling back to the air base here on Whidbey Island. I understand the Skagit County Sheriff's Deputy stopped the shooter a couple of miles up the road for speeding, and the deputy let him off with a warning. I also understand the deputy was an emotional "basket case" when he learned it was that person who shot the Naval Officer.
You will see the Washington State Patrol driving just about any kind of unmarked vehicle you can imagine....looking for agressive drivers. Apparently, they discovered some of those drivers are the ones who will not hesitate to pull the trigger.
Here on Whidbey Island, we have had several hand-gun murders that should have never happened in the last year. I think there was about 5 of them. One was just down the road from where I live.
I could go on and on.....not to mention that a city of about 20,000 has had several "drive-by shootings" take place.
From what I have seen, Michael Moore is not using tactics of spreading fear. I think he is merely pointing out what appears to be true.
There seems to be two types of people:
One type is those who consider Michael Moore's works as Hogwash because they have not really been a victim of crime or violence.
The other type are the ones who have. I fit in this one. I think Mr. Moore's documentary (or whatever you choose to call it) has merit.
Edit: Here is what I found on the news today...
quote:
From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: In its recently issued report on deaths in King County, including Seattle, in 2001, the medical examiner's office noted that firearms were used in 58 percent of the county's homicides. In the same period, the FBI reported that of the 15,980 murdered in the United States in 2001, 69.5 percent were killed with a firearm.
Again, this is in line with Michael Moore's statistics. I think we should at least wake up and realize there is a very serious problem in this country.
Want another one from the same newspaper?
A number of neighbors passed by. Some thought it suspicious. But only one called 911 -- at 3:40 a.m. yesterday -- to tell police he thought someone was sleeping in the Chevrolet Tahoe at the side of the road.
Instead, police discovered three men dead, apparently from gunshot wounds. The men have not been officially identified. And Kent detectives have asked the county medical examiner to withhold the names of the men and how they died.
But police yesterday did describe them as of Hispanic descent and between 17 and 25 years old.
Here is another one:
A Seattle SWAT officer shot a man in the hip during a raid on a home early yesterday. The officer believed the man was armed, but the shiny object in his hand turned out to be a can of beer.
Please don't tell me the USA does not have a problem....And please don't tell me Michael Moore's film is hogwash.
As long as we ignore the problem, the worse it is going to become. The problem is not going to go away.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
No credibility.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic