my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Bowling For Columbine (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Bowling For Columbine Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 01-04-2003 08:10 PM                        This may seem a bit off topic, but it would also be very interesting to compare how many get killed in car accidents in the US and other countries. When I was in CA, I was impressed by how "civilised" people were driving compared to Germany. People drive much more aggressively over here, and I see that as another way of taking out one`s aggressions on fellow citizens. Germany is world famous for not having a general speed limit on freeways which I think is madness because the vast majority of people is not mature enough to handle a car responsibly. A friend of mine was run over by a car a few days ago just behind me. Actually the car could have hit me as we were crossing the street. I just was a bit quicker to react. The speed limit (or lack of it) is defended by the car lobby in a way strikingly similar to the handgun issue in the US. They have paroles like "free driving for free citizens" and the like which I find are just as stupid as "from my cold dead hands" or whatever. My point is, people are behaving very badly towards each other everywhere, maybe they just have different vents for their frustrations in different countries.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 01-04-2003 09:19 PM                     Michael, I looked that up for you - at least in this country. The figure was about 41,730 in 2001. Here is a breakdown: NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) also shows that, in 2001: Motorcycle fatalities increased for the fourth year in a row following years of steady improvement. With 3,067 killed in 2001, it was the highest number of motorcycle fatalities since 1990. The percentage of alcohol-related deaths in 2001 remained unchanged at 40 percent – 16,652 deaths. Fatalities involving large truck crashes dropped from 5,211 in 2000 to 5,192 in 2001. The number of pedestrians killed, 4,698, remained virtually unchanged. Young drivers (16-20) were involved in 7,547 fatal crashes in 2001 compared to 7,607 in 2000. Back to the subject of handguns, gun control is not going to solve our problems. If laws were passed to make handgun possession illegal (which will never happen because of our Constitutional Amendment) those who choose to kill with them will get them anyway. There is no stopping them. Oh, by the way....up until a couple of years ago, the State of Montana had a speed limit posted "reasonable and prudent". Now, it is 75MPH. But you can still roll through Montana at 80 to 85MPH (about 130 to 140 Kilometers per hour) without too much problem as long as you keep your car on your side of the road and stay with the pace of the traffic. That's fast enough. Even when I was a teen-ager, I never cared to go any faster than that, even though the roads and cars could handle it.  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-11-2003 03:13 AM                       quote: Fatalities involving large truck crashes dropped from 5,211 in 2000 to 5,192 in 2001. And, of those 5,192, only a small percentage were determined to have been caused by the truck driver.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 01-13-2003 02:37 AM                        Michael: Actually, my recent experience of driving in Germany was of one of the safest motorways I've ever been on. Everyone left a sensible distance to the vehicle in front, obeyed the variable speed limit signs, slowed down in bad weather and selected feeder lanes in good time. Even though I drove most of the trip much faster than I've ever driven in the UK (where 70mph is the motorway speed limit), I felt far safer on that Autobahn than I ever have on the M1. I'd argue that the way you make motorways safer is not by lowering speed limits, but by rigourously enforcing existing ones and using modern camera technology to catch people for minor offences which have the potential to cause accidents, e.g. not leaving a safe distance between them and the vehicle in front, changing lane without signalling, 'undertaking' and using a mobile 'phone while driving. These offences are commonplace on British roads but hardly happened at all in Germany. I would also replace small-scale fines with short, sharp driving bans for such offences. The average fine for a minor speed limit violation here is £30-50. Given that the average Briton spends £4,000 per year on motoring, this is insignificant. I would replace that with a one-week driving ban, backed up by a mandatory prison sentence for driving while disqualified.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-02-2003 02:56 PM                     "using modern camera technology to catch people for minor offences" ________________________________________________________ Leo, Some iddiot would just return to the camera site with a mask on and shoot out the camera....you forget that we are gun wielding maniacs over here....Exactly as Michael Moore told in the film:). Many town councils have voted down the photocop method because the laws that govern it are somewhat vague....while some towns use it to advantage. We sure could use it here in Salt Lake City...."City of Red Light Runners"! I loved the Charlton Heston close to the film....what a grand finale for Moses! He reminded me of the Nichols Brother in the begginning although he didn't twitch as much....both are pretty scary people in my book. Mark  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-03-2003 02:31 AM                        Well at least they'd get their stress relief shooting the camera rather than a human! There have been some cases of speed cameras being vandalised here, too. But on the evidence of that trip to Germany I am convinced that we have a much lower general standard of driving than our European neighbours, and suspect that this explains why Germany has higher-speed motorways but fewer accidents.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 02-03-2003 03:50 AM                        People are driving on the wrong side in England all the time. That must add to the confusion. We also have better cars  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 02-09-2003 05:59 PM                     Living in Germany, I think Michael has made an important point in what he said about aggressive driving behavior. It seems that there has to be a kind of emergency valve for aggression and frustration in any society, and while I would prefer insane motorists to maniacs with guns, I think violent impulses will always find a way, be it in traffic, sports or misuse of guns.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 02-09-2003 06:53 PM                        It seems no big difference to me if you kill somebody with a gun or with a car. As I wrote earlier, the car lobby here has slogans similar to "from my cold dead hands", stuff like "free driving for free citizens". So I don`t know if the US has a special problem with violence. You find that everywhere. "Bowling for Columbine" did not convince me. At least US citizens can always move to Canada and live happily behind their unlocked front doors.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 02-21-2003 03:28 PM                     I saw the film last night, the last screening at that venue, a small (about 50 seats) single screen art house type cinema. I went out in the afternoon to buy my ticket, it's a good job that I did, there were only a handful of seats in row A and one in row B, which I took, available. The few rmaining seats had been sold by the evening. The print was in good condition, but the poor quality of the video images, was something of a strain on the eyes when sitting that close. I normally prefer to sit about two thirds of the way back. The presentation was good, until the end, when something very odd happened, which I have never seen before. I won't name the venue, this is not typical of what I see there, and we are all capable of making the odd mistake. I always remain seated until the last credits have left the screen, and the curtains have closed, I do stand to leave the theatre while the music is still playing, if this continues after the curtains have closed. Well, last night, the credits finished, but the curtains remained open. some blank film ran through, some film with writing on it ran through, some more blank film ran through, and there were some pops and crackles from the sound system, at which point I left. Not good , and not what I would expect. Had the projectionist been kidnapped by NRA people? Taken ill? Was he/she laying dead on the projection room floor? I don't know. There is no automation, but there is an acop, so things would have stopped when the end of the film ran through, but I didn't wait that long. I assume that the projectionist had to leave the box for some reason, but I bet they felt pretty sick when they came back, and saw the film run out. It feels terrible when something goes wrong, and the whole audience sees it. The film clearly promoted the views of Michael Moore, it didn't claim to do anything else. There is nothing wrong with that, in this country we have long had work which does this, mainly by film makers from left of the political centre, Ken Loach and John Pilger, for example. Here, however, gun control is not seen as a left wing issue. Both of the main political parties here are in favour of gun control, and both are quite right wing. I don't think gun control is the real issue, The question posed by the film was not why are there so many guns in the USA, but why the number of killings by firearms is so high in the USA. If the figures quoted in the film are correct, then it seems a fair question to ask. It was recently stated on British television, that you are six times more likely to be mugged in London as in New York. Is this true? Well, in 45 years in London, I've been attacked three times, in ten days in New York, never, which proves not a lot, except that promoting fear of evil people out there wanting to attack you seems to be a common activity among the news media of both countries. I can't say that I felt in any great danger in either place. There was much laughter from the audience, mainly during the earlier part of the film, but this was largly replaced by slow shaking of heads in dispair later on. My main interest in film is in documentary film, rather than features, and this, as others have said, is not a normal documentary film. It is clearly presenting one point of view, and doesn't provide any answers, but it probably will make people think, and thinking tends to be a good thing. I wouldn't say it was the greatest documentary film ever, but still a good film. I am going back to the same cinema next week, if the film runs out again then I think it is time to name the place, but I don't expect this to happen. I have been to about thirty screenings there, and this was the first problem.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 02-21-2003 06:13 PM                     I also saw this last night. It finally arrived in town, but in the discount cinema. More on that later. It really had a different tone from his earlier docs, probably due to fact that the issues are life-and-death, rather than corporate greed and unemployment. The humor derived from these situations was very dark. I'm glad that Nicholls guy (found not guilty in the Oklahoma bombing) feels that at least there's a limit to what weapons an American should be allowed to own. That limit: weapons grade plutonium. Dick Clark comes across as smarmy as I would have expected, and the Charlton Heston segment is probably the most uncomfortable moment in any Moore movie. The mise-en-scene was at times brilliant, most notably the shot of the man from Lockheed, stating that the Columbine shooters couldn't have gotten their violent tendencies from being American, as our country is not in the habit of attacking its neighbors--while in the background is a nuclear missile under construction. The montage that follows of American manipulation in world affairs leading up to 9/11 was very troubling. I too, found the video-originated footage hard to watch. This is the first of his movies I've seen in the cinema. I'm sure it'll play better on video. Moore is long on questions and short on answers. If he feels his mission is to shine a light on subjects most others would choose to ignore, then he's accomplishing that. Like it or not, it has provoked alot of discussion. The cinema where we saw this was once a decent mall theater. When I saw Goldeneye there, the picture was bright and sharp, on a curved screen, presented in the proper aspect ratio. The sound was terrific, balanced very well, and just the right level. Things have sure changed since then. When we were about to buy our tickets last night, the ticket girl suggested we go into the auditorium to decide if we really wanted to stay. It seems the melting snow was causing massive leaks throughout the cinema (and its parent mall). Nearly half of the "Columbine" auditorium was unusable due to wet seats. The soundtrack of the film was accompanied by the dripping of the water. The rest of the presentation was equally distracting. For one, the light in the booth was so bright that the shine through the ports was clearly visible on the screen. The movie, which I'm guessing was supposed to be shown 1.85:1, nearly filled the scope screen, with noticable overshooting above and below. Some of the superimposed titles on the bottom of the screen were partially unreadable. I would not have chosen to see this (or any movie) at this cinema anymore, but this was the only option, and last night was indeed the last night. I'm glad I saw it, but expect to get more out of it when it's released on video.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 02-21-2003 08:30 PM                        Well, Moore does attempt to provide answers: he says that America had a culture of fear and aggression and while that may be true, it is true of all countries and cultures and is therefore not a good explanation for the high number of people shot by guns. People all over the world are conditioned by fears and have aggressions that they find hard to ventilate in civilised ways. If there are indeed more gun-related killings in the US than in many other parts of the world, there can be only one reason: that guns are more easily available. That may not sound psychologically deep enough for many, but I believe it could be as simple as that. All countries have histories full of violence. The media can not be a reason either, because again they work in the same sensationalistic way in many other places too.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 02-22-2003 06:32 AM                     Maybe I should rephrase that Moore doesn't offer an actual solution to the gun violence problem. His comparison to Canada is very revealing, as Canada has many guns (7 million in 10 million homes), without our level of violence. Why? There's no clear answer, except for the difference in attitude. How do we change that? He doesn't offer an answer. He does address the ease of access to guns and ammo (the Kmart sequence was terrific), and that's nothing new--certain types of guns are not needed for protection or hunting, and really should only be in the hands of the military. But if you can make a devastating Oklahoma bomb out of fertilizer, the the issue is not just access to guns. It is something in our culture. Personally, I think as a relatively young country, we are very immature and prone to violence. It's no secret to my friends that I am a big fan of Michael Moore. His style is very entertaining, and he is very provocative. As I suggested before, his cinematic function to present these issues in context (granted, context of his choosing) has merit. The left needs a bulldog like Moore, so many are wimpy these days. His overall message seems to be that the ills of our country are institutionalized, such as greed (Roger & Me), social responsibility (The BIG One, which points out that huge corporations receive more $$ in gov't handouts than the entire welfare system), and now violence, which on a personal level, mimics our government's attitude toward perceived problems and threats. If the goal of "Bowling for Columbine" is to spark debate, then it's a great movie.  |  IP: Logged Chris Markiewicz Expert Film Handler Posts: 209 From: Glenaviegh, County Tipperary, Ireland Registered: Aug 2002 posted 02-22-2003 07:11 PM                     I finally watched this yesterday; we're running it this weekend. A real rarity for us, a brand-new print. Arrived tails-out, heads and tails uncut, NO lab splices or signs of any wear whatsoever. Unfortunately there was a certain amount of negative dirt visible. It was difficult to frame since our flat lense is slightly too short, so there is some overscan top and bottom. The various clip titles are too close to the edges of the image. I had to settle for trying to get as much of the lower titles in frame as possible without cutting people's heads off. The actual image quality was quite good, allowing for the edge enhancement of the video footage. I think our audiences will enjoy it.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 02-23-2003 04:35 AM                        Some guy on page 1 wrote: quote: The problem for me is that Moore raises the interesting question of why so many killings in the US society but never answers. You actually expected an answer? That's crazy! I wish there was a clear-cut answer... that would make things a whole lot simpler. The fact is that we don't have all the answers. Maybe I should hate this film for not providing me with an answer, but instead just raising questions to think about. The media is supposed to do all of my thinking for me. I can't do it on my own! This movie is evil! I always find it amusing to see people's responses to controversial issues and films. If the film says something that the viewer doesn't want to hear, then we see a post here that says "This guy has no credibility! He has an agenda! Therefore he should not be taken seriously or listened to. My beliefs are 100% perfect and these do not conform with my own." If someone agrees with the film then there is "Everyone should be forced to see this movie!" and of course zero mention of any kind of agenda. Of course both sides of that coin are from people who have closed minds and are dead set in their ways. Neither side is right or wrong, just ignorant. Me? I enjoyed the movie. It raises some great questions to think about. I didn't think it was preachy at all. I may not have agreed with it 100% but that's OK. Different points of view are good. Helps one to create a more valid opinion on a subject if he/she can see it from all sides. I am glad that I have an open mind on the matter. Entertaining movie as well. I loved the part near the end when Michael Moore asked Charlie Heston if he'd like to apologize for seeming insensitive to the people of whatever town it was that he held a gun rally at in just a few days or so after the murder of a young girl. Chucky-poo responded with something like "What?!! ME? Apologize? Never!" That's not an exact quote but I found it amusing nonetheless. Also, I don't give a rat's ass if it is a real "documentary" or not. How does that change how the content of the movie should be taken? If it is not technically a documentary, does that mean it should not be taken seriously? The only difference it would make would be if it was nominated for "best documentary" and I believe it was. Otherwise this is a great movie, regardless of what category it truly falls in to.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.