Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Bowling For Columbine

This is topic Bowling For Columbine in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000410

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-06-2002, 02:01 AM:

This was a very fine film. For one thing, it's funny as hell. I love humorous documentaries. There's nothing funnier than the world (well, MST3K might be funnier, but that's been off the air for a few years now, so it doesn't really count). But as funny as this picture is, it's equally powerful. Some of the stuff in this movie is really hard to watch.

But what struck me most about the film is that it was made not to be a good movie or piece of art necessarily, but to convey a message in order to create a change in society. That seems like a very admirable thing for someone to do, no matter what their message may be.

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 10-06-2002, 09:30 AM:

I found this to be a very powerful doco, even after a couple of weeks it's still stay's on my mind. This has great timing, especially with the mr Bush's current activities and is a must see, not so much for being a great documentary but for having a powerful message.
I hope Michael Moore continues with his show The Awful Truth!
I ran the full gamut of emotions during this film, first time since koyaanisqatsi, so i guess thats a job well done!

Unfortunatly it doesn't open untill 26th dec in Australia

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-06-2002, 10:08 AM:

Brad,
Michael Moore was at the screening I attended, and after the show, he said that he was not planning on doing any more TV shows because they are too expensive.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 10-21-2002, 12:28 AM:

WOW... I think everyone in America should all be piled into a huge Auditoriums and made to watch this film... It is amazing the things you never realize, this film just got its point across so well. The whole auditorium clapped when this movie ended. It was funny as all hell at some points, and I hate to admit but it brought me to tears at other parts there some very emotional scenes. I STRONGLY suggest that EVERYONE here sees this film, it will change the way you think about or society and our media.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 10-21-2002, 12:51 AM:

I think the very fact that this movie will change the way I see things is the very reason that I probably wont bother to see it. You see, I like to make up my own mind! Whenever someone tells me to think differently, I never do!

I actually like Mike Moore's films, but he is very fringe sometimes in his presentations. I still find him humorous, informative, but I think he takes himself a little to seriously. I will have to see this film to see what all the fuss is about!

Dave

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-10-2002, 11:05 AM:

Loews E-Walk, Times Square/NYC, 11/9, 4:30 PM show. Hall #6, attendance approx. 150. Presentation excellent except for dirt throughout R6.

Now I see why some chains are reluctant to play Bowling for Columbine: It gives a counterpoint to the "official history" we have all been taught in school. Michael Moore may have a scattershot approach but he gets his point across.

He also helped expose TV for the bigoted, racist, fearmongering industry it is. I got rid of my TV 4 years ago and have been very sane since.

Find a theater showing this movie and see it!

Cool corollary: The rolling stock included an advert for a shoot-'em-up video game. Also, Bowling for Columbine was the first time I saw video of the World Trade Center incident on 9/11/2001.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-10-2002, 12:55 PM:

Charles wrote: "Bowling for Columbine was the first time I saw video of the World Trade Center incident on 9/11/2001."

Even without owning a television set, how could you be so isolated as to have never seen video of the attack?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-10-2002, 01:17 PM:

On BBC Radio Four's Start the Week programme last Monday they had an interview with Moore. Go here and click on 'Start the Week' to hear it.

I too do not have a TV at home and it's a deliberate decision. I work with moving images, and like watching them as a social event at the cinema. At home I want a break from that; it's my way of 'getting a life'. But yes, I have seen video of the 9/11 attacks, mainly in the homes of friends and relatives but also on BBC News Online (see here ).

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-10-2002, 02:34 PM:

No TV and No Beer make Homer go something something...

I could live without TV, however I choose not too. I watch about 30 hours of news and news information programs a week, as well as spend about 15 hours a week on the internet reading news from several dozen sources.

The only entertainment shows I watch are The Simpsons, The Sopranos, Firefly, John Doe, and 24. That's it!!! I think the four and a half hours spent brain dead wont warp me too much.

By the way, the 15 hours a week on the internet are during the 30 hours a week with news programs on. I also do my work during that other 15 hours a week, so it's not like I am just a brain dead slob here.

TV is a great medium to inform and educate. Only a mindless slob would allow it to do otherwise.

Dave

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-16-2002, 12:05 PM:

I don't have a TV, either, but that doesn't mean that I never watch it. I just don't do so at home. If I had more spare time, I might get a TV for home use.

As for the Michael Moore film: I thought it was interesting and had a few good moments. As a "documentary," it was a bit weak, as it seems to exist more for the purposes of promoting Moore's political agenda than for actually exploring the problem of gun violence in the US. Does he really believe that getting Kmart to stop carrying ammunition will prevent murders?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-16-2002, 03:17 PM:

Michael Moore turns out some interesting stuff. But you have to keep reminding yourself that he is VERY political and has an agenda. He takes an ultra-liberal point of view on everything and he makes no pretense of trying to be "balanced". As far as someone's theory that the major chains would shun Bowling For Columbine because of its politics, I'm afraid I have to laugh. This business is about dollars. If BFC is putting people in the seats, they will book it, because it's all about the money (not that there's anything wrong with that). With the glut of good mainstream product out right now, it's no surprise that a "documentary" about unpleasant and controversial political topics would have trouble finding screens.

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 11-18-2002, 03:15 PM:

I saw the film this afternoon. Very well put together, interesting and entertaining. The way specific events are depicted is a bit biased, though, and it's obvious that Moore has a political agenda. I had the same feeling regarding Oliver Stone after seeing JFK. People who want to demonstrate something but fill gaps with fiction or beliefs when needed.

The problem for me is that Moore raises the interesting question of why so many killings in the US society but never answers. Instead, this seems to be an occasion for him to criticize categories of people he doesn't like, although he must certainly have pointed at some real dysfunctions of American society.

Anyway, as a European, I'm not familiar with such things as death penalty or the right to have guns so I couldn't fully discuss this any further...

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 11-19-2002, 06:06 AM:

So has the UK release been pushed back?

It was supposed to open on friday.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-26-2002, 11:15 AM:

I saw this last night and I also thought it was very interesting and even entertaining.
I also think he got hooked on the K-Mart thing too much. Obviously, his point was that they shouldn`t make money on stuff that harms or kills people. Maybe he was also a bit too focused on Mr Heston. He is just an old actor playing his last role.
Is Canada really the semi-paradise he shows it to be? Call me pessimistic but I can`t quite believe him.
Still, it was a very well-made and provocative documentary. I am not sure I understand now why so many people in the US insist on their right to have firearms when it is so obvious that most people aren`t at all qualified to have them. But the movie gave a lot of interesting information to think about.

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 11-27-2002, 04:45 AM:

quote:
I also think he got hooked on the K-Mart thing too much. Maybe he was also a bit too focused on Mr Heston. He is just an old actor playing his last role.

I agree that he focuses on K-Mart too much, almost making responsible for the shooting (while other supermarkets keep selling ammo). But regarding Heston, I don't think Heston is playing. He just sounds shockingly cynical to me, especially when Moore wants him to look at the picture of the little girl.

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 12-04-2002, 05:35 PM:

Saw this film yesterday at the Curzon Soho London, great film, very interesting and fair, might come across as being one sided but its because all the people he interviewd in the film were as thick as F**K and couldn't present there side of the story.
The K-Mart part was extremly touching and was a great piece of documentary film making.
Highly Recomended
Im screening it from the 13th Dec here in York (U.K)
Its out in London allready.
Darren

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-13-2002, 07:24 AM:

"Bowling for Columbine" best documentary of all time?:

http://www.screendaily.com/story.asp?storyid=10573

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-13-2002, 08:37 AM:

Definitely not. I am not even sure if it really is a documentary, it is more like an essay. The movie is very well made and entertaining, but doesn`t really dig deeply. These greatest ... votes are quite silly, and I think that it got voted No.1 because people can say "oh, look how we are", and have a brief moment of self-criticism. I don`t think that everything should have a message, but what would be the message of this film? That people should move to Canada?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 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.

Posted by Paul Turner (Member # 832) on 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.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-30-2002, 02:48 PM:

Scott said:

quote:
it seems to exist more for the purposes of promoting Moore's political agenda

So far, EVERYTHING I've seen that Michael Moore has done is to promote his agenda. [Smile]

No credibility.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-30-2002, 03:49 PM:

Michael Moore's stuff can be very entertaining, but don't ever mistake it for being objective.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-02-2003, 05:56 PM:

Bowling For Columbine opened here last week. Today's issue of Eugene Weekly (a very anti-establishment, anti-authority, pro-anarchist liberal publication) has a surprisingly scathing review of Michael Moore's film and his tactics. Review is by Lois Wadsworth.

Review Here

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 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

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-03-2003, 06:30 AM:

Has anyone read Moore's book Stupid White Men, on which (I get the impression) the film is based? It's been very heavily marketed here on the back of the film - e.g. stacks of copies were prominently displayed in the big bookshop chains like Waterstone's and Borders. I found myself agreeing with a lot of it, especially his arguments about failing education systems and the fact that he wasn't Bush-bashing in isolation (e.g. Clinton comes in for a lot of criticism too, especially viz Whitewater). But if he is as bigoted and inaccurate on these issues as he is on Northern Ireland it makes me question the rest of it, somehow.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 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!]

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.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-03-2003, 01:41 PM:

At the age of 17 I had a loaded 45 pointed at me by a "friend." Needless to say, he is no longer my friend.

I have never seen a loaded handgun, out of its holster, in public since.

I scored Expert with the M16 during Army basic training and enjoyed the experience.

Oakland has had 118 murders this year. It's been a bumper crop, Jerry Brown is trying to figure out how to fix it.

I think we have had 5 homicides here in Santa Rosa including one guy who shot a girl in the eye with a crossbow. He then took his own life with a handgun in a vinyard.

I'm not worried. [Cool]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 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]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 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.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 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.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 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. [Big Grin]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 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.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-03-2003, 02:31 AM:

Well at least they'd get their stress relief shooting the camera rather than a human! [Wink]

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.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 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 [Wink]

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 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.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 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.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 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 [Frown]

, 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.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 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.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 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.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 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.

Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 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.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-23-2003, 05:53 AM:

Totally agree with you Joe.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 02-23-2003, 09:08 AM:

I agree as well. Moore's work is very entertaining. The way he insinuates himself into uncomfortable situations, whether it be the lobby of a big tobacco company, or getting the head of Nike to confess that their youngest overseas workers are 14, are often hilarious, and always revealing, and containing substance.

The subjects he tackles are so deeply rooted that there are no easy answers. No absolutes. A work like this is not only very entertaining, but also very affecting. Good enough for me.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-26-2003, 11:44 PM:

Sorry, but I didn't care for this one.

If you ask me the title for this movie should have been, Roger and Me Part 2: I got in this time!

It seemed to me, like it was nothing more than a continuation: Flint, Michagan is now a poor town because the General Motors Plant closed down so we all went crazy, moved to Colorado and killed a bunch of people.

I don't like his style of "Ambush Journalism"... Put a guy on camera and trap him into making an ass of himself. Okay, he didn't have to try very hard sometimes. But,heck! Even Chuck Heston played along for a while until pushed too far.

Moore is known for setting up his shots in advance. We have no way of knowing if the Heston interview was staged or not. I'm almost sure the part where he opens people's front doors to see if they are locked was staged. Other times he seems to have picked the most outlandish footage. Okay, that's his style: Lampoon a person/subject to make your point. I just don't like that style much anymore. It worked the first time. Now it's worn thin.

Showing the video footage of the shooting at Columgine H.S.?? Pretty tasteless! Annoying, in fact. If I want to watch people fighting, screaming and trying to kill each other, I'll watch Jerry Springer or something. If I want to watch people get killed on video, I'll rent Faces of Death. I don't want to watch any of that. It's a big "gross-out" to me. Furthermore, he does in his film the very same thing that he decries: Violence and sensationalism. Is he saying that he has to "fight fire with fire?" It's a pretty lame excuse, if you ask me. Oh yeah! Let's ambush the AUDIENCE, even! Let's make them sit through yet ANOTHER repeat of footage of an airplane crashing into the World Trade Center! I didn't watch this film just to be subjected to that crap!

I also agree with others in that this is not really a documentary film. A documentary is where you learn something by watching. This is more of an essay, where the film maker tells you his point of view. Back in the late 80's this kind of thing played well. Now, some frumpy fat guy in a baseball cap doing a spoof on 60 Minutes is just... well... So 80's!

I agreed with some points he made in his film but I didn't agree with others. I'm going to leave what I though about the subject matter out of it because we can discuss that all day long and not get anywhere. As a matter of fact, that's one more thing I didn't like. I sat through this whole film expecting him to break new ground but he did nothing more than sensationalize the very thing he's crying out against.

Good material to start a heated discussion in a bar with... Bad cinema.