Bowling for Columbine

[Dmitri]

Heya, I know there are a few Michael Moore fans around here, anyway, in my net ramblings I came across this little article about a Michael Moore film, Bowling for Columbine

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

anyone got any opinions on this one?

[DGMacphee]

The article is old and we've discussed BFC many times.

But I'll address a few issues here anyway.

The article is crap for several reasons:

1. Fiction -- the article claims the docomentry is fiction -- However, the author negelcts the numerous famous documentries of the past that have fudged facts and false scenes int hem.

For example, in Larry Beinhart's 'American Hero', he lists several films that fudge the truth:

* 'Tearing Down The Spanish Flag', a newsreal made after the US declared war on Spain, was actually a reenactment shot not in Manilla or Havana, but on a rooftop in Manhattan

* 'Battle of Santiago Bay' (by the same producers) was shot in a bathtub

* 'Triumph of the Will', the Nazi propaganda film, used a staged rally

* 'December 7th' (which won a short doco Oscar), about the bombing of Pearl Harbour used fake battle scenes with minitures, which is surprising considering a) the film is a benchmark for other docos, especially when other Pearl Harbour docos lift footage from the film, and b) It was directed by legendary director John Ford (it didn't tarnish his reputation though)

This makes th article more like a Michael Moore witchhunt, instead of an actual argument

2. Heston -- I fault Moore here, because he treats Heston with a degree of bias. Nowhere does the film mention Heston's past civil rights work, especially his aid to Martin Luther King rallies in the 60s. The film paints Heston as a right-wing redneck, which he is definately not.

Heston, however, does confuse me at times. I cannot equate civil rights for black people to gun ownership, no matter what the American constitution says. It's a very archaic document, and certain part seem to be misinterpreted in contempory times (like the bible, if you will)

3. Taliban and Human Aid -- The author of the article tries to say that the US gave aid to Afghanistan to help the famine problem. However, this author was deluded if he thought the US government would give money freely to an extremist group without causing any problems. The US government was thoughtless is providing aid here, and so is the author of the article for suggesting such a thing.

4. Gun murder rates -- The author proved one thing: Moore buggered up his stats, which is possible for anyone to do. However, he still essentially proves Moore's point as the US gun murder rates are still higher that other countries if you use his figures.

5. The point of the film -- The author tries to say the film's point seems misguided, as it says it is not against guns (e.g. the Canada example). But that's not the point of the film. Moore has stated time and times again the point was to only raise questions about gun ownership in the US. That's all. He is not against it (He was, after all, a member of the NRA since childhood), but merely challenging perspectives.

6. Other -- Now, how can the author suggest BFC is a fake when more footage is faked in news coverage. Just a little while ago there was a doco on the faking of footage for a submarine attacking Iraq.

Here's a link:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s921916.htm

Also, the footage where US soldiers topple Saddam's statue was staged too. Here's another link:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s832042.htm

We live in a world of lies and propaganda -- right, left, middle, whatever -- and the author of the article shows his bias if he can single out Michael Moore without considering the other things I've stated above.

He is just as liable for bias as Moore is.


There we go -- I think I've taken care of that business!

[Captain Mostly]

Michael Moore is so smug as to be un-watchable, let alone readable. He may well have good points, but simply because he's such a cunt, I'm immediatly impelled to do exactly what he's trying to tell me not to, simply to spite him.

[remixor]

As DG says, I think the authors of that article, completely aside from the validity (or lack of validity) of the claims they make, entirely missed the point of Moore's documentary, which was not to suggest that he knows what the problem is or how to fix things.  He was presenting many factors and variables and contexts, current and historical, and attempting to allow viewers to think more constructively about the various problems (which are very, very real) which are inflicting the United States right now, largely gun deaths.

[Captain Mostly]

I was talking to a woman on the train last night about Bowling for Columbine, and she made a terribly clever point (I thought). Her words spun out a little like this:

"Moore is one of the prime examples of anti-violence types who write about and present the subject in a ridiculously agressive way. What's with that?!?! I like it when men comment on the volumptuousness of my boobies, that way I know they want to make sweet sweet love to me"

[Las Naranjas]

In what other way is the issue going to be breached. In an atmosphere of aggressive pundits, opinion columns and talk back radio hosts who are even more dreadful in their research method, a carefully reasoned and researched piece just doesn't get heard. Moore is a populist, so it's not to be expected that his material will stand up to academic scrutiny.

But what happens in academic cloisters has no effect on public perception whatsoever. That will come from Fox News, or Alan Jones, who show a shocking disregard for objectivity, journailistic ethics and clear research.

Unfortunately, if there's going to be some variety of opinion in the public arena, which you'd damn well hope for in a democracy, points of view other than that which is spewed forth by the above, alternative viewpoints have to accept the populist means that make them successful.
Which is going to have a more positive effect on gun violence. A popular, although flawed film [whose faults inspire debate nonetheless], or a PhD which is archived in the bowells of a university?

[DGMacphee]

Aye -- and Moore's aggresive tactics are rather mild in a world of Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern.

[Captain Mostly]

Louis Thereaux (spelled probably wrong) manages to say so much more about issues such as gun culture by being friendly. He has never EVER been agressive in any of his programs or writings, and yet is a much more powerful demonstrator of what's wrong with stuff these days.

His aproach is much more along the lines of letting stupid people speak for themselves. This way, he doesn't need to shout and accuse and generally act like a pompus asshole. When you hear these mentalists talking about gun culture or whatever, it's just as obvious how wretched the whole situation is without any Moore-like whining and self importance.

[DGMacphee]

I think Moore's whining and self-importance are more used to maximise the emphasis of his satirical take on such things.

[Shattered Sponge]

  It's interesting how you pit Louis Theroux and Michael Moore against each other, as Louis got his big break into TV journalism on Moore's show TV Nation, and as far as I am aware the two are good friends.
 Of course that proves nothing as regards their journalistic ability - personally I agree that Theroux is superior in that respect (perhaps the only journalist in the world who could make entire programs about celebrities or celebrity couples interesting), although I do like Moore's work as well - but nonetheless I found it quite an odd coincidence.

[Shattered Sponge]

Eep, double post - not quite sure what happened there.

[plasticman]

but how many people have heard of theroux ?

as naranjas said, moore's "documentaries" are not aimed at the intellectual classes.
letting stupid people speak for themselves won't convince other stupid people of their stupidity, follow me ?
but bowling for columbine has reached many an average american without a previous opinion on that subject, and that's what matters.

oh, and it was me who posted that link a while ago, as a guest. i almost got decapitated for that.

[Nellie]

Louis Theroux's programs focus on the "isn't this weird?" aspect.  Michael Moore focuses on the "isn't this wrong" aspect.  Theroux is great, but he's no moral campaigner.

I don't find Moore aggressive - he's confrontational, but that's not the same thing.  Every day the government and big corporations are screwing people over, and the media in general is lazy as shit about it - hardly bothering to report most of the stuff that goes on.  Moore is a guy who's prepared to go to the people in charge and say: "Look at this shit!", and we complain that his doing that makes him too aggressive??

I don't find him whiny or self-important at all.  Pissed off and incredulous is the first description that comes to mind.

[taryuu]

I'm no fan of mike moore, and i'm no lefty by any means.  however, i like it!  of course there were some parts of the movie that made me shake my head,  but then again there were some parst of the movie that made me bust a fucking gut.  

not perfect, but watchable and thought-provoking.




i love's my gun, LOVE'S IT!

[DGMacphee]

Guns are for wusses!

Hunt some armed inbreds with a bow and arrow like Burt Reynolds and Jon Voight in Deliverance -- that's balls!

[Dmitri]

Dg:



I think Rambo agrees

On topic, I've never liked Mike Moore really, as a few have said, it's just his general attitude that sorta sets me off.

and when I read that article, well, I was kinda hoping it was full proof  

I can dream I guess

edit: durn americans, putting a 'Z' in "anonymiser"...

[Nellie]

Well I never...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

[MrColossal]

man who'da thunk that after being james bond he'd be such a politcal savvy guy!

it's like he's resonding directly to this post!

thanks mike

eric

ps my brother's name is mike

[foz]

I was talking to a woman on the train last night about Bowling for Columbine, and she made a terribly clever point (I thought). Her words spun out a little like this:

"Moore is one of the prime examples of anti-violence types who write about and present the subject in a ridiculously agressive way. What's with that?!?! I like it when men comment on the volumptuousness of my boobies, that way I know they want to make sweet sweet love to me"

Did you tell her how volumptuous her boobs were........?

She sounds like she was up for a shag.

[foz]

I read the book "stupid white men"........
I thought it was very good.....

What the guy does is bring up stuff that you would think is total nonsence .....but these things happen every day.
One man can`t right the world.....
But if you inform as many people of the stupid stuff that goes on then alot of people can make a difference....

Don`t worry its not just america thats controlled by "stupid white men"

The UK comes a close second.....


I`m not clever enough to comment any further than that......