Bowling For Columbine
Nemesis_Zero
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">No, this is no gun control - doublepost.</div> Following my proud tradition of starting discussions nobody else is interested in, I'd like to talk about Michael Moores 'Bowling for Columbine' a bit.
Now, honestly, I can't really see why most people advocating weapon ownership are so hostile towards this movie, because Moore isn't taking a 'pro gun control' stance in the film - the question from the trailer "Are we Americans gun nuts or just nuts?" is to be taken literal.
In my opinion, Moore adresses what he called himself the 'Culture of Fear' that makes in his opinion hostility within the American society and outwards compulsory because one defines him/herself over the constant struggle - no matter with whom.
One may agree with this thesis or not, the movie is in either way very well exercised:
The cut after the interview with the Lockheed PR guy is for example just brilliant, as is the reconstruction of Littleton.
Another really interesting thing is how BfC defies the usual conventions of filmmaking: Which other movie features a fat man lazyly walking through the screen? Which other movie features that few cuts and 'aesthetical improvements'? Which other movie is that unafraid of using pictures of strongly differing technical quality? I found it quite refreshing how the stuff is left 'as is' and not 'remastered' ad infinitum.
On the other hand, I have to say that there are some really bad moments in the movie. Take, for example, the shot of Moore holding the little girls picture up or some of the off-screen comments, which I found annoyingly egocentric.
All in all, I found BfC however to be a very good and intelligent movie which I'm sure I'll watch again.
Now, honestly, I can't really see why most people advocating weapon ownership are so hostile towards this movie, because Moore isn't taking a 'pro gun control' stance in the film - the question from the trailer "Are we Americans gun nuts or just nuts?" is to be taken literal.
In my opinion, Moore adresses what he called himself the 'Culture of Fear' that makes in his opinion hostility within the American society and outwards compulsory because one defines him/herself over the constant struggle - no matter with whom.
One may agree with this thesis or not, the movie is in either way very well exercised:
The cut after the interview with the Lockheed PR guy is for example just brilliant, as is the reconstruction of Littleton.
Another really interesting thing is how BfC defies the usual conventions of filmmaking: Which other movie features a fat man lazyly walking through the screen? Which other movie features that few cuts and 'aesthetical improvements'? Which other movie is that unafraid of using pictures of strongly differing technical quality? I found it quite refreshing how the stuff is left 'as is' and not 'remastered' ad infinitum.
On the other hand, I have to say that there are some really bad moments in the movie. Take, for example, the shot of Moore holding the little girls picture up or some of the off-screen comments, which I found annoyingly egocentric.
All in all, I found BfC however to be a very good and intelligent movie which I'm sure I'll watch again.
Comments
Aside from the normal movie trailer, there are four film clips available in both Windows Media and Quicktime formats. "A Brief History of America" uses a cartoon to whiz right through American History (with respectable accuracy, considering how short it is). The Marylin Manson interview is, well, self explanatory from the name, as is the Matt Stone interview. Finally, "Michael at the Bank" has Michael Moore, the writer of the film and aforementioned "fat man lazyly walking through the screen", at a bank that has (had?) a unique offer for a limited time only: get a certain type of account, and get a free rifle out of the dozens to be selected.
Granted, he is kinda irritating at times but he does have a lot valid points.
but not the movie 'Bowling for Columbine' sadly <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Just such a perfect contrast to the assumption that "those weapons are only built for defense against an aggressor."
I am pretty amazed at the number of people that entirely missed the point of the movie - he does say <b>repeatedly</b> that gun control isn't the real issue.
What i like about Michael is the way he doesnt use any hidden cameras or mics. Instead he just waltzes into places with a big camera saying, HI.. can i ask a few questions. And with his apearance, nobody seems to think he's capable of asking any tricky questions.
I must say i was surprised by the interview with Charlton Heston. I would have thought that he would be more prepared for those questions, and not just blurp out the NRA textbook answers like "Americans have a long history of violence" and such. Not that i like him or anything, but i did expect him to be smarter than the NRA stooge he seemed to be.
Recomend everyone to see it. Anti or pro gun-control alike.
And try to chatch his show. Most of it is very good. --> Vote Ficus!!!! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
However it had 2 major flaws:
It compared Canada and the US in terms of weapons owned, and death rate.
Now at first this seems innocent enough, but if you look a tad deeper you see the flaw. The fact that Canada has a socialist school and healthcare system is only mentioned one time and very briefly when moore questions a man outside the hospital. So asking "Why are Canadians so different" becomes an invalid question, the views they are brought up with are completely different form the United States.
And it did not present a credible "Pro Gun" point. I don’t consider Hugh Heffner (Alzheimers) and the "Michigan militia" a good counterpoint to the columbine parents. Also pointing out the fact that the NRA visited both Columbine and the other place within a month of each shooting, without mentioning the fact that the NRA wants to prevent the misuse of weapons through responsible and educated gun owners, makes the NRA seem like a bunch of crazed gun nuts who wanted to rub in the fact that these tragadies happened.
as a sub point:
The comparison this movie made between the NRA and the KKK reflects the movies general anti-gun stance.
Your thinking of Charlton Heston, known for his role as Moses in the <i>Ten Commandments</i>
And Michael moore himself is not anti-gun, hell, he was raised with them, but he was just showing that many people own guns because they are afraid of something that has a 1 out of 100,000 chance in happening to them.
and comparing the US and Canada was smart. We're neighbors but even in Montreal they have relatively few gun murders. Even the densly (sp?) populated Holland has few gun murders.
The U.S. is just afraid of it's self.
I think that government should provide health care and schooling to it's citizens, it's nothing but benificial. It certainly didn't ruin Canada or Australia's economy. I'm truely sorry for you Americans forced to subsist on private health care, that's just cruel. Governments should provide services for their citizens; if this makes me "socialist" then hand me a red flag <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.moorewatch.com' target='_blank'>http://www.moorewatch.com</a>
That site documents the fallacy and lies of Mike Moore.
<a href='http://www.moorewatch.com/comments.php?id=P108_0_1_0_C' target='_blank'>http://www.moorewatch.com/comments.php?id=P108_0_1_0_C</a>
Problems with BfC...
Another Party's analysis of its failures:
<a href='http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,5763232,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/print...5763232,00.html</a>
By the way, 'political message' and 'documentary' don't contradict at all. Every docu, as every report, is done by people of a certain opinion which then try to develop a chain of logic that backs a hypothesis created by them. This is a political / sociological documentary, and thus, the author develops a political / sociological thesis.
[Edit]BTW, straight from Moorewatch:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine is the worst movie released in the past year. How do I know this? Because the French, the supreme reverse indicator dudes of the universe, just gave him a "Cesar" for Best Foreign Film. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this speaks for itself.[/Edit]
michael moore presents his arguments in a civil, educated manner and justifies them with fact and common sense and logic. [on the whole - in his movie there were a few techniques he used that i wouldnt reccommend to a proffesional. note, the majority of his content is quality. focus on the whole, dont try and find a few tiny flaws and make them out to be bigger than they are. if a few cheesy viewer-getting methods are neccessary to present his findings to a larger audience, then so be it.]
the anti-michael moore people 'present' their views via opiniated, rude utterly non-proffesional rantings. they have no facts, other than 'the polls say this', and some of them [or maybe all, i havent inspected this further than moorewatch.com] resort to cheap, immature 'no, YOURE wrong. i hate you!' style posts. [see <a href='http://www.rachellucas.com/archives/000442.html#000442' target='_blank'>http://www.rachellucas.com/archives/000442.html#000442</a> ] they also bring up many irrelevent and invalid 'arguments'.
heres a post taken from somebody i have some respect for from another forum. this was about the anti-war protesters, etc, but it raises many valid and relevent points.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, you've gotten me started now, prepare for my rant about why you're all idiots.
Firstly, about the polls. Those things are an abslute crock. I'm studying journalism at the moment, and this happened to be an issue last week. Newspapers find a story, and run with it. In this case, they love the anti-war spin on the iraq crisis because its controversial writing. When they cotton onto good subject matter like that, they can make the polls and statistics say whatever they want. In practically all cases, where statistics are used, other stats can be found to support the opposing viewpoints, usually just by omition. Statistics arent the rock hard proof most people take them to be.
Secondly, and more importantly, you're all morons. How can you even consider that you know enough about the issue to form an opinion thats even close to right? You get your information on this issue from one source, and once source only; the media, the most biased, subjective source of information out there. The media feeds you what it wants, what it thinks will stimulate consumers. We are living in a comercial world, and they know how to manipulate information to take advantage of that.
Even if they WERE completely objective, they have little more information than us, recieving only what the governments involved wish to feed them. You know nothing about whether sadam really does have hidden weapons. For all you know, he could have biological weapons capable of wiping out the world's population, and the UN/US government simply isnt sharing that information to stop global panic.
The only people in the world who know enough about the issue are the politicians such as bush, howard etc, who have access to classified information that we'll never be shown. YOu criticise their decisions, yet they are far more informed, and in an infintely better position to make judgements on the situation than any of you.
I'm not denying you the right to have an opinion on the issue, but by arguing it, you imply you think your side is right, and i think thats completely moronic, because none of us are informed enough to be right.
spy
xeon ' spyder
Xn|.spyder.
#Xn #Lithoptix
Xeon || Lithoptix
Xeon CS server Powered by Lithoptix
210.80.128.10
Lithoptix : Gaming/IRC/Streaming audio/Dedicated servers, Webspace, domains.
If you use any of their services, please put the referer as clan xeon, or Spyder.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So I'm a Canadian, and I used to live in downtown Toronto (1.5 years ago). Somewhat obviously, the bit about him walking into people's houses didn't shock me too much. What did shock me was the realization that Moore is telling me that Americans lock themselves in their houses. I lock the door when I leave the house, but is it really true that Americans have the doors locked when they're at home?
On another note, I read a transcript of Moore being interviewed on some daytime news show. I found an idea of his particularly interesting that I don't believe made it to the movie. Moore said something like: guns designed for anything but hunting should be illegal to own for the general public. e.g. pistols and guns that can fire multiple rounds without having to be reloaded. It blows my mind that members of the general populace can legally own large automatic rifles, what possible use could that serve?
Hmm, I've gotta go get Stupid White Men, Moore's book. Anyone read it?
<i><b>Edit:</b> Also blowing my mind, finding out that there are so many guns in Canada. I had no idea!</i>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. Highly recommended - very entertaining, and presented in a light-hearted tone, but with an undercurrent of simmering anger that the world is like it is, and repeated challenges for the reader to get out there and stand up and be counted. And by the end of it, boy will you feel like doing so.
I'd say it's stronger and more coherent than his previous two books, and gives a wealth of background material. He has a knack for piecing together information from thousands of sources (references given in the back) and turning them into a cogent, reasoned attack on the establishment. The general style is the same as in his film documentaries and TV programmes, but he is able to go into more detail, and create a magnificent mosaic from his references.
What's makes it even stronger is that the WTC attacks took place immediately after it was written, and the US government's actions since have managed to reinforce pretty much every caricature that Moore painted of them. Ditto the Enron scandal - Enron's dodgy business practices and governmental links get a few mentions in the book, and the whole thing was blown wide open soon after.
I look forward with anticipation to his forthcoming work on the post-September 11th American regime.
It won Book of the Year at the British Book Awards too, but then, hey, we're pretty much a nation of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" too - we've just got a "freedom-loving" government. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Because saying guns cause columbine is like saying airplanes caused 9/11
Well, yes, that's one of his core arguments. Hence his comparisons with Canada, which has significantly higher gun ownership, but far lower fatal shootings. His argument is that the problem isn't so much lack of gun control (although it is a problem), as it is something fundamentally wrong with American society.