Never seen BFC, but a couple friends said it was decent.
I at least give the guy credit for speaking out against Bush when everyone else in the country backed down. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Um, as sexy as you are Duff, your wrong. Perhaps you should have read the editorals in every damned paper across the country, or looked at any political cartoon.
Did I mention I hate Michael Moore, and that he's a fat piece of crap?
Well I liked BFC, I think it did offer some interesting insights into the American Gun Culture even if it was biased. But I couldnt watch when he ambushed Heston, really. I just hid my face in my hands and shut my ears. That was disgusting. You dont do that to ANYONE. Not in his own home ffs.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
O man I love it when conservatives rip into Micheal Moore. It keeps them from focusing on their real enemies. I have 11 points to make:
1)The movie wasn't about gun ownership, gun control, or anything to do with actually having a weapon (although he's right about the 2nd amendment thing) 2)The movie has the song "Take The Skinheads Bowling" in it so it has to rock 3)It more factual than Rush Limbaugh 4)Marilon Manson and that Parker guy sum up the movie totally and they rule 5)that cartoon is hilarious 6)All of Mike's other movies are factual (and really good, so see em, and read his books to, they are also godlike, and his TV show) 7)Mike isn't as liberal as people say. He's just a democrat folks, a REAL democrat. What democrats are suppossed to be, not the spineless losers they have become. 8)Micheal Moore is the reason GW is in power 9)The sodomobiles IS headed to your town 10)Crackers WILL rise again and 11)The blood bank is only open on Mondays and Tuesdays.......and Wednesdays and Thursdays and Fridays. Saturday and Sunday they're closed.
(I got kinda carried away there, but I think he's a genuinely funny man, but not a radical in any sanse of the word.)
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
Well what makes you think that I have suffered massive head traumain a past experience long forgotten(actually when I was a kid I fell off a wagon and hit my head. The doctors said I might have gotten permanent personality problems, I showed them!!!!! That is true, despite the joke.)? Is that that I enjoy Micheal Moore as a comedian? Is it that I find the rest of his movies and books informative? Is it the constant references to his TV show and movies in there? Or is it that I said he's responsible for GW?
And BTW, you're the LAST person around here to to theorise about whether or not I have brain damage.
Man it really makes me laugh to see so much hate directed against Micheal Moore. I hadn't even heard of the guy before BFC and I loved him by the end of it. Why so many Americans hate him?
Now I actually don't expect an answer to the above question. Mainly because I'll be seeing comments such as:
did your parents stab you in the head when you were a baby?
or accidentally let you fall.... off a cliff? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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--> How about totally false? The thing was all a fraud.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->Did I mention I hate Michael Moore, and that he's a fat piece of crap?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->I hate him with the writhing fury of a thousand fiery suns. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->wow, its threads like these that let you really find out who are the idiots on forums. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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 is a walking abomination to the genre of Documentary. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->God I hate Moore. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There just seems to be so much irrational hatred here. No-one forces you to listen to him, in the same way that I don't tune into the cable channels at 2:45am so I can watch a speech by Bush. So he has political views that are contrary to yours. That's freedom of speech at work. Could it be that people hate him because he's exposing some harsh truths that Americans don't want to face up to? Again, I don't expect a coherant answer because this issue seems to turn otherwise calm and rational people into frothing fanatics. For proof, please read the provided quotes from this thread.
When I first saw BFC, I was completely and utterly appalled. What I had seen there I could not believe. A country such as the America that Michael Moore depicts would have blown itself to smithereens by now. I can see that he exaggerates. As he is making a profit from opposing the establishment, he has an interest in depicting things in a way that benefits his views. I know that he would prefer material that supports his message. This is why I do not credit BFC with being accurate. No, it is biased. But it's not entirely false either. The States have comparatively lax laws about gun ownership, and a mindset about guns that is unique in the western world. I'm not embarking on a crusade though. Frankly, I don't care much. I am not afraid of rifles or handguns og shotguns or whatever. These cannot reach across the atlantic. I am not sure whether I agree with Michael Moore's work. He selects scapegoats, and he grossly exaggerates. Sometimes exaggeration is the best way to catch the public attention though. Whether what he is doing is right, I can't say.
And that little animation about the History of the United States was hilarious. Anyone know if there's a place to download it?
first off, having watched the film I dont know what that bank thing was about; I saw pretty clearly from the movie that there was paperwork and background checks involved (remember the bit where he jokes about the question asking does he have any mental stability problems?), the amusement of that part for me was that they were giving guns for opening a bank account, checks and gunstores or otherwise. That part was more generally amusing than shocking or anything <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Another thing that bothers me is, that 'truth behind BFC' site and all the stuff against BFC... what makes their word any better than MMs? Both sides are obviously biased (though I didn't know Heston was suffering from that... I can't really feel pity for the guy though because I hate racists and narrow-minded people more than the english language can express =P ). The Marilon Manson interview was good and while I think his music/image is funny he's always come off as a pretty intelligent guy off-stage =3
stuff like that interview with the guy who wasn't convicted in the oklahoma bombing was just plain scary, you couldn't cut that to make it as bad as it was if you tried except you couldn't see him supposedly holding the gun to his own head I gotta admit =/
The most shocking and eye-opening part of the film for me was the interview with the security guy. At first MM pokes fun at him then they get to the subject of columbine... by now people are sitting there with a smile because of the antics of asking if the gate will protect from spears and for a second the security man looks like he's being silly which actually got a small giggle from the seats behind me... then everyone realises it's because he's actually so upset by the massacre and the atmosphere in the cinema just plummets which sets it up nicely for the next scene where they go to the actual columbine footage and stuff -.-
Hate the film all you want but even a 'false' documentary has to be spliced from pieces of the truth...
<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Sep 21 2003, 08:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Sep 21 2003, 08:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> maybe its all a clever stunt by mr moore to make you question things which you take as fact... left AND RIGHT... <b>HINT HINT</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You gotta be kidding....
And truth can be manipulated in many ways, until it's not even truth anymore.
Duff, you respect the guy for...going against the president? Ohh yeah, that's original.
<!--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-->Hate the film all you want but even a 'false' documentary has to be spliced from pieces of the truth... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless that truth is staged or down right fabricated... as many of his "true" numbers and figures are.
Also, context is a <b>huge</b> part of the truth... If I have a video of somebody shooting someone.. Just outta the blue shooting him in the head then you would be appaled, unless it's put in the context of self defence... or maybe the guy shooting was a police officer.
If you don't have context then you can make <b>anything</b> true... and while the statement holds somewhat that these new "truths" have to be spliced together from smaller "truths" the fact of the matter is that once that truth is spliced, it is no longer true in it's stand-alone form.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--404NotFound+Sep 21 2003, 09:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Sep 21 2003, 09:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also, context is a <b>huge</b> part of the truth... If I have a video of somebody shooting someone.. Just outta the blue shooting him in the head then you would be appaled, unless it's put in the context of self defence... or maybe the guy shooting was a police officer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, so just because there was a "reason" for the shooting doesn't mean that it's still a violent act and should not happen?
The film is not about individual statistics or situations, it's about our society as a whole, and it's message is something that many people have been saying for quite a while.
Am I defending the fact that the movie is an obvious depart from the truth in many cases? No. It's still enjoyable, and the message still holds on it's own.
And once again, leave Mike alone. Mike is your friend. Mike wants conservatives to get laid and get elected. Mike is on your side here!
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Sep 21 2003, 02:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Sep 21 2003, 02:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> O man I love it when conservatives rip into Micheal Moore. It keeps them from focusing on their real enemies. I have 11 points to make:
1)The movie wasn't about gun ownership, gun control, or anything to do with actually having a weapon (although he's right about the 2nd amendment thing) 2)The movie has the song "Take The Skinheads Bowling" in it so it has to rock 3)It more factual than Rush Limbaugh 4)Marilon Manson and that Parker guy sum up the movie totally and they rule 5)that cartoon is hilarious 6)All of Mike's other movies are factual (and really good, so see em, and read his books to, they are also godlike, and his TV show) 7)Mike isn't as liberal as people say. He's just a democrat folks, a REAL democrat. What democrats are suppossed to be, not the spineless losers they have become. 8)Micheal Moore is the reason GW is in power 9)The sodomobiles IS headed to your town 10)Crackers WILL rise again and 11)The blood bank is only open on Mondays and Tuesdays.......and Wednesdays and Thursdays and Fridays. Saturday and Sunday they're closed.
(I got kinda carried away there, but I think he's a genuinely funny man, but not a radical in any sanse of the word.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> None of those were valid points backed by facts.
Why is it when the <i>left</i> has someone who is loud, obnoxious, and manipulative about facts, people on the right(and here I'm making a generalization, so I realize it's not true across the board) absolutely lose their minds?
Is it because they want <i>their</i> talk radio hosts and authors (And here I'm thinking specifically of Ms. Coulter) to hold the lion's share of that market?
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Sep 21 2003, 01:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Sep 21 2003, 01:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> None of those were valid points backed by facts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well I never said they would be. Yes, many were opinion, and many were JOKES. But I'm pretty sure that the song I mentioned is in there, and if you are saying that that song doesn't completely rock then I believe I'll have to ask you outside. And I also stand by my point about Rush Limbaugh.
I'm constantly impressed by the way Moore is resented. People blaming him for using incorrect facts become incorrect in their own elaborations (there was a rather lengthy shot of Moore <i>filling out</i> paperwork in the 'Mike in the Bank' scene, and on the question where they have the gun, the taped answer is "in our vault", just to name two examples), people accusing him of being too emotional usually follow that up by remarking how he is so egocentric and obnoxious that it drives them willies, and most of the time, his critics tend to ignore the points he makes because it's easier to hang oneself up on a few slight incorrectnesses somewhere in between - all the pro-gun voices attacking him for being anti-gun are the prime example here.
Yes, Moore is too loud, yes, he is too egocentric, yes, he tends to use too hard rethoric. That doesn't disqualify his points (which I disagree on on a fair number of accounts, BTW, but there's a difference between disagreeing and ignoring).
I know many out there will want to shoot me (pun intended) for resurrecting this thread, but after watching it yesterday, I would just like to put in my two bullets, er, cents.
<b>Did "Bowling for Columbine" deserve an Oscar"</b> I say it DOES for several reasons.
<b>Organization and Editing</b> There is very few "filler" in this documentary and not a moment is wasted. Moore clearly presents a thesis dealing with American fear and presents arguments, support and evidence. The film flows smoothly and has nary a "boring spot". All the interviews are nicely organized and juxtaposed. He knows how to make film.
<b>Contents and Facts</b> Ok, the real dinger. Editing is attributed to some of the stretches. For example, as noted by a hardcore dissenter of "Columbine", the NRA didn't plan the rally in Flint RIGHT after the 6 year-old shooting, a considerable time has passed and the goal was political. However, does it excuse the NRA to host a rally in Flint? Or in Columbine, perhaps? I don't think so. Also controversial was the "Buying Ammo at Canadian K-mart" scene. Sure, the law says foreigners can't buy it. But I strongly doubt the scene was faked, the woman probably was not aware of the regulation, and the fact that Moore was able to walk away with ammunition, ID check or no ID check, presents its point. "NRA and KKK in American History cartoon" was also lambasted. I also believe that it was only a coincidence. However, it's disconcerting that two groups complemented each other so well unintentionally. The statistics and historical points in the film are all true, including the murder numbers. The ending of the Charlton Heston interview was poignant, not to mention saddening. But Moore couldn't expect Mr. Heston to recall everything with exact clarity (he does have Alzheimers), nor produce good answers on the spot. Therefore, I dismiss his "racist" comment. Despite naysayers, Heston DID say everything he was shown to have said. Though it may have been taken out of context, the fact that it was stated ("from my dead, cold hands") does not diminish its relevance. Plus, film and history is after all subjective. Even the Discovery Channel doesn't paint the Great White Shark as a teddy bear doesn't it? Do you think Schindler's List is "fair and objective"? Part of an art's purpose is to provoke and incite.
<b>Ability to provoke Discussion and Controversy</b> Take a look at this forum and critic reviews for enough discussion and controversy. Rarely has a film roused so much hatred, love, criticism, support, naysayers, and believers in the film industry and audience. But it is precisely this discussion and dialogue about such a pertinent issue that this society needs: the society needs to debate and relegate, not just blindly stand aside, this film does not allow you to do so. If not for this documentary, American domestic violence would be hidden underneath the current Iraq war and California recall. It is this ability to stoke discussion and controversy that brings this subject to light again and for once make the silent voice their opinions. We need that more in a democracy.
<b>It's effect and timelessness</b> As long as Americans have a gun problem, this documentary will be very relevant. As long as domestic violence, poverty, and cultural differences are issues, this documentary will be very relevant. As long as there are "psychos" out there, Moore has placed the subject on the table, and there it will stay. Because of this documentary, Kmart no longer sells ammo, and that's a good thing. Hopefully, Big-5, Wal-Mart, and Sport-mart will follow. Despite criticism, it can not be doubted that this documentary has probably inspired a good amount of people to do something about this problem.
<b>My personal view on guns and Moore's thesis</b> You do not need an M-16 assault rifle to protect yourself against burglars. You do not need a TEC-9 semi-automatic to hunt deer. You should not be able to buy ammo at a convenience store. I believe that the American media does provoke unecessary fear. And this fear does lead to violence. The ease of acquiring such weapons is astounding and should be heavily regulated (for once, Chris Rock had the right idea). Maybe we should be like our Canadian and European counterparts, for the only thing that differs between us is fear against other people. If we were to eliminate fear, would we then eliminate the majority of the violence? I think so. I hope so. I may be too optimistic, but it's a hell of a good start.
Good points you have there. It boils down to "sometimes you have to exaggerate to get people's attention" I think, and I wholeheartedly agree. Either way, Moore's fame has increased drastically, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. His methods may be somewhat controversial, but I think the point that he's trying to make is valid. I'm still kinda indifferent on the Heston interview. On one hand, it's kinda mean to to do this to someone with Alzheimer's. On the other hand, maybe someone with Alzheimer's shouldn't be a major figure and spokesperson in the NRA.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Sep 21 2003, 10:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Sep 21 2003, 10:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--404NotFound+Sep 21 2003, 09:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Sep 21 2003, 09:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also, context is a <b>huge</b> part of the truth... If I have a video of somebody shooting someone.. Just outta the blue shooting him in the head then you would be appaled, unless it's put in the context of self defence... or maybe the guy shooting was a police officer. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, so just because there was a "reason" for the shooting doesn't mean that it's still a violent act and should not happen?
The film is not about individual statistics or situations, it's about our society as a whole, and it's message is something that many people have been saying for quite a while.
Am I defending the fact that the movie is an obvious depart from the truth in many cases? No. It's still enjoyable, and the message still holds on it's own.
And once again, leave Mike alone. Mike is your friend. Mike wants conservatives to get laid and get elected. Mike is on your side here! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What if the man was running from the scene of a dual cop killing hmmm? Oh and seriously that whole movie was BS.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Sep 28 2003, 07:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Sep 28 2003, 07:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem is that documentry implies truth.
Bowling deserved best picture if anything. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> /agree
Fine, call it a comment on the social climate, but when its blatantly obvious that the facts were skewed as to present the viewer with a different series of events then what actually occured, thats not truth. Thats manipulation.
A documentary is supposed to be a film <i>documenting</i> something in <i>detail</i>, not picking and choosing what to show the viewers. By the end of the film the viewer should be able to weight each side for themselves, and make a choice based on <i>their</i> opinions, not the film maker's.
Bowling For Columbine is not a comment on gun control and such, its a demonstration of the utter gullibility of most Americans, and a sad statement that most people in this country have lost the will to make independant decisions and actually research the facts.
I mean, if enough people <i>say</i> somethings true... it must be unquestionably true right? It might seem a stupid question, but it pretty much sums up how many people think these days. If more folks started researching their "facts" (and come on, it takes 5 seconds to search Google) people might actually learn the art of <b>real</b> debate once again rather then the smear campaign and shouting tactics that fule most modern "debates" (see: recent california recall canidates debate).
I liked his previous works, this one kinda hit me as him trying too hard to get noticed, and that is why he used more controversial issues and "creative editing". Doesn't mean it was complete BS, just very opinated, but we don't see people burning down the Fox News building do we?
He did of course use a biased comparision throughout the movie between Canada and the US. He ignored the fact that Canada has a total of 40 million people living in it, whereas there's about 29 million in LA alone. He used the argument that America's culture breeds fear and violence but he didn't include facts about population and urban density, and you can find many studies that show when you get animals (people) crowded together in a fairly small area there is bound to be more violence.
He should stick to debunking corperate fraud and the US's terrible business practices, attacking individual people with no real say in how the goverment is run (gun owners) kidna taints his image of being someone who is concerned with making positive change, and not just out for publicity.
Basically cut out the attacks on guns (yes they were there) and leave in the complaints about the US education and media.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Sep 28 2003, 05:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Sep 28 2003, 05:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What if the man was running from the scene of a dual cop killing hmmm? Oh and seriously that whole movie was BS. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And what if he was? That makes it an even better example because none of that should have happened. No one should have to get killed. If he was runing from a cop shooting, neither the cops nor he should have been killed. Killing is not right in any context (except organized revolution, but that's just a personal thing for me) and this movie is saying that all violence is wrong. Not just violence against perfect law abiding citizens.
Comments
I at least give the guy credit for speaking out against Bush when everyone else in the country backed down. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Did I mention I hate Michael Moore, and that he's a fat piece of crap?
1)The movie wasn't about gun ownership, gun control, or anything to do with actually having a weapon (although he's right about the 2nd amendment thing)
2)The movie has the song "Take The Skinheads Bowling" in it so it has to rock
3)It more factual than Rush Limbaugh
4)Marilon Manson and that Parker guy sum up the movie totally and they rule
5)that cartoon is hilarious
6)All of Mike's other movies are factual (and really good, so see em, and read his books to, they are also godlike, and his TV show)
7)Mike isn't as liberal as people say. He's just a democrat folks, a REAL democrat. What democrats are suppossed to be, not the spineless losers they have become.
8)Micheal Moore is the reason GW is in power
9)The sodomobiles IS headed to your town
10)Crackers WILL rise again
and 11)The blood bank is only open on Mondays and Tuesdays.......and Wednesdays and Thursdays and Fridays. Saturday and Sunday they're closed.
(I got kinda carried away there, but I think he's a genuinely funny man, but not a radical in any sanse of the word.)
did your parents stab you in the head when you were a baby?
or accidentally let you fall.... off a cliff?
And BTW, you're the LAST person around here to to theorise about whether or not I have brain damage.
Now I actually don't expect an answer to the above question. Mainly because I'll be seeing comments such as:
<!--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-->WTH?
did your parents stab you in the head when you were a baby?
or accidentally let you fall.... off a cliff? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->
How about totally false? The thing was all a fraud.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->Did I mention I hate Michael Moore, and that he's a fat piece of crap?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->I hate him with the writhing fury of a thousand fiery suns. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->wow, its threads like these that let you really find out who are the idiots on forums.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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 is a walking abomination to the genre of Documentary.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->God I hate Moore. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There just seems to be so much irrational hatred here. No-one forces you to listen to him, in the same way that I don't tune into the cable channels at 2:45am so I can watch a speech by Bush. So he has political views that are contrary to yours. That's freedom of speech at work. Could it be that people hate him because he's exposing some harsh truths that Americans don't want to face up to? Again, I don't expect a coherant answer because this issue seems to turn otherwise calm and rational people into frothing fanatics. For proof, please read the provided quotes from this thread.
im not going to argue my point(s), because that would be wasting my time and i dont think you can teach a dead dog tricks, let alone new tricks
I am not sure whether I agree with Michael Moore's work. He selects scapegoats, and he grossly exaggerates. Sometimes exaggeration is the best way to catch the public attention though. Whether what he is doing is right, I can't say.
And that little animation about the History of the United States was hilarious. Anyone know if there's a place to download it?
Another thing that bothers me is, that 'truth behind BFC' site and all the stuff against BFC... what makes their word any better than MMs? Both sides are obviously biased (though I didn't know Heston was suffering from that... I can't really feel pity for the guy though because I hate racists and narrow-minded people more than the english language can express =P ).
The Marilon Manson interview was good and while I think his music/image is funny he's always come off as a pretty intelligent guy off-stage =3
stuff like that interview with the guy who wasn't convicted in the oklahoma bombing was just plain scary, you couldn't cut that to make it as bad as it was if you tried except you couldn't see him supposedly holding the gun to his own head I gotta admit =/
The most shocking and eye-opening part of the film for me was the interview with the security guy. At first MM pokes fun at him then they get to the subject of columbine... by now people are sitting there with a smile because of the antics of asking if the gate will protect from spears and for a second the security man looks like he's being silly which actually got a small giggle from the seats behind me... then everyone realises it's because he's actually so upset by the massacre and the atmosphere in the cinema just plummets which sets it up nicely for the next scene where they go to the actual columbine footage and stuff -.-
Hate the film all you want but even a 'false' documentary has to be spliced from pieces of the truth...
You gotta be kidding....
And truth can be manipulated in many ways, until it's not even truth anymore.
Duff, you respect the guy for...going against the president? Ohh yeah, that's original.
Unless that truth is staged or down right fabricated... as many of his "true" numbers and figures are.
Also, context is a <b>huge</b> part of the truth... If I have a video of somebody shooting someone.. Just outta the blue shooting him in the head then you would be appaled, unless it's put in the context of self defence... or maybe the guy shooting was a police officer.
If you don't have context then you can make <b>anything</b> true... and while the statement holds somewhat that these new "truths" have to be spliced together from smaller "truths" the fact of the matter is that once that truth is spliced, it is no longer true in it's stand-alone form.
Oh, so just because there was a "reason" for the shooting doesn't mean that it's still a violent act and should not happen?
The film is not about individual statistics or situations, it's about our society as a whole, and it's message is something that many people have been saying for quite a while.
Am I defending the fact that the movie is an obvious depart from the truth in many cases? No. It's still enjoyable, and the message still holds on it's own.
And once again, leave Mike alone. Mike is your friend. Mike wants conservatives to get laid and get elected. Mike is on your side here!
1)The movie wasn't about gun ownership, gun control, or anything to do with actually having a weapon (although he's right about the 2nd amendment thing)
2)The movie has the song "Take The Skinheads Bowling" in it so it has to rock
3)It more factual than Rush Limbaugh
4)Marilon Manson and that Parker guy sum up the movie totally and they rule
5)that cartoon is hilarious
6)All of Mike's other movies are factual (and really good, so see em, and read his books to, they are also godlike, and his TV show)
7)Mike isn't as liberal as people say. He's just a democrat folks, a REAL democrat. What democrats are suppossed to be, not the spineless losers they have become.
8)Micheal Moore is the reason GW is in power
9)The sodomobiles IS headed to your town
10)Crackers WILL rise again
and 11)The blood bank is only open on Mondays and Tuesdays.......and Wednesdays and Thursdays and Fridays. Saturday and Sunday they're closed.
(I got kinda carried away there, but I think he's a genuinely funny man, but not a radical in any sanse of the word.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
None of those were valid points backed by facts.
Is it because they want <i>their</i> talk radio hosts and authors (And here I'm thinking specifically of Ms. Coulter) to hold the lion's share of that market?
Well I never said they would be. Yes, many were opinion, and many were JOKES. But I'm pretty sure that the song I mentioned is in there, and if you are saying that that song doesn't completely rock then I believe I'll have to ask you outside. And I also stand by my point about Rush Limbaugh.
Yes, Moore is too loud, yes, he is too egocentric, yes, he tends to use too hard rethoric. That doesn't disqualify his points (which I disagree on on a fair number of accounts, BTW, but there's a difference between disagreeing and ignoring).
<b>Did "Bowling for Columbine" deserve an Oscar"</b>
I say it DOES for several reasons.
<b>Organization and Editing</b>
There is very few "filler" in this documentary and not a moment is wasted. Moore clearly presents a thesis dealing with American fear and presents arguments, support and evidence. The film flows smoothly and has nary a "boring spot". All the interviews are nicely organized and juxtaposed. He knows how to make film.
<b>Contents and Facts</b>
Ok, the real dinger. Editing is attributed to some of the stretches. For example, as noted by a hardcore dissenter of "Columbine", the NRA didn't plan the rally in Flint RIGHT after the 6 year-old shooting, a considerable time has passed and the goal was political. However, does it excuse the NRA to host a rally in Flint? Or in Columbine, perhaps? I don't think so.
Also controversial was the "Buying Ammo at Canadian K-mart" scene. Sure, the law says foreigners can't buy it. But I strongly doubt the scene was faked, the woman probably was not aware of the regulation, and the fact that Moore was able to walk away with ammunition, ID check or no ID check, presents its point.
"NRA and KKK in American History cartoon" was also lambasted. I also believe that it was only a coincidence. However, it's disconcerting that two groups complemented each other so well unintentionally.
The statistics and historical points in the film are all true, including the murder numbers.
The ending of the Charlton Heston interview was poignant, not to mention saddening. But Moore couldn't expect Mr. Heston to recall everything with exact clarity (he does have Alzheimers), nor produce good answers on the spot. Therefore, I dismiss his "racist" comment.
Despite naysayers, Heston DID say everything he was shown to have said. Though it may have been taken out of context, the fact that it was stated ("from my dead, cold hands") does not diminish its relevance.
Plus, film and history is after all subjective. Even the Discovery Channel doesn't paint the Great White Shark as a teddy bear doesn't it? Do you think Schindler's List is "fair and objective"? Part of an art's purpose is to provoke and incite.
<b>Ability to provoke Discussion and Controversy</b>
Take a look at this forum and critic reviews for enough discussion and controversy. Rarely has a film roused so much hatred, love, criticism, support, naysayers, and believers in the film industry and audience. But it is precisely this discussion and dialogue about such a pertinent issue that this society needs: the society needs to debate and relegate, not just blindly stand aside, this film does not allow you to do so. If not for this documentary, American domestic violence would be hidden underneath the current Iraq war and California recall. It is this ability to stoke discussion and controversy that brings this subject to light again and for once make the silent voice their opinions. We need that more in a democracy.
<b>It's effect and timelessness</b>
As long as Americans have a gun problem, this documentary will be very relevant. As long as domestic violence, poverty, and cultural differences are issues, this documentary will be very relevant. As long as there are "psychos" out there, Moore has placed the subject on the table, and there it will stay.
Because of this documentary, Kmart no longer sells ammo, and that's a good thing. Hopefully, Big-5, Wal-Mart, and Sport-mart will follow. Despite criticism, it can not be doubted that this documentary has probably inspired a good amount of people to do something about this problem.
<b>My personal view on guns and Moore's thesis</b>
You do not need an M-16 assault rifle to protect yourself against burglars.
You do not need a TEC-9 semi-automatic to hunt deer.
You should not be able to buy ammo at a convenience store.
I believe that the American media does provoke unecessary fear. And this fear does lead to violence. The ease of acquiring such weapons is astounding and should be heavily regulated (for once, Chris Rock had the right idea). Maybe we should be like our Canadian and European counterparts, for the only thing that differs between us is fear against other people. If we were to eliminate fear, would we then eliminate the majority of the violence? I think so. I hope so. I may be too optimistic, but it's a hell of a good start.
Javert.
Good points you have there. It boils down to "sometimes you have to exaggerate to get people's attention" I think, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Either way, Moore's fame has increased drastically, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. His methods may be somewhat controversial, but I think the point that he's trying to make is valid.
I'm still kinda indifferent on the Heston interview. On one hand, it's kinda mean to to do this to someone with Alzheimer's. On the other hand, maybe someone with Alzheimer's shouldn't be a major figure and spokesperson in the NRA.
Oh, so just because there was a "reason" for the shooting doesn't mean that it's still a violent act and should not happen?
The film is not about individual statistics or situations, it's about our society as a whole, and it's message is something that many people have been saying for quite a while.
Am I defending the fact that the movie is an obvious depart from the truth in many cases? No. It's still enjoyable, and the message still holds on it's own.
And once again, leave Mike alone. Mike is your friend. Mike wants conservatives to get laid and get elected. Mike is on your side here! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What if the man was running from the scene of a dual cop killing hmmm? Oh and seriously that whole movie was BS.
Bowling deserved best picture if anything.
Bowling deserved best picture if anything. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
/agree
Fine, call it a comment on the social climate, but when its blatantly obvious that the facts were skewed as to present the viewer with a different series of events then what actually occured, thats not truth. Thats manipulation.
A documentary is supposed to be a film <i>documenting</i> something in <i>detail</i>, not picking and choosing what to show the viewers. By the end of the film the viewer should be able to weight each side for themselves, and make a choice based on <i>their</i> opinions, not the film maker's.
Bowling For Columbine is not a comment on gun control and such, its a demonstration of the utter gullibility of most Americans, and a sad statement that most people in this country have lost the will to make independant decisions and actually research the facts.
I mean, if enough people <i>say</i> somethings true... it must be unquestionably true right? It might seem a stupid question, but it pretty much sums up how many people think these days. If more folks started researching their "facts" (and come on, it takes 5 seconds to search Google) people might actually learn the art of <b>real</b> debate once again rather then the smear campaign and shouting tactics that fule most modern "debates" (see: recent california recall canidates debate).
He did of course use a biased comparision throughout the movie between Canada and the US. He ignored the fact that Canada has a total of 40 million people living in it, whereas there's about 29 million in LA alone. He used the argument that America's culture breeds fear and violence but he didn't include facts about population and urban density, and you can find many studies that show when you get animals (people) crowded together in a fairly small area there is bound to be more violence.
He should stick to debunking corperate fraud and the US's terrible business practices, attacking individual people with no real say in how the goverment is run (gun owners) kidna taints his image of being someone who is concerned with making positive change, and not just out for publicity.
Basically cut out the attacks on guns (yes they were there) and leave in the complaints about the US education and media.
And what if he was? That makes it an even better example because none of that should have happened. No one should have to get killed. If he was runing from a cop shooting, neither the cops nor he should have been killed. Killing is not right in any context (except organized revolution, but that's just a personal thing for me) and this movie is saying that all violence is wrong. Not just violence against perfect law abiding citizens.