Author |
Message |
Cablejockey
| Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 3:56 pm
I just caught this on video today and found it fascinating. I may watch it again to catch the stuff I missed when I was talking to a friend who was watching it with me. For a documentary it moved along pretty fast, and left you thinking about a lot of stuff. It was pretty ironic that Michael Moore won a junior champion certificate for being such a good marksman when he was a teen.
|
Azriel
| Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 9:28 pm
Cablejockey, Bowling for Columbine is not in the true sense of the word, a documentary. Here is some more stuff to think about - Bowling for Columbine Documentary or Fiction?
|
Eliz87
| Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 9:56 am
I really enjoyed this film. It did move along pretty quickly, and I thought that was smart of Michael Moore -- no way one could doze off with boredom. I'm not making excuses for Charlton Heston, as I would have no reason to do so, but now that he has been diagnosed with Altzheimer's, I think many of his actions could be explained by early symptoms of Altzheimer's, unless he just enjoys the money he receives from the NRA. If his reasons for being so outrageous at times are caused by his illness, I say shame on the NRA for taking advantage of a confused old man. I may not have agreed with each and every opinion that was presented (although I did agree with 90% of it), but it was thought provoking and I would recommend it to anyone.
|
Cinnamongirl
| Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 2:05 pm
but you know Azriel, whatever B for C is, even if its half truths and great editing, it doesn't matter. There IS something wrong and if this film makes people think, then thats a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
|
Ryanc829
| Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 11:29 am
I agree with Cinnamon, MM never said his work was unbiased. It's not like there isn't plenty of bias on the other side of that debate as well. He made his point, and even if he misrepresented a few facts, the message still holds water.
|
Bastable
| Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 5:52 pm
I agree. His points are valid. And a lot of the criticisms being leveled at the movie are just as partisan as the movie itself. So who cares? We can all think for ourselves. And he has a very valid point--our media does try to scare us all the time! Why do they do that? Why does the news always want us to be so scared all the time? The site's claim that the Heston "cold dead hands" speech was mis-edited is just plain wrong. Heston's "cold dead hands" quote was shown as an introduction to Heston. The next shot is of a billboard of the NRA's meeting in Denver, which is what is called an "establishing shot" to show that we are now switching to a specific time and place. Then the rest of his speech, with a different background, is shown. Nothing is being misrepresented. It's Understanding Film 101. And it doesn't change the fact that the NRA should have cancelled its Denver meeting out of respect for the victims of Columbine! Shame on them for meeting for gun rights just days after those parents had buried their children! The NRA was wrong to hold that meeting.
|
Brenda1966
| Monday, September 15, 2003 - 7:42 am
REally interesting film. I had no idea there were people living in cities who don't lock their doors! This film really makes you think about American culture and our fascination with violence and fear (and yes, I think the media's excuse that we _want_ to see this crap is true). I didn't mind at all that this "documentary" was a commentary. I thought it was really well done and didn't pull low punches.
|
Ketchuplover
| Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 12:26 am
I enjoyed it too. I'd still like to know why the death by gun rate in the U.S. is so much greater than elsewhere? something in the water?
|
Max
| Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 10:26 pm
I finally got time to watch this on DVD. EXCELLENT!!! To me, it's more a movie about how we foster fear in America than it is about guns. When I travel to other countries, there just isn't the same level of fear and paranoia as there is here. On my recent trip to Australia, the nightly news did not have leads like "What's REALLY on that bedspread in your hotel room? We'll expose the awful truth next!" or "Should you be worried about (fill in your favorites paranoid issue)?" It's just a much more relaxed atmosphere. People are much more open, less apt to jump to conclusions (or as I usually say, 'jump to contusions) than they are here. When you aren't afraid of everyone and every thing, you're less likely to have an itchy trigger finger. I think that's a lot of what Michael Moore was trying to say. If you have, or rent, the DVD, be sure to watch the extras where he talks about his Oscar speech and where he goes to the University of Colorado and speaks. Fostering fear is an excellent way to control the populace. Heck, we've become such a nation of news McNuggets that something like 70% of people still believe that Sadaam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. No facts have EVER been found to support such a belief, but when the President was trying to garner support for the war, he implied the connection many times. The media picked up on that implication and created teasers. The public listened to and remembered the teasers. Now you have the President and his advisers trying to deny that they ever said such a thing because no one can find any factual evidence to support such a statement. However, in the minds of the majority of Americans, it's a fact regardless of the evidence at hand. Fear. Put enough of it into people's hearts, minds, and souls, and they will willingly lay down their personal rights so that the powers that be can "protect" them. Have you read the Patriot Act? Do you realize how much of your personal freedoms have been compromised by it? Do you feel safer because it's in place? File this under things that SHOULD make you go, "hmmmmmmmm...."
|
Azriel
| Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 11:46 pm
Max, I disagree with you about fear. I think fear, for the most part, is a very healthy emotion. Americans have stuck their heads in the sand for too long and not feared that terrorism would rear it's ugly head on our shores. If we had feared it more, then maybe we would have taken steps to prevent tragedy before it happened. If five years ago the airlines and airports had instituted the tough screening methods that they employ now, the majority of people (who thought they had nothing to fear) would have been raising all sorts of hell about their travel being ruined by the draconian measures the airlines and airports were taking. I've read the Patriot Act. I don't fear it. I don't worship at the liberal altar of almighty personal rights. I think compromise can be a good thing.
|
Max
| Monday, September 29, 2003 - 9:56 am
Disagreement is cool with me. Makes for good discssion. I view fear as a helpful, yet generally negative emotion. Yes, it helps to become fearful in certain circumstances. However, if you remain in fear, the decisions and actions you take may not result in the most favorable outcome. Fear needs to be balances with a healthy dose of logic and common sense. Living in a state of fear is not an appealing prospect to me. I think taking steps to understand another culture more, really looking at the ramifications of our changing policies in dealing with the Afgani people and others in the region, and noticing when people in another country are being killed in large numbers under a totalitarian regime then rallying world support to stop those actions is a much better approach to dealing with the world than shivering in fear with one finger poised over the launch button. The increased security in airports gives people a false sense of security, IMHO. If a fanatic with no care about his/her own life wants to cause a problem on a plane, it can be done with things that can easily be taken through security. Anyway, I respect your opinion. I think I share part of it, but not all. I do think living in fear gives people itchy trigger fingers.
|
Dahli
| Monday, September 29, 2003 - 1:43 pm
Well put Max, I loved this movie... saw it in the theatre with my DD DH and Mom - we all felt the same way, mostly sad.... I do remember thinking how to me Marilyn Manson is now a sensitive articulate and caring person and Dick Clark is mean spirited, selfish and cold! LOL
|
Azriel
| Monday, September 29, 2003 - 9:12 pm
Micheal Moore is raising an army of liberal ditto heads - people who are willing to discount his frequent stretches of the truth and outright lies because they identify with his ultra-liberal views. I've come to the point where I'm sick of ultra-liberals and ultra-conservatives. I think both groups are tearing apart the unity of our country. The only way either of these groups can legitimize their point of view is to personally ridicule and dehumanize, even demonize, their opponents. I guess I have Michael Moore and his piece of trash books and movies to thank for making me see this so clearly.
|
Max
| Monday, September 29, 2003 - 9:53 pm
Gee, Azriel. Seems to me that you're doing a bit of "ridiculing and dehumanizing" action yourself. I do think there are a number of vociferous folks to both the far left and far right who get lots of press coverage and appear to be causing a rift in this country. I don't, however think it's really happening nearly as much as the media would have us believe. It's simply the most scintilating story they can find sometimes. People tend to tune in the station with the most lurid teasers and airing a story about how a group of people with many opposing views get together to discuss them and find whatever common grounds they can just does not make for good ratings or sales of newspapers and magazines. Unfortunate, but it seems to be true. Rather than calling Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh trash, how about taking their material, listening/reading a bit along with viewpoints from other pundits and then forming your own opinion? I think if people only hear one side of the story, they aren't getting to a place where they can form their own, educated opinions and seek the truth of the matter. As Dennis Miller would say, "That's just my opinion and, hey, I could be wrong!"

|
Azriel
| Monday, September 29, 2003 - 10:23 pm
I didn't call Michael Moore trash. I called his books and movies trash. There is a big difference there. I don't have to listen to the ultra left or right side to get both sides of the story.
|
Azriel
| Monday, September 29, 2003 - 10:39 pm
Let me clarify that, I don't have to listen to all the pundits on the ultra left and ultra right to decide what my position is on an issue. There are much more balanced sources on each side.
|
Brenda1966
| Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 8:56 am
I'm just curious if you actually saw the movie Azriel? Because I found it to be less far-left-liberal than I thought it would be. I thought it would be anti-gun all the way, but I didn't feel the movie was. I just thought it was asking hard questions about the culture of fear we live in. I agree with MAx, it's the people on the far left and far right who scream the loudest and get the most press -- but I'm hopeful that they don't represent the majority of us.
|
Alegria
| Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 5:22 pm
It's funny, I watched this movie for the first time last weekend. It is great to read all these posts and mull this over. Bowling for Columbine has stayed on my mind and I really have to conclude that it was a deep experience. More than a lot of shows/movies/documentaries that I have seen lately, this one resonated and left an echo. Michael Moore is a man of bone-deep integrity and compassion. (I'm being booted off the computer and will finish this later)
|
Bastable
| Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 6:20 pm
Michael Moore's new book comes out next Tuesday, October 7! I will gladly buy it--I don't do things the way he does, but I believe his voice is very important in our society. And I am smart enough to make up my OWN mind about what I see and read, thank you very much.
|
Moondance
| Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 6:59 pm
What Bastable said
|
Alegria
| Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 8:07 pm
what Moondance said about what Bastable said
|
Pannie
| Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 9:47 pm
what Alegria said about what Moondance said about what Bastable said And I liked learning about the contrast between the U.S. and Canada.
|
Alegria
| Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 6:57 pm
Pannie, I was surprised by that element of the movie and really enjoyed that. I'm not sure it is totally accurate. When they showed Michael Moore at a 'Canadian slum' I laughed. That development in Toronto is a mixed market rent/subsidized which is very nice and a great community. There are much worse places he could have gone that would have given a more realistic picture. There are no real slums in Canada but there are areas that are not so safe at night. No drive by shootings or boarded up buildings but scary. The extremes are not as great but the divide between the haves/have-nots is growing.
|
Bastable
| Friday, October 03, 2003 - 4:53 pm
"Scary" is a relative term. I live in NYC and the most scared I've ever been in Canada was at Tim Horton's when the coffee ran out!
|
Egbok
| Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 12:15 am
I just saw this movie tonight with my dd. It made me realize how I haven't really watched the news in a few months and how much more relaxed I am these days not knowing about the latest shooting victim in America. The fear factor truly hasn't been a part of my every day existence I'm just realizing...hmmmmmm. While watching this movie, I found myself experiencing a myriad of emotions from chuckling to feeling horrified. I'm glad I watched it and I thank Michael Moore for making this movie.
|
Ocean_Islands
| Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:17 pm
I finally saw this. I'm a big fan of Michael Moore, but he is a bit short on conclusions, perhaps rightly so. This business about him saying lies and so forth is a bit much. My experience of the film is that he came to very few conclusions, but asked a lot of incisive questions. These questions don't have clear answers. The point of the Canadian 'slum' mentioned above was not it being a 'slum' but it being public housing. The film did skirt around making some points that it never did get around to making, and they were a bit confused. Does he support the NRA or not? If yes, why? If no, why? There was a lot of information left out. His musings on race and the showing of black criminals on television were a bit muddled. He also points to no solution about media fascination with violence and death. It's clear from the film that there are a lot of people in America who are terrified, and most of them are gun owners. I found it particularly sad that Heston felt a need to have loaded guns when he lives behind a gate and has bodyguards and stuff. This shows the depth of fear that most gun owners have. Moore also made, it seems to me, a very pertinent point that the members of the NRA are the inheritors of the KuKluxKlan, based on the history of the two organisations in the 19th century.
|
Ric_Munoz
| Friday, January 02, 2004 - 6:20 pm
If I ever run into Dick Clark on the street, I will make sure to heckle him for being so vile to MM in the segment captured in BFC. It's bad enough that Heston is so disagreeable, but Dick Clark too? DC has done a great job of making people think he's a "nice guy" -- I forgot that in addition to being a "host," he's also an actor.
|
Maris
| Friday, January 02, 2004 - 6:42 pm
Ric you ought to see how Michael Moore portrayed Bob Eubanks in Roger and Me.
|
Hummingbird
| Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 3:33 pm
Can't stand Michael Moore! And won't waste time on his movies!
|
Zules
Member
08-21-2000
| Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:33 pm
Don't beat around the bush, Hummingbird. Tell us how you really feel. 
|
|