Bowling for Columbine

[OULobo]

My big problem is the idea that this is a documentary. Putting aside the idea that all presentations are inherently biased, this movie is well beyond the boarders. If I could get a child to sit through this movie, I'm sure he could tell you that Mr. Moore doesn't like people who own guns, without the child ever knowing what a liberal or conservative is. It may sound extreme, but such heavily political films shouldn't be up for oscar documentaries. If this is a documentary, then why aren't the nazi propaganda films of the forties?

My second issue is that he uses cheap film parlor tricks, like selective scene splicing and editing, to try to convince the public. What's next, subliminal messages.

Now that my complaining is done, I have to say that the film is entertaining, thought provoking, and I do get a chuckle out of his "clowning". I also checked out a few of his facts after I first saw the film and they were slanted, but correct.

As for the sensationalizing, he is a product of his environment. The rest of the US is sensationalizing everything that hits the news curcuit. Even unbiased subjects reach almost panic proportions, like the current flu "epidemic". From what I read this "epidemic" is neither more prolific, nor more virulent than any past strains and outbreaks. Essentually, the media created an epidemic, by predicting it would hit, thereby enciting more people to get shots that wouldn't have, thereby causing a shortage. Then while people are alarmed that the flu is in the news, the media covers the "progress of the epidemic" without referancing past trends. This is a product of people craving news and gossip, coupled with the fast new communications technology that allows the stories from around the world to be heard as it happens or as requested.

 

[Cruentus]

Rich (On standard of living and wage): Yes, I agree, the standard of living has gone up since the 60's. This is consumerism at its worst; the public is pushed to consume more, thus companies are pushed to pay workers more. Consumerism ends up being a double edged sword for corporate america.

However, unemployement has sky rocketed over the last few years. Millions of people are out of a Job, and another set of millions have jobs and can't make ends meet for their families, and I am not talking about just not being able to afford dish TV. Meanwhile, I have another subdivision of 2 million dollar homes being built down the street from me.

I can't disagree with anything your saying about standard of living and wages, Rich. But, I still think that there are serious problems that we have in this country that are of a structural nature.

On "Documentary" I agree that documentaries should be more informative from multiple perspectives, and less slanted for entertainment purposes. So....rather then Documentary, what Genre would you put it in? The next closest thing would be comedy...but it doesn't fit that Genre any better. I think that what you'll find is that there is not one Genre that we have that perfectly fits his films. This is not Micheal Moore's fault. All the guy did was make a few movies. Everyone else catagorized them as documentaries out of a lack of a more accurate category.

I don't think that because his movies are categorized as documentaries, yet don't fit the classical definition, is his fault, his doing, or an attempt to mislead his audience. I don't think that he should feel compelled to change his style because WE don't have a better genre to put him in.

Most importantly, I don't think that his movies being categorized as documentaries makes him a liar.

PAUL

 

[Master of Blades]

To be honest I only saw it as an interesting documentary to watch while on the net chatting to mates. Now I've always been interested in America and its guns and so on, so I found this a pretty interesting and well done docu-movie. As with everything there is probably a whole load of differant sides to the story, so until I have read the crapload of sites you guys have bought to me, then I wont make any judgements

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Master of Blades
To be honest I only saw it as an interesting documentary to watch while on the net chatting to mates. Now I've always been interested in America and its guns and so on, so I found this a pretty interesting and well done docu-movie. As with everything there is probably a whole load of differant sides to the story, so until I have read the crapload of sites you guys have bought to me, then I wont make any judgements

Yes...definatily don't base ALL your knowledge on american gun policy from Michael Moore. His documentaries are very "niched", only showing one side (and for good reason), but you definatily want to get many sides to the story before formulating an opinion. There are other sources out there that should be looked at, and that take a more serious look at gun policy in the U.S.

Also, I don't recommend that you waste TOO much time on the sites linked to this thread. Most of the "negative" Moore sites are directed at discrediting Moore and his docu-movie's (I like that word better then documentary), often giving misleading info, and completely missing the point. The "pro-moore" site is just more of a rebuttle to the negative sites. Niether will get you any good answers on US gun policy, laws, attitudes, or problems, so I wouldn't waste too much time.

Also, for many of those who either didn't see the movie, or did see it, yet missed the point:

Micheal Moore is not "anti-gun". Believe it or not, this is true. The movie speaks more against our "culture of violence" in this country as propigated by our media, government officials, advertising, and through many of the external sources around us. This "chasing of sensationalism" and fear-based society (oh no, code orange!) that we have created has proven to be great for the consumerist "buy-more" mentality. Yet, what happends when our children are numbed by all the fear-mongering, and our no longer afraid? Well, when that happends, people become so desensitized to violence, that the idea of blowing away their classmates, teachers, colluegues, or whoever, doesn't even give them the hebbie-geebie's anymore. And...this is when we are in a lot of trouble as a society.

Got it? The movie has little to do with "gun laws" and much more to do with our "culture of violence." And, Whether you think the guy is a hypocritical A-hole or not, I think the movie makes a DAMN good point.

PAUL

 

[Rich Parsons]

Paul,

That may be true of this Movie. When he came back to Flint to try to make another movie and also to raise hype to save a plant that was closing, I asked him how much had he given back to Flint? How much had he made from the movie and his followups and investments from others? How much had he spent for lunch? SO, I know how much you put into the local economy.

Micheal Moore does not really care about the issues he puts on film. He is there for his own reasons and he is there to make money. Yet, I do not think he cares about the people involved or the issue he attempts to raise as you say. He swoops in for the now story and then moves on.

Why did he not make a follow up like he said to Roger and Me, to explain how it was happening again? Why, it had been done and no money in it. He also found out that GM was in a Federal Renaisance zone and was not requried to pay Federal, or state or local taxes on the property. GM paid the local taxes anyways. Why because it was easier to just continue paying the previous amount then to not pay it. Besides it was good plublicity. The Plant in question had the highest ages for employees with the highest wages and the highest absentee rate with the highest number of employees per car, and the highest maintainence cost for the infrastructure, the highest, healthcare rate, the highest in everything you could tink of including the highest Strike rate.

In a five year period, the local was on strike five times with the longest inbetween strikes being 18 months. They were on strike twice in one year. Now some would say it is because they needed better health or more money. Is full health care, including dental and optical and the average of $3x+ an hour plus lots of overtime at time and a half. Yet, they were in strike for more money. How could they do this? They were building the Buick LeSabre and this was one of the cars that GM was rebuilding itself on from the late 80's and early 90's when GM did have some money issues.

How much is enough? Well, I take it that Micheal Moore realized that there was no way for him to put a positive spin on this. Why was he not still making a movie about how the Unions were abusing their power? or A movie about how times change and people and companies change?

And I still do not see any Docu in any of his movies.

:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Paul,

That may be true of this Movie. When he came back to Flint to try to make another movie and also to raise hype to save a plant that was closing, I asked him how much had he given back to Flint? How much had he made from the movie and his followups and investments from others? How much had he spent for lunch? SO, I know how much you put into the local economy.

These are all good questions. I would be curious to know the answers to these too. Hell, he could at least take his profits and invest in Flint-muni bonds (Of which I'd be happy to broker for him , anybody got his ph#? lol ). I don't know what he has done to give back to the community. Given the fact that he became world renown from a movie based in Flint, MI, I would hope that he has done SOMETHING. If he hasn't, then I would agree that this is hypocritical. In his defense, because he is oftened attacked by people who dislike him, and by people with different agendas, I am sure he saw your questions as attacks. This doesn't mean he hasn't done anything for the local economy, nessicarily; that's still up in the air as far as I know, and until I find proof either way. In YOUR DEFENSE, Rich, him seeing your questions as attacks, well, thats probably how his interviewees felt at times with his questions. So, my opinion (although I wasn't there, and there could have been a large confusing crowd, or what have you) is that he SHOULD answer your questions. I am now tempted to e-mail him the same questions!

Micheal Moore does not really care about the issues he puts on film. He is there for his own reasons and he is there to make money.

I don't know if he cares about the people on film or not. It seems like he does, from my perception, but I can't stand behind that opinion with confidence, because I honestly don't know. I do understand that he is there to make a living; one critique I do have on him is that he trys to make it appear that he doesn't care about his career, when I think that he most likely does more then he says.

Yet, I do not think he cares about the people involved or the issue he attempts to raise as you say. He swoops in for the now story and then moves on.

Why did he not make a follow up like he said to Roger and Me, to explain how it was happening again? Why, it had been done and no money in it. He also found out that GM was in a Federal Renaisance zone and was not requried to pay Federal, or state or local taxes on the property. GM paid the local taxes anyways. Why because it was easier to just continue paying the previous amount then to not pay it. Besides it was good plublicity. The Plant in question had the highest ages for employees with the highest wages and the highest absentee rate with the highest number of employees per car, and the highest maintainence cost for the infrastructure, the highest, healthcare rate, the highest in everything you could tink of including the highest Strike rate.

I don't know if "its been done, so there is no $$ in it" was the reason, as you say, or if he just felt that with the publicity he has recieved, he thought it would be more useful to attack bigger, more national issues. Your explaination is definatily a possability, and appeals to the skeptic in me, but isn't the only possability.$$ could have played a role, and I don't doubt that.

Also, I agree with you, and I think that he should do a follow up, even if it is shortly included in one of his other books, movies or shows (hell, he may have, cause I haven't seen everything he has put out, only his movies, but like you I doubt it). The reason is because the social conscience, since his movie (but not completely because of it), has raised, and GM's behavior has improved in many ways, in my opinion. This is good for people who are fighting the good fight to know, so they don't think all their efforts are in vain.

In a five year period, the local was on strike five times with the longest inbetween strikes being 18 months. They were on strike twice in one year. Now some would say it is because they needed better health or more money. Is full health care, including dental and optical and the average of $3x+ an hour plus lots of overtime at time and a half. Yet, they were in strike for more money. How could they do this? They were building the Buick LeSabre and this was one of the cars that GM was rebuilding itself on from the late 80's and early 90's when GM did have some money issues.

How much is enough? Well, I take it that Micheal Moore realized that there was no way for him to put a positive spin on this. Why was he not still making a movie about how the Unions were abusing their power? or A movie about how times change and people and companies change?

I totally agree with you that the UAW does often abuse their power. Hell, union workers with no college or work ethic are taken better care of then I am. I do see a need for unions, but I agree that they have gone overboard at times, especially in our state. Now, I can't fault Moore for not doing a documovie on that, because I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot pole if I were him, either! You say one thing, and your "anti-union, pro-corporate", you say another, and your "a communist liberal, who supports high wages for lazy *** behavior". Your kind of screwed taking on this issue no matter how honestly you speak, I think. Also, what we forget too, is that you know a lot of this information that is not as public (such as the local taxes thing, factory behavior, Union abuse) because of your position at GM, perhaps? So the issue is closer to you, and you know more. Micheal Moore may not even realize the facts that you mention.

And I still do not see any Docu in any of his movies.

He does bring up important statistics and facts in his works, and he does bring up important issues that need to be discussed, like I mentioned in my previous post. His last movie was his best in terms of stats, and facts, as well as his last book, "Dude, where's my country" in the first 2 chapters. The facts he brings to the table in these are very compelling, and lead to a lot of unanswered, yet important questions. That is the "docu" part.

Yet, I am sure you stopped at Roger and Me, and your experience with him. If I were you, I probably would have too. I've never been that close to him or the issues to have it effect me, I just have liked the points he has brought up. I am sure that he seems very self serving, which would be on his part hypocritical if he is. I can't say for sure one way or the other whether he is or not. You bring up some good questions, though. I should buy and bring over "bowling for Columbine" so you could actually watch it. I'll have to bring you a picture of Michael moores face taped to a heavy bag so you can punch it every time he annoys you (like every five minutes :rofl: ). Or, I'll just have my Brother nate come over, and I'll ask him to "wear this mask (it'll be a Micheal Moore face) ... :rofl: I should also copy the 1st 2 chapters of his most recent book (or just let you borrow it, but I might get only the remains of it back, lol).

Seriously, I think is most recent movie and book (1st 2 chapters) have been his best, despite whether or not he is a hypocritical A-hole or not.

 

[Cruentus]

I have an awesome idea!

If he comes out with another movie about President Bush (which I believe he is working on) we HAVE to go see it! I'll get a huge group together, and I'll pay for your movie ticket. But, we will also bring in a "wrestling buddy" with Moores face on it, or something like that, so when he annoys you you could kick his @$$ Man, that would be hilarous!

You think I am kidding...but I am totally serious!

 

[Phil Elmore]

This is really very simple.

Michael Moore is a liar. The lies in Bowling for Columbine are well documented. Mr. Moore is a propagandist and nothing else.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
This is really very simple.

Michael Moore is a liar. The lies in Bowling for Columbine are well documented. Mr. Moore is a propagandist and nothing else.

I have seen the arguements that he is a liar, and it doesn't seem that black and white to me.

And yes, he is a propagandist.

I guess this is so obvious to me, that I don't see why people who disagree with him get so pissed.

PAUL

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
This is really very simple.

Michael Moore is a liar. The lies in Bowling for Columbine are well documented. Mr. Moore is a propagandist and nothing else.

I think your view is limited. It sounds as if you have not considered his discussion points before coming to your conclusions.

Where are the lies 'Well Documented'?

Mike

 

[Phil Elmore]

I think your view is limited. It sounds as if you have not considered his discussion points before coming to your conclusions.

Yes, my view is limited -- to the truth. I try to limit all my views accordingly. I have no room to spare in an "open mind" for illogic and unreality.

The Truth About Bowling For Columbine

 

[michaeledward]

Yeah .. we saw that link earlier ... and the way I see this web site ... is they web site doesn't like what he said ... therefore it is a lie ...

Yeah .. that's the truth ... Obviously, you haven't read the first 48 posts in this thread ...

 

[Phil Elmore]

Yeah .. that's the truth ... Obviously, you haven't read the first 48 posts in this thread ...

Obviously you haven't read the contents of the link, as your "analysis" of its contents is woefully inadequate.

Any "martial artist" foolish enough to support gun control isn't a martial artist at all, for he or she fails to grasp the concept of self-defense and all it implies.

 

[Cruentus]

"Any "martial artist" foolish enough to support gun control isn't a martial artist at all, for he or she fails to grasp the concept of self-defense and all it implies."

Here..read my quote regarding the movie from earlier in this thread...

Micheal Moore is not "anti-gun". Believe it or not, this is true. The movie speaks more against our "culture of violence" in this country as propigated by our media, government officials, advertising, and through many of the external sources around us. This "chasing of sensationalism" and fear-based society (oh no, code orange!) that we have created has proven to be great for the consumerist "buy-more" mentality. Yet, what happends when our children are numbed by all the fear-mongering, and our no longer afraid? Well, when that happends, people become so desensitized to violence, that the idea of blowing away their classmates, teachers, colluegues, or whoever, doesn't even give them the hebbie-geebie's anymore. And...this is when we are in a lot of trouble as a society.

Got it? The movie has little to do with "gun laws" and much more to do with our "culture of violence." And, Whether you think the guy is a hypocritical A-hole or not, I think the movie makes a DAMN good point.

I am just saying for the record that I don't feel that movie was an advocate for tighter gun regulations...it was more of a critique on our social culture.

I liked the move. I also like guns.

PAUL