A Bowling for Columbine Review

Michael Moore's film Bowling for Columbine is an extremely powerful editorial on the culture of fear and violence we as Americans live in. I literally had to laugh at some of this to keep from crying. This film transcends the usual Liberal vs. Conservative arguments and asks us all to just be human beings, show compassion for one another. The film targets politicians of all parties, presidents, (both Bush and Clinton equally get criticized), and war-mongers of all stripes, and says things that need saying. I think this is an important film that too many will write off as "Liberal," but I think it's more "Humanitarian." I recommend that everyone watch it with an open mind, even the right-wing Bush-ites, and really think about what it says.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Although I don't agree with the message in the film, I have a huge guilty pleasure of Michael Moore movies. They always entertain, even though he has yet to fight for a cause I agree with.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

Although Kong supports gun control, and many other "liberal" causes he is not a big fan of Michael Moore.

Kong has probably said this before, but Moore is too willing too ignore/distort/misuse information for the purpose of making his points. Kong finds this practice to be detrimental to one's own position. If you can't back up your beliefs without fudging with the facts then you need to start questioning your own position. Kong figures that Moore knows that he can back his beliefs with real facts, but also knows that the truth doesn't always sell as many tickets and books as a goosed up version can. None-the-less, Kong thinks it's a harmful route to be taking.

Moore does have a decent sense of humor though.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

I think what Kong wrote about Moore is pretty much correct. Moore would probably see the text as a description of his work/style rather than criticism though. He has always said that his work is satire and that he thinks humour is the best way to criticize things. There is an american "shockumentary" here on swedish tv (or at least it used to be - I don't know anymore since I hate it) called America's Dumbest Criminals which is a very disparaging entertainment show on less successful crooks from the lower social layers of society. But, hey, it's just criminals! They deserve to be mocked in this totally pointless way. right? Michael Moore does a similar thing, only he is much funnier, wittier, clevererererer (damn, got stuck) and better informed (i.e. done his homework/done some thorough research). The biggest difference though is that he targets "the ruling classes" and he hits them where it hurts. And they wouldn't be so freaking fussy about it if he didn't have a point, in other words, if he wasn't at least to some extent right. And the more powerful the targets are the more media hysteria it will cause. I too sometimes think it is a pity that he is not more serious because then they wouldn't have anything on him. But the question is - where would Michael Moore be today without the satire? Isn't that the whole reason to why he is so big today, that he makes people laugh as well as rage?

I enjoy Moore a lot most of the time and I also salute him for putting people like Heston against the wall. Why should we feel sorry for Heston? He himself said what he said, didn't he, and if he is not man enough or sane enough to take responsibility for his own words and actions then why the hell is he the chairman of gunclub for?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Okay I’m not fond of Heston and people should be held accountable for their words… but only for the way they were actually said… Moore spliced speeches made by Heston to make it appear he said something he did not and to me, that is just wrong… what Moore did to Heston is no different then if I were to take your paragraph and do this to it:

"I enjoy Heston and he is man enough to take responsibility for his own words and is the chairman of a gun club."

And then claim you said it…

__________________

Heheheh. Yeah, here's the crux problem with Moore (i keep itchin these cruxs - it's disgusting ). He will use the tools of those he criticises i.e. quoting out of context, inappropriate alignment of facts and down-right rhetoric. And in your example Cait he's gone into total-deception mode (tho that too i'm sure our guardians are guilty of, time-to-time) Some say that's the only way these days. Either way, it's obviously moral-outrage that drives him. But it drives him to do some dumb stuff..

Another thing that i heard, but didn't pick up on during the film, is that the rocket-manufacturers he visited seems to have precious little to do with arms. They make NASA rockets etc apparently. Please someone tell me if this is true. That would be a very big f-up.

Still despite the slightly slanted stats, and self-pats-on-the-back, it's actually good to see someone standing up and doing back to the big boys what they often do to us. Manipulate for an agenda. At least his is frequently a good one (except on northern ireland. He's insane when it comes to n.ireland ) - and he makes it funny to boot (to help us deal with the terror-draped or reality-escaping mind-rape we have to put up with so often - i do feel that strongly about some political/industrial actions and the accompanying spin.)

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Really? Proove it.

I saw Heston saying that etnicity is the reason to why americans kill each other like crazy. He didn't say that?

Really?? The only thing i remember was the "from my cold dead hands bit" (which i thought skipped a bit. Damn, back-editing memory)

Oh, well I am talking about the interview in Heston's home. The "from my cold dead hands" bit I remember but I never reflected over when he might have said it. But I know from discussions on this board that a lot of people were upset because it appeared as he said it on a different meeting than when he in fact said it. But as I said, what I was talking about was the interview in Heston's home, nothing else.

oh christ yeah, i remember now. The one in his home where Hesty got more and more uncomfortable when it became obvious this wasn't a you're-so-cool-starman interview and showed Moore-ishnous out.

The problem is that we don't have the full interview of Heston. Moore cut and edited the interview, and never released the full length one so it's pretty much impossible to say if Heston was taken out of context on those statements or not.

None-the-less, Kong figures that if you believe people are responsible for their words then you probably believe that people are responsible for their actions as well. Heston's actions have shown him to be anti-racist. He worked with Martin Luther King Jr., picketed establishments that practiced discrimination in the '60s, and helped open doors for blacks shut out by racist policies in the entertainment industry.

Maybe Heston has had a change of heart since then, but Kong won't be convinced unless he sees the full interview so he can better judge the context in which Heston is speaking.

So?

Did I call him a racist? All I did was wondering why Moore should be ashamed of that interview "because of 'harassing' a poor old man", a man that happens to be chairman of a powerful organisation. Adolf Hitler did a lot of great things for Germany, and I mean GREAT as in wonders. Does that apologize for all the other crap he did? If you are a public person, the chairman of a powerful organistation, you should be prepared to be held accountable for every single word you say concerning "the field" you are specializing in.

And (we've had this discussion before here on the board, btw) show me an interview in a documentary that is presented in its full lenght. I am sure that there is a couple out there, but they are not the norm.

Kong is just saying that he won't jump to any conclusion on Heston based on Moore's edited interview. Moore has been proven to edit things out of context. Kong can't say that this was the case in the Heston interview you spoke of, but Moore did edit Heston's NRA speeches in rather questionable ways so Kong isn't about to give Moore the benefit of the doubt.

Kong agrees that "you should be prepared to be held accountable for every single word you say", and that is also the problem: we don't know "every single word". Just a select few.

Kong doesn't know of any documentaries with full length interviews off the top of his head, but he imagines that most documentarians would be willing to give outside, objective individuals the chance to go over the entire interview if it was requested. Maybe this will happen with BFC; heck it could end up as a special feature on the DVD for all Kong knows. But, for now, Kong will admit his ignorance, and refuse to judge the man on those words alone.

The burden of proof doesn't rest in Kong's hands.

To me this isn't about Heston really. I don't judge the man (Heston) at all. I do have some opinions about the National Rifle Association though (that's what they're called, right?) and as their chairman I think he lobbied for his organisation in a fiasko-like way during this interview.

Anyway, I don't really care about Heston, as I said. To me it is all about the witch-hunt of Moore which is shocking and understandable at the same time considering the political climate in America right now. [edit]Or at least at the time of the Oscars. Things seem to have cooled down a little since The Speech....

I've written a lot about this allready here so you can check it out there instead of having me writing it all one more time.

This is exactly what I kinda would happen. The mesage of the film is being completely ignored for politics. It's not about gun control, though that certainly is a part of it. It's not even about if you like Michael Moore or not. The film's message about living in a society that either intentionally or unintentionally relies on violence to solve all it's problems is completely lost under accusations of taking quotes out of context, (Which I didn't get the sense that it happened here) and editing Charlton Heston's interview, which even if they did, I can imagine it was more of the same damning quotes we got to see. Everyone's so willing to condemn Moore that even if he makes a good point, which he certainly did here, they ignore it completely. So here's the thing: What do you think about what the film says? DO we live in an overly aggressive society here in America, where we're taught early on that Might Makes Right and violence is the best solution? Does the media, and our government reinforce that belief?

The Lockheed-Martin plant near Columbine makes rockets for launching satellites into space… NASA, NOAA, and Direct TV are a few of their customers… about the only thing Moore apparently got right was the fact they do move the rockets at night… to avoid traffic problems... and anyone whose ever seen the size of those things should be able to understand their reasoning behind that one…


I was referring to the speeches in the film… and if you want me to post the actual speech Heston made and Moore’s version, I will… but as far as the interview, I agree with Kong about it...


In a word… no. and I think that if you believe that the Government and the media reinforce that belief, then you would also have to buy into the belief that movies, music, and video games contribute to teaching violent behavior…

There see Monk, there are probs. We should admit them. But we should also shout from the rooftops that overall Moore is trying to do an admirable thing - and he certainly reaches those of us who want to hear him at the very least (which judging from his over-all popularity and "sales" is a huge fan base)

It is interesting tho that the US compares badly with other countries with prevelant gun-ownership. Tho density of city living might be something to do with it i.e. a comparison of big cities in australia/canada for example, with similar size cities in the US would be interesting.

What the cause is is another question of course.

Personally i do buy into the belief that the media you mention can desensitize people to violence and make it more acceptable. Kids mimick it of course, but that's kids. Some of the norms we project for them can be a bit worrying tho i.e. cartoons with flashy violence and some faux-morality tacked on etc. I think violent behaviour is inherent, but these media can normalise and even guide it (i.e. giving the kids moves to copy etc - kung fu with philosophy is cool. Kick-arse coz you're "in the right" philosophies spread by TV etc are potentially screwed up.)

Still, i dare say you know best about some of the day-to-day of all this Cait.

My opinion of the US is, unfortunately, that it is actually a big propogator of the "number 1" philosophy - the kill or be killed ethic, which is not a valid reflection of necessary survivalistic behaviour, when taken alone. Therefore i can believe Moore and Monkey's point that your societies might have a slight extra push in the direction of anti-social behaviour that could lead to increased violence and distrust.

Mind you , britland ain't far behind (thanks to Thatcher - the society-destroyer). If we had guns on demand it'd get pretty damn ugly round this way too. But again, that's "modern" alientated societies for you. If our "forums" of opinion sharing and reflecting (i.e. various media) also propogate ideas of justified violence if you're "good" - and your society believes strongly in the "right" of the individual to do what they want - coupled with a self-perception of inherent "goodness" as a whole, then i can imagine potential problems getting acentuated.

Hmmm. Last time I checked, "Britland" had plenty of guns in the civilian sector at one time, and the violent crime rate was quite a bit lower than it is now.

It is simple common sense which says, "knowing your victims might be armed creates a serious discouragement and frequent deterrent to assault and robbery."

England's citizens are now merely subjects, without the right to defend themselves and their property. Wasn't there a chap in England recently who shot a burglar after he broke into his farmhouse? Some of the "Lawmakers" have suggested during this trial that burglars have a right not to be shot. Ionesco couldn't write anything more absurd.

The greatest violent crime rates in THIS country typically occur in areas that have the GREATEST restrictions on private ownership. It's not difficult to understand that the obverse is also true. States which have the least amount of right to carry laws, such as Vermont, have the lowest crime rates. Vermont is the single most lenient state concerning gun laws. NO restrictions of carrying concealed weapons. The violent crime rate in Vt. is almost non-existent. Florida and other states have enacted CCW laws and have watched while the crime rates dropped.

One of the most violent cities in the USA the last generation or more has been DC. It has been the leader in murder and shootings many times. Yet it has an almost total restriction on handgun ownership.

GUN CONTROL IS A JOKE. And a bad one at that.

Sorry - are you talking about the law that banned handgun ownership for sports use and then caused loads of guns to flood onto the market - causing more shooting crimes? Yes- well evaluated chum. That one back-fired - but those guys weren't allowed to carry the guns around.

Yes - what about the: knowing that all these drunk blokes have got guns makes me feel really safe slant? What about the number of accidental deaths in the home, especially of children? What about the idea of killing to protect your wallet - happy with that?

Erm, subjects as compared to what? And forget the Queen business, that's all nonsense. And yes, that bloke did get in trouble for trying to kill that burglar. Tricky one. But a good old bat in the face does the trick just as well, doesn't kill anyone, and is perfectly legal

Is Vermont just some great big empy wilderness? I have no idea - but there could be lots of factors involved. And what happens when crims decide, seeing as everyone else is armed, and they're armed, and they're in some dire need of money for their smack habit or what have you, they decide....what they hey. They're badder than you. What do you suggest then? Everyone armed with a hyperdermic in case of junkie-attack?

There may be restricitons in DC, but i bet you can still get your hands on a gun really easily if you want to.

Not convinced mate

(and i think the murder stats probably bear me out)

I fail to see how this makes your case at all. Such a situation could take place in a society with or without severe gun control laws. In fact, it does, given DC's consistently high murder rate. The fact that it's legally difficult (but still reasonably easy) to get a gun in DC benefits criminals far more than law-abiding citizens, who are less likely to go to such lengths. If you're a criminal, though, firearms are far closer to par for the course.

If DC serves as even the slightest indication, the situation you're positing will take place in places both with and without gun control legislation...the difference is that without it, the citizen can match arms; and the criminals know it.

Vermont isn't densely populated, I don't believe, but such rankings are determined by ratios, so it doesn't particularly matter.

If you're not convinced, I'd say it's because you don't want to be. Karl's putting real-world examples (something you ought to appreciate, if you practice what you preach) to support his beliefs and you're coming back with vague what-ifs and hypotheticals.

You're right, DC's murder right is outrageously high. Routinely among the highest in the country...given it's gun-related policies, I'd say this bears Karl's view out. Frankly, I'm still scratching my head over your post...you seem to think you've got a strong case, but the only real argument you're putting forward is "what about drunk/ irresponsible people?," which, if taken just a shade farther, would have us outlawing automobiles, too.