• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

film: Bowling for Columbine - Documentary or Fiction? (merged)

rate the film

  • [img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img]

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • [img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img]

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • [img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • [img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/img][img]http://i1

    Votes: 4 44.4%

  • Total voters
    9
Baron said:
Sorry, but almost everyone he used said that Moore distorted everything they said by creative editing, splicing, and inference when coupled with DIFFERENT questions in voice-over than he originally had filmed with them.

it has been argued that the mainstream media uses these tactics everyday to deliver a message according to their agenda so moore does it simply to even the score.

i know two wrongs don't make a right but there's some logic in that approach, i suppose.

alasdair
 
I really don't think Moore was even attempting to try and make his documentary perfect and present all his information without any trickery. It is satire and it is made to mock the government, NRA, and others. This was not even intended to be taken completely serious. Intended to open you to re-examine the facts a bit more and challenge what the government tells you, but certainly not to be taken as the "whole truth." Moore never intended for this to be a serious documentary, he was aiming more to perhaps open a few eyes while getting a jab in on the Feds.

All the attention that Bowling For Columbine has generated has probably surpassed Moore's wildest dreams. The fact that he has been given awards such as the "Best Documentary" are probably rather comical to him. Of course, he'd be a fool to deny them. Its a slap in the face of the government and all those who oppose his views and his work that he was given those awards and I'm sure he is loving every minute of it. I sure as hell would be.

For those who are so vehemently opposed to this film, I strongly challenge you to be just as critical of the media in the United States and it's government, as you are and have been of Michael Moore's film. Doing so would be very beneficial to everyone in this country, as destroying largely held misconceptions is never a bad thing. If you could learn to freely consider both sides of a situation without buying into the sugar-coated crap that is typically fed to you, you could draw much more solid and fact-based conclusions about what is really going on in the world. In the end, I really think this could have been Michael Moore's goal for this film.
 
It seems to me that certain people get extremely defensive when the status quo is so violently challenged.

It's obvious to me that there's a natural tendency amongst rational people to reject the idea that the world is bad and getting worse and that leaders are incompetent and deceptive to further their own ends.

People are so resistant to anything that disrupts their comfort zone because if they know or beleive injustices and occuring they feel compelled to do something about it, rather than sitting in their recliner relaxed and complacent in the knowledge that the people running things will look after them.

The realisation that things are going to hell carries the implication that action must be taken - Action that will be difficult, often futile and extremely unpopular for the aforementioned reasons. This leads to a strong desire to label anything critical of government or society as lunacy, thus avoiding challenge and remaining blissfully ignorant.
 
Last edited:
i think moore's documentary was great. in that letter he backs up pretty much all the facts that had claims of disrepute levelled against them.

no, i don't think moore is the *best* person to be 'spokesman', so to speak, for my left-wing opinions, but in a world full of sensationalist media, i can see why he takes the approach he does. and it works, mostly - so many people who would otherwise not pay any attention to the issue are drawn in by moore's tactics, and will also learn some very valuable lessons in the meantime.

i, for one, appreciate his efforts to do something about the way the world is - it's a better effort than most of us.
 
Why do you still refer to it as a documentary? Is it a slip of the mouth, or hands I guess, or is that what you believe it to be? Furthermore, I don't think he is really trying to do something about the way the world is. Making a film surely isn't going to change a whole hell of a lot, and I'd venture that it is probably fair to say it hasn't changed anything. A better effort would probably be something like using his money to back a presidential candidate or making generous donations to specific causes.
 
He probably has given Wesley Clark some money, his self-endorsed democrat.
 
Originally posted by bong420tripper
Why do you still refer to it as a documentary? Is it a slip of the mouth, or hands I guess, or is that what you believe it to be?


i still think it's a doco - it documents a whole series of issues, backed up by a large amount of factual information. the camera follows more through a series of *real* situations, and these are backed-up often by statistics (which he has since justified). i think this qualifies.

Furthermore, I don't think he is really trying to do something about the way the world is. Making a film surely isn't going to change a whole hell of a lot, and I'd venture that it is probably fair to say it hasn't changed anything.


well, perhaps it's just my personal experience, but i know that he's affected a lot of people - many people that i know who would previously have had no interest whatsoever in the matters he discusses have had their interest piqued by his film, and this has led them to investigate matters further. this is only in my experience, too, so i can only presume that the effect is -at least on some level- universal. the fact that his film has made many people sit up and think about the world they're living in from a political perspective (perhaps for the first time, for many of them) is a massively positive influence on the world, imo.

A better effort would probably be something like using his money to back a presidential candidate or making generous donations to specific causes.


and this he *does* - go check out his website. iirc, he often donates both his time and money to deserving charities and causes, and he's also one of the biggest and outspoken backers of wesley clark this election. he's publicly campaigned for the guy, and has also been involved in fundraising. similarly, he campaigned/funded ralph nader the last time around. that's what i'm saying - he's *not* just making films, this guy really does want to make a difference, and for that i respect him.
 
imo theres a couple of places (esp charlton heston interview) he is sentimental to the point of losing credibility
 
Baron said:
The entire film. Sorry, but almost everyone he used said that Moore distorted everything they said by creative editing, splicing, and inference when coupled with DIFFERENT questions in voice-over than he originally had filmed with them. Take a look at the bowlingfortruth.com site that Petersko linked earlier. It's basically an entire compendium of the misinformation and deception that Moore actually went through, as well as a rebuttal of the "Wacko" Moore rebuttal. Poor spelling, but the answers are definitely there.

I'm still yet to see a specific example of Moore using a voiceover of a question which makes it fundamentaly different to the context and meaning of the original.

If possible, can you please give a specific example backed up with a source.
 
Bowling For Columbine

Has anybody watched Bowling For Columbine?????
That movie is a great representation of the work Michael Moore can do. Of course I may not always agree with his vision, but this movie is great. It really opened my eyes to certain things like gun control and made me realize the impact that Columbine had on the United States. This movie is a must for everyone.... at least in my opinion.
 
film: bowling for columbine

please search esp. for older movies/tv shows and so on

and now rate-able!
 
*=Regulator=* said:
I'm still yet to see a specific example of Moore using a voiceover of a question which makes it fundamentaly different to the context and meaning of the original.

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but: http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/planeplaque.htm

After the conclusion of the "Wonderful World" montage -- Right after the footage of the airplanes hitting the Twin Towers, Bowling shows a B-52 memorial at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Moore intones:

"The plaque underneath it proudly proclaims that this plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972."

The point is only half way obvious to most viewers, although even those not catching the direct connection - the understanding is inserted : that the United States government and Al-Qaeda both perpetrate murder by airplane. This phrasing intentionally insinuates that the plaque praises the bombing of civilians.

In fact, the plaque on the B-52 at the AFA is not quite as Moore describes it. The plaque says :

"B-52D Stratofortress. 'Diamond Lil.' Dedicated to the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26-year history in the command. Aircraft 55-083, with over 15,000 flying hours, is one of two B-52Ds credited with a confirmed MIG kill during the Vietnam Conflict Flying out of U-Tapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southern Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas Eve, 1972."

Hardly sounds like a proud proclamation of Vietnamese killing. But Moore brushes it off. According to Ebert, Moore's response to this criticism was as follows: "I was making a point about the carpet bombing of Vietnam during the 1972 Christmas offensive. I did not say exactly what the plaque said but was paraphrasing." (1)

However - offering no evidence to support the claim that this historical account was in any way bragging about civilian death - Moore boldly deceives the audience here. Since he supports his opinion of the plaques supposed inferences with nothing, we must rely on grammar - none of which has a hint of anything that denotes pride in death. He of course doesn't show the plaque so he can get away with the deception, and didn't expecting anyone to check him on this fact, and thus gets away with it.

The truth behind the plaque is a much different story, as told by David Hardy of Hardylaw.net:

"The particular feat was accomplished by Airman First Class Albert E. Moore, who brought down a MiG-21 which was closing to attack 'Diamond Lil.' The reason its MiG kill was so celebrated was that a B-52 which got within range of a fighter almost always lost the fight. B-52s were built on the assumption that enemy fighters would be kept at bay by their own fighter escort, and so they had minimal defensive guns.

A WWII B-17 carried, oh, 10 to 14 (depending on model) .50 machineguns facing in every possible direction; they flew in dense formations so that there were hundreds or thousands of guns covering each direction. Facing WWII fighters, the B-17s still took severe losses.

A B-52 had only one defensive gun position, in its tail, which could cover no direction save rearwards: early models had four .50s in it, later ones a 20 mm. It had, in short, a lot less defensive capability, yet was up against modern jet fighters with hundreds of knots speed advantage, air-to-air missiles that could kill from miles off, and heavier guns for close-in. If an enemy fighter closed on a B-52, odds of survival were low.

Diamond Lil was thus commemorated for its rare feat of downing the attacking enemy fighter, instead of being downed by it.

A feat which Moore apparently finds appalling."

Moore thus confirms the absurdity of the blame-America-first position popular among the Hollywood Left, by showing that such views require the ignoring of obvious facts — such as the difference between financial aid to a dictatorship and humanitarian aid to refugees, or between fighting enemy pilots and perpetrating war crimes against civilians.
 
^ you are going to have to do better than that in here :)

"hardly a scrap of it was the truth" is quite an allegation. like him or hate him, there's plenty of evidence that large parts of this movie were truthful (certainly way more than a scrap).

can you substantiate your claim with some (preferably original - it's so tiresome to read acres of cut-and-paste) analysis and backup?

alasdair
 
alasdairm - Not to appear slow, but exactly how do I do analysis without quoted sources, or provide backup without cut/paste?

If you don't want to wade through pasted text in a post, it seems unlikely you'll follow links offsite to wade through them there.

I can tell you he bitched about how weapons were being built at the Lockheed plant in Littleton, and how it might have motivated the Columbine killers. Sounds good until you realize that Lockheed doesn't make weapons there.

I'm a Canadian citizen, and I have an FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate). I had to get one before I could buy a hunting rifle. So Moore's whole section on Walmart was a fraud, plain and simple.
 
my problem is not with cut and paste. it's with people pasting in acres of text they have cut from a website and considering that a job well done.

i can only speak for myself but i'd rather read a well formatted piece in context than just pasted in here.

showing an inconsistency or misleading edit is one thing. proving that "hardly a scrap of it was the truth" should demand, i think, a slightly higher burden of proof?

alasdair
 
Well, an inconsistency is hardly worthy of mentioning. A misleading edit is... well, a form of a lie. It's certainly not honesty.

And an example of a misleading statement that really is a full-fledged lie:

After the conclusion of the "Wonderful World" montage -- Right after the footage of the airplanes hitting the Twin Towers, Bowling shows a B-52 memorial at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Moore intones:

"The plaque underneath it proudly proclaims that this plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972."

The actual plaque commemorates the downing of an attacking MIG by a B52 crew - a feat only ever acomplished twice.

But Moore brushes it off. According to Ebert, Moore's response to this criticism was as follows: "I was making a point about the carpet bombing of Vietnam during the 1972 Christmas offensive. I did not say exactly what the plaque said but was paraphrasing."
 
Top