What's new

Bowling for Columbine (2002) (1 Viewer)

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
Oliver, the film does discuss why the US is so obssessed with firearms. If you go to Bowling for Columbine's website, you'll see a clip from the animated sequence of the film. I think that it outlines it fairly nicely
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
those would not have to arm and defend themselves
Except that this is also called into question within the film if Moore's stats are accurate (I haven't heard otherwise).
Guns per capita and murder per capita don't seem to be a one to one relationship, which might even be something that surprised Moore when he started researching it.
Yes, he really did ambush Clark. I was thinking "what the hell do you want Clark to do or say at this point? You have a deeply complex problem involving one subsidary company that Clark is connected to perhaps in name only. You want him to understand this issue fully and solve it right now?"
It would make for boring cinema but Moore needed to outline exactly what the problem (he thought) was and what sort of action he thought Clark should take. Hand that to him, or mail it to him, and then contact Clark later once he had a chance to look at it. But trying to do a 2 hour debate in 30 seconds outside a mini-van is silly. I would have driven off if I were Clark too. Nothing positive could come from that situation for Clark.
BTW, back to the humor, how funny were some of those interviews like the guy in the bar that was mad that the police questioned him 2nd on a bomb threat (or something like that). YEE-IIKES.
I also loved the bank/gun joke. He really set that up for a good pay-off moment I thought. I never thought there was any doubt that the total process was safe and legit, just that it was very funny to be handing out guns at a bank, period.
And he sure has balls just for walking into people's houses during the Canadian segment. I might have thought he faked this except for the reactions people had, especially at the last house.
BTW, I don't think it is so much that Americans are FORCED to defend themselves by the gov't. More like Americans IDENTIFY with such a situation, we love it I think. I think Americans want and demand that "right", which might have something to do with a predisposition toward violent behavior (justifying the defense of your own life, turf, etc by force). Moore didn't quite address that issue though, at least not directly.
He covered the "fear of the black man" angle, but I think a lot of it also ties into the historical beginning of the country. Every American kid grows up learning about the Minute Men and how keeping firearms locally allowed America to be born in the first place. I mean it's even in a Schoolhouse Rock segment. :)
Again, I wish he had looked at that some too, the very self-image that an American has or is raised to have (beyond being fed fear). When other cultures see a western they see an American film, but when an American sees John Wayne they see themselves, they see an American hero to aspire too.
And I'm not saying wrong or right, nor thinking of this in terms of politics. Just in terms of the nature of art and how it reflects upon the society that creates it, and in turn affects that society in perpetuating morals, myths, and culture.
Fertile ground for BFC part 2. :D
 

Patrick Larkin

Screenwriter
Joined
May 8, 2001
Messages
1,759
I finanlly got to see this film this evening.

I really found the Heston scene to be shameless button pushing to provoke a reaction.
I really think MM built to this scene as the crescendo to the film. Heston is shown throughout as a nut with the "cold dead hands" thing and then showing up a Littleton and Flint. This guy is the LEADER of the NRA. MM leads him right down the road of "why do you keep a loaded gun- do you believe you are in danger?" Heston answers no. Heston himself seems to have little argument for why the 2nd ammendment exists at all except that it does exist.

MM's bit with Dick Clark was sort of meaningless but I think it fits in with his overall ideology of the guy at the top having little or no clue at all about what is going on in his own companies. He wants to know why Clark allows people to get paid like shit and bussed 40 miles to work for him. Just like asking Martha Stewart why her crap is made in sweat shops.


Overall, a finely made film and one of the best editing jobs I've seen in a long time.

The audience I was it with this evening broke into spontaneous applause when the credits rolled. That's a cool thing...
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
There was scattered applause at the screening I attended as well, Patrick.

Glad you enjoyed the movie.
 

Christ Reynolds

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 2002
Messages
3,597
Real Name
CJ
When we 'talk' about the things Moore has to say, we discuss if they are even true, not the issues he brings up.
youre kidding, right? i'm not one to jump in and believe everything he was saying. maybe a lot of it was false, maybe it wasnt. but i dont even think he cared if anyone noticed, the issues he raises are much more important than some figures and numbers. and its not like he is outright LYING, this country does have many move gun deaths than any other country per capita, and theres a reason. does it matter if he lied on some crime figures in canada? i doubt it.

CJ
 

Mark_vdH

Screenwriter
Joined
May 9, 2001
Messages
1,035
I haven't seen BFC yet, it will only open in a local cinema in February over in Holland, but I just checked it out on IMDB, and wondered why it isn't in the Link Removed.
Aren't documentaries allowed for entry? If so, why not?
 

Christ Reynolds

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 2002
Messages
3,597
Real Name
CJ
Aren't documentaries allowed for entry? If so, why not?
no, they are not. they used to be, because early in its theatrical release, bfc was quite high. the imdb changed its top 250 policies. i disagree with that policy, if the film is shown theatrically, then it should be allowed for entry. and i know it probably qualifies for documentary status, but where does it say that it is actually that? anyway, bfc would be very high on the weighted scale of the top 250. good movie regardless. any word on dvd release?
 

Patrick Larkin

Screenwriter
Joined
May 8, 2001
Messages
1,759
From the michaelmoore.com website:
"Bowling for Columbine" continues to roll on across the country in a way no one ever imagined. It has not only set the new all-time box office record for a documentary, it has more than DOUBLED that record.
Over one hundred film critics have named "Bowling for Columbine" one of the "10 Best Films of the Year," including Time magazine, Entertainment Weekly, the NY Post and the Associated Press. Papers like the San Francisco Bay Guardian and the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel have gone even further and picked it as the "Best Film of the Year."
In addition to this, the Online Film Critics Association has nominated the film as both "Best Documentary" and "Best Picture" of the year. The London Society of Film Critics has also nominated it as "Best Film."
The National Board of Review has given "Bowling for Columbine" its award for "Best Documentary of the Year," as have the Toronto Film Critics Association, the New York Society of Online Film Critics, the International Press Academy, and (our favorite) the Las Vegas Film Critics Association. The Independent Spirit Awards and the Broadcast Film Critics Association have also nominated it "Best Documentary of the Year."

Link
For all the talk that MM's views are extremist and out of touch with America, its interesting how well the film is doing and that fact that his book is on the NYT bestseller list for 38 weeks.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
27,031
Location
Albany, NY
Very interesting article, Wes. It is this that I have a problem with:
Dates are transposed and video carefully edited to create whatever effect is desired. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered.
All documentaries are understandably biased. But they should be an accurate portrayal of events, not a recreation of evens.
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
Moore's documentary is about the culture of fear in this country, and attempts to explain it. I challenge you to find a documentary WITHOUT an agenda that is about any controversial subject.
In the end, his questions, and proposed answers have been presented, YES with distortion, but not enough distortion to really make a difference. Moore is making the ENTIRE Heston interview available on the DVD, so you will be able to judge for yourself whether or not his words were changed.
For an extreme example, I give you this classic Seanbaby review of "If Footmen Tire You, what will Horses do?"
http://www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.ph...rticleid=22646
(read his other reviews too :) )
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
Just curious- what does bowling have to do with the subject of the film?
The students involved in the shootings were in a bowling class, that met (IRRC) right before school. Moore interviews some of their bowling classmates, although I think that the two involved skipped that class that day.

All of this to focus on gun violence in the States.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
Interesting article Wes.

And it will interesting to see if the author can finish his ‘honest documentary’. And if so, how well it will stand the tests that he believes that it should meet.

And if he can make interviews with law professors interesting enough for his audience to stay awake.
 

Max Leung

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2000
Messages
4,611
That's a nice, thorough debunking of the "facts" presented by Moore.

As a skeptic-in-hiding (nobody likes skeptics!), I found it fascinating. I knew Moore often distorts the facts, but I didn't think he would go so far as to deliberately fabricate a speech that is basically a matter of public record! What balls!

Ditto for the Lockheed-Martin factory...that built rockets for satellites, not weapons of mass destruction.

There is no way I can trust anything Moore writes or says. Not this time.

I will only trust scientists when it comes to social issues...at least they have a system in place that (eventually) weeds out the charlatans and wishful thinkers (Stephen J. Gould and his shameful attacks on E.O. Wilson and other good scientists being the exception).

So, has Skeptic Magazine or CSICOPS tackled Moore yet?
 

John^Lal

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
208
hey max, i find you in all the threads i am intrigued by...don't think just because i wrestled with you about "IMO" we are at complete odds with eachother, i have now seen 3 posts in a row by you where i completely agree with you
 

Bill Griffith

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 8, 2002
Messages
581
Wes gald you posted the link, went through all the pages looking to see if someone pointed out that Link.

It says it all. You people looking for proof and links really need to read it.

Moore might have a point about fear in the US, I certainly don't see it that way though. Neither do alot of people I know. The way Moore went about trying to prove his point and justify his movie was horribly wrong.

Yes people keep saying show me a documentary thats not biased, I say, since I don't watch many documentaries, show me one that is as misleading, and chuck full of lies as this one is.

Its my opinion that documentaries are eductational films with no embelishment, or distortion of the facts. And they should not be 1 sided.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,070
Messages
5,130,043
Members
144,283
Latest member
Nielmb
Recent bookmarks
0
Top