What a great film. Who's seen it here? Do you agree with the films assertions? In part? In totality?
Other than an erroneous comparison to Germany (Nazism being the end RESULT of centuries of collective defensiveness, rather than a causive effect) I thought the film was spot on. I personally loved the interview with the balding bearded guy, who said "When a govt turns tyrranical, it's our DUTY to overthrow it". Moore then brought up Ghandis SUCCESSFUL NONVIOLENT overthrow of the British Empire - the strongest military force of it's day - and this guy's response was "Oh I'm not familiar with that.." LOL! |
Apparently Moore is unfamiliar with the statement Ghandi made that depriving a whole nation of arms was one of the worst things they'd done. Apparently Moore is disavowing his own paranoid theories about how our government operates.
Also, Bowling is a misleading piece of propaganda not a true documentary. Among those in media, at least according to a fellow whose whole family is in the broadcasting industry, left or right, he's hated. He's hated especially it seems by the non-limousine left, the well-researched center-right guys see him as more of an amusing nuisance. EDIT: -- Well, it happened again, before I even read the dissertations and arguments the first time I watched, the movie pissed me off. It did the same exact thing this time. Now, my ulcer acted up and my headaches got worse. I'm still washed out from the flu. I could have watched Ben Hur instead. Much better movie. From the start, with the staged bank scene, to the bad-remix of Joe Cocker's "What A Wonderful World" I felt like I'd better chew some gaviscon and eat a ton of crackers. I did that very thing, twice, I still had serious pains. Some of the editing techniques are apparently nondescript. By comparison to previous documentaries (Martin Scorsese's previous attempts and documentaries I've seen about the American Nazi Party) I've seen, some edit cuts seem unusual. Focus is drawn on an object and sound stretched in a loose fashion for reasons nonapparent. Politically concerned, the reasons are obvious. No different from the decisions behind the camera placement in Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda documentary Triumph Des Willens, it brings together the emotional impact of the shot, scene and take altogether at once. While Triumph Des Willens was a paean to the Nazi Party, the technical comparisons are there. The politics of course to be seperated. Some scenes, such as the cuts of the three Heston speeches, and the interview with Heston (the story of which is rather sordid, which I'll get to later) in person, are all technically brilliant, using fraction-of-second cuts for maximum impact. Those cuts among other presented edits, are one of the key sources of the controversy. It's Moore's vertuosity as a director and editor that brings out such powerful controversy. His edited scenes, such as shots from NRA rallies or Get out and Vote rallies, are chopped together in a cinematically efficient fashion (a more roaming or slower director might have taken perhaps another half an hour to forty-five minutes to bring certain points together) but as a documentary, this efficiency crosses into moments that may mislead a viewer into drawing false conclusions, and there is in fact one scene which is rather bizarre, the coup de grace; The interview with Charlton Heston himself. From a political and humane standpoint, his approach to Heston was nothing short of disgusting. He approached him as an NRA member, as one of his own, and then slowly challenged him as the leftist he truly is. The result, one the audience might not infer, is that an old man suffering from Alzheimer's disease is caught defenseless, and isn't prepared against a real attack. Moore is a Trojan Horse. Even 10 years ago, it's rather likely a younger, sharper Heston would have had Moore's name checked out, or if Moore had gone to Wayne LaPierre today, that would have happened. Knowing who Moore really is, Heston or Moore, so prepared, would have been able to tear anything he'd have thrown at them to pieces. However, from a technical standpoint, that's not the perplexing thing. The thing that cuts under the surface and leaves me baffled is, quite frankly, how did they film all the angles in the walking away? Either there was a second camera (in a position so located it would have been physically impossible to film in one take, and would have been caught in the other 'shot,' Moore making a technical assertion to the contrary is a lie) or it was a multi-shot, meaning the scene is not quite what it seems. Is it really a defeated Heston that walked away, or was the conversation concluded under what Heston considered more amiable circumstances? Who knows. It's one of those mysteries likely to remain unresolved for a while. In general, good technical merits aside, some conclusions drawn in the film are outright squirrelly. Squirrelly in the sense that you really have to climb up the wall to find what orbital shell these people drew their ideas from. Real, "If aliens come here, they'll fix all our medical problems" stuff. Blaming Dick Clark for Kayla Rowland's murder, saying she was forced to work, at the same time tying in a paranoid diatribe about Lockheed Martin. Efficient delivery perhaps, but the results are ludicrous. [ 02-27-2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ] |
Quote:
Actually I got a wholly different impression - the people who made the biggest fuss about BfC, both here on Ironworks and elsewhere on the Internet, were still the "hardcore" conservatives (which probably comes as no surprise either). Heck, we once had a good laugh during an American Studies seminar once with an NRO-review of BfC, as it was full of self-indulgent spindoctoring and pot-kettle-black reasoning - even apart from the "12-year-old-and-writing-an-article-for-the-school-paper-for-the-first-time"-like writing skills of the guy responsible for the review. And as for "the truth about Bowling"-website you linked to, perhaps you'd like to add a link to Moore's response to pretty much all of the criticism listed at that site as well, even if only for the sake of fair™ and balanced™ information provision. |
I just saw it tonight on Canal+, interresting piece of work. I'm curious what Charlton heston had in mind to organise pro gun meetings, the day after a shooting, right in the town where the shooting took place. That doesn't exactly show of much respect for the victims and their familymembers. In fact, it kinda shows that Heston is a first class asshole.
|
Johnny, the NRA was required to have that meeting. Under their charter as a non-profit organization in NY where the parent chapter is located they are required by law to have the equivilent of a corporations share holders meeting anually. Those member's meetings are scheduled and booked years in advance. By NY law if a member's meeting needs to be changed, a minimum of 10 days must be given to send ALL members the notification of the change in time and place. That NRA gathering was planning 4 million to attend in Boulder. The shooting happened 11 days before the convention. As it was, the NRA scrapped all activities planned for the week except the mandatory members meeting. It would have been logistically impossible to reschedule a convention for 4 million people in less then 24 hours that had 6 weeks left in their calandar year. All this information is convieniently left out of Mr Moore's fabrication.
[ 02-27-2004, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ] |
Brilliant Grojlach, just brilliant -- I bookmarked the page. I like that it answered the "Heston editing" accusation, which I thought was the most credible.
I'd like to note, in case you haven't watched BfC, that Moore is not so much advocating no guns as he is advocating responsibility and reasonableness in gun ownership. Also, and moreover, he is trying to look to the American psyche to try to determine what makes the society violent -- and it ain't just as simple as gun ownership. Finally, please note I'm not an advocate for Moore. I think he goes OTT a lot of times. His awards speech was silly and deplorable. It was the wrong place to make a stump, and it was certainly some egregious misuse of the word "fictional." ;) [ 02-27-2004, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] |
Quote:
There are many faults I’m sure with the movie, and Michael Moore, like the one nightstalker has posted. I will look foreword to your impartial critic of the movie with baited breath. Just do us a favour and make sure they are not as "embarrassing" as those links ;) BTW loved the "the non-limousine left" comment. Was that one of your own? :D </font> [ 02-27-2004, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: wellard ] |
Thanks for posting that link Groj - made very interesting reading. I watched the film myself for the first time about 2 weeks ago. I got the DVD as a Xmas present and it took me a while to get around to watching it. I thought it was a very good piece of work, and as TL has already intimated, it asks bigger questions of the American psyche and passion for guns as much as it simply champions better gun control.
Wellard [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] to you as well. Oh - TL - I agree - the Oscars wasn't the place for a vitriolic outburst like that. He let himself and his cause down there, but despite that lapse, overall I feel he is doing greater good than harm. |
I went into the film a little anti Moore - the Oscars comment being one, and the in my opinion erroneous sociological assessment of Germany being the other.
But I walked away with respect. Although - as I said to my American friends, who I watched it with, who became full of self loathing after watching it - America has done much good on the planet as well as bad. Moore painted a very bleak picture, which was making a point, but wasn't painting the whole picture. Americans, like all of us, should feel a balance of pride and shame with their country, not exclusively one or the other. Certainly that is how I feel about Australia. Shame for the mistakes and horrors and problems, and pride in the strengths and achievements. That's how I feel as an individual. I seek to fix the character areas I am inadquate, deficient and mistake ridden in, but have self pride in the things I'm strong and beneficial in. Why does America have 11,000 gun related deaths each year? I feel it is a combination of all those reasons, some more, some less. People often look for a convenient simple reason, for a simple solution. To blame for Columbine: 1. Guns. No guns, no massacre pure and simple. 2. Kmart bullets - If bullets cost $5,000 as Chris Rock joked, we would indeed have less murders 3. Fear - huge. Moores doco makes this point adequately 4. Social attitudes re. self seeking rather than social support. Again Moores doco highlights the diff. between Canada and say Australias social health care, and what that does to a societies mental regard for itself. I think America could go a long way towards caring for those less fortunate, and this would erase many social ills. 5. Violent past. A nation forged by revolution, civil war and conquest of indiginous peoples has violence as it's foundational success value. Canada was not forged through revolution and had no civil war. Nazism for another example, was in my mind, a result of the centuries of defensiveness and zero natural boundarys for Germany, as well as a reaction against the social instability... (I'll stop there.. you could write a book on the reasons for Nazism) 6. Artistic influence. Manson in my mind shirked his power and responsibility as an artist shaping culture. Moore compared them listening to Manson with Bowling, but the two are totally different. Music is a language. Music is communication. You can radically change moods listening to music in ways you don't playing a sport. You receive the intent of the communicator - even if you then reject it. I'm not suggesting censorship, but an artist should self censor, and be aware of the power of the medium they use. If you create mood depressing music that encourages suicide, the odds that someone already on a low hitting an even lower plunge are quite likely. 7. Desensitisation to violence in media. Other nations may watch American films, but we watch them viewing the country from afar. It;s like watching a scifi film. A world away. I've found films make som much more sense living here, and seem much more real world. Violence in an American film seemed more fictional to me living outside, and more real living inside. 8.Computer games reward violent resolution to problems. Whether our beloved Bladurs gate/Morrowind etc, to street fighter, you cannot succeed without violence. A truly good character is impossible in Baldurs gate. A truly good character would be nonviolent. Finding a nonviolent solution, or dying instead. This is impossible in the game, You simply can't complete it, yet people are given the illusion that "Lawful Good" characters are justified in killing a person. Anyhow... there are some thoughts. No one reason stands out to me, rather I see a combination. How would you solve this problem? I would ban all guns except the types of slow loading guns around when the founding fathers made the constitution. I'd tax ammunition so it was prohibitively expensive - especially for semis and automatics. I'd educate artists and computer game designers on the power of influence and suggestion so they are more aware and responsible for what they communicate. I'd bring in immediate health care and welfare programs AT THE EXPENSE of the ridiculously high defense budget. Who is America fighting? I'd be putting a serious onus on news and media to present balanced news, not "Bad news if it snows" or the whole emphasis on covering violent crime. Not sure how to change an entire medias practices.... as long as the dollar drives the industry and they people are baying for blood.... What are your thoughts? |
I'll deal out on Moore's response first...
His response to the Research director of the Independence Institute, if that's what he really was, well his argument isn't even tackled at all. All he does is run paragraph after paragraph of ad hominem attacks on the man who made certain assertions (assertions not posted, something important, he won't counter what the guy himself said, just the fact that he's right wing, and also a crazy, so if Moore uses broad and sweeping generalizations it's okay, but when someone else does it, it's terrible) on a news program. About the bank scene he lies very carefully. The Bank thing was setup over a period of months. The fact remains that, had he actually attempted to load the weapon in the bank, there were cops right there. They'd have their pistols levelled at his face before his pudgy fingers could have closed the bolt on that thing. Never mind also the fact that the rifle in question was, at the entire time of his filing for the CD (he's now plunked 1000 dollars into the bank, not something a robber would do) in a vault 4 hours away. That's a long distance, the rifle was handed to him months later, as the scene was filmed, but he'd already had that filed for some time. It's true that Heston said exactly what they recounted. Moore's words, on face value, don't exclude the possibility of him using other words, he doesn't say, "he said that, and only that." He quotes Heston out of context, and slices together two parts of a speech in different tone, to make yet a third tone, one of arrogance, hop-headedness and unsympathetic rabble-rousing. This is not the case. Heston cut those festivities to the bone, doing both what was morally right and legally obligatory at the same time. I applaud Heston's decency. He uses the excuse that he's 'being introduced in narration' but the editing is so quick and precise, that unless you'd known about it in advance, or watched some scenes multiple times for that 'extra jab' effect, you'd assume that all three cuts were of the same speech. Moore plays very carefully with the words in his response. If he didn't, he'd be sunk. He doesn't make a single outright false claim in the whole lot of responses. He then seems to think that context is non-important, if I started slicing words of his response together, I could make them mean anything I want. So, when we realize that Heston was making a speech, drawing, in a rather intellectual fashion, to a famous and grand old man of our history (Theodore Roosevelt) who was himself a Gun Nut in his day, among friends, in a different context, he suddenly isn't the demon Moore makes him out to be. He then carefully admits that his sources of the same statistic varies between the countries applied to, what he doesn't admit is that they all count the numbers differently, and that the end result that they release all mean different things. Police statistics wouldn't show police shootings, and DOJ statistics would seperate everything, so that you'd have to add the numbers together to bring an altogether, but some numbers added in should really be ignored. Then he pats himself on the back for having sold a large number of books and movies, when in fact, the merits of one movie is in question here. That's like saying, I've built a hundred sponge foundation buildings. That matters little if they all collapsed. This while he shoots off a paranoid and unfounded rant about the NRA, and then says that every fact in the film is true. Well, all facts are true, aren't they? Everything stated, within a certain context, as fact, is true. If it wasn't, he's right, chances are it wouldn't get released. The point is not that the numbers are wrong or his sources are no good. It's what he's done with these facts that has us irritated. Not to mention a lawsuit is pending from that fruitcake farmer he interviewed. What's especially delicious is how he accuses his attackers of resorting to character assassination, whilst his first few paragraphs were dedicated to that very thing! Excuse me if the irony is not funny anymore. He then accuses random individuals of libel. I suppose that's going to include me, after all, I'm one of his 'internet crazies.' Being that I, like him, have made no false assertions, and am not libeling him, what he is doing is in fact libelous, and I could, in theory file a lawsuit against him. A footnote, if you didn't pick it up, "Michael Moore Hates America!" was a reference to a documentary he won't give an interview for, that's driving him up the wall. Mike Wilson is working on it, but unlike Moore has a finance problem. Quote:
2- I walked away with anger and disgust. 3- His unbalanced and biased picture of America among other things is one thing. What he's done to the Academy is another, and his fallatiously presented arguments are the other major ones. Your sense of national and civic pride is something that Moore wants to destroy in Americans. A complete dissolution of pride for something of which someone is a part is a pre-requisite to revolution, taking the good with the bad is an essential way to overcome the hardships and handle well the boons. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, there are many faults, more than enough that it didn't deserve to be nominated in the documentary category, let alone win it. My critique of the film, as a film will be most impartial, noting technical faults mainly, playback problems, what have you. My arguments about the politics of a leftist polemic will of course be argued from the Libertarian perspective. Yes, I'm sure you did, would you like to serve up a plate of arrogance with that condescension dish? The consensus among those who knew the leftists in the seventies, called them the thinking left. Then the Limousine people arrived, the rich people who courted leftism out of its fashionability. The thinking left fast became a silent majority, or a quiet minority. I don't read much political literature or proselytizing, so it's not for me to say. However, the quip phrase, non-limousine left, is meant to underline the historical difference between what was an ideology driven movement, to a movement driven by almost cosmetic non-virtues. The hollywood types, the rich 'communists' (the most hypocritical person in the world is a socialist who has everything they've ever owned and learned everything they know, and are the very demon they complain about, in the capitalist system) of our time. Moore is one of them. He decries the rich, yet he is one of them. Quote:
Quote:
[ 02-27-2004, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ] |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved