[Cerek the Barbaric]

Well, I finally rented and watched Bowling for Columbine this weekend. Since most of the conversation on the other "Moore thread" centers around BfC anyway, I decided to create a new thread for discussion of the movie and the issues it raised.

First of all, I have to say that I found the movie to be far more interesting than I expected - and I thought Moore did actually raise some valid points. However, I also confirmed for myself that many of the criticisms offered by Hardy were - indeed - very accurate. Just for the sake of reference, here are the links to Hardy's site regarding BfC, followed by a site where Moore offers rebuttals for some of the criticisms, and finishing with another link to Hardy's website where he counters Moore's rebuttals.

(1)
The Point
(2)
The Counterpoint
(3)
The Rebuttal

Now for my own perspective on the film.

The things I liked (yes, there actually were some ).

I thought Moore did a good job of addressing the usual reason given for so much violence in America. Blame is typically placed on movies, video games, TV shows, music, mixed racial ethnicity and a history steeped in violence. I did note that Charlton Heston echoed many of these "causes" in his interview with Moore, but Moore already had a rebuttal for him. He pointed out that most foreign countries watch many of the same graphically violent movies, listen to the same "goth/shock rock" and play the same violent video games. He also pointed out that countries like Germany, Britain and China also have very violent pasts and Canada easily has just as many guns as the U.S. Canada also has roughly the same mix of different races as the U.S. Moore did his homework very well, but I disagreed with one of his theories.

The violent past of other countries was conducted primarily by the government of those countries. Few countries have a history similar to the "Wild West" of America where the violence was often conducted among individuals rather than by the gov't. The only two countries I can think of that may have similar attitudes among their individual citizens would be Australia and Canada. Both of these countries have vast wilderness/wasteland where an individual has to rely on themselves for their survival and protection.

I also really liked Michael Moore's interview with Marilyn Manson (who took a LOT of the "blame" for Columbine from "experts" and the media). It showed that Manson really is just a normal person - albeit one with some rather strange views and an even stranger method of communicating those views.

I thought the best part of the whole movie was when Moore took two permanently injured Columbine survivors to the HQ of K-Mart to confront the executives about their policy of selling handguns and ammo. It really caught the K-Mart exec's flatfooted and put them in an extremely awkward and embarassing situation. Sometimes, that is the ONLY way to actually affect policy change. The real stroke of genius was when one of the survivor's suggested that - after basically being stonewalled by the exec's - that they go to the nearest K-Mart and buy ALL of the ammo they had. The fact that the person behind the counter DID sell them every bit of ammo they had in stock without asking any questions was very unnerving. When they returned to K-Mart HQ the next day to confront the exec's again, K-Mart was a little more prepared. They sent a VP down to issue a statement and she announced that K-Mart would "phase out" ALL handgun ammow within 90 days. I had to admit that was pretty impressive.

I also thought the segment on Michigans "Welfare to Work" program was informative. While I support "Workfare" as opposed to "Welfare", the movie highlighted the fact that there are situations where the policy causes more harm than good. In the Flint, MI shooting (in which a 6 yr old boy shot and killed a 6 yr old girl) the boy was staying with an uncle because his mom had to work two jobs 40 miles away because of the "Welfare to Work" program.

Now for confirmation of the criticisms.

Moore spent a great deal of the movie trying to prove that TV shows like "Cops" and the local news go out of their way to "demonize" blacks and hispanics ("demonize" was the term used in the movie). However, it is quite evident that Moore also goes out of his way to "demonize" the NRA. His "South Park" style cartoon (which was NOT drawn by South Park creators - although Moore does interview one of them in the movie) implies that the NRA has close ties to the KKK. The Heston speech at the Denver NRA meeting definitely WAS edited and arranged to make Heston and the NRA to appear completely insensitive to the tragedy that had just occurred 11 days earlier. The excerpts of Heston's speech were taken out of context to give them a different tone. NO mention was made of Heston addressing the tragedy of Columbine and offering his sympathy (as well as that of the NRA) to the survivors). It also blantantly ignores the fact that the Denver meeting couldn't be cancelled by the NRA, but they DID cancel the vast majority of activities planned and basically reduced the conference to the mandatory business meeting and left it at that. The opening statement of Heston shouting "..from my cold dead hands" is also used to create maximum "shock value" against the NRA, as it immediately followed comments and reactions from survivors of Columbine shortly after the tragedy occurred. Definitily designed to make Heston and the NRA appear to be totally self-centered and completely insensitive to the tragedy at hand.

The same goes for the "big gun rally" Heston supposedly held in Flint, MI. shortly after little Kayla was shot and killed. Moore's exact intro to the segment was "Just as he did in Denver after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston went to Flint, MI to hold a big gun rally shortly after Kayla's death". Here is irrefutable proof of Moore caught in an [b]absolute lie[/i]. The "rally" that Heston attended was a Voter's Rally for the elections held in November - [b]eight months[/i] after Kayla's death. So there was NO "big gun rally" at all in Flint, MI following Kayla's death.

I also didn't care for Moore cornering Dick Clark in his car to confront him about the mother of the 6 yr old that shot Kayla. One of her jobs in the "Welfare to Work" program was as a bartender at Dick Clark's American Bandstand restaurant. As Moore leans into the car and confronts Dick Clark about the situation, Clark basically ignores him and finally drives off. The implication is that Clark doesn't care that the mother had to work away from home - but the fact is he was obviously leaving wherever the building Moore had found him at and Moore went up to him out of the blue. While that "ambush technique" may have been appropriate for the exec's at K-Mart HQ, he should have given Dick Clark the same courtesy he gave Heston, and arranged a scheduled interview. That would have given Clark a chance to sit down and address the questions Moore had. Since Dick Clark most likely owns an entire chain of those restaurant's, it's rather naive' to think he will have an answer regarding one employee at one of the locations.

I also agree with Hardy's questioning the sources for Moore's numbers regarding gun deaths in the various countries. In every one of the foreign countries, Moore got his information from an agency associated with gathering crime statistics, but in the U.S., he used the Center for Disease Control - an organization designed to gather HEALTH statistics, not crime statistics. The only possible reason to use the C.D.C. instead of the F.B.I. (which does keep national crime statistics) is to "maximize" the number of gun deaths in America. As Hardy points out, the number from the C.D.C. would be much higher than the number from the F.B.I. because the C.D.C. does NOT differentiate between gunshot wounds inflicted in self-defense or by the police. It just lumps ALL gun-shot wounds into a single category.

So there is Cerek's Synopsis of BfC. I was impressed with a lot of what Moore did and I do agree he raises some very valid points - then investigates the supposed causes given for these points. But I also note that all of the criticims on Hardy's site are dead-on accurate. So certain parts of the movie have to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.