catapult magazine

I don’t know what all you film nuts think about Michael Moore, but i just saw his new film, “Bowling for Columbine”, which is an interesting exploration of guns, crime, gun laws, fear, violence, America, and the NRA. Anybody else seen it? What did ya’ll think?

I just saw it last night, and I thought it was…hmmm…what’s the word I’m searching for?…really good?…nope…amazing?…nope…life-changing? YES! I’ve seen some good films in my time, but nothing has touched me like that film because the incidents depicted are all excruciatingly real. Everyone in America needs to see it.

I think this movie came a bit later to Canada, but I saw it this weekend in a packed house. Hmmm . . .

I think it’s pretty clear that the movie presents some very pertinent stuff about America, especially our history of fear as a collective of suburban white middle-class people. I thought it was very well-constructed and a good film.

That said, I get uneasy with propaganda. I always had a feeling that a little something was being left out in favor of the “main point.” For example, Moore dismisses the theory that guns are popular because America has a bloody history, saying countries like Germany and England have far bloodier pasts. Yet, when I compare the brainwashed war mentality of the WW2 genocidal Germany with the shoot ‘em up clear-the-way-for-the-white-man mentality of frontier times in the U.S., the latter seems far more likely to produce gun-crazed INDIVIDUALS than the former. Many of Moore’s questions are framed in such a way as to embarrass the people he is interviewing, and as there are very few shots that last longer than a moment or two, it’s clear that a lot of cutting made the movie what it is. He set himself up as a martyr when trying to talk to Dick Clark, who was about to leave in a van, obviously blasting Clark for not stopping his business to talk with Moore—typical of the film, the situation under which the words and actions occurred was omitted. The last scene, a tear-jerker in which Charlton Heston is seen as a complete moron, seemed like an overly-emotional appeal.

As a disclaimer, documentaries are always geared towards a certain agenda. If you want to make a point, you’ve got to emphasize things. I’m just asking for a little temperance.

The reason why I’m protesting some of his tactics is I think he’s got incredibly helpful things to say—it’s just that I think his biases and exclusions will make the film unpalatable for the people that ought to see the film the most. When you have a good point, why be so holier-than-thou in the presentation of it?

What a nice connection with the Rush Limbaugh debate. Here’s another guy who loves America and is willing to twist, exaggerate, and edit the larger truth in order to get his point across. The results are similar to Rush Limbaugh’s results. He preaches to the choir. Canadians for instance love the part where Canada is so utopian that Toronto residents don’t lock their doors and are super nice all the time. And the people that will be offended or disagree won’t go to see it — or if they do they will see some of the holes that Adam saw. Grant, if you’re not a big fan of this movie I’ll be really confused.

it’s funny, adam, that you mention the word “propaganda.” i was just talking with some friends about “bowling for columbine” and we all agreed that we didn’t feel moore was doing as much propagandizing as he usually does. i think i expected a far more leftist approach because moore is sometimes almost too liberal.

of course, as we’re discussing in the rush limbaugh thread, anyone who is involved with the presentation of information will put his/her personal slant on it. but moore didn’t offer any pat liberal solutions to the problem either. in fact, i thought it was interesting that he spent a good chunk of time condemning the media for creating a “culture of fear.”

as far as the interview with charlton heston, i don’t think moore went out of his way to distort heston’s answers through editing. considering the importance of the interview in the context of the film, it would be foolish to chop it up to make heston look like an idiot.

having said that, i was rather disappointed with heston’s answers to the admittedly difficult questions moore was asking. here’s a guy that’s parading around the country on a regular basis advocating complete freedom for gun owners (read: no responsibility) and yet he can’t even defend his position intelligently. at least the michigan militia folks had legitimate reasons for wanting to bear arms.

I agree with you rob. I was quite surprised by how restrained it was for a moore film. In fact, I was expecting an out-and-out denunciation of guns, but to my surprise, the conclusion of the film was more like “well, maybe it’s not necessarily the guns. In fact, we’re not quite sure what it is, but it probably has a lot to do with the culture of fear that’s promoted by the media”. I was quite surprised and pleased by the relative lack of preachiness and the admission that it’s a very complex problem and that he doesn’t have all the answers.

That said, I had some of the same concerns that Adam did. Despite the fact that it was restrained for a michael moore film, there were definitely parts that were a bit over-the-top which make it easier for people to dismiss the movie as a whole. Which is a shame because there are some very good points made in the movie.

There was a lot of emotion in this film. I liked the ambiguity of it. It seemed like Moore was kind of stumbling along in these issues himself. I wonder if he had more of an agenda when he first started out.

I appreciate the way he spreads the blame. Although the trace from the elementary school shooting to Dick Clark may have been a bit far fetched it displayed another side of the issue we would never hear from the media.

Speaking of media, that TV reporter who needed hair spray was probably the coldest character in the story. I think Moore considered him to be symbolic of the enemy.

I saw the movie twice and found it to be very welll put together and important in its message. I have been interested in the power of the American media machine for years and found that the movie tackled this ugly issue well. And while a second film would be required to even begin to examine this evil, I thought that Moore did a good job at leaving the audience with a host of questions which demand review. It is hard to imagine that the many people who saw this film didn’t then go home, to the bar, back to their churches and ask some important questions about what they believe and why.

My only real critique of the film was the interview with Heston, who has in the last year been diagnosed with Alzhemiers (sp?…wish this damn site had spell check) Not only was Heston corned into believing that he was speaking with an ally, but he was also responding as he battles the beginning of a desease in which he is loosing his mind. I wonder if any of us were in the same situation, with whatever cause we support, that we wouldn’t look as silly as he did on film.

I thought Marilyn Manson was remarkably articulate in that film. Wierd.

I guess i see the point that some of you are making about the interview with Charlton Heston, but I also felt like he had it coming. This guy (and the NRA in general) pushes such an extermist position, and, as Moore showed, they do so in an often deliberately antagonistic manner, as the rallies after Columbine and that kid murder showed. To be fair, Moore didn’t really start messing with Heston until hestor stopped answering questions.

I did think the leaving of the picture thing was sort of odd.

It seems to me that Moore overall recognized this complex situation for what it is, yet still pointed to a couple of causes — media culture of fear and radical NRA positions being two of them.

Any remarks on Moore’s comments about the passengers of the airlines of 9-11 being scaredy cats?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30367

Wow, that’s quite some website. If i need a weekly fix of hal lindsey or dr. laura or jerry falwell or pat buchanan, i now know where to go.

now, I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but if it did, I find it odd that it’s not mentioned anywhere on the internet

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22michael+moore%22+scaredy+cat
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22michael+moore%22+conmen

Nor do I see any mention of a column about moore on the indepent’s list of columns by yasmin alibhai-brown or on imdb.com (which are the sources that the article claims to be based on)

http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/yasmin_alibhai_brown/
http://us.imdb.com/NNews?Moore,%20Michael%20(II)

Maybe it was meant to be satire? I did find this alternate review, however, which I found quite interesting:

http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-12-02-michaelmoore.shtml