catapult magazine
discussion
Bowling for Columbine
JabirdV
Sep 05 2003
03:13 pm
In an article on Spinsanity, Dan Lyons of Forbes magazine writes:
“And in a distortion of reality that is comparable to the altered Bush ‘88 campaign commercial that I noted, Lyons found that the scene in a bank in Michigan that that opens the film was staged. Customers who open long-term CDs at the bank actually have to go to a gun store to pick up the weapon after a background check. Yet the film clearly indicates that the bank itself stores and hands out guns to customers and Moore even jokes as he walks out, "Here’s my first question: do you think it’s a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?"
”
The complete article is found at:
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_24_archive.html#85712328
I apologize if I misunderstood you, Jonner. I have no problem with Worldnetdaily, but also use a variety of other mediums (both paper and electronic) to derive news of current events and issues (as most likely you do). I also apologize if I came accross too strongly and/or offended you.
jonner
Sep 05 2003
06:25 pm
No offense taken. But I still have trouble believing it’s true. Are you saying that the bank teller lady that said that they had 500 guns in the vault and that the bank was a licensed firearms dealer (or whatever the actual quote was, i can’t remember) was actually an actor and not an employee of the bank?
dan
Sep 05 2003
06:29 pm
I think the idea is that the bank teller and other employees of the bank agreed to act out a simplified version including giving him one of their model guns rather than having him go down to the gun store.
laryn
Sep 06 2003
07:07 am
I have to admit I was quite disappointed to read this thread—though I’m not completely convinced. Again, a simple google search reveals at least one (fairly decent) defense of these criticisms of the film. I know nothing about the authors.
“Critics have now gone so far as to call for the revocation of the award. Their chances are small, however, as their arguments rely on polemic, exaggeration and misrepresentation – in other words, on the same techniques which they accuse Moore of using.
It is fascinating to watch the organised character assassination of Michael Moore that has been going on since the release of his last documentary. In a time of simple-minded patriotism, loud, clear and dissenting voices like Mr. Moore’s are perceived as disturbing and have to be silenced, partially through well funded public relations campaigns, partially through conservative “grass-roots” propaganda. Not surprisingly, much of the criticism of Moore’s film is misguided or outright wrong, often vastly more inaccurate than Moore’s work itself is supposed to be. ”
BBC
Sep 06 2003
09:48 am
Moore’s point in that scene is that a bank is giving out guns like they were toasters. Isn’t that the absurd part? Whetheer the customer gets the gun there or has to walk to a dealer to get it — isn’t it utterly bizzare that a bank would be giving away guns? It seems to me Moore’s main point there is that we as a nation are gun happy.
Paul
Sep 06 2003
11:22 am
BBC, why does he have to lie to get his point across? I would’ve understood the absurdity without him lying about what the bank really does. If he’s making satire he shouldn’t broadcast it as fact. It destroys his credibility. I can’t trust him. In fact, I’m so annoyed I’ll be purchasing a firearm today. I need to make sure Moore never sets foot on my property.
anton
Sep 06 2003
03:33 pm
It’s a bit naive to blame the character assassination of Moore on “simple-minded patriotism” etc. If he claims to document real life evidence without tampering with it (e.g. simplified skits), then he has misled his viewers and needs to answer the accusations.
But do we know if Moore makes any such claim to accuracy? If he has not, what’s all the fuss about?
I disagree with Moore’s position, in the film and in politics. I think several aspects of the DVD are contradictory and in some cases poorly thought out. Still, I don’t want to pass him off due to a technicality.
jonner
Sep 24 2003
12:59 pm
Some of you might be interested in Michael Moore’s response to all of this. I haven’t read it all yet, so I don’t know how convincing it is, but I thought I’d throw it out there for everybody else to glance at if you’re interested: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
Dave
Sep 24 2003
02:53 pm
He sounds pretty immature to me. Not a big surprise. In this article he’s playing the same game that some of the extremists on the other side are playing. Does he think that his work is less valuable if you call it propaganda instead of a documentary? So what if he deserves to get the Oscar taken from him? He got his message out there.
dan
Sep 24 2003
03:09 pm
He does sound immature but he directly contradicts the authors of those other articles we looked at earlier. For example, he insists that nothing about the bank scene was staged. Somebody’s lying. Isn’t it possible that Michael Moore is the victim of some kind of character assassination attempt here?
explore catapult discussions
BBC
Oct 26 2002
08:03 am
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?