Bowling for Columbine
-
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:39 am
- Location: Southern California
Bowling for Columbine IS NOT A DOCUMENTRY. Its really not even close. I gotta give Moore credit though, he is a master at taking footage and editing in a way that completely manipulates the veiwers perception of what their seeing, giving them them a false impression of events without actually ever lying. Well, actually, he does straight out lie a few times...ok a lot..But anyway, its really nothing more than a "ooh look at me im being all controversial and attacking American Culture and trying to make a matre out of myself even though there arent really any consequences to what im saying..except theyll never give me an oscar no matter how good it is....oh wait.." attention whoring scheme.
- Simpi
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 4:47 am
- Location: Newport, Wales (real home in Finland)
- Contact:
Quess I will have to comment something.
For starters. What is a documentary. Certain basic premises come to mind.
- firstly, the events filmed must be unstages; that is, the events must exist beyond the act of filming them. The unstaging suggests nature of the events in documentaries therefore suggest that the events have an existence outside of cinema. We can call this authenticy.
- Documentaries are conventionally understood to be non-fiction films. Therefore they must be seperated from fiction films, showing real world instead
- It is often assumed that the documentary film maker simply observes and makes an objective record of real events.
Anybody watching any documentary, knows that what you just read is not true. Especially the third point. The one wonder of camera is that it always influences the target it's filming since the subject is aware of it.
Moreover, documentary film makers employ a variety of methods in putting their films together. They do not simply point their camera and let it roll. Film maker cannot just observe because of technical choices - Camera angle, lens, film stock, etc. This will inevitably make the documentary appear personal & subjective.
But most important thing. All films involve selection of filmed material and editing. No film therefore is purely objective and free of bias, because all documentaries manipulate events to achieve dynamic narrative.
Triumph des Willens, Bowling for Columbine, Coalface & Capturing the Friedmans are all documentaries, even if you don't like to admit it.
Now i'll shut up....
For starters. What is a documentary. Certain basic premises come to mind.
- firstly, the events filmed must be unstages; that is, the events must exist beyond the act of filming them. The unstaging suggests nature of the events in documentaries therefore suggest that the events have an existence outside of cinema. We can call this authenticy.
- Documentaries are conventionally understood to be non-fiction films. Therefore they must be seperated from fiction films, showing real world instead
- It is often assumed that the documentary film maker simply observes and makes an objective record of real events.
Anybody watching any documentary, knows that what you just read is not true. Especially the third point. The one wonder of camera is that it always influences the target it's filming since the subject is aware of it.
Moreover, documentary film makers employ a variety of methods in putting their films together. They do not simply point their camera and let it roll. Film maker cannot just observe because of technical choices - Camera angle, lens, film stock, etc. This will inevitably make the documentary appear personal & subjective.
But most important thing. All films involve selection of filmed material and editing. No film therefore is purely objective and free of bias, because all documentaries manipulate events to achieve dynamic narrative.
Triumph des Willens, Bowling for Columbine, Coalface & Capturing the Friedmans are all documentaries, even if you don't like to admit it.
Now i'll shut up....
"Finland is an acquired taste -
- Mike Pondsmith -
- Mike Pondsmith -
- kthulhu
- Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:01 pm
- Location: At the pony stable, brushing the pretty ponies
I thought it was a pretty good documovie. It raised some good points, although I felt it dwelt too much on the negative.
To be more complete and objective, in my book, it could have mentioned that in the 70 year history of NFA firearm (full-auto rifles, machine guns, and other items of that ilk) ownership, there has been one illegal misuse (by a crooked cop working as a mob hitman) of a legally registered full-auto firearm. A better cultural parallel might have been Switzerland, for that matter, which has something like 600,000 military grade assault rifles (in addition to numerous other arms) floating around the country, BY GOVERNMENT DECREE. Why aren't they killing each other in droves?
And finally, touching on some of the anti-gun advocate hypocrisy would've been good, but perhaps too alienating to some of his audience. Pointing out that California senator Dianne Feinstein has a concealed carry permit (virtually impossible for regular citizens to get in California) while she spouts her anti-gun ideals, that Rosie O' Donnell has advocated total gun disarmament while having armed guards for HER family, and Sarah Brady (perhaps the queen of the gun control movement) breaking the law when purchasing a rifle a few years back would have been nice.
Still, I ultimately enjoyed "BFC". I think the film's base is about violence in America, and exploring why we have so much - it's too bad that he doesn't work from that angle more, though.
To be more complete and objective, in my book, it could have mentioned that in the 70 year history of NFA firearm (full-auto rifles, machine guns, and other items of that ilk) ownership, there has been one illegal misuse (by a crooked cop working as a mob hitman) of a legally registered full-auto firearm. A better cultural parallel might have been Switzerland, for that matter, which has something like 600,000 military grade assault rifles (in addition to numerous other arms) floating around the country, BY GOVERNMENT DECREE. Why aren't they killing each other in droves?
And finally, touching on some of the anti-gun advocate hypocrisy would've been good, but perhaps too alienating to some of his audience. Pointing out that California senator Dianne Feinstein has a concealed carry permit (virtually impossible for regular citizens to get in California) while she spouts her anti-gun ideals, that Rosie O' Donnell has advocated total gun disarmament while having armed guards for HER family, and Sarah Brady (perhaps the queen of the gun control movement) breaking the law when purchasing a rifle a few years back would have been nice.
Still, I ultimately enjoyed "BFC". I think the film's base is about violence in America, and exploring why we have so much - it's too bad that he doesn't work from that angle more, though.
- jonmartensen
- Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 11:50 pm
- Location: Gimmickville USA
VersusHeston's Denver speech as edited by Moore wrote:Weeping children outside Columbine, explaining how near they had come to death and how their friends had just been murdered before their eyes;
Cut to Charleton Heston holding a musket over his head and happily proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'" to a cheering NRA crowd.
Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore in voiceover intones: "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charleton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association." [But for this break, the viewer would spot that two different speeches are being merged, since Heston has lavender shirt and tie in the above speech, and white shirt and red tie in the one below.]
Heston (supposedly) continues speech...
"Good Morning. Thank you all for coming, and thank you for supporting your organization. I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today." [Footage of protest outside] "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. [picture of Webb, then back to Heston] He sent me this, and said 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I said to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. [cut to crowd cheering, then back to Heston] Don't come here? We're already here."
["Cold dead hands" is nowhere in the speech. It is actually from a speech given by Heston in Charlotte, N.C., a year later. By swapping in the billboard and his narration, Moore covers the splice.]Heston's speech as actually given wrote:Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning. I am very happy to welcome you to this abbreviated annual gathering of the National Rifle Association. Thank you all for coming and thank you for supporting your organization.
I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today. Of course, you have a right to be here. As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that.
But it's fitting and proper that we should do this. Because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity.
I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here. I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing. But the mayor said don't come.
I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing, don't come here. This is our country. As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land.
They say we'll create a media distraction, but we were preceded here by hundreds of intrusive news crews. They say we'll create political distraction, but it's not been the NRA pressing for political advantage, calling press conferences to propose vast packages of new legislation.
Still they say don't come here. I guess what saddens me the most is how that suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and 80 million honest gun owners are somehow to blame, that we don't care. We don't care as much as they do, or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton.
Don't come here. That's offensive. It's also absurd because we live here. There are thousands of NRA members in Denver, and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado.
NRA members labor in Denver's factories, they populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations, play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the Front Range, parent and teach and coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches and proudly represent Denver in uniform on the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment.
NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.
Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.
So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy.
One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So, let us be mindful. The eyes of the nation are upon us today.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingf ... staged.htm
- Toecutter
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:21 am
- Location: Oregon
Michael Moore doesn't do documentaries. He's far more interested in putting on overdramatic propaganda displays (like the two Columbine survivors who went to Wal Mart to return the bullets lodged in their bodies) to make up for not feeling loved.
I say shoot the bastard with a crossbow. You can't outlaw those yet, and he can't start giving crossbow and compound bow hunters shit without even the liberals getting pissed off.
I say shoot the bastard with a crossbow. You can't outlaw those yet, and he can't start giving crossbow and compound bow hunters shit without even the liberals getting pissed off.
GoatMan
was here!
was here!
- Mroni
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 5:08 pm
- Location: Heading for the 90s living in the 80s sitting in a back room waiting for the big boom
It's a bunch of commie edited bullshit just like everything else Micheal moore writes listen to Rush limbaugh and get a clue.UncleMilo wrote:Bowling for Columbine is a very well made documentary by Michael Moore.
It looks at aspects of
GUN CONTROL
CRIME AND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA (Mostly Gun Related)
THE NRA
COLUMBINE
and other topics related...
It asks some thought-provoking questions and brings up issues we should all think about (and find our answers to)
-Uncle Milo
Mr Oni
Purity is wackable!
"Don't trust me I'm over 40!"
"Don't trust me I'm over 40!"
-
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 11:04 pm
- jonmartensen
- Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 11:50 pm
- Location: Gimmickville USA
- kthulhu
- Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:01 pm
- Location: At the pony stable, brushing the pretty ponies
I'm pretty damn liberal, and I fully support the right to bear arms. Full on, to boot - high capacity magazines, "assault weapons", full-auto weapons (under the current system, at least, although some things could be changed, such as revoking the 1986 legislation that prohibits civilian ownership of weapons made after that year, and allowing more non-Class III holders to own weapons), liberalized concealed carry - you name it, I'm probably for it.
"But Kthulhu", some might say, "what if I want a nuke!? The right to bear arms should cover that, according to my unthinking, weak strawman argument! This is why the Second Amendment is outdated!".
To which I say, go ahead and try to build a nuke. If you have the tremendous amount of knowledge required, the expensive and complex equipment, and most importantly, the very hard to acquire material (good luck getting it - intelligence groups REALLY police that stuff) - and then, if you can put it all together without killing yourself from radiation poisoning, go for it! The rest of us will just kick your ass before you split your first atom.
So yeah, respect the gun, don't fear it, and keep your powder dry.
"But Kthulhu", some might say, "what if I want a nuke!? The right to bear arms should cover that, according to my unthinking, weak strawman argument! This is why the Second Amendment is outdated!".
To which I say, go ahead and try to build a nuke. If you have the tremendous amount of knowledge required, the expensive and complex equipment, and most importantly, the very hard to acquire material (good luck getting it - intelligence groups REALLY police that stuff) - and then, if you can put it all together without killing yourself from radiation poisoning, go for it! The rest of us will just kick your ass before you split your first atom.
So yeah, respect the gun, don't fear it, and keep your powder dry.