Bowling for Columbine...

[Carolus Rex]

I saw it last night and I would like to hear the opinions of people living in (especially) the US. What were your reactions when you saw it? Do you feel that it is highly biased or do you think there is a kernel of truth in the statements it makes? Was there anything that struck you as odd about your country when you watched it (hint no. 1: like getting a gun when opening a bank account?! , hint no. 2: you only get one gun?! )?

On a more trivial note: when they talked about locking the door of your home, I was sure they meant when people weren't home. However, it turns out they talked about when you're actually home, in your house... Do you, i.e. Apolytoner living in the US, actually lock the door when you're home? Moore went to Canada and seemed surprised that people who were home hadn't locked? To me, this is completely normal...

If there already is an old thread on the matter, please link to it.

Carolus

[Carolus Rex]

BTW, please don't turn this into a "Bashing the US"-thread.

Carolus

[Lincoln]

I don't lock my house whether I am there or not. But I am from rural Tennessee. This is not like San Francisco or New York. When I lived inSalt Lake City though I also did not lock my house.

[Lincoln]

I didn't see the movie (or whatever it was) by the way, but if they are giving out free guns at the bank would you mind telling me what bank it is? I could use another good rifle...

[Sava]

Having the doors unlocked while you are home doesn't seem like a big deal to me. But there are many other Americans who live in different conditions. I'm sure if I lived in a high-crime, urban area, I'd have my door bolted at all times.

[The Mad Monk]

I lock my door more thoroughly when I 'm home than when I'm not.

[Kropotkin]

I actually though "Me and Roger" was better. Michael Moore is sometimes more entertaining than informative but that doesn't mean that he sometimes finds out something that's worth listening to. While I hardly think that's Moore's theory explains all I do however think it's a decent attempt to dig a little bit deeper into the problem than is usually done by either side in this tiresome issue.

I'm not in the position to say if americans are more scared than people around here for example but in many ways there seems to be indications of that.

[Wraith]

It's full of crap. It's a shockumentary, not a documentary, even though it's been passed off as one. Rather disgusting that the Academy gave it an award for being a documentary...

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Wraith
"Everybody has the right to express what he thinks. That, of course, lets the crackpot in. But if you can't tell a crackpot when you see one, then you ought to be taken in."
-- Harry Truman

[Shi Huangdi]

Here is an article about it I read in my school paper I found interesting:

OPINIONS
Shoddy research and fuzzy logic earn Moore an Oscar
by Will Minton
Columnist
March 31, 2003


Michael Moore's comments at the Oscars - "We live in a time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president, who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons ... Shame on you, Mr. Bush." - and the boos that followed, shocked viewers and initiated a slew of news and entertainment broadcasters to wrap up the segments they did on it by saying something along the lines of, "But that sure was a brilliant documentary, Sally," "Yes Jack, absolutely captivating."

And that - the reverence given to Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine" - is the real shock in all of this.

I remember leaving the theater after watching "Bowling for Columbine" thinking it was extremely well done. It made me think. I now know that all the thought I did was, besides being an effective analytic exercise, a waste of time.

"Bowling for Columbine," and Moore's work in general, is a fabricated ensemble of half-truths, whose approach to the issue at hand is more cunning than coherent.

One of the most credible scenes is an interview with Barry Glassner, author of "The Culture of Fear." The book contends that culturally, Americans are prone to sensationalism and fear and the media caters to this. It addresses several fictitious problems Americans perceive, or have perceived, to be threatening them - things like killer bees and flesh-eating bacteria.

Glassner also talks about school shootings and youth violence as a fictitious problem created by the media. But that part isn't in Moore's film. After all, the outbreak of school violence is the main pillar of Moore's argument in favor of gun control.

Throughout the "documentary" Moore repeatedly assaults the National Rifle Association, from its founding and practices to a personal, albeit indirect, attack on its president, Charlton Heston.

Heston is painted as a racist by a sound bite - taken from the surprise interview Moore greeted Heston with after deceiving him to get in his door - where he suggests that the violence in America might be attributed to the racial diversity of the nation.

In actuality, Heston was just acknowledging the unfortunate level of racism in our country and the fact that it causes violence. Heston's personal civil rights record is commendable. He worked with Martin Luther King Jr. and even led a component of his 1963 march in Washington and has been a vocal civil rights activist ever since.

But this suggestion by Moore is really just an extension of his contention that the NRA began as a racist institution. A delightful little cartoon asks "Isn't it funny that the NRA began the same year the KKK was deemed illegal?" An interesting question until one realizes that the NRA was founded by two ex-union officers and elected Ulysses S. Grant its eighth president after he spent much of his other presidency, that as president of the United States, coming down hard on several chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. Moore also fails to mention that many blacks in the South joined the NRA as a way to gain weapons to fight against white aggression.

Moore also tries to pass off an appearance and some quick remarks Heston made at a get-out-the-vote rally in Flint, Mich. eight months after a school shooting there as, "Another gun rally shortly after another child/gun tragedy in Flint."

Moore also tries to link $245 million he says the United States gave the Taliban to Sept.11, 2001. The fact that it was actually United Nations and non-governmental organization money given as humanitarian assistance to fight famine is apparently not important.

Even the way numerical figures are presented is irresponsible and misleading. The numbers given for gun homicide rates in the United States versus those of other countries are not adjusted for population or population density. The 11,127 gun homicide deaths in the United States reported in "Bowling for Columbine" is confusing since 8,719 in 2001 is the highest number recorded by the FBI since 1997. When placed against actual government figures, the figures given for other countries face similar discrepancy. And his array of foreign country homicide rates excludes Switzerland, home of the most armed populace in Europe and a lower crime rate than Great Britain.

Moore's deception is rampant throughout the movie. From editing that doctors a speech by Heston to misrepresenting a factory that makes rockets used to launch satellites as a weapons factory, nothing in this movie is to be trusted.

I could go on, and this is still just "Bowling for Columbine." His books suffer from similar deception and irresponsible research. Hell, he's not even funny.

Will Minton would like to thank David T. Hardy for his research and can't wait for the "real world" where research techniques that would now earn him a D can get him an Oscar. He can be reached at WMinton@pittnews.com.

http://www.pittnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/03/31/3e87bd4b85f3f?in_archive=1

[Kropotkin]

Surely he wouldn't have been edited out of the re runs of the Oscars if he had hold a speech praising Bush and his politics but maybe that's beside the point.

As for Heston, one wonders if he couldn't say that himself as Moore clearly didn't get his point. IIRC Moore asked him a question in return and he wasn't able to answer. Call me harsh but as I see it the leader for a influencial organisation should be able to defend and explain his opinions.

Obviously Michael Moore wants to spread his message through provocation, not by unbiased and cold facts. Sadly he's not alone with that, quite the opposite. Just look at Ned that's about to stop watching CNN because they had a reported that reported something that didn't fit into his perception. People wants news that confirms their beliefs, that's probably why people get all emotional about Moore. One way or the other.

Looking past Moore's behavior and techniques I'm might actually think that it's his theory that is interesting.

[Sandman]

It was pretty funny, but I didn't find the factual content or the theory behind it all that convincing.

[Kropotkin]

I'm more into wage differentials and such myself but maybe they are connected. Wage differentials in a state with a small public sector in combination with ethnic tensions leads to fear amoungst the rich and middle class. Come on, such a stupid thing as gated communities must come from some kind of iirational fear.

[Zero]

Shi, thats a really interesting quote you got there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm glad most Apolytoners realize he molds the facts to fit his viewpoint. I refer to him as the left's Rush Limbaugh.

[Q Classic]

i found the film and absolutely hilarious at times, and others, just wrong.

i fail to see how protesting kmart was a documentary bit. looked more like sensationalism to me.

**** clark? he's michael moore. he's famous. he could have set up a real interview, rather than just appearing in front of him and make **** clark look like an ass.

with charlton heston, he could have not used as many leading questions.

but terry nichol's brother, man...