Bowling for Mooreverse

[notyoueither]

I agree with the culture of fear bit, but why?

Is it something that happens in large countries? With lots of weapons? Where media are 'free' to report the 'news'?

I don't think Moore was very productive with much of his rant.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I like him because he's creative in his methodology. He's a master of agitprop. Coulter is more blatant, less crative and far less entertaining. For that reason she raises my hackles more than somebody who can amuse me at the same time as they push their message.

Coulter will call somebody an *******. Moore will use all of his talents in front of and behind the camera to convince you that they are an *******.

And Coulter is quite possibly more insane than Moore, though I'm not sure about that one.

Of course he amuses you and she grates. You agree with his slant and are diametrically opposed to hers.

Moore didn't do a very good job 'using his talents' when he stuck it to the NRA and then moved on to 'gun happy Canada' though, did he? More like he was too stupid to see that he just lampooned his own lampoon.

I agree that Coulter is more insane, but Mike's putting up a good show.

[KrazyHorse]

I think it was as decent an investigation of a diffuse and difficult problem as you're likely to see in a film which is designed to reach a mass audience.

I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but from the outtakes I have seen, it seems to be more the Moore I know from The Big One, Roger and Me, The Awful Truth, etc.

That's why I find it so astounding that people get so pissed about BfC

You can't really expect scholarly from MM, but BfC is as close as you'll get, and it wasn't a bad job for what it was.

[notyoueither]

I guess I saw the warts. I just saw it recently and viewed it through the lens with which I would view a Pravda production. ie, pure propaganda.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Moore didn't do a very good job 'using his talents' when he stuck it to the NRA and then moved on to 'gun happy Canada' though, did he? More like he was too stupid to see that he just lampooned his own lampoon.

On the contrary, I give him more credit than you do.

"I may be nuts, but I'm not stupid", as the punchline goes.

I think what he was really trying to do was to present a range of causes, and force his audience to think about them. More so than in any other Moore work I got the impression that he himself hadn't made up his mind about the ultimate causes.

Most telling was the fact that in the worst blast against the NRA he got Heston to come out with what could be either a racist statement or the horse learning to sing: that the US "is racially mixed", as a cause for violence. Or that xenophobia due to a badly-integrated racial minority causes a broader-based fear?

[notyoueither]

And why would Heston saying anything be meaningful if number of guns is not the cause?

To paint an opponent badly?

Propaganda.

[KrazyHorse]

Personally, my opinion on the causes of a significantly higher murder rate in the US compared to other Western countries goes as follows:

1) Easier legal and illegal access to a larger range of weapons, especially those which lend themselves better to urban use

2) Greater societal acceptance of the possession and use of these weapons in the defense of person and property

3) Greater social inequality and desperation among the underclasses leading to a willingness to resort to deadly force both in the commission of crimes and "just because"

Nothing all that complicated, but all the issues are of course highly politicised. It's impossible to point to one of these as a sole cause.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And why would Heston saying anything be meaningful if number of guns is not the cause?

To paint an opponent badly?

Propaganda.

It's not the sole cause. It's one of them.

See the post above this one.

Heston isn't just an opponent in the film, but Moore really did have a score to settle with him over the Colorado NRA rally immediately after Columbine.

He paid him back for that, but also got him to move the focus onto another issue he wanted to cover, namely the racial aspect of violence in the US (even when not a direct cause)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Personally, my opinion on the causes of a significantly higher murder rate in the US compared to other Western countries goes as follows:

1) Easier legal and illegal access to a larger range of weapons, especially those which lend themselves better to urban use

2) Greater societal acceptance of the possession and use of these weapons in the defense of person and property

3) Greater social inequality and desperation among the underclasses leading to a willingness to resort to deadly force both in the commission of crimes and "just because"

Nothing all that complicated, but all the issues are of course highly politicised. It's impossible to point to one of these as a sole cause.

Hmmm.

Those would be good places to look, dispassionately. Unfortunately, Moore hasn't been bothered by a dispassionate thought in over twenty years, from appearances. That's why his rants aren't very helpful beyond firing up the believers.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It's not the sole cause. It's one of them.

See the post above this one.

Heston isn't just an opponent in the film, but Moore really did have a score to settle with him over the Colorado NRA rally immediately after Columbine.

He paid him back for that, but also got him to move the focus onto another issue he wanted to cover, namely the racial aspect of violence in the US (even when not a direct cause)

So, you admit that Moore is the video Hearst of the age?

[KrazyHorse]

He's not an academic.

He's a master of agitprop. I said that 10 posts ago.

But of all his stuff, BfC is the least-objectionable from a scholarly point of view. His other stuff is pretty much pure propaganda. He drives relentlessly to his point in them. BfC is much more diffuse and drives much more of an argument than a set conclusion.

[notyoueither]

I think using scholarly and Moore in the same sentence is a huge mistake.

Doh!

[KrazyHorse]

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Seeker
There was a segment that was perplexing to me. He was interviewing some Canadians about if they 'lock their doors' and they were all saying they didn't. What did he mean by 'lock your doors'?

This struck me as a little weird, I mean maybe in some peaceful small town people don't lock their doors, but if you walk out the door in Toronto you definetly lock it behind you.

Maybe I was misunderestimating the question?

Americans don't actually lock their doors when they are still inside the house do they?

I mean, I always lock my door when I go out, but I don't think I've ever locked the door when I'm actually at home in broad daylight. Why would I?

Yes some people lock their doors while inside.
And this is way more prevalent in the US.

[KrazyHorse]

I've always locked my door when I'm inside. In the suburbs of Montreal, in the city of Montreal and in Baltimore.

Not necessarily when I'm sitting in my front room (where I can keep track of who's coming in and out), but I don't want to go upstairs and play on my computer for two hours with my front door unlocked. I might come downstairs and find my TV gone...