Hubble head

Some might say he is doing nothing more than manufacturing consent for his own POV's. Who else do we know that does that on a daily, err hourly basis???

HaysooChreesto!

So what's the point? Is it okay for Moore to do it because one suspects that others do the same?
There's a difference between war reporting where things change on a minute by minute basis and having months and months of time to put together a documentary. Moore is intentionally deceptive and dishonest in his films yet he wins awards for them? That's just wrong.
Not only is it wrong but renders any of his points he's trying to make invalid because he's so dishonest.

Deacon

There's a line in JFK where Kevin Costner says "theoretical physics can prove that a daisy can hold the wait of an elephant by it's tail." (paraphrasing)

'Bowling for Columbine' isn't an anti-gun movie. It's a movie where Moore goes out and tries to figure out why gun violence in our country is proportionality higher than that in other countries. Having seen it, I think Moore's conclusion is that we're a nation living in fear. It's done in a very entertaining fashion, often taking facts and using them for his arguments. You can't deny what happened didn't really happen, but the conclusions are where things get argumentative.

Having been looking at what Lamma posted, the arguments made by the documentary filmmaker David T. Hardy are asinine. Bitter filmmaker who obviously is frustrated he can't get the funding that Moore does.

Bookman

C'mon Deacon. You can do better than that. Can you provide some of the specific rebuttals to the case made by Hardy, or at least point to the work of others?

Bookman

Deacon

One thing Hardy doesn't mention is that Moore includes footage of a protest rally held against NRA's meeting. Hardy claims that corporate laws prevented the NRA from rescheduling. Now, if they cancel the meeting, does that mean they go to corporate jail? And since when is the NRA really a true corporation?

It should also be pointed out that Moore is a card carrying member of the NRA.

One thing that keeps coming up as untrue that having seen the film I can't believe it's attacked is where Moore (I believe it's the first scene) goes to a Michigan bank and picks up a rifle for opening a checking account. The claim is that Moore staged it and did not get the gun at the bank. Well, then why is he on camera asking the bank teller is he will get his gun today? and she says yes, and he asks if he has to go to a gun store and she says no, they're a licensed gun retailer so they can give customers their guns on that day. And then they go to the vault to get his gun that he is seen walking out of the bank with.

Here's what was posted off Elder's site:

BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, "if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun." He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun.
ACTUALLY: Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check.

I gotta say that's bullshit. There's no way. Unless the bank employees were lying to him.

On Elder's site, consider who these attacks are coming from:

David T. Hardy, a documentary filmmaker who is working on his own 2nd Amendment film and apparently has as he says 1/10th the budget of Bowling for Columbine (wanting to get funding Dave?)

Forbes magazine, not exactly the most liberal of publications.

Spinsanity.org. Rush Limbaugh wanna be rag.

Kinross

I never said it was.


I don't see that at all. I think Hardy makes some vary good points.

The issue isn't what Moore has to say it is the way he says it. He claims his movie is a "documentary" and it isn't. A documentary is an objective showing of facts. Moore manipulates the facts, borderlining on propaganda, to make his argument as Hardy has demonstrated.

Bookman

Roger Ebert (hardly a shill for the right, you'd be forced to agree) dealt "with the walk into the bank walk out with a gun issue" in his most recent "Movie Answer Man" column in a response to mail from Michael Moore himself.

Here is the apparent exchange:
Ebert, writing in his Oscar preview:
Moore's response, in his letter from the column linked above:
Ebert's reply as found in the column:
In other words, what is alleged is that the event was staged. While the substance of the piece is intact (a bank giving away guns is significant, I suppose), staging an event like this does question his integrity as a documentarian.

Who gives a damn what the source is if the arguments are solid? Can you address the points raised by Hardy or do you want to simply dismiss them out of hand because you like Moore's conclusions?

Bookman

Hubble head

I didn't mean to imply that what he was did was right, just that both sides are equally guilty of hiding or twisting certain points to persuade the masses.

He did raise some good points about our fears breeding the desire for guns and who fuels that fear for us. His use of the editing room to make us hear only the words he wants us to hear is shameful though.

Jacey

Read the rest here..........

Deacon

okey dokey:

Hardy's basic problem is that he's criticizing Moore for the way he made his documentary. Moore's style is more of taking an idea and running with it, finding evidence to support his ideas as it grows as if to say, "Hey, maybe one reason why the Columbine massacre happened was because they made (or once made) rockets that carried nuclear warheads on them thus laying the ground work for a community that could lead some kids to be desensitized to violence." Silly arugument? Maybe... but it's a small part of the doc., and really an opportunity for Moore to do what he does best, go after big corporation.

Hardy also says: "NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. The dominant theme in Bowling (and certainly the theme that has attracted most reviewers) is that NRA is callous toward slayings. The theme begins early in the film, and forms its ending, as Moore confronts Heston, asserting that he keeps going to the scene of tragedies to hold defiant rallies."

Okay, dominant theme my ass. It's one part of a larger picture. Yes, the film concludes with Moore interviewing Heston and Heston walking out of the interview. But taking the NRA to task is a very small part of it. What about Moore taking two Columbine survivors to Kmart's World Headquarters? And then Kmart acknowledging that they would scale down and phase out the selling of guns and ammo?

Hardy goes on:

Alright, so Moore sets up his NRA coming to Colorado 10 days after Columbine with the most infamous footage of Heston as president of the NRA (which I believe was a dig at Al Gore and the democrats, but could be wrong). And as far as Heston showing up in Flint, MI (Moore's backyard), ultimately, ever since Heston has taken over as president of the NRA, whether it be an NRA "corporate meeting" or him supporting a candidate, it's inherently going to be a pro-gun rally. That's true of the leader of any special interest group.

Hardy goes on:
Moore doesn't dispute these things, what he does dispute is that had the mother been home or been able to keep her home as a direct result of the Michigan welfare program, then she would likely have been in a position to prevent her son from getting her hands on a handgun. What Hardy really should ask about Moore is why go after Chuck Heston about a kid who got a gun that was obtained illegally in the first place? I say it's largely because the opportunity presented itself (Heston being in Flint).

The Cartoon -- Hardy criticizes it for the allusions that are made that the KKK and the NRA are in effect the same organization. Well, first of all, it's a cartoon (yes in a documentary so I'll elaborate). The IDEA behind the cartoon was to illustrate in an entertaining fashion, the relationship between guns and fear in this country. Was Moore not entirely accurate in his historical cartoon that shows pilgrims shooting an Indian on first site? Well, maybe. The Cartoon is expressing Moore's idea / stance / opinion in a very entertaining fashion.

Hardy goes on:
And then Hardy goes on to list statistics regarding population density and homicide rate. But Hardy dodges the fact that Canada's urban homicide death rate is also much lower.

A big problem with tearing apart Bowling for Columbine is that everyone expects it to be held to journalistic standards and you can't do that. It doesn't have to be impartial, even though I think Moore is impartial in the sense that he wants to know why and sets out on a journey to find out and documents it. He uses vertical editing, tons of stock footage, to take and idea and run with it. It's not cannon, it's an essay. An idea supported by stock footage, interviews, interactions, etc. There is sooo much more too this film than what Hardy is attacking. What about the interview with Terry Nichols' brother? What about the tour Moore takes in South Central LA at the same street corner where the LA riots happened. What about the interview with the producer of COPS?

The best argument made in the film is made about 3/4's of the way through where Moore suggests that America has become a crazed, paranoid nation and are those the kind of people you really want around handguns?