Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dangin · 03-31-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZiprHead

To take jabs at Moore for leaving parts out, especially by a documentary film maker is intellectual dishonesty. Hardy knows this is how it's done. While I've not seen a film by Hardy, I'd bet my bottom dollar that he's already done the same. The bottom line is that Hardy just doesn't like the direction Moore's film took and is looking for straw men to knock down.

I haven't seen BfC, but I am a documentarian, and I wrestle with cutting people's sound bites down all the time. The thought that is consistent in my head is that when the interviewee sees the film, will what I have him saying match up with what he intended to say during the interview. If not, then I failed as a documentarian, or I succeeded as a promotor, or propagandist.

King Rat · 03-31-2003, 02:26 PM

Bears repeating;

Quote:

If not, then I failed as a documentarian, or I succeeded as a promotor, or propagandist.

:notworthy

Deacon · 03-31-2003, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Rat
Bears repeating;

:notworthy

None of the interviews in Bowling for Columbine were edited to manipulate what the person said. Moore uses too many extended, unedited shots. The only thing that is ALLEGEDLY edited (and this claim being put forth by those who are anti-Moore) is Heston's speech at the NRA meeting in Denver. And I think we've already been down that road.

Bookman, I am not ducking your post, I will get to that tomorrow.

Michaelson · 03-31-2003, 07:16 PM

Interesting article that is not entirely against Moore, but just accuses him of being sloppy: http://www.geocities.com/evil_spoon/...orlockheed.htm

Quote:

In addition to his factual distortions, there were specific places where I felt that he made weak arguments. For instance, a great deal of screen time is devoted to the presence of Lockheed Martin in Littleton. Lockheed is the world's #1 defense contractor, and the parents of many students at Columbine High School work at the Littleton facility, which is the company's world headquarters. Moore suggests that there is a strong connection between the shootings and the fact that the parents of Columbine children spend their days building nuclear missiles and other weapons of war. He intones that "Missiles roll through town in the dead of night while the children of Columbine sleep." We are treated to a mini-tour of the Littleton facility, and Moore questions a Lockheed employee, asking if he might agree that there is a connection between the presence of the world's #1 defense contractor in town and the shootings. "Is that a connection that you'd think was valid?" he asks. The employee, standing in front of a half-completed missile, disagrees, saying "No, that's not a connection I'd make." The audience laughs, and the film cuts to footage of the missiles rolling through town.

I thought his point was tenuous at best---I think we would be better served by looking at more direct factors. I got into an argument with a friend who thought his point was compelling. Never one to be proven wrong in an argument, I started doing some research. I went to Lockheed's website, where you can see exactly what they build and where. The Littleton facility seemed to be the headquarters for Lockheed's aerospace division; however, there were vague mentions of "defense contracts," and I thought perhaps that might include missiles. Deciding to go straight to the source, I clicked on the "contact us" button on their site. I sent the following message to Martha Hirschfield, whose address popped up:

"I recently saw the Michael Moore documentary Bowling for Columbine. Most reviewers seem to have taken at face value his claim that nuclear missiles roll through Littleton while the children sleep. Your web site seems to say that you primarily do projects for NASA, such as space delivery systems and the like. Which is true, or are both true?"

(He doesn't use the word "nuclear" in connection with these specific missiles, but he talks about "weapons of mass destruction" being built in Littleton.) I was considerably surprised when I received a response right from the horse's mouth: Evan McCollum, the poor guy Moore interviewed. He pointed out a basic problem with Moore's "connection": they don't make missiles in Littleton.

They don't make attack helicopters, jets, or the Stealth bomber either. Littleton is the headquarters for Lockheed's aerospace production. They build much of NASA's fleet of ships, and they make Titan rockets that carry payloads into space. In McCollum's words, "The word 'missiles' implies a weapon. Although other units of Lockheed Martin Corporation elsewhere in the country produce weapons ... we make no weapons at the Littleton-area facility Moore visited." Those "missiles" rolling through town are Titan rockets. McCollum said this:

"Some viewers also may be left with the impression that we transport our space launch vehicles at night for some questionable reason. The fact is they are huge and move slowly; we prefer to avoid causing traffic jams, so we transport them from our facility to the airport at night when traffic is comparatively much lighter."

And guess what? Moore knew this. Anyone who checked Lockheed's website would know it too. McCollum says "I provided specific information to Moore about the space launch vehicles we build to launch spacecraft for NASA, NOAA, the Dept. of Defense and commercial customers, including DirecTV and EchoStar." That's right. The Littleton facility is responsible for such weapons of mass destruction as the DirecTV satellite. Moore knew that his claims about what Lockheed did in Littleton were false, but he made them anyway, trusting that nobody whose opinion mattered to him would bother checking.

There's more to it than that, read the article if you have an interest. The author suggests that it is poor logic to dismiss all of Moore's ideas on the basis of a few examples where he shows litle disregard for the truth, which is a fair point. However, if he distorts facts in this way, then how can any of his films or tv spots be viewed with any faith?

Moore doesn't just present subjective facts, he alters what he shoots to match his agenda. That is dishonest.

Whether or not the kids went bowling doesn't really bother me, it's not a major point in the film. Similarly, I'm not sure whether Heston's speech was messed around with too much. But the Lockhead Martin, and the bank that hands out guns part, and the work for welfare part all seem to me to be completely dishonest. They don't discredit his other points, but they discredit his movies, because if research reveals fabrication as crude as the Lockhead Martin example, then it becomes very hard to accept the rest of what he says on face value.

dangin · 04-01-2003, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deacon
None of the interviews in Bowling for Columbine were edited to manipulate what the person said.

What would you call what was done to Heston's speech? Granted that was not an interview, but comparing the side by side transcripts seems to clearly show some change in meaning. So either Moore is bad at his job, or he is doing it deliberately.

ZiprHead · 04-01-2003, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin
What would you call what was done to Heston's speech? Granted that was not an interview, but comparing the side by side transcripts seems to clearly show some change in meaning. So either Moore is bad at his job, or he is doing it deliberately.

Please explain what was changed. My opinion was that it wasn't.

dangin · 04-01-2003, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZiprHead
Please explain what was changed. My opinion was that it wasn't.

And probably a valid opinion.

But,

Moore VOs "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 cuts from Heston's speech "I am very happy to welcome you to this abbreviated annual gathering of the National Rifle Association. . . 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."

Moore is accusing them of calousness, yet does not include the bit that indicates they shut down everything they could except the "annual meeting" which "must be held" despite the lack of Deacon's "Corporate Jail" or whatever he said. Does this change the meaning of Heston's words? No, but it does show Moore selecting to exclude some information which would have softened his blow against Chuck, the NRA, et al.

Another example is this soundbite from BfC "I said to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land."

IN fact that is not what Chuck said to the mayor, that is what he was saying to the NRA crowd. Moore's editing creates the impression that a defiant NRA,(fronted by heston) were coming to Denver no matter what.

And the "don't come here, we're already here" is something else that is tacked on to the message to the mayor by Moore, when it is actually several paragraphs down. While it might be what Heston wanted to say to the Mayor, it is not what he said according to the transcript.

Now does the sum of this alter Heston's meaning. Yes, a little. Does the editing make the NRA less sympathetic based on this information alone? Yes, clearly. And this is not even including the clip from another speech which is tacked on in the editing to seem as though it were from this speech. (does chuck wear the same suit everytime he speaks?)

Opera Nut · 04-01-2003, 10:04 PM

Moore has written an editorial about why he said what he did at the Oscars about a fictitious president and fictitious news. He went to Mass and thought about "thou shalt not kill" and the fact that every major religious leader including JP 2, has condemned this war.

Yes, what he said was inflammatory but I defend his right to say it. He has more balls than Brando. Some of you are old enough to remember 1973. Brando won the Best Actor statue for The Godfather, but sent an actress, Maria Cruz, stage name Sacheen Littlefeather, down to reject his Oscar and make a speech about the unfair treatment of Native Americans in movies. Brando was using that woman with his money and power.

Wyz_sub10 · 04-02-2003, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin
What would you call what was done to Heston's speech? Granted that was not an interview, but comparing the side by side transcripts seems to clearly show some change in meaning. So either Moore is bad at his job, or he is doing it deliberately.

[deleted text]

Sorry, I hadn't yet read your reply above when I posted a similar question.

Wyz_sub10 · 04-02-2003, 06:31 AM

dangin, as I had posted earlier, I think Moore's version was actually less damning than Heston's own words.

Take an excerpt that you provided:

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin
But cuts from Heston's speech "I am very happy to welcome you to this abbreviated annual gathering of the National Rifle Association. . . 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."

I think this is a terrible statement for Heston to make. In essence, the situation "perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands" of NRA members. Don't you think this *does* sound callous in light of the fact that while some members may be "perplexed" and "inconvenienced", kids were killed and the community blind-sided by the events? It's like saying "sorry for the inconvenience to all those who had to wait a week to fly after 9/11."

Quote:

Moore is accusing them of calousness, yet does not include the bit that indicates they shut down everything they could except the "annual meeting" which "must be held" despite the lack of Deacon's "Corporate Jail" or whatever he said. Does this change the meaning of Heston's words? No, but it does show Moore selecting to exclude some information which would have softened his blow against Chuck, the NRA, et al.

Yes, Moore does omit the part where it must be held, by law. Must it still be held in Denver? Well, too late to change it, I suppose.

Quote:

Another example is this soundbite from BfC "I said to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land."

IN fact that is not what Chuck said to the mayor, that is what he was saying to the NRA crowd. Moore's editing creates the impression that a defiant NRA,(fronted by heston) were coming to Denver no matter what.

And the "don't come here, we're already here" is something else that is tacked on to the message to the mayor by Moore, when it is actually several paragraphs down. While it might be what Heston wanted to say to the Mayor, it is not what he said according to the transcript.

I don't know. Even reading the original transcript it seemed that Heston was definitely addressing the mayor's concerns, or general concerns about the NRA not being "welcomed". I don't really think this changes the meaning, but I can see how you may think so.

Quote:

Now does the sum of this alter Heston's meaning. Yes, a little. Does the editing make the NRA less sympathetic based on this information alone? Yes, clearly. And this is not even including the clip from another speech which is tacked on in the editing to seem as though it were from this speech. (does chuck wear the same suit everytime he speaks?) [/B]

But Moore also does not include two references Heston makes to the NRA as victims of what has happened. I think this is just disgusting given the situation, and it certainly taints any apologetic motions Heston may have made at the onset of his speech.

04-01-2003, 10:04 PM	#78
Opera Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,671	MM's Oscar Remarks Moore has written an editorial about why he said what he did at the Oscars about a fictitious president and fictitious news. He went to Mass and thought about "thou shalt not kill" and the fact that every major religious leader including JP 2, has condemned this war. Yes, what he said was inflammatory but I defend his right to say it. He has more balls than Brando. Some of you are old enough to remember 1973. Brando won the Best Actor statue for The Godfather, but sent an actress, Maria Cruz, stage name Sacheen Littlefeather, down to reject his Oscar and make a speech about the unfair treatment of Native Americans in movies. Brando was using that woman with his money and power.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.