Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Michaelson · 04-04-2003, 06:09 PM

Apparently they produce missiles there that could possibly carry nuclear weapons, even if it first and foremost develops stuff for NASA and the like. So the insinuation that the factory produces weapons is a fair way off the mark, but apparently anything Michael Moore says or does will be revered because he's on the right (by which I mean left) side.

Deacon:

Quote:

Two week, three day waiting period, blah blah. Moore got the gun from the bank. How do we know this? Because:

1. A bank employee informs him that they keep the guns at the bank.

2. Same bank employee informs him that the bank is able to do this because they are a licensed gun dealer.

3. Moore is shown being brought the gun he is later seen walking out of the bank with.

Sorry it was so misleading for some. Later I'll explain the plot to Mission: Impossible.

Um, I guess what you're missing is the fact that the scene, it appears, was almost certainly staged. This argument is about the represetativeness of Moore's doco, so it would seem strange to me to point to his doco as though it proves anything.

The point is that they don't keep guns at the bank, they order them in for each person special. You do not pick the guns up on the day, a background check which takes about two weeks has to be performed first. What Moore shows veers dramatically from this.

Sure, Moore has not twisted the truth if you consider the sole purpose of the scene to illustrate that a bank has an offer involving guns. But do you really take such a limited perspective on viewing films? Seriously, how can you deny that a difference of meaning is created when Moore walks in to a bank and walks out with a gun, making several comments about how easy the process is, considering that what actually happens is that you go home and wait for two weeks then get notified of whether or not your application has been accepted?

Perhaps if you look at it this way: Consider the scene entirely in terms of how responsible it seems this banks policy of handing out guns is. I know this isn't the correct way to view the scene. The only correct perspective is to view the scene in terms of its presentation a bank that has something to do with guns, and of course to look any deeper at the scene than that is stupid. But hypothetically, let's presume that someone, somewhere viewed the scene and took away from it a bit more than the accepted interpretation, and that something related to the question of how responsible the bank was in the way it administered its policy of giving certain customers guns instead of interest payments. Do you think that Moore's film could lead that person to having a mislead perspective?

Strawberry · 04-04-2003, 11:25 PM

First, let me say that I outright cried when I watched "Bowling for Columbine" the first time and I loved Moore's Oscar speech.

But I must say I was suspicious during "Bowling" because he so rarely cites sources for his information. "Real" documentaries often say where their info is coming from right in the documentary. I think what Moore is saying is good, the message is right, and he really hits a bunch of nerves. But I did leave with a feeling it was likely pretty embellished. He really works the audience, i.e. says things in such a way as to extract the maximum audience response, not necessarily in such a way as to represent the truth with total accuracy or even make the audience feel that he is doing so.

I'd say "Bowling" is more like a video editorial than like an actual documentary. Which is OK, although it would have been nice if it had been presented that way.

I still loved the film.

Deacon · 04-07-2003, 07:42 AM

This was posted on Roger Ebert's website and I think it wraps this up rather well:

Quote:

Q. I was the "Bowling for Columbine" producer who scouted the bank that gives you a gun. I was there for Michael Moore's only and entire visit to the bank and was dismayed to see you repeating an outright lie about this scene. Mike walked into North County Bank and walked out with a gun in less than an hour. He opened a CD account, they faxed in his check, it came back all clear, and a bank official handed him his rifle. The crew, Mike and I then drove to directly the barber shop where Mike bought the bullets for his new rifle just as you see in the film. All this occurred before lunch that day, the final day of filming. Then everyone flew home. Maybe you ought to expose the origin of this lie rather than repeat this easily refuted fabrication.

A. I am happy to oblige. It originated at

www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html ?id=110003233

Of the bank incident Gibbs mentions, author John Fund writes:

"Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. 'What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing,' she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. 'Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period,' she says."

I asked Michael Moore about this report. His response: "I walked in cold. It happened exactly as you see in the film. A producer did call ahead and said I wanted to come in. It is not true that an ordinary person could not have walked in and gotten a gun. No need to go to a gun shop; they had 500 guns in their vault. There's a 2001 story in the St. Petersburg Times about how the bank is proud as a peacock about its gun offer."

Another critical analysis of the film is at

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth?186-14...3?Bowling.html

On this site, David T. Hardy, a lawyer associated with the National Rifle Assn., raises questions about the accuracy and fairness of many sequences in the movie. One point he makes is that "Bowling for Columbine" misquotes a plaque on a B-52 bomber at the Air Force Academy. Hardy writes: "Moore solemnly pronounces that the plaque under it 'proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972'...The plaque actually reads, 'Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of "Diamond Lil" shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during "Linebacker II" action on Christmas eve 1972.' "

Moore's response: "I was making a point about the carpet bombing of Vietnam during the 1972 Christmas offensive. I did not say exactly what the plaque said but was paraphrasing."

I think here he is fudging. Few audience members would have considered it a paraphrase. It would also appear that his depiction of a Charlton Heston speech is less than accurate. You can compare the "Bowling for Columbine" verison at

http://ufies.org/archives/000586.html

with this transcript of Heston's original speech:

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/meeting99/hestsp1.html

I sometimes suspect that Moore takes as his motto these words by Huck Finn about an earlier book in which Huck figured: "That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly. There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth."

Moore told me: "I don't know what category to put my films in. They're like a film version of the op-ed page, and not a traditional documentary. They are cinematic essays presenting my point of view. I may be right or wrong, but if I state something as a fact, I need the viewers to trust that those facts are correct."

The debate about specific facts in "Bowling for Columbine" has grown in such intensity and attention to detail that it requires the dedication of a Kennedy assassination buff. The Answer Man recommends you read both of the sites above, as well as michaelmoore.com, where he says he is posting a point-by-point reply to his critics, complete with documents, affidavits, etc. I also recommend that Moore preface his next film with the quote from Mark Twain.

Here's a link which has more to it: http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-...y-ebert06.html

I still contend that "Bowling for Columbine" is not misleading nor willfully dishonest. I do think Moore takes leaps in drawing conclusions, but he has that right to do so.

King Rat · 04-07-2003, 03:31 PM

Quote:

I still contend that "Bowling for Columbine" is not misleading nor willfully dishonest. I do think Moore takes leaps in drawing conclusions, but he has that right to do so.

He's got every right to be wrong.

[jimmydurante]
That's what's great about America!
[/jimmydurante]

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

04-04-2003, 11:25 PM	#112
Strawberry Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Lancaster, PA/Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 627	First, let me say that I outright cried when I watched "Bowling for Columbine" the first time and I loved Moore's Oscar speech. But I must say I was suspicious during "Bowling" because he so rarely cites sources for his information. "Real" documentaries often say where their info is coming from right in the documentary. I think what Moore is saying is good, the message is right, and he really hits a bunch of nerves. But I did leave with a feeling it was likely pretty embellished. He really works the audience, i.e. says things in such a way as to extract the maximum audience response, not necessarily in such a way as to represent the truth with total accuracy or even make the audience feel that he is doing so. I'd say "Bowling" is more like a video editorial than like an actual documentary. Which is OK, although it would have been nice if it had been presented that way. I still loved the film.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.