Bookman

Setting aside your strawman about Donald Trump and the cute little rolleyes smiley...

If it is true that most customers could not go into the bank and walk out with a gun (i.e. if what has been alleged about collecting their gun at a gun shop, not the bank), do you feel that it is misleading for Moore to show himself doing otherwise in what he calls a documentary?

If your answer is yes, you think that this is a factual representation which belongs in a documentary then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Bookman

P.S. I did intend for my statement to be in the hypothetical. Please feel free to change "does question" to "would question" in the final statement which you have quoted.

fatherphil

btw could somebody clear something up for me?
was he more pissed about bush being president or the country going to war?

beth

He's probably most pissed at Bush being prez.

Clutch

The smiley was pointless, and I apologize for it.

I think what you meant to say about the Trump example, though, is that it reduced your argument to absurdity -- as counterexamples are wont to do.

Recall: Ebert's suspected that Moore was treated differently than an average customer. Your "in other words" translation of this suspicion was that the event was "staged". My point, which you do not directly address, is that this inference simply fails.

Representativeness -- truly capturing normalcy -- is always a worry when the camera is on people. This is just a categorically different matter from that of staging events, with massively distinct implications for the integrity of the film-maker.

If you want to argue staging, you'll need actual arguments. If you want to argue unrepresentativeness, you'll need to show that the worry here is interesting distinct from the general problem of how to capture normal reactions when a celebrity walks around with a camera crew. Given that the guns were there in the bank, that the bank was a frickin' registered gun dealer... what, exactly, was unrepresentative about Moore's point?

Bookman

Accepted.

No, I'll stick with what I said.

You're correct; I haven't adequately shared my thoughts on the matter. I will below.

A fair distinction and a good point.

Please bear in mind that I'm not arguing the facts of the matter. I don't know whether the event as shown was typical or not. I can imagine no reasonable way to determine the actual facts of the matter. I more interested in asking questions than in making persuasive arguments.

Clearly, if the bank actually gives away guns in the bank to ordinary customers when they open an account there's nothing on this point to discuss and nothing at all "unrepresentative" about the event as shown.

What Ebert was intimating was that this was atypical. If that is true, then I can't imagine any other way for Moore to walk in to the bank is by prior arrangement with the bank in question. Hence, my "in other words" claiming that Ebert's implication was that the event was staged.

If it were true that most customers walk in with a deposit and walk out with a certificate redeemable at a gun dealer, and Moore showed himself walking in with a deposit and walking out with a gun, would that be that sufficient to meet your criteria of "unrepresentative"?

Bookman

Wyz_sub10

Well, I'm afraid I cannot comment on Moore vis-�-vis post-war blackballed German directors.

I will say that supporting one's own agenda is something that can be ascribed to most films - fact and fiction.

Atom Egoyan's "Ararat" reveals his bias, for instance. I don't think it's all that uncommon to use a film - especially a documentary - to influence and persuade people.

As would I. But it's not really about the awards, themselves. Rather, it's about the impact of the industry on society and on peoples lives. As I said before, Olivia de Havilland took the turn this year in stroking the industry ego.

But I would reiterate two points - Moore is a part of that industry, and I think his speech was consistent with the role he plays in it.

Second, the Oscars is a forum, for better or worse, for celebrities to make whatever point they want to make. It happens every single year.

I, for one, would have liked to see Moore accept his award and make a couple of short, smart comments and move on. I thought he was a little boorish, myself, but I was uncomfortable during Brodie's speech too.

Clutch

Of course you're free to keep saying it. Nevertheless, "not available to just anyone" will continue to fail to mean "staged", and the Trump example will continue to show this.No, what Ebert was saying is that this was atypical. What you're claiming he thereby intimated was that it was staged. Since "atypical" /= "staged", it's hard to see why. Wait a minute. Moore couldn't walk into the bank without prearranging it? Or he couldn't open an account? Or he couldn't open an account and thereby be given a gun? Or he couldn't open an account and be given a gun on the spot, right at the bank?

Seems to me the only thing open to question is whether Moore's celebrity and the presence of the camera crew didn't grease the wheels with respect to the latter. Everything else is undisputed. But what, exactly, would the staging amount to, for the last question? Unless you believe that Moore pre-arranged for the bank to become a registered firearms dealer and stock some weapons, there is no question of unrepresentativeness. It may well be that the holding of such a registration and the presence of such weapons was meant to provide a service to special or select customers. So what? Moore's point, presumably, is that America is a country where you can find a bank that would give guns away as a sign-up bonus, and would even go so far as to be a dealer and stock the guns on the premises.

What's unrepresentative?
Of course not. Representativeness is always relative to description and specificity. Take a picture of a lawyer in a car; it would be unrepresentative if taken as showing a lawyer in an Infiniti -- look at how many don't drive Infinitis! -- but perfectly representative if taken as showing a lawyer in a car -- since most lawyers drive. What you describe is still representative, relative to Moore's obvious point: that you can find guns and pro-attitudes towards guns in the strangest places in America. It would only be unrepresentative if Moore were thought to be saying that anybody in America could get a rifle in a bank. But if sheer accessability were the point, of course Moore would have gone to a gun shop.

Bookman

Emphasis mine.

That's what I thought he was saying. A documentary about "stuff that can happen to Michael Moore, but not to you" doesn't strike me as particularly enlightening. I accept that we disagree.

Bookman

Clutch

Nor would it be, if that were a good description.

It's not a matter of showing MM putting a million bucks into the bank -- which he can do because he's Michael Moore, but you can't because you don't have it. It's a matter of showing MM getting a free gun from a bank -- which he can do because the bank is also a registered gun dealer and keeps guns on the premises.

Michaelson

According to the sites that I have looked at regarding these issues: The account Moore opened with the bank was a min. $5000 cash deposit. The money has to stay deposited for 3 years. The gun, which was one of many different items that could by redeemed for opening up the account, was basically to be taken in place of interest. Before purchasing the gun, a background check was mandatory, and the gun was to be picked up at a firearm store after a few days.

So unless these regulations were simply ignored in order to facilitate Moore's celebrity, the scene could not have been produced unless it was staged.

What's more, according to this site (http://www.geocities.com/evil_spoon/...orlockheed.htm): Further, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Moore's first question after having been handed te gun "Do you think it's kind of dangerous handing out guns at a bank?"

so... ...I'd have to disagree with you there quite strongly.

You've pinned down part of his point, sure, but there is a clear insinuation, also, that this bank's policy on handing out guns is irresponsible, and by extension, it can be irresponsible because the bank exists within a society that takes an irresponsible attitude towards gun control. Hell, I agree with him totally, but making out as though you can wander into a bank, open up any old account and get yourself a gun is nowhere near representative of actual situation, where you need a large deposit, and to commit that deposit for a long time, there's a waiting period, and the gun is not picked up at the bank.

If indeed these allegations are true, then this sequence of the film is dreadfully dishonest. Maybe his final point is so self-evident that it's not that important, but in order to make his point he paints a picture that doesn't really exist.