"Bowling For Columbine"

[Cardinals.Ken]

Has anyone seen Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine"?

Does anyone have a copy I could borrow? I can't find it anywhere, and I don't feel safe downloading it right now.

I had a great conversation with my daughter-in-law about it yesterday, and would like to see it for myself.

 

[Chaplin]

I don't have it, but I have seen it. I believe it is not out on video quite yet.

Keep in mind, that it is not really a "documentary". There is some pertinent points, but Moore edited the film so that his viewpoint is presented more bluntly than probably what really happened (especially with the Charlton Heston interview).

It's a good film, just a little too "Michael Moore" for my taste.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Originally posted by Chaplin
I don't have it, but I have seen it. I believe it is not out on video quite yet.

Keep in mind, that it is not really a "documentary". There is some pertinent points, but Moore edited the film so that his viewpoint is presented more bluntly than probably what really happened (especially with the Charlton Heston interview).

It's a good film, just a little too "Michael Moore" for my taste.

I hear ya Chap!

I have always taken Moore with a grain of salt.

In "Roger & Me", for instance, why it was necessary to include the footage of the former GM worker actually slaughtering a rabbit? Did it make her plight any more sympathetic? Not in my mind.

As for the Heston interview, I think he was suffering the beginning stages of Alzheimers when Moore got a chance to "interview" him. 10 years ago, Heston would have verbally snapped Moore like a rubber band.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by Cardinals.Ken
I hear ya Chap!

I have always taken Moore with a grain of salt.

In "Roger & Me", for instance, why it was necessary to include the footage of the former GM worker actually slaughtering a rabbit? Did it make her plight any more sympathetic? Not in my mind.

As for the Heston interview, I think he was suffering the beginning stages of Alzheimers when Moore got a chance to "interview" him. 10 years ago, Heston would have verbally snapped Moore like a rubber band.

I don't know about making her more sympathetic. I already had sympathy for all the residents of Flint to begin with.

Seeing people getting evicted on Christmas, was enough for me.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
I don't know about making her more sympathetic. I already had sympathy for all the residents of Flint to begin with.

Seeing people getting evicted on Christmas, was enough for me.

Word!

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Finally!

I got my hands on an Oscar Screener version of "Bowling for Columbine". I just finished watching it.

I would recommend it.

The highlight of the film for me would be would be when the filmmaker (Micheal Moore) takes two permanently disabled survivors of the Columbine Tragedy to K-Mart (the store where the shooters had purchased most, if not all, of their bullets) and buy all of their inventory of ammunition. They then take their purchase down to K-Mart headquarters to make the point that they shouldn't be selling handgun or assualt rifle ammunition (neither of which is sold by K-Mart). K-Mart announced later that day that they would no longer sell ammunition designed for weapons of that sort.

 

[MadCardDisease]

I finally saw it.

A very interesting film. Asks some interesting questions. Actually it was quite entertaining. It's definately skewed towards Moore's point of view but there was enough substance to get past that.

I would highly recomend it.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I thought that the film was excellent as well, with the highlight being the interview with Heston. It surprised me for a variety of reasons: first of all, that an interview was given with ben hur himself, not some representative. then, of course, that Heston had no canned responses, or anything to back up his arguements, all in all, pretty embarassing for Heston.....

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by ASUCHRIS
I thought that the film was excellent as well, with the highlight being the interview with Heston. It surprised me for a variety of reasons: first of all, that an interview was given with ben hur himself, not some representative. then, of course, that Heston had no canned responses, or anything to back up his arguements, all in all, pretty embarassing for Heston.....

That interview was also cleverly edited, so we'll never know how it actually went--it was edited in order to accentuate Michael Moore's position, rather than show an impartial interview in which the audience needs to derive their own conclusions (which is what a real documentary ought to do in the first place).

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Originally posted by Chaplin
That interview was also cleverly edited, so we'll never know how it actually went--it was edited in order to accentuate Michael Moore's position, rather than show an impartial interview in which the audience needs to derive their own conclusions (which is what a real documentary ought to do in the first place).

Well, of course Michael Moore was accentuating his position, the whole film seemed to be leaning that way......Whether or not that stays true to a "real" documentary is subject to debate..... From what is shown in the film, Heston is incapable of answering fundimental questions in regards to his position, so in my opinion, while the editing may be an issue, the larger issue is a Heston's inability to defend pretty basic attacks against the NRA. Clearly, to allow the interview was a major screwup by Heston and his people.

Another interesting and sad part of the movie was the story of the people working for Dick Clark. It is amazing how some of these people have essentially no chance at anything, except to make millions for others.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by ASUCHRIS
Well, of course Michael Moore was accentuating his position, the whole film seemed to be leaning that way......Whether or not that stays true to a "real" documentary is subject to debate..... From what is shown in the film, Heston is incapable of answering fundimental questions in regards to his position, so in my opinion, while the editing may be an issue, the larger issue is a Heston's inability to defend pretty basic attacks against the NRA. Clearly, to allow the interview was a major screwup by Heston and his people.

Another interesting and sad part of the movie was the story of the people working for Dick Clark. It is amazing how some of these people have essentially no chance at anything, except to make millions for others.

First of all, Michael Moore lied in order to get the interview--Heston made the mistake of believing Moore to be honorable.

Secondly, whether this is a defense mechanism or not, we may never know, but Heston has said repeatedly that the order of questions versus the order of answers is not accurate--he has said that the answers that Moore edited to the questions were not the same as what was said. Moore has the reputation of manipulating the audience like that, so it may be closer to the truth than you think.

I just think you are putting way too much faith in Michael Moore and his ability to present a clear, unedited arguement.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Originally posted by Chaplin
First of all, Michael Moore lied in order to get the interview--Heston made the mistake of believing Moore to be honorable.

I agree, no way Heston agrees to the interview if he knew what it was really for.

I like the one concept of the movie on how Fear is used to control people and make money. How true it is.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Originally posted by Chaplin
First of all, Michael Moore lied in order to get the interview--Heston made the mistake of believing Moore to be honorable.

Secondly, whether this is a defense mechanism or not, we may never know, but Heston has said repeatedly that the order of questions versus the order of answers is not accurate--he has said that the answers that Moore edited to the questions were not the same as what was said. Moore has the reputation of manipulating the audience like that, so it may be closer to the truth than you think.

I just think you are putting way too much faith in Michael Moore and his ability to present a clear, unedited arguement.

I understand your point, but in the same breath, Heston has as much motivation to lie to support his point as Moore. We could speculate indefinitely about that ad nauseum, but that would be a major waste of time. Personally, I am not very fond of either of these two....