Bowling for Columbine

I know there was a discussion about the speech Michael Moore gave at the Oscars, but how many people actually saw the film?

If people would calm down and watch it with an open mind and realize what it's really about (and no, it isn't about gun control) we'd all be better off.

Ready? ...discuss!

If you haven't seen it, what are you waiting for? This is a film everyone should see.


/me waits for the flames...

So what's it about ? I know I won't be seeing it (Haven't went to a movie in ten years)

I was assuming based on the maker that it would be about how all businesses are evil and the government needs to run everything.

First off, it's not in the theaters, it's just released on DVD.

The primary focus of the film is on why Americans kill more other Americans than anywhere else. It's about our society. Moore has nothing against guns. It's not an anti-gun movie. As the reviewer at DVD file put it, "it is an anti-Stupid People Using Guns to Shoot Other People movie."

I think it's great, and worth a rental purely for the animated short in the middle of the film from the makers of South Park (Matt Stone is an interviewee in the film as well).

I think it's great, and worth a rental purely for the animated short in the middle of the film from the makers of South Park (Matt Stone is an interviewee in the film as well).

Now, see, with all the press on the film, I still didn't know about that. Knowing that, I'm going to have to go rent it Real Soon Now.

Yeah, everyone talks about the bank, the Charlton Heston interview and such. Nobody talks about the really good non-sensational parts. Marilyn Manson and Matt Stone both give excellent interviews. The footage of the Columbine shootings is heartbreaking and handled well, without any voiceovers or something.

I can only think of one criticism, and that was his ambush of Dick Clark for something that he really didn't have anything to do with, but that's a long story and hard to explain without seeing the movie.

But yeah, the animated short is high-speed, pee-in-your-pants funny.

how all businesses are evil and the government needs to run everything.

Two corrections:
1. all publicly traded businesses are evil; only some of the privately held businesses are.
2. although arguably more incompetent than evil, publicly elected government can't run anything.
The best institutions are ones comprising appointed experts (see Supreme Court, Federal Reserve, etc.)

how all businesses are evil and the government needs to run everything.

Two corrections:
1. all publicly traded businesses are evil; only some of the privately held businesses are.
2. although arguably more incompetent than evil, publicly elected government can't run anything.
The best institutions are ones comprising appointed experts (see Supreme Court, Federal Reserve, etc.)

And I would point out that these have nothing to do with this film. Perhaps Roger & Me, but not this one.

we need our guns for the revolution.

I loved the movie when i went to see it the day it came out. It's a beautifully crafted piece of propaganda, and i don't mean that in a pointedly negative way. I agree... the point isn't all the stats, it's the "why?". It definitely made me think, laugh, and cry. The animated part is hilarious (though slanted as it can get).

BUT, AFTER you see the film, you should read Bowling for Columbine: Documentary or Fiction. If for no other reason that to give equal time to your brain. It goes to show that EVERYTHING can be distorted to tell the story the storyteller wants to give. I was really disturbed after i read that site... because i wanted to believe Moore. You have to take both sides with a grain of salt.

Well my opinion is about the complete opposite of that

The majority of the people working for the government are not elected.

It goes to show that EVERYTHING can be distorted to tell the story the storyteller wants to give.

I totally agree with that statement.

Wow, that was quite a read... not sure if I want to see the movie again

Loren - thanks for the link. That was an interesting read. It's aways fun to see that it's not just the right wing media that can mangle & manipulate truth to make their points.

That's what I never understood about people who were upset about Clinton lying. Why in God's name do you expect your politicians not to lie? That's just silly. (Ahem, George!)

-Zeke

Yes. Great article. I've read a few others like it around the net and I agree with points on all sides. Is the movie still a good movie; I think yes. And you're right, the underlying point of the movie is to ask why we are a more violent society than most others (if not all).

Good link, Loren.

You should also read the reader mail at DVD File which responds to readers who were upset with the positive review, offering the Hardy article as evidence.

The editor then offers this response to that article, as well as his own views on it.

It's definitely worth the effort: a superb piece of cinema.

The editor then offers this response to that article, as well as his own views on it.

That's an interesting response. I found one of the sub-links from that response quite interesting, a concept I hadn't yet heard before, which is: Cultures which tend to repress physical affection, sexuality, and sensory stimuli tend to be more violent. I wonder how true this is, if there are any facts to back this up. Anyway, that sub-link is here if anyone wants to see it.

I would tend to agree. Certainly isn't the only reason, but I'm sure it contributes to the problem. I'd like to see more in-depth studies, though.

I just saw a link where Michael Moore has put up a response to the critics who claim his film is not truthful.

And the propaganda circle goes round and round.

Calling his critics wacko attackos is a bad idea. I'll read that when i get to work...

Saw the film. Agreed that it's an opinion piece rather than a documentary. But when it's an opinion you agree with, then it becomes a documentary to you.

Also loved the interviews with Matt Stone and Marylin Manson. And I noticed right away that the animated short was *NOT* done by the south park people (was a bit disappointed by that, but it was a cute short anyway).

I actually felt sorry for Chuck at the end. Getting conversationally ambushed by Moore like that. Then again, I don't see how Chuck could possibly let Moore into his home and expect anything but an ambush. It's like granting an interview to 60 minutes... How can you expect them to NOT grill you once the tape is rolling? It's what they do.

Regarding the critics of the film... They're nitpicking details while ignoring his basic premise: Guns aren't the problem, it's the culture of panic and fear we've cultivated in this country that is the problem. Even if all of the criticisms are true, it doesn't dilute that basic premise.

In fact, he tried to make that point about our culture with Chuck, and Chuck just got irritated and ended the interview. I'm not sure why.

You're right, I could have sworn I heard it from a reliable source. Oh well. It appears it was done by this guy.

I don't feel sorry for Heston at all. Like you said, he knew what he was getting into, and Moore actually didn't ambush him very much until he avoided some very basic questions (ie: why did he feel the need to bring national NRA rallies to the sites of two horrible gun-related events only days after they occured). Only after he dodged those questions did Moore start attacking more.

The person I did think he ambushed (and for no really good reason) was Dick Clark. That was a tough correlation to draw, and I didn't think there was a connection there. It seemed more like a stunt to involve another celebrity than anything else.

It appears it was done by this guy.

An what a terrible speller that guy is!

Funny pictures, though.

I agree that the Dick Clark bit was weak. It was an interesting piece of investigative journalism (about bussing the workers in), right up until the point where he tries to ambush Dick himself.