Deconstructing Michael
Well the DVD edition of Michael Moore's fictitious documentary came out. He was only able to muster one correction from the long list of lies, fabrications and staged scenes.
I have to wonder what drives this guy to be such a buffoon. When faced with the facts that he got wrong or clear evidence that he faked scenes in what's supposed to be a documentary all he can do is claim right wing "gun nuts" are out to get him. Is the Washington Post a gun nut publication?
The one correction he managed was removing a faked subtitle on the now infamous "Willy Horton" ad.
Now he want to scream "libel" at a news outlet for reporting the truth. And you all are in a hissy fit over Fox? Moore wouldn't know the truth if it was in him move. Well maybe he does? If the truth was in there he saw it and removed, sexed it up if you will.
Obviously he should return his Award due the pure fraud he's perpetrated. He can't honestly call this a documentary under the rules of The Academy.
I have to wonder what drives this guy to be such a buffoon. When faced with the facts that he got wrong or clear evidence that he faked scenes in what's supposed to be a documentary all he can do is claim right wing "gun nuts" are out to get him. Is the Washington Post a gun nut publication?
The one correction he managed was removing a faked subtitle on the now infamous "Willy Horton" ad.
Quote:
In the newly-released DVD version of his Academy Award-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine," filmmaker Michael Moore has altered a caption that he fictitiously inserted into a 1988 Bush-Quayle campaign commercial -- one of a number of misstatements and deceptive arguments we criticized when the film was released last year. Ironically, on the same day the DVD was released, Moore issued a libel threat against his critics on MSNBC's "Buchanan & Press," saying, "Every fact in the film is true. Absolutely every fact in the film is true. And anybody who says otherwise is committing an act of libel."
In the newly-released DVD version of his Academy Award-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine," filmmaker Michael Moore has altered a caption that he fictitiously inserted into a 1988 Bush-Quayle campaign commercial -- one of a number of misstatements and deceptive arguments we criticized when the film was released last year. Ironically, on the same day the DVD was released, Moore issued a libel threat against his critics on MSNBC's "Buchanan & Press," saying, "Every fact in the film is true. Absolutely every fact in the film is true. And anybody who says otherwise is committing an act of libel."
Now he want to scream "libel" at a news outlet for reporting the truth. And you all are in a hissy fit over Fox? Moore wouldn't know the truth if it was in him move. Well maybe he does? If the truth was in there he saw it and removed, sexed it up if you will.
Obviously he should return his Award due the pure fraud he's perpetrated. He can't honestly call this a documentary under the rules of The Academy.
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
Lies or not, there is still a lot more truth to Bowling then there ever was to the Bush case for war.
There's not even a need for dragging Iraq into this. I'd like to ask you, Scott, what your problem is with the (or one of the) main premise of the movie (which is a fact): more guns and more gun-related deaths (and that in exponential degree) in the US than in ANY other 'western' country in the world. What is so wrong about that? Are you afraid they'll take away the toy that allows you to enjoy masculinity five minutes a week? Really. Leave the fat leftist alone.
Doesn't it bother you guardians of truth that Moore is full of shit and doesn't have the balls to own up to it?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
....
I thought the comparison to Canada in terms of gun ownership and crime was interesting (I don't know if that stuff was fudged too), and maybe that's where I felt he left me hanging. I guess his point is that all of this stuff contributes, I guess I was looking for something I didn't already know.
Yea he wasn't 100% ... forthcoming ... about the situation in Canada.
Originally posted by Scott
Yea he wasn't 100% ... forthcoming ... about the situation in Canada.
Although Moore did depict Canada as quite a socialist utopia which obviously isn't accurate, exactly what situation are you referring to?
Moore also claims several times that our higher gun homicide rate must be the result of American culture rather than the greater number of guns in our country, citing the fact that Canada has a much lower gun homicide rate despite having seven million guns in its ten million homes (Moore ignores the fact that Canada has significantly fewer handguns and a much stricter gun licensing system).
just to name one.
Where he will show the "truth" about what happened that day.
Originally posted by Scott
Did I say I had a problem with the main premiss of the movie? No. If you click though to the spinsanity site they do a good job at the main premiss. Mainly they point out that Moore is all over the map with his conclusions. He says one thing then acts a different way.
Doesn't it bother you guardians of truth that Moore is full of shit and doesn't have the balls to own up to it?
Scott, I've just those reports on the spininsanity site, and if that's a devastating expose of "lies" then I'm The Red Meanie. They must really be desperate to discredit Moore if the best they can do is a feeble quibbles about whether the Columbine killers really did or didn't go bowling on the morning of the attack (Moore quotes witnesses on his website - but it's completely irrelevant to the point of the film anyway); whether the gun bank actualy hands out the shooters in the bank itself (the clerk clearly says the company is a licensed gun dealer and has a stock of guns "on the premises"); whether Moore needed to go through a background check first (it's clearly referred to at several points in the sequence, and surely that's the law anyway); whether Lockheed Martin's Littleton factory actually makes nuclear missiles (Moore doesn't say it does - and LM is a still a major arms manufacturer); and one inaccurate caption with little relevance to the film's themes
Originally posted by The Blue Meanie
Scott, I've just those reports on the spininsanity site, and if that's a devastating expose of "lies" then I'm The Red Meanie.
You're missing a few things.
I agree with the premise of the movie. I'm all for gun control or even the possibility of making them illegal. However, I do not agree with the way Moore presented his film. His FILM, not documentary. It wasn't a documentary. They should revoke the oscar IMHO.
Originally posted by Willoughby
You're missing a few things.
Thanks for the link.
And one that I noticed on the page:
http://www.revoketheoscar.com/
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Thanks for the link.
And one that I noticed on the page:
http://www.revoketheoscar.com/
Got one more for ya
It's long, but basically the point is that although Moore distorts things, Moore's critics are much worse.
For example, one criticism I've read is that even the title "Bowling for Columbine" is a lie, because the students didn't go to their bowling class that morning. But in reality, it's called "Bowling for Columbine" because of a snide comment someone in the film makes about how bowling might have influenced the kids to kill rather than guns, because they went to bowling class. I'm sorry, but that's a lame criticism of the movie, and there are lots of others like it.
Here's another one from the article linked above:
Critics have stated that this scene was "staged", but in the bank interview, the official tells Moore that the bank has its own vault storing about 500 weapons at any given time. It is also a licensed firearms dealer which can perform its own background checks. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal , linked from your site, an employee claims that the gun would have been "normally" picked up at another dealer. It is not explained what "normally" is supposed to mean, but that claim flatly contradicts the statement of the bank official in the film. This sounds more like a later correction for public relations purposes, but of course nobody questions the bank claims when they can be used against Moore.
The only thing that Moore compressed is the timeframe. According to the same WSJ interview, "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period." This is plausible -- but entirely irrelevant for the movie, which already makes it quite clear that a background check is being performed. Moore's detractors have sometimes extended those 7-10 days to several weeks, contradicting the bank's own estimate.
There is nothing inaccurate whatsoever about the bank scene. The bank does exactly what it advertises: It hands out guns from its vault to those who open an account. The silly criticisms of the scene obscure the real obscenity of the situation: a bank handing out guns to its customers, higlighting the utter laxness of how Americans deal with deadly weapons and a love of firearms that borders on the religious.
Originally posted by bunge
The definitely shouldn't revoke the Oscar because documentaries come in all shapes and sizes. With Bowling, the director's vision gets in the way of fact. But that's true of all documentaries. If we revoke this Oscar, we're saying that any film we do label as a documentary is pure fact. That's dangerous territory.
doc·u·men·ta·ry (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
This is not what Bowling for Columbine is. He definitely editorialized the film. He edited real interviews, clips from the NRA meetings and even staged some of the "events" of the "documentary".
I see your point but I think he crossed the line.
Originally posted by Willoughby
This is not what Bowling for Columbine is. He definitely editorialized the film. He edited real interviews, clips from the NRA meetings and even staged some of the "events" of the "documentary".
I see your point but I think he crossed the line.
You're not allowed to edit? If you make a documentary, you have to include all raw unedited footage and interviews? How long is that movie going to be? And I'm not sure he really did stage anything, if you're talking about the bank scene.
Originally posted by Willoughby
I see your point but I think he crossed the line.
re·al·i·ty __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(r-l-t)
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: ?the
weight of history and political realities? (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not
seem to be about reality.
Just kidding.
I've never seen the film so I can't say if he did or didn't cross the line. I just know that we have to be careful not to put too much belief in any documentary, like with history books. They're all biased.
The "staged" part of the bank scene was where he walks out of the bank with a gun in his hands. Literally taken, yes, he got the gun after required background checks, etc. some days or weeks (I wonder which) later, and then went back and filmed himself walking out of the place. You could argue that it was meant figuratively, espcially if the wait was more like 3 days instead of 3 weeks.
Originally posted by BRussell
You're not allowed to edit? If you make a documentary, you have to include all raw unedited footage and interviews? How long is that movie going to be? And I'm not sure he really did stage anything, if you're talking about the bank scene.
Did you read any of the links? He edited the film to make events appear to have happened the way he wanted them to. Heston did not say "..from my cold dead hands" immediately after the Columbine incident. That was from another convention but Moore intentionally edited it to make it appear as if Heston said it in response to the incident. That is what I'm talking about. Obviously I didn't mean you can't edit anything. But editing so the facts are twisted is not documentary filmmaking.
Originally posted by bunge
I've never seen the film so I can't say if he did or didn't cross the line. I just know that we have to be careful not to put too much belief in any documentary, like with history books. They're all biased. [/B]
I agree with you there. But I think you should see the film, then read (or hopefully reread) his critics points and come up with your own conclusions. I think after watching it you might change your mind....maybe.
Err...scratch that..not change your mind about what you just said, but about Moore's film being a documentary