Javert
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 3,384
- Reaction score
- 3
I know many out there will want to shoot me (pun intended) for resurrecting this thread, but after watching it yesterday, I would just like to put in my two bullets, er, cents.
Did "Bowling for Columbine" deserve an Oscar"
I say it DOES for several reasons.
Organization and Editing
There is very few "filler" in this documentary and not a moment is wasted. Moore clearly presents a thesis dealing with American fear and presents arguments, support and evidence. The film flows smoothly and has nary a "boring spot". All the interviews are nicely organized and juxtaposed. He knows how to make film.
Contents and Facts
Ok, the real dinger. Editing is attributed to some of the stretches. For example, as noted by a hardcore dissenter of "Columbine", the NRA didn't plan the rally in Flint RIGHT after the 6 year-old shooting, a considerable time has passed and the goal was political. However, does it excuse the NRA to host a rally in Flint? Or in Columbine, perhaps? I don't think so.
Also controversial was the "Buying Ammo at Canadian K-mart" scene. Sure, the law says foreigners can't buy it. But I strongly doubt the scene was faked, the woman probably was not aware of the regulation, and the fact that Moore was able to walk away with ammunition, ID check or no ID check, presents its point.
"NRA and KKK in American History cartoon" was also lambasted. I also believe that it was only a coincidence. However, it's disconcerting that two groups complemented each other so well unintentionally.
The statistics and historical points in the film are all true, including the murder numbers.
The ending of the Charlton Heston interview was poignant, not to mention saddening. But Moore couldn't expect Mr. Heston to recall everything with exact clarity (he does have Alzheimers), nor produce good answers on the spot. Therefore, I dismiss his "racist" comment.
Despite naysayers, Heston DID say everything he was shown to have said. Though it may have been taken out of context, the fact that it was stated ("from my dead, cold hands") does not diminish its relevance.
Plus, film and history is after all subjective. Even the Discovery Channel doesn't paint the Great White Shark as a teddy bear doesn't it? Do you think Schindler's List is "fair and objective"? Part of an art's purpose is to provoke and incite.
Ability to provoke Discussion and Controversy
Take a look at this forum and critic reviews for enough discussion and controversy. Rarely has a film roused so much hatred, love, criticism, support, naysayers, and believers in the film industry and audience. But it is precisely this discussion and dialogue about such a pertinent issue that this society needs: the society needs to debate and relegate, not just blindly stand aside, this film does not allow you to do so. If not for this documentary, American domestic violence would be hidden underneath the current Iraq war and California recall. It is this ability to stoke discussion and controversy that brings this subject to light again and for once make the silent voice their opinions. We need that more in a democracy.
It's effect and timelessness
As long as Americans have a gun problem, this documentary will be very relevant. As long as domestic violence, poverty, and cultural differences are issues, this documentary will be very relevant. As long as there are "psychos" out there, Moore has placed the subject on the table, and there it will stay.
Because of this documentary, Kmart no longer sells ammo, and that's a good thing. Hopefully, Big-5, Wal-Mart, and Sport-mart will follow. Despite criticism, it can not be doubted that this documentary has probably inspired a good amount of people to do something about this problem.
My personal view on guns and Moore's thesis
You do not need an M-16 assault rifle to protect yourself against burglars.
You do not need a TEC-9 semi-automatic to hunt deer.
You should not be able to buy ammo at a convenience store.
I believe that the American media does provoke unecessary fear. And this fear does lead to violence. The ease of acquiring such weapons is astounding and should be heavily regulated (for once, Chris Rock had the right idea). Maybe we should be like our Canadian and European counterparts, for the only thing that differs between us is fear against other people. If we were to eliminate fear, would we then eliminate the majority of the violence? I think so. I hope so. I may be too optimistic, but it's a hell of a good start.
Javert.
Discuss.
Did "Bowling for Columbine" deserve an Oscar"
I say it DOES for several reasons.
Organization and Editing
There is very few "filler" in this documentary and not a moment is wasted. Moore clearly presents a thesis dealing with American fear and presents arguments, support and evidence. The film flows smoothly and has nary a "boring spot". All the interviews are nicely organized and juxtaposed. He knows how to make film.
Contents and Facts
Ok, the real dinger. Editing is attributed to some of the stretches. For example, as noted by a hardcore dissenter of "Columbine", the NRA didn't plan the rally in Flint RIGHT after the 6 year-old shooting, a considerable time has passed and the goal was political. However, does it excuse the NRA to host a rally in Flint? Or in Columbine, perhaps? I don't think so.
Also controversial was the "Buying Ammo at Canadian K-mart" scene. Sure, the law says foreigners can't buy it. But I strongly doubt the scene was faked, the woman probably was not aware of the regulation, and the fact that Moore was able to walk away with ammunition, ID check or no ID check, presents its point.
"NRA and KKK in American History cartoon" was also lambasted. I also believe that it was only a coincidence. However, it's disconcerting that two groups complemented each other so well unintentionally.
The statistics and historical points in the film are all true, including the murder numbers.
The ending of the Charlton Heston interview was poignant, not to mention saddening. But Moore couldn't expect Mr. Heston to recall everything with exact clarity (he does have Alzheimers), nor produce good answers on the spot. Therefore, I dismiss his "racist" comment.
Despite naysayers, Heston DID say everything he was shown to have said. Though it may have been taken out of context, the fact that it was stated ("from my dead, cold hands") does not diminish its relevance.
Plus, film and history is after all subjective. Even the Discovery Channel doesn't paint the Great White Shark as a teddy bear doesn't it? Do you think Schindler's List is "fair and objective"? Part of an art's purpose is to provoke and incite.
Ability to provoke Discussion and Controversy
Take a look at this forum and critic reviews for enough discussion and controversy. Rarely has a film roused so much hatred, love, criticism, support, naysayers, and believers in the film industry and audience. But it is precisely this discussion and dialogue about such a pertinent issue that this society needs: the society needs to debate and relegate, not just blindly stand aside, this film does not allow you to do so. If not for this documentary, American domestic violence would be hidden underneath the current Iraq war and California recall. It is this ability to stoke discussion and controversy that brings this subject to light again and for once make the silent voice their opinions. We need that more in a democracy.
It's effect and timelessness
As long as Americans have a gun problem, this documentary will be very relevant. As long as domestic violence, poverty, and cultural differences are issues, this documentary will be very relevant. As long as there are "psychos" out there, Moore has placed the subject on the table, and there it will stay.
Because of this documentary, Kmart no longer sells ammo, and that's a good thing. Hopefully, Big-5, Wal-Mart, and Sport-mart will follow. Despite criticism, it can not be doubted that this documentary has probably inspired a good amount of people to do something about this problem.
My personal view on guns and Moore's thesis
You do not need an M-16 assault rifle to protect yourself against burglars.
You do not need a TEC-9 semi-automatic to hunt deer.
You should not be able to buy ammo at a convenience store.
I believe that the American media does provoke unecessary fear. And this fear does lead to violence. The ease of acquiring such weapons is astounding and should be heavily regulated (for once, Chris Rock had the right idea). Maybe we should be like our Canadian and European counterparts, for the only thing that differs between us is fear against other people. If we were to eliminate fear, would we then eliminate the majority of the violence? I think so. I hope so. I may be too optimistic, but it's a hell of a good start.
Javert.
Discuss.
