Finally saw "Bowling for Columbine"

[CagedTroll]

Came on one of the cable channels last night. About all I remember, honestly, is that Michael Moore took two of the kids that survived the shooting at Columbine to K-Mart corporate headquarters, and got K-Mart to discontinue ammunition sales. Also him going into Canada, showing how they're similiar to the US in a lot of ways, but not in terms of violence, and exploring the US culture of violence as a response to a "Culture of Fear."

So I understand why he's getting demonized by the right-wing, but I don't see what a few inaccurate details in the movie had to do with that. Anyone care to explain? Because the stuff he got right, seems to far outweigh everything else in the flick.

[bassmount]

Because it was billed as a "documentary."

doc·u·men·ta·ry adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.

2.Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

[Taxman]

Bingo. Besides, BFC was pure yellow journalism with everything from quoting out of context to utter falsehoods. Didn't we discuss this already?

[bassmount]

Originally Posted by Taxman

Bingo. Besides, BFC was pure yellow journalism with everything from quoting out of context to utter falsehoods. Didn't we discuss this already?

I thought I had read something like this before HP turned into R&P.

[bwsmom]

Originally Posted by bassmount

I thought I had read something like this before HP turned into R&P.

Yep, sure did.... it turned pretty nasty too. There are some who believe everything Michael Moore produces, writes, etc, is completely true, while some of us know better. Even after several members posted the BIG "mistakes" in the movie, others still vehemently defended MM's "truthfulness"... it was really sad when all was said and done, because it so clearly showed that some people really will believe anything...

[crazytimes]

Did he make that movie "Roger and Me"?

That movie was sad.

[christopher60]

Originally Posted by crazytimes

Did he make that movie "Roger and Me"?

That movie was sad.

Yes, he did. And everyone should watch
"Bowling for Columbine."

It is an excellent movie.

[Taxman]

That may well be, since "excellent" is subjective. However, a documentory it's not.

[CagedTroll]

Originally Posted by bassmount

Because it was billed as a "documentary."

doc·u·men·ta·ry adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.

2.Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Don't know where this definition came from, but, based on the 2nd definition, apparently all books and film editorialize and insert fictional matter. So much for "Blackhawk Down"...!

The Motion Picture Academy's definition of Documentary: ...a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

So what exactly did Moore make up off the top of his head? Is the focus of the movie on what he made up, or what actually happened. And BTW, I have yet to call Bush a "liar" for not getting his facts straight.

[Taxman]

Just one example was the scene at the AF Academy. Moore says that the plaque on a B-52 reads "...this plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972". The plaque says nothing like that. It actually recounts how the crew shot down a MiG.

Another example is the opening bank scene. Moore portrays it as if he simply opened up a bank account and then was handed a gun. He does not show the background check which had taken place months beforehand to allow him to actually walk out of the bank with that gun. In fact, everyone else is handed a voucher which they then must take to a dealer to redeem. The only long guns that were actually in that bank besides Moore's were non-functional display models.

[bassmount]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

Don't know where this definition came from, but, based on the 2nd definition, apparently all books and film editorialize and insert fictional matter. So much for "Blackhawk Down"...!

The Motion Picture Academy's definition of Documentary: ...a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

So what exactly did Moore make up off the top of his head? Is the focus of the movie on what he made up, or what actually happened. And BTW, I have yet to call Bush a "liar" for not getting his facts straight.

My definition came from Dictionary.com

Sorry thought most people knew that when a definition was posted that it came from a dictionary, since that is where most words are difined.

I think it is rule 12 of the Academy's rules for a documentary is that it CANNOT be a fictitious movie. It has to totally be NONFICTION. If someone is placing things out of context to make them appear real, then that is fiction. It is the way MM wanted it to be seen, not factual and something that is not factual is FICTION, not a DOCUMENTARY.

My whole problem with this movie being called a "documentary" is that Well, most of it was totally taken out of context, spliced and pieced together to make it look like something it was not... (READ: FICTION from MM mind).

Example 1:
The scene where MM goes to the Lockheed plant near Columbine. MM then goes into his shpeel about weapons of mass destruction being shipped right near a place where children killed children, and this was a potential cause of the Columbine shooting or what have you.

Lockheed Martian doesn't build Nuclear Missiles in that plant. I don't even think they have ever built nuclear missiles (although I could be wrong on that point). They do take the old Titan II missiles and convert them into rockets that can explore space in that plant. I believe that contract for that plant was awarded sometime early in 1995, before Columbine.

Example #2:
The whole scene where supposedly the NRA is just being absolutely heartless and Heston supposedly responds "I only have 5 words for you "From my cold, dead hands."

Well, that did NOT happen anywhere near Columbine and was not even during the time period. It happened a YEAR LATER here in NC, at a Charlotte rally. It was all over the news here. Mr. Heston had been presented a replica of an antique Civil War Musket. Also Heston's speeches were even spliced together and it is noticeable from the change in his clothing.

See, I have not one thing against anyone who would like to promote people taking responsibility with weapons. These boys should have never been able to get them in the first place. BUT when something is billed as a "documentary" then it dadgum better well be one. What if someone were to make a "documentary" cutting and splicing things from the different WWII films and made the Jewish people look like they were the true criminals? I mean think about it, how would you feel if someone had done this same thing to MM and made him look like he is a psycho and said it was a documentary? None of this would be a documentary, it would all be false propaganda.

[bwsmom]

Originally Posted by bassmount

I mean think about it, how would you feel if someone had done this same thing to MM and made him look like he is a psycho and said it was a documentary?

But that would be a documentary! (KIDDING, people... it's a joke!)

This is one of those times I wish we had at least some limited access to the old HP threads. We went chapter and verse into this last year, and there was a whole list of things from the film that had been made up or otherwise "fictionalized" by MM, and all of them had been proven to be false. It's truly unfortunate that the once-gifted filmmaker has gotten so completely full of himself to think he can foist his tripe on the American people and believe they'll eat it up. Some of us really do know better, fortunately!

[CagedTroll]

Originally Posted by Taxman

Just one example was the scene at the AF Academy. Moore says that the plaque on a B-52 reads "...this plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972". The plaque says nothing like that. It actually recounts how the crew shot down a MiG.

That part I don't actually remember.

Originally Posted by Taxman

Another example is the opening bank scene. Moore portrays it as if he simply opened up a bank account and then was handed a gun. He does not show the background check which had taken place months beforehand to allow him to actually walk out of the bank with that gun. In fact, everyone else is handed a voucher which they then must take to a dealer to redeem. The only long guns that were actually in that bank besides Moore's were non-functional display models.

This part I sorta remember. Moore was filling out the forms for the background check, in what looked to be a private office, asking a bank clerk how to spell "caucasian". This was after the same clerk explained ON CAMERA that the bank was also a licensed firearms dealer, with about 500 guns in a vault. This scene wasn't a central point of the film, and how is editting a federally required 10-day waiting period and background check into just a few minutes of film a "lie."

Again, I haven't called Bush a "liar", yet. "Deceptive" was the word I used! Said something about leading people to the wrong impressions, I think.

Still seems to me that the main focus of Bowling for Columbine was to raise questions about our culture. After watching the film I don't see where he even tried to provide answers, so much as he was calling attention to violence and fear, and their end results, be it Columbine or Iraq.

Film is coming on again tomorrow, so I'll take another look at the AF Academy scene.

[CagedTroll]

Originally Posted by bassmount

Example 1:
The scene where MM goes to the Lockheed plant near Columbine. MM then goes into his shpeel about weapons of mass destruction being shipped right near a place where children killed children, and this was a potential cause of the Columbine shooting or what have you.

Lockheed Martian doesn't build Nuclear Missiles in that plant. I don't even think they have ever built nuclear missiles (although I could be wrong on that point). They do take the old Titan II missiles and convert them into rockets that can explore space in that plant. I believe that contract for that plant was awarded sometime early in 1995, before Columbine.

Does he say Lockheed was building "missiles" or "nuclear missiles" at that plant? Again the movie is coming on sometime tomorrow, and I'll try to watch it for this specific scene.

Or better yet, [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] (Quicktime format..., my apologies to those without high-speed internet) which has a Lockheed Martin mouthpiece explaining what the Titans are "mainly" used for.

[bassmount]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

Does he say Lockheed was building "missiles" or "nuclear missiles" at that plant? Again the movie is coming on sometime tomorrow, and I'll try to watch it for this specific scene.

Or better yet, [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] (Quicktime format..., my apologies to those without high-speed internet) which has a Lockheed Martin mouthpiece explaining what the Titans are "mainly" used for.

Yeah he does say it and defends his stance that Lockheed builds nuclear missiles at that plant. Also, I know what the Titan II missles are and what they are used for. The point is that at this point and for some time before Columbine, this plant was used to DIASSEMBLE those rockets. I feel certain if they have to take them apart, they know how they work and what they HAD been used for, so them explaining it would be quite logical if they were asked the question of what they were used for.

Here is what MM says on his site. I did not post the link because I was unsure if it was allowed since 99.9% of his site is a biased site, and not a news source.

Lockheed Martin is the largest weapons-maker in the world. The Littleton facility has been manufacturing missiles, missile components, and other weapons systems for almost half a century. In the 50s, workers at the Littleton facility constructed the first Titan intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to unleash a nuclear warhead on the Soviet Union; in the mid-80s, they were partially assembling MX missiles, instruments for the minuteman ICBM, a space laser weapon called Zenith Star, and a Star Wars program known as Brilliant Pebbles.

In the full, unedited interview I did with the Lockheed spokesman, he told me that Lockheed started building nuclear missiles in Littleton and "played a role in the development of Peacekeeper MX Missiles."


Then he goes on to say on his site, but I am pretty sure does not say it in the movie or does not explain it well in the movie

As for what's currently manufactured in Littleton, McCollum told me, "They (the rockets sitting behind him) carry mainly very large national security satellites, some we can't talk about."

Like I said, I was not sure if they ever made nuclear missiles, I guess they did, which does not surprise me in the least. It was the 50's are we were very scared and possibly very misinformed at the time. So, I give you that Lockheed ONCE made nuclear weapons in that plant, in the 50's and 60' for sure (not so sure about the 80's but it is possible). BUT that plant was awarded a contract for something totally different well before Columbine. MM wanted to show what he thought was truth and did it in a deceptive manner. I have little to no interest in seeing the film clip because it came from MM site. How do I know, after seeing the flaws in the film, that this is not also somehow edited and spliced? If he had simply said "People I am going to give you my interpretation of what is wrong with the world and our country" I probably would have agreed with a lot of what he said. Our world and country is a bit messed up. When you have children being able to get guns and the sellers not even check or our safeguards are not followed, that is messed up. But as I stated before, if it is billed as a documentary, then it should be one, not a creative edit and snip fest.