Proof that Bowling for Columbine was a fabrication

Then see it for yourself and make up your own mind. Don't believe (or not believe) something based on what others tell you. Find out for yourself.

 

Download it illegally then Cohen. That's how I saw it the first time

 

Right on, dude! Fight the power!

 

I really want to reply here, but I have to go steal some groceries.... damn farmers!

 

Speaking of...there's another Columbine related movie already out in NYC and LA, called Elephant, directed by Gus Van Sant. It's actually set at a school in Oregon, but it's essentially about Columbine. They just recruited kids at the school to play a lot of the parts. I've read some reviews calling it pointless and irresponsible, but then it won the best movie award at the Cannes Film Festival.

Trailer

 

I've heard really good things about that movie. The trailer is freaky, too.

I'll definitely see that one.

 

Of course, some are saying that this year's Cannes was one of the worst ever.

 

I'm not just listening to what others say. That raised my concerns. Then I read specific items WRT the way Moore handled the Horton issue. Moore's response was totally inadequate. His demeanour is hateful, and he takes too much license manipulating events to twist them to his view.

Why should I subject myself to a 'documentary' where I will have to research every point to see if he manipulated the facts or ommitted over salient ones?

doc·u·men·ta·ry
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film

That movie is in no way a documentary. See if this fit's better:

prop·a·gan·da
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

 

Well, I've seen it and I don't think its intended to be a documentary at all in the sense that one would traditionally understand it. It's non-fiction, sure, but there's a difference. It doesn't purport to make overarching surveys or systematic studies of incidents or problems at all. It talks about gun violence and explores many possible causes, though in an anectodotal and humorous fashion.

Also note: I know the paranoiacs like bamaslammer think that Moore is out to crucify the gun industry and the NRA as responsible for all gun violence, but in the end of the movie, his main culprit is the "culture of fear." It's just an opinion/theory, and it's presented as such.

At the end of the day, it's pretty easy to take the movie for what it was: entertainment mixed with social commentary. This is pretty obvious to anybody who watched it. You don't take a lot away from it and say: "Wow, I learned x y z facts today which must be true because they were alluded to in a cartoon!"

Moore's audience is thankfully more sophisticated than his critics.

 

Is it that hard to set up two cameras for an interview and later splice the footage, or am I missing your point all together?

 

Isn't Moore a member of the NRA?

 

What do you think I'm lying to you about seeing the movie? What part of this equation do you not understand? I have seen the movie You apparently have not. Accordingly, I feel qualified to comment as to what's in the movie.

I don't really care what the Academy of film or whatever its called in LA qualifies it for the purposes of awards; but if you think that this movie is in the same genre as an episode of "Frontline" on Al Qaeda, or Ken Burns "The Civil War"; then you really do need to turn off the WWE and get with the program. It's not the same; how many animated shorts were in "The Civil War"?

One more reason why I doubt that you have not ever seen it, yet feel eminently qualified to debate as to what is in it with somebody who has.

ANd yes, you got it straight. Moore devotes a whole 30 minutes of the film debunking the theory that its the availability of guns that causes gun violence. He spends a lot of time in Canada, which also has widespread availability of guns yet lower rates of gun violence, and concludes/implies that it's not the availabiliyt of guns thats the problem. Again, if you had actually seen the movie , you may know what I was referring to here.

Yes, he does crap on charlton heston. Boo-freaking-hoo, he's a public figure who volutarily made himself into a political lightning rod. Moore's grandstanding at the end is one of the worst parts of the movie, IMO. Perhaps you would agree with me were you to actually see it.

In any event, he spells out his theme so that even a proletariat nascar watcher such as yourself could understand: he blames our significantly higher rate of violence than in other western countries on a culture of fear, promoted by politicians, the media, and basically anybody who can profit therefrom (which includes gun manufacturers, in fairness).

Do yo think I'm making this up? I'm just telling you (although it's been almost a year now) what I remember was in the movie.

 

Hoot, mon, you just indicted yourself!

I think a documentary has come to mean any film without paid actors.

 

Yes, longtime. As I recall he joined as a teenager when he was a gun enthusiast.

 

..I deserved it.

 

I only caught you on a technicality; you did criticize the movie positively.

I thought your review was pretty spot on. The culture of Fear is intoxicating this nation.

 

Wow, insert the word conservative in the place of liberal, and you've got a description of bamaslammer!

 

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

It seems as if that would be a logical conclusion, but strictly from the context of the argument you can't say that. Sam was out of line...bama put him down.