My wife's review of Bowling for Columbine

[Darth Wong]

I thought it might be interesting to find out what a totally apolitical person thinks of BFC, since it's quite clear what the politically oriented people think (and I don't want to get into another rehash between myself and other politically oriented people here). My wife is as apolitical as people get. She doesn't watch TV, she doesn't like the news, she doesn't read this board or care about what we say here, and we had BFC here for more than a week and she didn't bother watching it.

So, without "prepping" her in any way, I asked her to watch BFC and get back to me. I also told her (after the film) about some of the major criticisms. Some interesting revelations:

1. She felt Heston was being insensitive to the people of Columbine. When I sprung the "left out bits" about the toned-back celebrations and the parts of the speech omitted, she didn't understand how that made it OK, although she did feel that it wasn't as bad knowing that he did tone back the celebrations.
2. She was very enamoured of the "culture of fear" argument, and felt that it was very convincing and accurate.
3. She thought that his interview with Heston at the end was just grandstanding, but that Heston's angry response when asked if he would consider apologizing to the people of Columbine for the unfortunate timing of the event proved to her that he was insensitive to them. Interestingly enough, she said she would have totally revised her opinion of Heston if he had expressed some kind of regret over the timing of the event.
4. She thought that the part about K-Mart and getting them to stop selling ammunition was stupid and irrelevant.
5. She laughed out loud when I told her that people complained about factual errors in the cartoon part. As she put it, it's a silly cartoon, and obviously not meant to be taken literally.
6. When I told her about the fact that the particular Lockheed-Martin plant made rockets for satellites rather than missiles, she asked what that had to do with anything.
7. She felt that the NRA had nothing to do with Columbine, and that the film did a poor job of making this connection, if indeed it was even attempting to (she said she wasn't actually sure what point the film was trying to make about the NRA, and she felt that the NRA-related part of the film was rather muddled).

Just FYI. Since Perinquus made the very valid point that I could not watch the film with a clear slate because I'd read too much about it beforehand, I thought it would be good to ask an apolitical person what she thought about it.

I think it's interesting that her viewpoint falls somewhere between mine and the NRA people. Perhaps we've both become polarized about this subject. Has anyone else tried talking to apolitical people about the film, or getting them to see it?

[TrailerParkJawa]

None of my friends have seen it and most of them are apathetic politically. I have not seen it either, while Im not a fiery about my opinions on this board I do have them. Even if I was apolitical, though Im sure my opinion of the film is influenced by the arguements Ive seen here.

I would hazard a guess that a film like this is viewed mainly by political folks.

[Stormbringer]

I think it's interesting that her viewpoint falls somewhere between mine and the NRA people. Perhaps we've both become polarized about this subject. Has anyone else tried talking to apolitical people about the film, or getting them to see it.

That's not too suprising. Moore did distort facts and make rather pointless side tracks in the film for political purposes. An informed audience, whether pro or con, does matter a lot when veiwing something like BFC.

I still think Moore's "Culture of Fear" is a ridiciulous method of explaining something that has a far more direct cause. A lot of that is no more than over complicated social theories to explain a simple problem,.

[Darth Wong]

Stormbringer, it sounds like you're trying to change the subject into yet another debate about Moore.

Don't do that; the point of this thread is to see what apolitical people think of the film and the various key criticisms of it, not to rehash what's been said before by the various opposed parties on this subject.

[Stormbringer]

Stormbringer, it sounds like you're trying to change the subject into yet another debate about Moore.

Don't do that; the point of this thread is to see what apolitical people think of the film and the various key criticisms of it, not to rehash what's been said before by the various opposed parties on this subject.

Actually, I really don't give a flying fuck what you think of Moore. No amount of debates going to change your mind anyway.

And when your apolitical person gets some of the wrong messages that does indeed show there's validty to saying Michael Moore's carefully crafted presentation doesn't accurately convey the truth.

[Perinquus]

She felt Heston was being insensitive to the people of Columbine. When I sprung the "left out bits" about the toned-back celebrations and the parts of the speech omitted, she didn't understand how that made it OK, although she did feel that it wasn't as bad knowing that he did tone back the celebrations.

Just curious. You didn't mention whether or not you told her the NRA had to attend this meeting, since it had been scheduled beforehand, and the organization is legally required to hold such a meeting once per year to maintain its status.

On another note, I am of two minds about the NRA. On the one hand, I am a member, because it is the largest and best organized outfit which lobbies to defend the 2nd amendment. I think this is important, since I believe people have a right to self defense, and I'm convinced strict gun control measures are ineffective in fighting crime. We really do have people who want to ban guns outright (and not just lobbying groups like Handgun Control, Inc., but politicians like Sens. Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, and Diane Feinstein, among many others), and I think if they get their way, it will make the crime problem we have a lot worse, not better.

But on the other hand, I realize the NRA has a public relations problem. When Charlton Heston or Wayne LaPierre make speeches like the ones at Denver, which appear insensitive to things like the Columbine tragedy, it alienates moderates who otherwise might support the NRA's efforts to oppose extreme gun control measures. That's one reason it bothers me that Moore painted the NRA and Heston to look even worse than they did already (and it was not one of the NRA's finer moments to begin with) it damages the organization further in the eyes of the public. A good example is a girl I know, who is largely apolitical, and who, whenever she does express an opinion on politics, is largely moderate, leaning slightly toward conservative. She doesn't like the NRA because she perceives them as somewhat extreme, and rather insensitive.

I really wish the organization would promote some people who understand the value of good PR, and who would tone down the rhetoric like the "cold dead hands" stuff. There's no need to say things like that. When they say it to assembled NRA members, they're preaching to the choir, and when moderates and fence sitters hear it, it makes them look askance at the organization. They need some good PR men, and some good speechwriters. Maybe then they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot whenever they get up to address an audience.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, I really don't give a flying fuck what you think of Moore. No amount of debates going to change your mind anyway.

Or yours, but of course, you're completely right, so there's no need to observe the topic of this thread

And when your apolitical person gets some of the wrong messages that does indeed show there's validty to saying Michael Moore's carefully crafted presentation doesn't accurately convey the truth.

I already told you I'm not interested in letting you turn this into yet another debate about the same subject. Stop trying to bait me into responding on this.

[Darth Wong]

She felt Heston was being insensitive to the people of Columbine. When I sprung the "left out bits" about the toned-back celebrations and the parts of the speech omitted, she didn't understand how that made it OK, although she did feel that it wasn't as bad knowing that he did tone back the celebrations.

Just curious. You didn't mention whether or not you told her the NRA had to attend this meeting, since it had been scheduled beforehand, and the organization is legally required to hold such a meeting once per year to maintain its status.

I told her they had no choice but to hold the meeting. Her problem was the way Heston didn't seem to show any regret over the timing, and she didn't think the left-out parts of the speech made much of a difference. I did, however, think it was interesting that she said she would have been willing to completely change her mind if Heston had just expressed some regret about the timing of the event when Moore cornered him on it in the interview, instead of ranting about his rights.

On another note, I am of two minds about the NRA. On the one hand, I am a member, because it is the largest and best organized outfit which lobbies to defend the 2nd amendment. I think this is important, since I believe people have a right to self defense, and I'm convinced strict gun control measures are ineffective in fighting crime. We really do have people who want to ban guns outright (and not just lobbying groups like Handgun Control, Inc., but politicians like Sens. Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, and Diane Feinstein, among many others), and I think if they get their way, it will make the crime problem we have a lot worse, not better.

But on the other hand, I realize the NRA has a public relations problem. When Charlton Heston or Wayne LaPierre make speeches like the ones at Denver, which appear insensitive to things like the Columbine tragedy, it alienates moderates who otherwise might support the NRA's efforts to oppose extreme gun control measures. That's one reason it bothers me that Moore painted the NRA and Heston to look even worse than they did already (and it was not one of the NRA's finer moments to begin with) it damages the organization further in the eyes of the public. A good example is a girl I know, who is largely apolitical, and who, whenever she does express an opinion on politics, is largely moderate, leaning slightly toward conservative. She doesn't like the NRA because she perceives them as somewhat extreme, and rather insensitive.

And it's easier to blame Moore for that than the NRA itself. After all, as I said, Rebecca thought she would have completely revised her opinion of Heston if he'd only said something even as mild as "yes, I felt bad about the timing of that event" rather than getting angry and talking about his rights when the incident was brought up. In some ways, it was the interview at the end that clinched it for her, more than the speech in Denver (although she felt that Moore went waaaay over the top with that picture of the dead girl from Flint, where she thought he had no point and Heston did a good job of defusing the issue by pointing out that they didn't even know about that when they planned the meeting).

I really wish the organization would promote some people who understand the value of good PR, and who would tone down the rhetoric like the "cold dead hands" stuff. There's no need to say things like that. When they say it to assembled NRA members, they're preaching to the choir, and when moderates and fence sitters hear it, it makes them look askance at the organization. They need some good PR men, and some good speechwriters. Maybe then they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot whenever they get up to address an audience.

I think they need to promote clean living and a natural outdoorsman's lifestyle rather than this "keep a gun in your house just in case we need to revolt against the jack-booted government thugs" bullshit. But you're right about the "cold dead hands" thing; Rebecca rolls her eyes whenever she hears that phrase, and I think a lot of moderates like her get polarized by it.

[Nathan F]

I think it's interesting that her viewpoint falls somewhere between mine and the NRA people. Perhaps we've both become polarized about this subject. Has anyone else tried talking to apolitical people about the film, or getting them to see it?

I agree with you on that point. I think that we both are too opinionated on the subject to be able to look at it in an objective sort of way.

But, I did find your wife's review of it interesting, and you are right, it falls kind of in the middle of what both of us have been saying.

I am curious, how much does your wife know on the subject already?

[Darth Wong]

I agree with you on that point. I think that we both are too opinionated on the subject to be able to look at it in an objective sort of way.

But, I did find your wife's review of it interesting, and you are right, it falls kind of in the middle of what both of us have been saying.

I am curious, how much does your wife know on the subject already?

Almost nothing. She didn't even know there was any controversy over the film, or what it was about (apart from having something to do with the Columbine massacre). As I said, she's quite apolitical, and American politics are pretty far from her agenda.

[seanrobertson]

I think it's interesting that her viewpoint falls somewhere between mine and the NRA people. Perhaps we've both become polarized about this subject. Has anyone else tried talking to apolitical people about the film, or getting them to see it?

Not exactly. I forced myself to see it recently because I was polarized.

After watching the film, I agree with you that most peoples' qualms with the film are red herrings and nitpicks at best.

Then, I've never liked Moore very much. Before I saw it, I'd heard about "all of the movie's bullshit" for months, and I started to believe that. Very simply, I thought it'd help justify my dislike for its filmmaker. I wanted to believe it.

But by the end of the film, I realized if I was looking for real ammo (hahaha) to use against Moore, I'd best look elsewhere. In a matter of hours I went from wanting to bust the guy's balls to hearing him out.

I suppose I could pick at the guy still, but over what? Technically objectionable as some of the fine details were, I wasn't too distracted by any of those things. Some of the Heston material got tiresome to me, too, but certainly no moreso than, say, the Anakin/Amidala subplot of AOTC--a movie I really liked.

Instead, I found myself more interested in the culture of fear concept, something that's definitely not well-identified in the United States but's been under our noses for decades. We're so used to it we can't see it. When it is recognized, it's paid some bullshit lip-service and is quickly dropped. Moore's right; that's simply not good enough.

When someone brings something important to my attention, I'm not often inclined to berate them over some picayune shit. I'll probably never be a Moore fan, but not because BFC stunk. It's a pretty good, definitely thought-provoking, film.

Could it have run a little smoother? Probably, but if it didn't have its bumps, I would probably have never given it a chance in the first place.

On a similar note, I half-seriously wonder if some of the weaker innuendos were left in the film deliberately. Initially, I figured the more blatant mistakes--the apparent confusion over when the KKK and NRA were founded, respectively--were the result of weak editing.

Now, I'm not so sure. Controversy over those kinds of things got me to buy a ticket, after all.

[Uraniun235]

Funny, I was under the impression "most people's qualms" about it were related to the lies and "creative editing". At least, that's what my problems with it were.

[Darth Wong]

Funny, I was under the impression "most people's qualms" about it were related to the lies and "creative editing". At least, that's what my problems with it were.

What part of "this thread is here to discuss how non-partisans react to the film, not to rehash ancient arguments" did you not understand?

[seanrobertson]

Funny, I was under the impression "most people's qualms" about it were related to the lies and "creative editing". At least, that's what my problems with it were.

How cute--taking something I said out of context, then trying to mock me w/ the roll eyes icon.

You get ahead of yourself.

"After watching the film, I agree with [Mike] that most peoples' qualms with the film are red herrings and nitpicks at best.

The "lies" and creative editing ARE the nitpicks to which I refer.

If you wish to debate those things with me, please let me know; I suppose we can pick that up in the following thread, which has already dealt with some of the "finer" points of the film:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=29284



To shift gears, my best friend also saw the film.

I'm inclined to characterize him as apolitical. He's never voted, doesn't watch any news programs, doesn't read the newspaper, doesn't listen to the radio and has no strong leanings toward much of anything other than women and X-Box.

He's also a bit of a puzzle himself. In spite of how I'll make him sound, he's a highly intelligent guy. He just won a pretty prestigous Cyber-Defender scholarship that'll pay for the remainder of his graduate studies.

But it's also fair to say he's a bit dopey...he's quick to ask things aloud that I'd personally be embarrassed to, and is oftentimes prone to illogic, especially hasty generalizations. His head is in the clouds seemingly all the time.

He's an interesting mix of seemingly contradictory qualities, so it's always fun to see his reactions to things--provided of course he pays attention long enough.

I think he paid enough attention to BFC because we did talk about it a little. The conversation was anything but serious, and I don't remember what all he said.

Still, what I gathered from him be a little more relevant than my own impressions since I approached the film with some angst. I'll try to recall

--He or maybe his brother, I can't remember which, found the cartoon offensive. I suspect he/they felt it was condescending. (I can understand that. My impulse was to balk at that, too, providing an interesting contrast to Mike and Rebecca's take.)

--He thought Heston came off like a prick, but Moore came off worse, "picking on an old man who had a stroke" or the like.

--Maybe twice he expressed confusion as to why Moore was "NRA bashing."

--Hmm...let's see...when we're told about the plane which "killed a lot of Vietnamese people," he just snorted. He found that very disrespectful and unnecessary, having lost an uncle in 'Nam. He specifically asked, "Why is he [Moore] being so mean to us [the U.S.]?" (As I said, he often blurts out stilted questions before even attempting to answer them himself.)

His brother and sister-in-law, also watching the movie, went off on a tangent at this point, however, so I missed some of what my friend said.

--He got the premise of the film, and did laugh about how "scary" he tends to be regarding crime, personal safety and so on. (Or so he thinks. I actually think he's very happy-go-lucky, the kind of guy that would be too easy to rob blind. I think that he believes he's anxious about violence says something in itself...perhaps that he believes he should be?)

I believe he thought Moore did an okay job making that point, but "could have done it without being an asshole" (paraphrased).

From that and everything else he said about the perceived fixation on Heston, I'd say the language and style of the movie really grabbed him more than the message. The four of us were just goofing off, though, drinking beer and eating chicken wings. I wouldn't call it the most serious venue imaginable.

I'm already grasping at straws, but that's what stands out.