If you hated Michael Moore before ...

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-09 03:26pm

theski wrote:This might turn into the only problem with the film for real contex issues..
Rep. Kennedy pans Michael Moore film editing
Kevin Diaz, Bureau Correspondent
June 4, 2004 KENN0604
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Mark Kennedy has unhappy memories of his filmed encounter with leftist moviemaker Michael Moore, an encounter featured Thursday in a trailer for the upcoming U.S. release of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11."

"I was walking back to my office after casting a vote, and all of a sudden some oversized guy puts a mike in my face and a camera in my face," said the Minnesota Republican. "He starts asking if I can help him recruit more people from families of members of Congress to participate in the war on terror."

Kennedy said he told Moore that he has two nephews in the military, one who has just been deployed in the Army National Guard.

But to Kennedy's annoyance, his response to Moore was cut from the trailer (and from the film, according to a spokeswoman for the movie).

"The interesting thing is that they used my image, but not my words," Kennedy said. "It's representative of the fact that Michael Moore doesn't always give the whole story, and he's a master of the misleading
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4810977.html

On the trailer Moore said “kids” the fact that Rep. Kennedy has nephews in the forces doesn’t really cut it, Moore can legitimately leave his answer out. Besides it’s a damn trailer they are well known for not having indepth interviews in them

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-09 03:44pm

Moore basically postulates that America's uniquely high violent crime rates are the result of a culture of fear propagated by the media.

Which is absolutely bullshit, of course, the real culprit is inner city gang culture, something that as I recall was never really mentioned in BFC.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-09 03:51pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Well he did quote Bill O'Reilly completely out of context, for the express purpose of trying to make him look like a lunatic, in his playboy interview.

Can you provide a quote? I find it difficult to believe that one would need to take a Bill O'Reilly quote "out of context" to make him look like a lunatic.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-09 04:05pm

Joe wrote: Which is absolutely bullshit, of course, the real culprit is inner city gang culture, something that as I recall was never really mentioned in BFC.

I think he touched on the drug/gang culture with guns but he didn't really get into it.

I don't think Moore was really trying to discuss the mainstream gun murders so much as the really far out stuff and use it as a segue into trying to understand the human compulsion towards mass murder (a la Columbine). He tried to suggest that there may have been some societal programming involved (that was certainly part of it) but one of the best things about BFC was that it really threw the question up in the air, brought out a bunch of information and let the viewer make their own decision. Although its obvious that Moore has quite a bit of anger in him about this, I don't think he knew who exactly to blame either.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-09 04:16pm

I think he touched on the drug/gang culture with guns but he didn't really get into it.

Which is a huge fucking hole in the movie, considering it claims to explain gun violence in America.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-09 04:16pm

The Kernel wrote:I think he touched on the drug/gang culture with guns but he didn't really get into it.

He sort of did. He listed black people as one of the things that Americans were conditioned to fear.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-09 04:16pm

Joe wrote:
I think he touched on the drug/gang culture with guns but he didn't really get into it.
Which is a huge fucking hole in the movie, considering it claims to explain gun violence in America.

It does?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-09 04:24pm

Durandal wrote:
The Kernel wrote:I think he touched on the drug/gang culture with guns but he didn't really get into it.
He sort of did. He listed black people as one of the things that Americans were conditioned to fear.

Which has nothing to do with the black murder rate, almost double that of the white rate.

It does?

I haven't actually seen the movie (not being a movie critic and all, I don't see what I know in advance I won't like) but I was led to believe that was the entire fucking point of the movie.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-09 05:05pm

Joe wrote:I haven't actually seen the movie (not being a movie critic and all, I don't see what I know in advance I won't like) but I was led to believe that was the entire fucking point of the movie.

So what business do you have challenging someone who has seen the movie when he says that Moore left it up in the air?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-09 05:16pm

The film, for those who haven't seen it, is about America's obsession with firearms, not just gun deaths from crime since it touches on accidents like the kids that get ahold of guns.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-09 06:23pm

So what business do you have challenging someone who has seen the movie when he says that Moore left it up in the air?

Becaus, from what I understand Moore's thesis was that his "culture of fear" or whatever he calls it is the cause of gun violence in America, and that just isn't true.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-09 06:36pm

Joe wrote:
So what business do you have challenging someone who has seen the movie when he says that Moore left it up in the air?
Becaus, from what I understand Moore's thesis was that his "culture of fear" or whatever he calls it is the cause of gun violence in America, and that just isn't true.

Then what is causing it? It can't be the number of guns because there are nations out there with just as many per person who don't have the US' insane gun death figure. It may be gangs, but I don't think they could count for all of this. I still believe it's a cultural thing, though I'm open to suggestions.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2004-06-09 06:39pm

Joe wrote:Becaus, from what I understand Moore's thesis was that his "culture of fear" or whatever he calls it is the cause of gun violence in America, and that just isn't true.

I'll repeat Durandul's question in case you missed it the first time:

So what business do you have challenging someone who has seen the movie when he says that Moore left it up in the air?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-09 07:07pm

Then what is causing it? It can't be the number of guns because there are nations out there with just as many per person who don't have the US' insane gun death figure. It may be gangs, but I don't think they could count for all of this. I still believe it's a cultural thing, though I'm open to suggestions.

Take out black gun violence and Americans murder at about the same rate as Canadians, I believe.

As for me, I would blame the abnormally high rate of gun violence among blacks first and foremost on a poor public education system. Other reasons would include single motherhood and the whole gangster mentality - you know, the idea that getting a decent education and job is "acting white."

It is a cultural thing, make no mistake, just not the bogus one Moore suggests.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-09 07:14pm

Joe wrote: It is a cultural thing, make no mistake, just not the bogus one Moore suggests.

Moore doesn't suggest anything, that's what you seem to be missing. He presents a lot of possible theories, but in the end its a big, fat, "I don't know".

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-09 07:21pm

The Kernel wrote:
Joe wrote:It is a cultural thing, make no mistake, just not the bogus one Moore suggests.
Moore doesn't suggest anything, that's what you seem to be missing. He presents a lot of possible theories, but in the end its a big, fat, "I don't know".

I was incorrect earlier when I implied that Moore actually presented a preferred theory, being the culture of fear. He gives the impression that a culture of fear exists, but the main point of the film is that America has a higher violent crime rate than other countries with the same gun ownership.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-09 07:50pm

Moore doesn't suggest anything, that's what you seem to be missing. He presents a lot of possible theories, but in the end its a big, fat, "I don't know".

Yes, all which have something to do with crazy white gunowners being afraid of something, or media scaremongering, or defense contracting companies building missiles near schools, and NONE of them having anything whatsoever to do with the real source of America's abnormally high rate of gun violence. Even if he doesn't come right out and say it, given the examples presented in his movie Michael Moore clearly believes that America's high rate of gun violence is a symptom of its "culture of fear." Do you seriously not see the problem with making a movie ostenibly about gun violence in America and not even mentioning the factor most directly contributing to it?

If Michael Moore had included other potential causes in his movie (specifically, the real cause), I would have less of a problem with this whole "culture of fear" business, at least then it would not have been so blatantly one-sided.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-09 07:51pm

Durandal wrote:
The Kernel wrote:
Joe wrote:It is a cultural thing, make no mistake, just not the bogus one Moore suggests.
Moore doesn't suggest anything, that's what you seem to be missing. He presents a lot of possible theories, but in the end its a big, fat, "I don't know".
I was incorrect earlier when I implied that Moore actually presented a preferred theory, being the culture of fear. He gives the impression that a culture of fear exists, but the main point of the film is that America has a higher violent crime rate than other countries with the same gun ownership.

Then the film is fucking pointless, statisticians have already beaten him to the punch.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-06-09 08:00pm

Durandal wrote:After reading it, my opinion was that none of the people criticizing the film could find any kind of solid evidence of major fabrications on Moore's part. They mostly complained about how, if you interpreted the composition and presentation a certain way, it could possibly be considered lying. None of the criticisms affect the main point of the film, which is that America's crime rates aren't necessarily caused by gun ownership, since other countries have similar gun ownership rates but drastically lower crime rates. Moore basically postulates that America's uniquely high violent crime rates are the result of a culture of fear propagated by the media.

That's REALLY strange. Can someone please explain to me why seemingly every anti-gun organization in existence points to "Bowling for Columbine" as an important work in spreading their message, even though it explicitly supports the NRA's stance regarding firearm ownership?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-09 08:11pm

That's REALLY strange. Can someone please explain to me why seemingly every anti-gun organization in existence points to "Bowling for Columbine" as an important work in spreading their message, even though it explicitly supports the NRA's stance regarding firearm ownership?

Probably because the movie demonizes the gun owners that make up their chief opposition.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-06-09 08:25pm

Probably because the movie demonizes the gun owners that make up their chief opposition.

Will you PLEASE go and see the movie, Joe? Just go and see it, because right now you have made several posts bashing this movie, yet you HAVEN'T SEEN IT! Go see the movie, BEFORE you make claims to what it does and does not present. Because I cannot take your posts seriously about this movie, which you haven't even seen. This reminds me of all the petitions from Catholics to get people to not go and see "Dogma," even though almost all those people had not even seen the movie, but that it was just bashing their religion, and that was bad.

Also, Joe, if you don't mind giving a source for your claim earlier that

Which is absolutely bullshit, of course, the real culprit is inner city gang culture, something that as I recall was never really mentioned in
BFC

Because I didn't realize that "inner city gang culture" is the culprit of the high gun violence rate.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-09 08:38pm

Will you PLEASE go and see the movie, Joe? Just go and see it, because right now you have made several posts bashing this movie, yet you HAVEN'T SEEN IT! Go see the movie, BEFORE you make claims to what it does and does not present. Because I cannot take your posts seriously about this movie, which you haven't even seen. This reminds me of all the petitions from Catholics to get people to not go and see "Dogma," even though almost all those people had not even seen the movie, but that it was just bashing their religion, and that was bad.

I have never had my scrotum pierced with a rusty nail before, either; now if I were to say having your scrotum pierced with a rusty nail is unbelievably painful, would you not be able to take seriously that assertion on the same basis that you refuse to take seriously my posts on Bowling for Bullshit?

Because I didn't realize that "inner city gang culture" is the culprit of the high gun violence rate.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-09 09:06pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Glocksman wrote:Just wait until the guys at Spinsanity run it through the wash.
Yep. Besides if Moore came up to me, I'd probably cram his mike down
his throat and/or grab his camera and use it to beat him sadistically

That's mighty tough talk from someone who's too much of a pussy to travel to Africa.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-09 09:13pm

Joe wrote:I have never had my scrotum pierced with a rusty nail before, either; now if I were to say having your scrotum pierced with a rusty nail is unbelievably painful, would you not be able to take seriously that assertion on the same basis that you refuse to take seriously my posts on Bowling for Bullshit?

FFS Joe if you want to argue about the film go and see the damn thing first (or borrow it of somebody or download it if you can’t bear to give Moore any of your money) you clearly know nothing about it other than crappy biased second hand reports handed onto you by your young republican friends.

Your scrotum piercing comparison means nothing and you know it, Bowling for Columbine may well be “Bullshit” but it’s failings are debatable and not clear cut.

Take a break from the computer go out to the video rental store and WATCH THE DAMN FILM then I’m sure we’ll be happy to discuss it’s manifest failings with, until you do that shut the fuck up, right now you’re just embarrassing yourself.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-06-09 09:22pm

Elfdart wrote:That's mighty tough talk from someone who's too much of a pussy to travel to Africa.

Unlike African rebel/militia groups, Michael Moore doesn't usually weild AKs and RPG-7s

.