Who the Fuck is Michel Moore??

[russellb6666]

i'm just wondering what he has aganist american gun culture anyway??? did some anti gunner make him create this documentary or did he do it himself for the hell of it??

No, he's just a far left (Nader-esque) liberal. It's just his way of making a political show peice.

what a waste of fuck'in time effort and energy for something that is crap

[Nathan F]

We had a big long discussion on that lardass lying sumbitch who's film borders on the edge of libel, and sometimes crosses it. If you want to crawl through that sack of festering dead horse crap known as Bowling for Columbine, have at it, but be sure to wear a full BS-proof suit of armor while you are at it.

Just do a search for Revoking Michael Moore's Oscar.

[Nathan F]

Oh, forgot to mention, Moore was booed off the stage when he got his Oscar for that previously mentioned pile of hog manure.

[russellb6666]

after reading all the responeses I wonder if it is worth the effort to go buy and destroy as many of the DVDs of this crap-umentary as I can

[Joe]

after reading all the responeses I wonder if it is worth the effort to go buy and destroy as many of the DVDs of this crap-umentary as I can

You're preaching to the choir a bit much, chief. Ease up.

[Montcalm]

after reading all the responeses I wonder if it is worth the effort to go buy and destroy as many of the DVDs of this crap-umentary as I can

That would be dumb wasting your money just to destroy the DVDs

[RedImperator]

I actually liked Roger and Me, even if I didn't agree with his ultimate conclusion. I'm all about capitalism, but is is a system that produces losers, and you're not doing anyone any favors by pretending they don't exist.

He's a good filmmaker, I'll give him that, even if he is a propagandist for the other side. It's his political views I detest.

[The Dark]

My main problem with Moore is that he does flat-out lie in his films. I don't know about most of his other claims, but the Lockheed Martin plant in Columbine did not build missiles. They built rockets for NASA to launch satellites. Missiles and Fire Control is largely centered in Orlando and Dallas. The closest MaFC site to Columbine is Santa Barbara, CA...with 65 employees (out of a total of about 8,000).

[Darth Wong]

Moore plays fast and loose with some of his supporting facts, such as the aforementioned Lockheed-Martin plant bit. The fact that the main thrust of his argument (that America has a disturbingly violent culture where guns are worshipped rather than merely owned) has never been seriously challenged is a minor embarassment for the people who hate him, but they try to gloss over it as much as they can with lots of really creatively worded insults.

[Nathan F]

Moore plays fast and loose with some of his supporting facts, such as the aforementioned Lockheed-Martin plant bit. The fact that the main thrust of his argument (that America has a disturbingly violent culture where guns are worshipped rather than merely owned) has never been seriously challenged is a minor embarassment for the people who hate him, but they try to gloss over it as much as they can with lots of really creatively worded insults.

We had this argument a long time ago, and it ended up a stalemate, iirc...

[Darth Wong]

We had this argument a long time ago, and it ended up a stalemate, iirc...

Not really; the argument was over the degree of Moore's distortion of the facts. At no point was the meat of his societal argument actually addressed.

[Nathan F]

We had this argument a long time ago, and it ended up a stalemate, iirc...

Not really; the argument was over the degree of Moore's distortion of the facts. At no point was the meat of his societal argument actually addressed.

You sure? I know that pretty much everyone agreed with his distortion of the facts, but I could have sworn that we discussed the gun culture deal a bit, too. Oy, my brain must be frying out already from Calculus...

[CaptainChewbacca]

It pissed me off that he made Charlton Heston look like a backwoods racist.

The man marched for civil rights! He was a friend of Dr. King! He is no racist.

[Darth Wong]

It pissed me off that he made Charlton Heston look like a backwoods racist.

The man marched for civil rights! He was a friend of Dr. King! He is no racist.

Actually, the fact that the man marched for civil rights does not necessarily mean that he is not racist. It only means that he objected to the level of racism present at the time of those demonstrations. There are many people who believed that Jim Crow was wrong but who would never let their white daughter date a black man.

By the way, Heston is a homophobe: he equates all homosexuals to pedophiles. And he is a religious bigot who thinks that the country should be run on religious principles. He's a full-bore frothing-at-the-mouth ideologue. He trivializes the Holocaust by having the temerity to compare the treatment of white Christians to the treatment of Jews in WW2:

I remember when European Jews feared to admit their faith. The Nazis forced them to wear six-pointed yellow stars sewn on their chests as identity badges. It worked. So—what color star will they pin on our coats? How will the self-styled elite tag us? There may not be a Gestapo officer on every street corner yet, but the influence on our culture is just as pervasive.

He also tries to argue that the Promise Keepers (a fundamentalist group) should be treated identically to the "million man march" (a public demonstration which was totally peaceful and did not advocate anything remotely resembling the fundie bullshit spewed by the Promise Keepers).

Why was the Million Man March on Washington celebrated in the media as progress, while the Promise Keepers March on Washington was greeted with suspicion and ridicule? I'll tell you why: Cultural warfare.

He also rants and raves about long imaginary lineups of oppressed families in England and Australia:

Because Bill Clinton's cultural warriors want a penitent cleansing of firearms, as if millions of lawful gun owners should genuflect in shame and seek absolution by surrendering their guns. That's what is now literally happening in England and Australia, of course. Lines—long lines—of submissive citizens, threatened with imprisonment, are bitterly, reluctantly surrendering family heirlooms, guns that won their freedom, to the blast furnace. If that fact doesn't unsettle you, then you are already anesthetized, a ready victim of the cultural war.

A fine example of his cultural schizophrenia can be found in a statement where he simultaneously upholds freedom of speech and screeches that people outside the mainstream should just shut the fuck up:

You know, I think, that I stand first in line in defense of free speech. But those who speak against the perverted and profane should be given as much due as those who profit by it. You also know I welcome cultural diversity. But those who choose to live on the fringe should not tear apart the seams that secure the fabric of our society.

Similarly, he simultaneously tries to claim that he supports tolerance for homosexuals while screaming that they're all pedophiles:

The gay and lesbian movement is another good example. Many homosexuals are hugely talented artists and executives... also dear friends. I don't despise their lifestyle, though I don't share it. As long as gay and lesbian Americans are as productive, law-abiding and private as the rest of us, I think America owes them absolute tolerance. It's the right thing to do.

But on the other hand, I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton's cultural shock troops participate in homosexual-rights fund-raisers but boycott gun-rights fund-raisers... and then claim it's time to place homosexual men in tents with Boy Scouts ...

Sorry, but I see no justification in anyone defending Heston, who seems to be nothing more than a knuckle-dragging redneck social reactionary who has learned to carefully sugar-coat his message with platitudes.

[Hamel]

There was an article in defense of BoC over at Kuro5hin.org, with many comments below.

Here's some pieces of the article:

2) The Lockheed-Martin interview. This is perhaps the criticism repeated the most often, and it also the most inaccurate. First, the actual quotes from the film are often reproduced incorrectly. The dialogue goes as follows:

Moore: "So you don't think our kids say to themselves, gee, dad goes off to the factory every day - he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?"

McCollum (PR person): "I guess I don't see that specific connection because the missiles that you're talking about were built and designed to defend us from somebody else who would be aggressors against us."

First, note the word "our" in Moore's question. Moore is not from Colorado -- his question is generic, not meant to refer specifically to the Lockheed Martin plant in question. McCollum understands it this way -- otherwise he would protest against the plant being mischaracterized. However, critics of Moore have cleverly ignored McCollum's response and presented Moore as spreading lies about the Lockheed plant.

Even Lockheed did not believe the public to be that gullible. In response to one Moore detractor, McCollum wrote: "Although other units of Lockheed Martin Corporation elsewhere in the country produce weapons to support the defense of the U.S., we make no weapons at the Littleton-area facility Moore visited." Of course, critics have conveniently ignored the fact that Lockheed Martin does supply weapons of mass destruction to the US military, and that the company is the nation's largest military contractor. As Moore correctly points out, it is bizarre for a society to openly embrace the production of destructive weapons, but on the other hand see no connection of this to everyday violence -- children learn by imitating adults.

Yes, Moore makes this point through slight exaggeration by moving with the camera through the LM plant -- but he makes no incorrect statement. It is typical for his critics to jump on what is at most a slightly misleading implication, but in doing so, they themselves have, unlike Moore, made many incorrect claims.

3) Denver NRA meeting. Critics like yourself claim that Moore has massively distorted evidence to support his point that Charlton Heston has effectively insulted the victims of the Columbine tragedy by holding a rally in Denver shortly afterwards.

First, the "from my cold, dead hands" part: This is used by Moore as a visual citation to introduce Heston. It is perhaps one of his most famous quotes, shown on national TV even here in Germany. It tells viewers: Aha, this is the person we are talking about. Nowhere does Moore say or imply that these words were uttered at the rally in Denver, and in fact, their reptition later in the movie at another occasion (oddly claimed by critics to be again "misattributed") is simply a reminder of this. It is Moore's way to say: Viewers, meet Charlton Heston, gun nut extraordinaire.

The "visual of a billboard and a narration" is viewed by you as evidence that Moore is trying to somehow tie the two events together, when in reality, it is quite obvious that he does it to separate the introduction of Heston from his speech in Denver. Moore is a professional filmmaker -- he concentrates on maximum impact of each of the statements he cites, and to accomplish that effect, uses subtle interludes instead of long-winded introductions. This is a common technique, but because conservative readers are not familiar with the basics of filmmaking, they believe critics who claim that he is "distorting" the interview. What he does is standard filmmaking practice.

The same goes for the interview which follows. Moore's critics would expect us to have him quote Heston in his entirety, have him present fully the PR that the NRA has used to justify its rally in Denver for reasons of "balance". The NRA was fully aware of the scandal it would cause through its rally and decided to push on because they believed to have enough media support to successfully do so. They were right. You claim that there was "no way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members." 10 days are more than enough to give advance warning of a change in location or date, had the NRA really wanted to. It is probably correct that their primary reason for not doing so was to save money, not to piss off the victims of Colubmine. That does not change the fact that they did just that. Moore presents the most important part of the speech to back up this point and ignores the fluff. This is what good documentary filmmaking is about. And here the critics again ignore important evidence:

When Heston mentions the mayor of Denver, the crowd boos loudly. Heston maganimously holds up a hand to read the mayor's letter (only to explain in detail why he chose to ignore the request -- not mentioning at all the reasons you have given!). This booing by the crowd, not mentioned with a single word in your transcript or your article, shows that the crowd was fully aware of the controversy they would cause by coming to Littleton after children were being killed there -- and they effectively said "Fuck you". To say that they could not have done otherwise is a bold lie by Moore's critics.

5) You write: "Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview." No, he doesn't. You accuse Moore so often of changing the chronology, yet you have no problems changing it yourself. The Heston interview is at the very end of the movie. After the Flint rally comes a brief TV interview with Heston, where he is asked about Kayla Rolland (again, clear evidence that the local media in Flint raised questions about the NRA's presence), then an inteview with country prosecutor Arthur Busch, entirely ignored by critics of the film, who also mentions Heston's presence as notable, and refers to the immediate reactions of "people from all over America", gun owners/groups who, according to him, reacted aggressively to warnings of having guns accessible to children, much like spanking advocates react aggressively when anti-spankers point to a case of a child being killed or severely injured by a beating. These people do not feel the need to express sympathy, or to think about ways to avoid such incidents, but they feel the need to assert their "rights" and to look for quick, simple answers -- as Busch states, gun owners wanted to "hang [the child] from the highest tree". This is all not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie, who claim to be objective.

Perhaps the best example of the paranoia surrounding Moore's film is your sub-essay "Is the end of the Heston interview itself faked?"

Moore answers a simple question -- how could the scene have been filmed -- with a simple answer: two cameras. From this, you construct an obscure conspiracy of "re-enactment": "For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!' to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left." Even if your "re-enactment" theory is true (and I see no evidence that you have actually tried to ask the people involved in the filmmaking for their opinion), this itself is not unethical, and you have no evidence whatsoever that Moore has done anything unethical here, just like you have no evidence that Moore has unethically removed parts of the interview. You use standard filmmaking technique as a basis to construct bizarre conspiracies which sound plausible to the gullible reader, without ever providing any evidence for the implicit or explicit claims of fraud and distortion.

[Stormbringer]

Moore plays fast and loose with some of his supporting facts, such as the aforementioned Lockheed-Martin plant bit.

Fast and loose is a nice way to put it, sugarcoated to be sure but nice..

The fact that the main thrust of his argument (that America has a disturbingly violent culture where guns are worshipped rather than merely owned) has never been seriously challenged is a minor embarassment for the people who hate him, but they try to gloss over it as much as they can with lots of really creatively worded insults.

No one is arguing with him that America has a crime problem. That's nothing new to either side of the debate. Why and what to do about it are where both sides differ.

That the problem is far more tied to social decay in the inner cities and the fucked up family life of the middle- and upper-class than to the simple prevelance of guns. The inner city violence is the inevitable result of crushing poverty and a culture that's been told by everyone (for their own purposes) that they'll do no better. It's the age old violence of the penned up, hopeless underclass. As for the Columbine murders, that's the sort of thing that happens when parenting is replaced with tv and prozac. No different than Leopold and Lobe.

I despise Michael Moore for his willingness to distort and flat out lie about the facts to support his case. The fact that he raised a question that's plagued sociologist, politicions and Joe Schmoes for decades earns him no respect in my book. Had he taken a hard look at the real causes of the appalling violence plaguing America (and done so honestly) I would have respected him. He didn't; instead he chose to make a peice of politicol propoganda.

If you want real documentary of school shootings and why they happen, watch the America Undercover documentary on it. It's far more honest and concentrates on the real issues.

[Darth Wong]

Moore plays fast and loose with some of his supporting facts, such as the aforementioned Lockheed-Martin plant bit.

Fast and loose is a nice way to put it, sugarcoated to be sure but nice..

Don't exaggerate. The biggest problem with the Michael Moore haters is that trivial items are routinely exaggerated into gigantic fraud.

The fact that the main thrust of his argument (that America has a disturbingly violent culture where guns are worshipped rather than merely owned) has never been seriously challenged is a minor embarassment for the people who hate him, but they try to gloss over it as much as they can with lots of really creatively worded insults.

No one is arguing with him that America has a crime problem. That's nothing new to either side of the debate. Why and what to do about it are where both sides differ.

That the problem is far more tied to social decay in the inner cities and the fucked up family life of the middle- and upper-class than to the simple prevelance of guns. The inner city violence is the inevitable result of crushing poverty and a culture that's been told by everyone (for their own purposes) that they'll do no better. It's the age old violence of the penned up, hopeless underclass. As for the Columbine murders, that's the sort of thing that happens when parenting is replaced with tv and prozac. No different than Leopold and Lobe.

Since Moore himself argued that it was society rather than the guns themselves, you are only agreeing with him. This is my point; people don't even care what he has to say; they know that the proper conservative attitude is to bash the living fuck out of him, so they do it, using any excuses necessary.

I despise Michael Moore for his willingness to distort and flat out lie about the facts to support his case.

But most of the facts in BFC are not in dispute and never have been. Generalizations like this only look like a knee jerking.

The fact that he raised a question that's plagued sociologist, politicions and Joe Schmoes for decades earns him no respect in my book. Had he taken a hard look at the real causes of the appalling violence plaguing America (and done so honestly) I would have respected him. He didn't; instead he chose to make a peice of politicol propoganda.

If you want real documentary of school shootings and why they happen, watch the America Undercover documentary on it. It's far more honest and concentrates on the real issues.

What do they blame, if not the culture of violence? Present-day American culture glorifies violence and the instruments used in order to commit that violence. You can deny that all you like, but it remains true.

[Hamel]

I typed out BoC instead of BFG. I'm so silly.

[Darth Wong]

I typed out BoC instead of BFG. I'm so silly.

Actually, it's BFC. BFG is the Big Fucking Gun from Doom.

[Stormbringer]

Since Moore himself argued that it was society rather than the guns themselves, you are only agreeing with him. This is my point; people don't even care what he has to say; they know that the proper conservative attitude is to bash the living fuck out of him, so they do it, using any excuses necessary.

Actually, to use his turn of phrase he blames it on a "culture of fear" which he ascribes to conservative gun owners (as portrayed by the Michigan Militia and James Nichols. That's quite different from addressing the societal problems which actually do cause the problems.

But most of the facts in BFC are not in dispute and never have been. Generalizations like this only look like a knee jerking.

Which facts do you mean exactly? His analysis is tied to the "trivial" facts. It's part of his basic belief that they were inspired his culture of fear, as tied to things like the NRA, MI Militia and their parents building ICBMs.

What do they blame, if not the culture of violence? Present-day American culture glorifies violence and the instruments used in order to commit that violence. You can deny that all you like, but it remains true.

The culture of parental neglect and non-existent personal responsibility. In essence it boils down to the fact that these kids had no idea how the real world worked and in consequence were a pair of maladjusted time bombs

They blame the parents and the cultural laziness that spawned said parents. It also quite rightly points out that both kids were essentially neglected, spoiled, and ethically barren thanks to their parents neglect. There's also alot of worthwhile commentary about the fact that these kids expected it all and it to be there when they wanted it. .

[Lord Poe]

Present-day American culture glorifies violence and the instruments used in order to commit that violence. You can deny that all you like, but it remains true.

And so does the rest of the world, who flock to American movies which depict that violence and and the instruments of destruction, while "burning lights of reason" movies like BFC are ignored.

[Darth Wong]

Present-day American culture glorifies violence and the instruments used in order to commit that violence. You can deny that all you like, but it remains true.

And so does the rest of the world, who flock to American movies which depict that violence and and the instruments of destruction, while "burning lights of reason" movies like BFC are ignored.

That is both true and untrue. It is true in the sense that people all around the world do flock to American movies. It is also untrue in the sense that when you look at the domestic cultural output of these other countries, their movies tend to look a lot different than American movies.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, to use his turn of phrase he blames it on a "culture of fear" which he ascribes to conservative gun owners (as portrayed by the Michigan Militia and James Nichols. That's quite different from addressing the societal problems which actually do cause the problems.

Except that you have not successfully exonerated the culture of fear as a cause, other than to simply state your dismissal of it.

Which facts do you mean exactly? His analysis is tied to the "trivial" facts. It's part of his basic belief that they were inspired his culture of fear, as tied to things like the NRA, MI Militia and their parents building ICBMs.

The "culture of fear" argument is hardly based solely on the notion that a particular Lockheed-Martin plant somewhere in America made missile components rather than satellite components.

The culture of parental neglect and non-existent personal responsibility. In essence it boils down to the fact that these kids had no idea how the real world worked and in consequence were a pair of maladjusted time bombs

They blame the parents and the cultural laziness that spawned said parents. It also quite rightly points out that both kids were essentially neglected, spoiled, and ethically barren thanks to their parents neglect. There's also alot of worthwhile commentary about the fact that these kids expected it all and it to be there when they wanted it. .

Nice diatribe. Now back it up, particularly in light of the fact that spoiled kids like that exist everywhere. Columbine can be more easily explained as an example of a widespread societal trend of people believing that forcing your will upon others is the only way to solve a problem, because nothing else will work under any circumstances. When someone has that mindset combined with a lot of anger, bad things will happen.

Do you really think that Columbine can be simply explained away as spoiled kids and laziness?

[Oberleutnant]

I saw his book Stupid White Men on a bookstore for sale, bought it and read it in few days. He certainly is biased, but his writing style is funny and very enjoyable, and some of the facts he brings up are interesting, though I have no idea if he has distorted the truth and how much. However, I can't seen people attacking Stupid White Men on the same scale as they do with Bowling for Columbine, so perhaps it's a different case?

If you see SWM somewhere and the price tag doesn't scare you away, by all means buy it. It's fun reading, if not for anything else than his hilarious style. I've got a two cd DVD-rip of Bowling for Columbine sitting on my HD, but I haven't still watched it.

[Glocksman]

But most of the facts in BFC are not in dispute and never have been. Generalizations like this only look like a knee jerking.

The reason why the disputes center around the gun issue is because guns and gun owners are what he attacks mercilessly. Not in the film per se, but read through his website and the archives there and you'll see that he demonizes the NRA and gun owners.


As far as record goes in other films, noted film critic Pauline Kael savaged him for the factual errors in Roger & Me so thoroughly that she is widely acknowleged to have cost him the Oscar that it undoubtedly would have otherwise won.

IMHO, Moore is the left's equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. He's good at what he does and is very entertaining. However, I wouldn't believe either of them if they told me that the sun rose in the east.

They have more in common than either of them would care to admit.