darkcrad Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 ====== IF YOU READ ANY FURTHER I MAY SPOIL THE MOVIE FOR YOU ====== ============== YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!! ===================== For those who have seen bowling for columbine, have you noticed the flaw near the end? When Michael Moore (the famous in your face documentary film maker) interviews the head of NRA, Charlton Heston , Michael made the film seem as if Charlton was guilty. Here comes the trick I assume Michael did. My media arts teacher pointed out that the interview with Charlton Heston was done with ONE camera. BUT! when Charlton left the room and walked downstairs, Michael followed him in the documentary and showed Charlton the picture of the girl who was shot. But the way they had Michael showing the picture to Charlton was with a cut while the background voice of Michael continued saying "This is, or this was the photo of...." now how can there be a cut with background sound....if it was used with a single camera? shouldnt it swing from Charlton to Michael then back to Charlton instead of Charlton *CUT* Michael *CUT* Charlton? Furthermore, Michael Moore appeared to be upset when he presumably showed Charlton the photo. AND, Charlton's mouth ***was moving*** but his voice was muted! ALSO, Michael Moore was standing on the *BOTTOM* of the stairs when he showed Charlton the photo when Charlton was standing on the *TOP* of the stairs. ---weird--- so there could have been a few scenarios to this: a) Michael DID show Charlton the photo but did not ask correctly, so they gotta give him a retake for more emotional impact. b) Charlton just wanted to take a **** so he left the room but Michael filmed him walking down the stairs and Charlton turned back and said "I gotta take a ****, wait for me in the room." c) Michael filmed the edited version in his backyard. d) Michael Moore was telling the truth. As a documentary, i believe stating the truth is VERY important. And using such tricks can really raise some suspicion. I liked the movie, and it was really amazing, but it could have been better if he just let me know wat Charlton really said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john smith 1924 Veteran Posted September 25, 2003 Veteran Share Posted September 25, 2003 hmmm - interesting. A personally really enjoyed the film - not because of what it showed, but because perhaps someone will take notice and change **** in america. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildliquid Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 i saw it the other day on DVD, its probably my second favourite film this year.. behind matrix.. and its educational :p seriously though.. i loved the bit where they are talkin about how canada has guns but just dont use them.. and how he opens up all those unlocked doors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whipper25 Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 ya..there are alot of continuity flaws, but most of them are for aesthetic reason, like the example given above...it was edited to make the scene more dramatic, but the fact should still remain...and there have also been a lot of factual flaws to his documentary...some of them well pointed out (search on google)..but for the most part the whole documentary was well done..i liked it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted September 25, 2003 Subscriber² Share Posted September 25, 2003 I do not feel it was shot to make Heston look guilty, Heston did that himself! He is a completely emotionless old fool. He shakes like crazy and is head of the NRA. This means he shouldn't even have access to a gun (aim all over the place) and is becoming senile if reports are to believe. His arguement that "We can have a gun so we will have a gun" (the whole rights issue) is totally flawed, and his attitude is that of a six year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glazzz Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 (edited) someone who has real passion about something like this wouldn't make a film like this just to get paid for doing the documentary...there are probably 100 better film-makers than this whiny idiot who have done the same thing, I acknowledge alot of his points as valid, but his little spin on everything just makes this unwatchable, he's such a dumba**. "isnt it dangerous to be handing out a gun in a bank?" -- not when its unloaded and you have a m-16 pointed at you, you dolt. and if you really want to get dangerous, cut out your mid-day "L. A." hood standing and go to Watts at 1 am, or maybe Compton... The best ending that could have come of this film would have been him getting clipped while standing in the "hood" or if "Moses" would have put a revolver in his mouth. I'm sure i'll get flamed for not liking this film, but pffft.... i was going to edit this to include more content, but i decided not to waste any more breath. Edited September 25, 2003 by glazzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glazzz Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 I do not feel it was shot to make Heston look guilty, Heston did that himself! He is a completely emotionless old fool. He shakes like crazy and is head of the NRA. This means he shouldn't even have access to a gun (aim all over the place) and is becoming senile if reports are to believe.His arguement that "We can have a gun so we will have a gun" (the whole rights issue) is totally flawed, and his attitude is that of a six year old. how it the right to bear arms flawed? if there is any fault here it lies within the system by which we appropriate arms, not in the fact that we're allowed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glazzz Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 now how can there be a cut with background sound....if it was used with a single camera? shouldnt it swing from Charlton to Michael then back to Charlton instead of Charlton *CUT* Michael *CUT* Charlton? welcome to the world of documentary for personal monetary gain... i.e. the world of Michael Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poind Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 The film had a lot of good stuff, was interesting to watch, and I'm very glad it was made, but Moore certainly had a bit of an agenda (even personal in some aspects), and it wouldn't surprise me if some things were edited for dramatic effect in the slightest. Keep in mind Moore was not accountable to the BBC, PBS, Discovery Channel, or a news organization in making the film -- such groups that normally support information as fair, unbiased, and accurate as a part of building and sustaining their reputations (at least theoretically). By being a movie theater-type film, Moore's own short-term interests were in being as dramatic as possible within reason and gaining attention as a result. He was certainly working in a more "documentary" format than usual for films, but he did not have the forms of accountability in place that exist for most things traditionally considered documentaries. That can be both good and bad. Doesn't have to deal with the politics and whatever of larger groups, but can also end up making something with more of a personal, dramatic bias and agenda (and gain whatever profits he can personally). Anyway, really interesting and useful film, but one that *maybe* should be taken with a bit of a grain of salt given the unusual surrounding circumstances regarding its making when compared with other things normally considered "documentaries". Moore personally profits the more drama and attention he can stir up. The film was not made valuing a "scientific" approach or anything comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argonaut Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 Regarding those who claim lack of objectivity, yes, it does, BUT. No one is objective, these are degrees... regarding accountability of news networks, they also have their own agendas, or those of those who support them. Instead of looking for absolute objectivity is better to try to identify in which ways the portrait being presented has been biased, and then taking that into account when interpreting it. I personally found Bowling for Columbine one of the best movies Ive seen so far. The last bit with Charlon Heston, well, it does not alter the content of the rest of the movie. Even it it was edited, or re taken, whaterver, those are "poetic licenses" for effect. Remember, its a movie, its art. Yes its a documentary too, and you could argue that this is "subjectivity" instead of fact. Well, pictures, movie cameras, sensors, they are all assumed to produced "objective" representations of reality... but remember that the camera only gets what the cameraman is pointing at.... so my first comments come in here... absolute objectivity is impossible... this also applies to news networks, army footage, etc. etc. etc. As Ruben Blades would say "si tu no usas la cabeza otro por ti la usara" If you dont use your head, somebody else will use it for you. Anybody seen "Roger and Me" the other movie by M.Moore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted September 25, 2003 Subscriber² Share Posted September 25, 2003 I never said the right was flawed. His use and interpretation of the right was flawed. I live in the UK and we don't have the same laws etc, but I persoanlly feel that within your own home, you have a right to defend it. However Heston seem to feel that just because he has the right to hold a handgun, he should have lots of guns, and it is NEVER innapropriate to do this. He came across (not by editing) as a childish old man, who didn't have any sympathy for the people killed. I agree that guns don't kill people, and people kill people. Guns are not the problem, the problem is that the access to guns is so damned lax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhut Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 now how can there be a cut with background sound....if it was used with a single camera? shouldnt it swing from Charlton to Michael then back to Charlton instead of Charlton *CUT* Michael *CUT* Charlton? welcome to the world of documentary for personal monetary gain... i.e. the world of Michael Moore It's just an editing technique. Live with it. I thought it was a great documentary. Of course, it was subjective, but what isn't? I thought the whole "fear of fear itself" was quite insightful, and it was a pity he didn't explore that further, with the media et al, and instead try to blame America's gun problem on the NRA guy for a nice end to his film. I thought he was too rash when interviewing him, and I couldn't blame the guy for walking away. But overall, very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Allen Veteran Posted September 25, 2003 Veteran Share Posted September 25, 2003 As a documentary, i believe stating the truth is VERY important. And using such tricks can really raise some suspicion. I liked the movie, and it was really amazing, but it could have been better if he just let me know wat Charlton really said. Well, every documentary is still going to have an opinion that is trying to be shown. It's always going to be bias so it's never a TRUE documentary of fully factual information. Bowling for Columbine was OBVIOUSLY from one view of certain events. I personally thought the film was great. However, the Canadians they depicted seemed all to be basically like trailer trash. :huh: We're not all that bad, I swear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted September 25, 2003 Subscriber² Share Posted September 25, 2003 I LOVE Canadians!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted September 25, 2003 Veteran Share Posted September 25, 2003 Moore's an idiot, the whole film was basically twisted to suit his purpose. It's not a documentary, it's a mockumantery, and if you feel otherwise then Mr. Moore has succeeded. Go think for yourselves not follow everything you see on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted September 25, 2003 Subscriber² Share Posted September 25, 2003 mAcOdIn: I whole-heartedly agree. It is a very blatant spin on events and "facts", but lets face it, so are our "credible" news sources. The way to make a decision or come to a view on items is to use as much information available. If BFC is used as ONE source amongst many, it provides ONE viewpoint, and as such is fine. However, if anyone bases their entire stance upon this film, then they would not be able to argue it coherrantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerd Rage Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 Moore's an idiot I film has some very shocking and interesting facts, but I agree with you.....Moore is a dumb@ss. YEAH, BLAME KIDS GETTING SHOT ON K-MART. Man, he is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkcrad Posted September 25, 2003 Author Share Posted September 25, 2003 I do not feel it was shot to make Heston look guilty, Heston did that himself! He is a completely emotionless old fool. He shakes like crazy and is head of the NRA. This means he shouldn't even have access to a gun (aim all over the place) and is becoming senile if reports are to believe.His arguement that "We can have a gun so we will have a gun" (the whole rights issue) is totally flawed, and his attitude is that of a six year old. hey i never said he wasnt. and the film did make it seem he was guilty. but the trick at the end was suspicious. and have we forgotten? Charlton Hestons mouth was moving but his voice was muted! who knows if Michael actually showed him the photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbarnett Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 Go think for yourselves not follow everything you see on TV. I think Moore's films and books do encourage people to think for themselves. I don't always agree with the way he goes about telling things, or sometimes even what he is saying - but as long as you think for yourself and either agree or disagree for your own reasons then that's gotta be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted September 25, 2003 Subscriber² Share Posted September 25, 2003 darkcrad: You call it a trick, it may very well not have been. The whole film is badly editted, may just be a result of that. Plus also if you look, Heston often moves his lips, mumbles or whatever, and not say anything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackcoffee Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 Bowling for Columbine was fascinating, but I mean what can you do?! So our government isn't perfect or our murder rate via Gun's is HIGH, that doesn't change who I am in this country. But @least he's excersizing his right to freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eosKENuids2 Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 i dont think it really matters what he edited... there are enough cold hard facts there to tell his 'story'. have any of you read 'Stupid White Men'? Moore explores and explains how Bush rigged and won the election, although he also says that he did vote for Bush, but that isn't the point... Maybe Charlton's words were just useless ramble, so they were muted. who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted September 25, 2003 Veteran Share Posted September 25, 2003 Every gun documentary has been flawed for one fact: They never show the good they have done and the lives they have saved. Sure they show the other side(NRA), which are admittedly just as out there as Moore, but no one ever has actually got the figures for how many people's lives were saved by owning a gun. And it makes sense, I mean it's not big news, people only want tragedy and something to whine about so while a slaying will get 5 minutes on the news a guy who kills an attacker gets an abbreviated mention on the ticker, if even that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova_rock Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 i would deffinatly say that he uses more slant in portaying facts that fox news and thats sayign something 1. how many more peoeple are there in the USA than cananda? 2. i agree with the media being a self selling fear machine 3. columbine happened because there happens to be a lockheed missle factory 50 miles away? wtf moore, i live close to a chemical and boligical weapons storage plant, shouldnt i be stalking alomng the streets puting 3 round bursts of 5.56mm into everything that moves? or at least mass posining gradescholl childern with rat poison? 4. why in gods name is heston responseble for anything? i believe its right for anyone to own arms, even the banned arms like automatic rifles, just not in their house for 'protection' if its protection get a 9mm pistol, hunting get a bolt action, or even semi auto rifle, if you like target shooting and/or more exotic weapons shooting then buy it but they should be kept underlock and key at a range. 5. unlocked doors in cananda, yah thats fun, you can find that in probably any small tight-knit comunity, howeever in vancouver BC everyone i've met has locks and more often than not, deadbolts and alarms and uses them, because crime epsecially gang related crime is just as big a problem in vancouver and ontario as say... LA, new york, etc.. 6. there is screwed up shiesse everywere, michle moore just happens to have been spanked my his mom in the USA so here is where he makes his movies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tran Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 For your information it's Canada, not "Cananda". :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts