1) Our book in Chapter Five talked about Moore's aggressive approach to subjects. Did you feel this was effective? Was it ethical?
2) Moore heavily criticizes the NRA while being a card-carrying member. Is this hypocritical? Does it affect your view of Moore, or change your feelings about the authenticity of the film?
3) Moore includes the story of the school shooting in Flint. Do you feel he exploited that story to make his point? Is your opinion affected by the fact that he is from that area?
4) What does the bowling motif add to the movie? Does it work for you?
5) How did you feel about Moore's editing style? Especially consider his use of montage, archival footage, and the music that goes with it.
I agree with Dr. Shea's comment on Moore being a master editor. I'm really influenced by the use of music in films; I really pay attention to the sound track. Moore really knows how to incorporate purposeful sounds in his films. The two parts I thought were amazing were sequence of the Michigan Militia and the use of "Happiness is a warm gun" by the Beatles and both uses of Armstrong's "What a wonderful world." I think both those songs really amplified the meaning of those sections.
This is the first film by this director that I have seen, mostly because I'm not interested in listening to simplified arguments from either the right or the left, and partly because something inside me wants to slap the smug off Mr. Moore's face every time I see one of his movie posters; admittedly, I had an opinion about the form and content of his documentaries before I'd ever seen one. While viewing this movie did confirm my initial impression of Mr. Moore as a disingenuous, condescending boor, I was pleasantly surprised to find that he developed a very nuanced, multifaceted investigation of why America has more gun violence than similar countries. It's hidden under his self-aggrandizement, but it's there, and it's valid. I feel that Mr. Moore's aggressive approach to the subject is effective in many ways. More importantly, it is clear that, at least in this case, aggressive is not necessarily the same as simplistic.
I don't feel that it is hypocritical to criticize an organization that you are a member of. As a member of my township's planning commission, I have criticized our commission for failing to act on issues that impact the citizens of the township, My Catholic sister-in-law has written several op-ed pieces criticizing the Church for the way it has handled predatory clergy. Membership does not require censorship.
I don't feel that Moore exploited the Flint first graders story; it seemed tailor-made to match his point; how could he not use it? I did feel that he used the fact that he was from Flint to give himself a sort of greater legitimacy.
The bowling motif went right over my head. I don't get it at all. (The militia was shooting at bowling pins, because they represent the center of mass of a person, and the Columbine shooters went bowling before shooting up the school, and Americans tend to treat guns and shooting like a wholesome, fun, recreational past-time akin to going bowling... Hmm, yeah, it's too much of a stretch -- I don't get it.) Perhaps if I understood how one could bowl FOR anything...
I agree that Moore is a master editor. He blends a variety of images and his soundtrack together seamlessly and with great effect.
Michael Moore makes choices that he is comfortable with in his professional gaze. The film has a compelling mix of archival footage, mind-blowing statistics (logos), eclectic interviews, and an ironic soundtrack. The filmmaker’s message resonates as important and true. But what about some of his claims? I decided to do a little fact-checking, but every source seems to have its own bias and agenda. Much of the criticism was as inflammatory as Moore’s own tactics. Below are some tidbits of information I came across:
NRA membership – Apparently Michael Moore became a lifetime member of the NRA after Columbine with the intention of becoming president of the organization and dismantling it. He used this spurious affiliation to gain entrance into Charlton Heston’s home with the idea of ambushing him. One critic says that he “feigns neutrality about the organization but in fact despises it.” I was uncomfortable with the badgering of Heston. Reducing him to a pathetic figure hobbling down the handicap ramp created an uncomfortable scene and made Moore look like a bully.
Bank Scene – Some said this scene was completed staged and that this bank does not really provide guns to customers; others said it was exactly as portrayed. The truth seems to be somewhere in the middle: that the bank is licensed to sell arms but that they are stored in a vault at another location and shipped to a licensed gun dealer to dispense to the customers. The process ordinarily takes a couple of months but was speeded up for the purpose of the film. It was misleading to imply that a customer could walk in, fill out some paperwork, and walk out with a rifle. I feel it would not have detracted from Moore’s position if he had issued a disclaimer that the actual process of obtaining a gun at the bank involves getting a background check and waiting for approval.
Heston’s speech – Moore does some very creative editing in Charlton Heston’s speech at the pro-gun rally in Denver 10 days after Columbine. Apparently the words “from my cold, dead hands” were not spoken at that time but were pulled from a speech delivered in Charlotte, NC, one year later and spliced into this segment. For me, even a disclaimer wouldn’t justify splicing together snippets from different speeches and passing them off as being delivered days after the Columbine shooting. After all, the alleged timing was Moore’s main point here, and the implied timing was a lie.
Chapter 5 categorizes Moore’s films as performative rather than participatory, because his involvement with his subjects does not develop organically but is staged and rehearsed. Moore deflects the critics who accuse him of using shame and ridicule by chalking those tactics up to being the only recourse left to him as a nonviolent person. This is a straw man argument in which one proposition is refuted with an unequal one.
Nevertheless, this is a provocative film which is superficially about gun control but more importantly about the fear-based mentality in our country. Michael Moore may use dubious methods, but he’s asking questions that need to be asked.
Cathy, thanks so much for sharing the information you found on certain aspects of the film. I too was wondering about the legitimacy of the bank scene and it struck me as odd that he was a member of the NRA.
I agree with Wes that it is not hypocritical to criticize a organization that you are a member of. However, I did get the feeling that Moore was using his membership to gain access to people like the Michigan Militia and Charlton Heston. Originally knowing that he was a member of the NRA made me feel that the film was more authentic, but given Cathy's last post about Moore's intentions with his NRA membership I do feel that it was a little hypocritical.
The bowling motif was very confusing to me. I understand that the bowling pins looked like people and thats why the militia shot them, and that the students went to the bowling ally before the shooting, but it felt like a bit of a stretch. The fact that the film was titled "Bowling for Columbine" made me feel that the bowling motif would have been more obvious throughout, but I really just found myself searching for why "bowling" was in the title of the film.
I find the premise of this film intriguing, valid, and important, but I feel like Moore shoots himself and his films in the foot with some of his tactics. I appreciate reporters, critics, and filmmakers who are tough and to-the-point, who ask the questions that need to be asked and say the things that need to be said even at the expense of being polite. However, I do not at all enjoy alleged factual reporting that is compromised or misrepresented, which Moore can tend to do - and quite obviously, no less. I think if he would tone down his methods and focus more on legitimate Ethos and Logos, his point and his filmmaking would be taken more seriously. However, he probably wouldn't be in controversial headlines then either, and we all know that there's no such thing as bad press in show business. It's a catch-22 for the documentarian who actually wants to make money, I suppose.
I don't like Moore's editing trick with the NRA meeting, but I do cinematically understand why he did it. His interview with Heston doesn't bother me (although his NRA membership does), actually. I feel like, unfortunately for Moore, Heston's age and physical difficulties created a pity in many audience members; we don't like seeing a figure much like our own grandfather being verbally badgered on camera. I don't feel sorry for him just because of his age and limp, but rather view him as coherent and responsible for his own actions, and I think the questions Moore asked him were fair and pertinent. I don't think he crossed a line until he left the picture of that little girl on Heston's property. That was ridiculous and unnecessary, and he was just trying to make Heston look like a heartless, gun-carrying villain.
The bowling motif was puzzling for me as well. The only thing I could come up with was that it is somewhat symbolic to the fact that we don't know exactly what it is that causes Americans to be so violent and yet so reluctant to loosen our grip on our guns. Because of our uncertainty, we could just as easily pin our violence like that of the Columbine shooters on something as trivial as bowling, which would be just as valid as trying to blame it on violent video games, our history, or Marilyn Manson. These students weren't listening to heavy metal or watching 'The Terminator' or playing some Kung-Fu game before they killed their peers, but were bowling - a sport that is completely non-violent. Perhaps Moore is making a comment about the nature of Americans. This is just a guess and it's way out there.
1) Our book in Chapter Five talked about Moore's aggressive approach to subjects. Did you feel this was effective? Was it ethical?
ReplyDelete2) Moore heavily criticizes the NRA while being a card-carrying member. Is this hypocritical? Does it affect your view of Moore, or change your feelings about the authenticity of the film?
3) Moore includes the story of the school shooting in Flint. Do you feel he exploited that story to make his point? Is your opinion affected by the fact that he is from that area?
4) What does the bowling motif add to the movie? Does it work for you?
5) How did you feel about Moore's editing style? Especially consider his use of montage, archival footage, and the music that goes with it.
I agree with Dr. Shea's comment on Moore being a master editor. I'm really influenced by the use of music in films; I really pay attention to the sound track. Moore really knows how to incorporate purposeful sounds in his films. The two parts I thought were amazing were sequence of the Michigan Militia and the use of "Happiness is a warm gun" by the Beatles and both uses of Armstrong's "What a wonderful world." I think both those songs really amplified the meaning of those sections.
ReplyDeleteThis is the first film by this director that I have seen, mostly because I'm not interested in listening to simplified arguments from either the right or the left, and partly because something inside me wants to slap the smug off Mr. Moore's face every time I see one of his movie posters; admittedly, I had an opinion about the form and content of his documentaries before I'd ever seen one. While viewing this movie did confirm my initial impression of Mr. Moore as a disingenuous, condescending boor, I was pleasantly surprised to find that he developed a very nuanced, multifaceted investigation of why America has more gun violence than similar countries. It's hidden under his self-aggrandizement, but it's there, and it's valid. I feel that Mr. Moore's aggressive approach to the subject is effective in many ways. More importantly, it is clear that, at least in this case, aggressive is not necessarily the same as simplistic.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel that it is hypocritical to criticize an organization that you are a member of. As a member of my township's planning commission, I have criticized our commission for failing to act on issues that impact the citizens of the township, My Catholic sister-in-law has written several op-ed pieces criticizing the Church for the way it has handled predatory clergy. Membership does not require censorship.
I don't feel that Moore exploited the Flint first graders story; it seemed tailor-made to match his point; how could he not use it? I did feel that he used the fact that he was from Flint to give himself a sort of greater legitimacy.
The bowling motif went right over my head. I don't get it at all. (The militia was shooting at bowling pins, because they represent the center of mass of a person, and the Columbine shooters went bowling before shooting up the school, and Americans tend to treat guns and shooting like a wholesome, fun, recreational past-time akin to going bowling... Hmm, yeah, it's too much of a stretch -- I don't get it.) Perhaps if I understood how one could bowl FOR anything...
I agree that Moore is a master editor. He blends a variety of images and his soundtrack together seamlessly and with great effect.
Michael Moore makes choices that he is comfortable with in his professional gaze. The film has a compelling mix of archival footage, mind-blowing statistics (logos), eclectic interviews, and an ironic soundtrack. The filmmaker’s message resonates as important and true. But what about some of his claims? I decided to do a little fact-checking, but every source seems to have its own bias and agenda. Much of the criticism was as inflammatory as Moore’s own tactics. Below are some tidbits of information I came across:
ReplyDeleteNRA membership – Apparently Michael Moore became a lifetime member of the NRA after Columbine with the intention of becoming president of the organization and dismantling it. He used this spurious affiliation to gain entrance into Charlton Heston’s home with the idea of ambushing him. One critic says that he “feigns neutrality about the organization but in fact despises it.” I was uncomfortable with the badgering of Heston. Reducing him to a pathetic figure hobbling down the handicap ramp created an uncomfortable scene and made Moore look like a bully.
Bank Scene – Some said this scene was completed staged and that this bank does not really provide guns to customers; others said it was exactly as portrayed. The truth seems to be somewhere in the middle: that the bank is licensed to sell arms but that they are stored in a vault at another location and shipped to a licensed gun dealer to dispense to the customers. The process ordinarily takes a couple of months but was speeded up for the purpose of the film. It was misleading to imply that a customer could walk in, fill out some paperwork, and walk out with a rifle. I feel it would not have detracted from Moore’s position if he had issued a disclaimer that the actual process of obtaining a gun at the bank involves getting a background check and waiting for approval.
Heston’s speech – Moore does some very creative editing in Charlton Heston’s speech at the pro-gun rally in Denver 10 days after Columbine. Apparently the words “from my cold, dead hands” were not spoken at that time but were pulled from a speech delivered in Charlotte, NC, one year later and spliced into this segment. For me, even a disclaimer wouldn’t justify splicing together snippets from different speeches and passing them off as being delivered days after the Columbine shooting. After all, the alleged timing was Moore’s main point here, and the implied timing was a lie.
Chapter 5 categorizes Moore’s films as performative rather than participatory, because his involvement with his subjects does not develop organically but is staged and rehearsed. Moore deflects the critics who accuse him of using shame and ridicule by chalking those tactics up to being the only recourse left to him as a nonviolent person. This is a straw man argument in which one proposition is refuted with an unequal one.
Nevertheless, this is a provocative film which is superficially about gun control but more importantly about the fear-based mentality in our country. Michael Moore may use dubious methods, but he’s asking questions that need to be asked.
Cathy, thanks so much for sharing the information you found on certain aspects of the film. I too was wondering about the legitimacy of the bank scene and it struck me as odd that he was a member of the NRA.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Wes that it is not hypocritical to criticize a organization that you are a member of. However, I did get the feeling that Moore was using his membership to gain access to people like the Michigan Militia and Charlton Heston. Originally knowing that he was a member of the NRA made me feel that the film was more authentic, but given Cathy's last post about Moore's intentions with his NRA membership I do feel that it was a little hypocritical.
The bowling motif was very confusing to me. I understand that the bowling pins looked like people and thats why the militia shot them, and that the students went to the bowling ally before the shooting, but it felt like a bit of a stretch. The fact that the film was titled "Bowling for Columbine" made me feel that the bowling motif would have been more obvious throughout, but I really just found myself searching for why "bowling" was in the title of the film.
I find the premise of this film intriguing, valid, and important, but I feel like Moore shoots himself and his films in the foot with some of his tactics. I appreciate reporters, critics, and filmmakers who are tough and to-the-point, who ask the questions that need to be asked and say the things that need to be said even at the expense of being polite. However, I do not at all enjoy alleged factual reporting that is compromised or misrepresented, which Moore can tend to do - and quite obviously, no less. I think if he would tone down his methods and focus more on legitimate Ethos and Logos, his point and his filmmaking would be taken more seriously. However, he probably wouldn't be in controversial headlines then either, and we all know that there's no such thing as bad press in show business. It's a catch-22 for the documentarian who actually wants to make money, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteI don't like Moore's editing trick with the NRA meeting, but I do cinematically understand why he did it. His interview with Heston doesn't bother me (although his NRA membership does), actually. I feel like, unfortunately for Moore, Heston's age and physical difficulties created a pity in many audience members; we don't like seeing a figure much like our own grandfather being verbally badgered on camera. I don't feel sorry for him just because of his age and limp, but rather view him as coherent and responsible for his own actions, and I think the questions Moore asked him were fair and pertinent. I don't think he crossed a line until he left the picture of that little girl on Heston's property. That was ridiculous and unnecessary, and he was just trying to make Heston look like a heartless, gun-carrying villain.
The bowling motif was puzzling for me as well. The only thing I could come up with was that it is somewhat symbolic to the fact that we don't know exactly what it is that causes Americans to be so violent and yet so reluctant to loosen our grip on our guns. Because of our uncertainty, we could just as easily pin our violence like that of the Columbine shooters on something as trivial as bowling, which would be just as valid as trying to blame it on violent video games, our history, or Marilyn Manson. These students weren't listening to heavy metal or watching 'The Terminator' or playing some Kung-Fu game before they killed their peers, but were bowling - a sport that is completely non-violent. Perhaps Moore is making a comment about the nature of Americans. This is just a guess and it's way out there.