//Then you don't know or don't understand who Sarah Brady is and what she is trying to accomplish.//

I don't! But just throwing out a name and a seemingly vague endorsement is not an argument.

"Moore is to the Left what a member of the Klan is to the Right."

Debatable, but Moore makes films and writes books, whereas Klan members are known to lynch people.

I'm curious, Jay, as to whether you've seen Bowling for Columbine. The sense I got from the film was that Moore is very much in favor of the contemporary interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The opening of the film depicted Moore's upbringing as a gun owner and marksman.

As Moore points out, Canada has a comparable density of gun ownership but a fraction of the gun deaths. Moore attacks not Americans' right to own guns, but the societal and cultural factors that motivate Americans to use guns on each other at a higher rate than other countries.

<<<-- Originally posted by Matt Betea : I also believe that in a year's time no one will remember him or his speech. Unless he decides to make another mockumentary about the current government officials. -->>>

Which is exactly what he has announced will be his next project.

Maybe next year you guys should take a Valium before the Academy Awards.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Orr : <<<-- Originally posted by Matt Betea : I also believe that in a year's time no one will remember him or his speech. Unless he decides to make another mockumentary about the current government officials. -->>>

Which is exactly what he has announced will be his next project.

Maybe next year you guys should take a Valium before the Academy Awards. -->>>

If they did, they probably wouldn't have been awake by the time Moore got up on stage. :)

Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2003
THE LEFT COAST REPORT
A Political Look at Hollywood

Michael Moore managed to insult his own workers, enlarge his reputation for hypocrisy and attack some of the most beloved heroes of our time. The guy sure knows how to start the year out on the wrong foot.

Moore's liberal allies inevitably back him when he lashes out at President Bush. But even his leftist buddies would probably agree that some humble pie-eating and Lott-sized apologies are in order this time.

It seems the portly propaganda pusher recently attacked the self-sacrificing souls of Flight 93.

According to a columnist from the British Independent, Moore described the 9/11 brave-hearts as "scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes." Moore wasn't through embarrassing himself. On the second-to-last performance of his live show at The Roundhouse in Camden, North London, he threw a fit over his paycheck.

This kind of stuff out of the great filmmakers mouth is enough for me to never watch anything he does.

2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. The dominant theme in Bowling (and certainly the theme that has attracted most reviewers) is that NRA is callous toward slayings. The theme begins early in the film, and forms its ending, as Moore confronts Heston, asserting that he keeps going to the scene of tragedies to hold defiant rallies.

In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.

Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:


Weeping children outside Columbine, explaining how near they had come to death and how their friends had just been murdered before their eyes;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket over his head and happily proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'" to a cheering NRA crowd.

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore in voiceover intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington West, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here."


The portrayal is one of Heston and NRA arrogantly holding a protest rally in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." [italics added]. Moore successfully causes viewers to reach this conclusion. It is in fact false.



Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting, whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held.


Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was a response to his being given the musket, a collector's piece, at that annual meeting. Bowling leads off with this speech, and then splices in footage which was taken in Denver and refers to Denver, to create the impression that the entire clip was taken at the Denver event.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.


Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and quite a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together, to create a speech that was never given. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later to a meeting in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. The interlude is vital. He can't cut directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie. Or why the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments of this supposed speech to keep the viewer from noticing.

Moore then goes to show Heston speaking in Denver. His second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd at the meeting, while Heston's voice continues) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:


"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."


Moore has to take that out -- it would blow his entire theme. Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence! Heston was actually saying (with reference Heston's own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." It thus becomes an arrogant "I said to the Mayor: as American's we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a still photo of the Mayor as Heston says "I said to the mayor," cutting back to Heston's face at "As Americans."

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring. As Heston speaks, the video switches momentarily to a pan of the crowd, then back to Heston; the pan shot covers the doctoring.

What Heston actually is saying in "We're already here" was not the implied defiance, but rather this:


"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

For those of you who may be somewhat confused by Bob Zimmerman's lengthy explanation, here is a link to a brief history of guns in America, in moving pictures and concise language.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/america.php

Sorry Wayne it was to long, I took it for a website. It was alot longer! I wanted to show alittle how Moore uses edits, etc to make people think fiction is fact.

<< how Moore uses edits, etc to make people think fiction is fact >>

It is important to understand that within the history of documentary filmmaking, this is not a new concept in editing, nor is it neccessarily a bad thing. One of the greatest documentary filmmakers ever, the highly regarded Robert Flaherty, used this technique consistently.

Once again, please keep the discussion here on a focused and polite basis... this thread is borderline, it really shouldn't be here, but if the discussion is civil then it can remain.

Be advised however, that nobody is going to change any other reader's mind about certain issues no matter how strenuous the arguments are or how "vehement" the disagreements are. Usually these discussions are completely pointless and irrelevant, because nobody's going to change their minds about this stuff, and all it accomplishes is to split the community along polarized lines. That is a bad thing, and I'm watching this closely, so please keep it civil. Much respect,

I react strongly to the use of the label 'liberals' when the industry embraces a broad spectrum of views. The same 'liberal' Hollywood is the industry that pumps out action movies by the dozens every year, is the same industry that has mega stars with Republican affiliations like Arnold Schwarzennegger and Bruce Willis, that gave rise to the career of NRA president Charlton Heston, former president Ronald Reagan and supports the very conservative views of MPAA president Jack Valenti. Indeed, it's the same Hollywood that in this thread some have applauded for booing Michael Moore. I am quite happy with the divergence of views in 'Hollywood' (if one can even cover such a diverse and huge industry under one name). If liberal means accepting of a variety of views, bents and backgrounds then I would agree, yes, Hollywood is liberal. This is not a bad thing in a creative industry.

Keith the people you mention are mega stars. Try starting off in that business saying your a republican.

Chris I think it's a good off topic thread. I hope we can do it without calling each other names. I don't mind being called a right wing republican. I proud to be on the right.

The topic started about Moores Oscar speech. He said we have a fictous war, president, etc. But his film was fiction and to get award for a documentary was a joke.

Yeah, I agree Bob. It will be interesting to see how long Moore's career lasts. He has always seemed somewhat high strung; I'm not usre if that leads to long life, but my ex-mother-in-law still says, 'You can't kill bad grass.'

The thing to learn from his works is that he has managed to get them produced and distributed. I do wonder though if he will be more successful or held in higher regard than the Girls Gone Wild... franchise?

From what I can remember of Flaherty (it's been so long since I last saw Nanook or any other work), juxtaposition was used to point out differences. In fact, Flaherty had trouble with the government during WWII because he objected to the way his material was being twisted for propaganda purposes.

Moore's juxtapositions speak for themselves.

This was an effort of PR.

Its not what he said that was offensive to me, but inviting the other documentary filmmakers, who 'may' or 'may-not' (or abstain) support his point of view was wrong.

Then again the whole event could have been planned/staged from the very beginning with all parties involved.

The name calling propaganda which pits man against man, or nation against nation, or ... Agree to disagee and move forward.

I didn't see his film, nor had any desire to, until someone close to me was spouting off things said in the film.

I've only viewed the trailer to "Winged Migration" and it was so beautifully photographed and positively inspiring. I thought the filmmakers would be rewarded by the cinema society for their efforts. Positive things/solutions are seeming short of supply ...

Cheers, All!

I just saw "Bowling for Coumbine," and while it did not feature any beautiful pictures it most certainly was about something, and that is what the group that votes on documentaries likes in their winners. So it is not surprising that "BC" won over the lovely pictures of flying birds in "Winged Migration."

The question the movie presents is, why is there so much gun violence (death) in the United States? And while Mr. Moore does not have all the answers, he certainly points to some areas that are open for investigation and discussion, such as, the media's emphasis on depicting violence in our news, the money that is being made from the climate of fear in the United States by large corporations, and the actions of the NRA.

I don't think Mr. Moore should be chastised for "picking on" Charleton Heston, or, that Mr. Heston comes off poorly in the film. He has chosen to establish himself as a spokesperson for the NRA, and as such, is fair game to those who will ask him the tough questions. He certainly did not come off as a dodering man suffering the advanced stages of Alzheimer disease. I would say his most damning comment had to do with race, and that he seemed aware that he had slipped up at that point, and would do well to withdraw, which he did.

Mr. Moore's abrasive character will win him very few friends on the "right" side of the political spectrum, but that is quite in keeping with the gadfly's purpose in a democratic society. He certainly did not come off well in my opinion when the management of K-Mart made the surprise announcement that they would henceforth stop selling bullets in their stores. Moore seemed stunned that his shameless theatrics had actually accomplished something concrete, and could only mumble a half-hearted thank you to K-Mart.

Your reaction to "Bowling for Columbine" will largely depend on your political viewpoint, and even to a degree, your ethnic background. At the screening I just attended, judging by some of the vocal reactions from the audience, Mr. Moore is preaching to the converted, which is a pity, because some of these questions should be examined by the right and the left. But I left the theatre invigorated, and felt I had spent two hours on an important subject. I hope some of you who may feel this film will insult your beliefs, will give it a viewing and look for a common ground that we might all agree on. Heck, I even listen to Rush Limbaugh once in awhile just to hear what's going on with the "other side." And I have to tell you, Roger Moore is a hell of a lot more entertaining. IMHO.

Right. Let's understand the first thing straightaway, this film is NOT a documentary! Satire, maybe. Commentary, definitely. Advocacy, editorial, historical fiction, you name it. But not a documentary...to be a documentary it would have to be true. So he won an Oscar? Hey, Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer 70+ years ago for his shameless cover-ups and misrepresentation of Soviet atrocities. It doesn't make his work truthful or credible.

What this film is to me is a startling case study of the power of editing--for good or ill, for truth or deception, information or disinformation. Bob Z gave one highly detailed example of Moore's use of editing to totally reverse the message from the facts; there are plenty of others...the part about the bank "giving away" rifles completely distorts the true sequence of events. And Moore portrays a facility that builds launch systems for broadcast satellites as a factory for weapons of mass destruction, etc. (Well, if they are used for dissemination of his movies they could be called weapons of mass deception! HAHA)

Even the name of the film is based on a falsehood: Littleton Police have refuted the claim that the murderers attended bowling class on the morning of their crimes.

Whether one is a liberal or conservative, the truth is still the truth, and Mr Moore is a total stranger to the truth. His farmboy appearance and smirky demeanour aside, his purpose is to distort in order to persuade. His infantile behaviour is a ruse. Eminem sets out to shock people with his outrageous words, but his works were never meant to be passed off as fact.

Anyway, film buffs, take this film as an object lesson in how you can make your footage say anything, even lies, with the right application of Final Cut Pro. Excuse me while I go practice my FCP chops.

I've been following the arguments for and against Moore's tactics in "Bowling for Columbine" (here and elsewhere) for some time with amusement. He does seem to have bent the "rules," but I wonder if his distortions are any worse than usual? I doubt any documentary, or 20/20 type program for that matter, would stand up flawlessly to the kind of scrutiny Moore's rabid detractors have subjected it to. I understand the film "Winged Migration" that was mentioned in here contains loads of staged footage. Some of those birds were actually raised in captivity just so they'd be easier to film. Does that make the film less authentic? Reality can be an elusive thing.

Marco, if the purpose of staging the bird footage was to deceive, to persuade audiences of something that was not true, like maybe to show that they instead fly north for the winter or eat monkeys for dinner, that would make it inauthentic or fictional. Lots of informational shows use (properly labeled) re-enactments, simulations, computer animations and such, but not for the purpose of distorting facts. It is perfectly legitimate to use devices that more clearly communicate the facts that are being told.

But it is proper to condemn anybody who would commit journalistic fraud. And Mr Moore is not alone in this; we have seen it in the broadcast world. Who can forget CNN's discredited story on "Operation Tailwind" and its allegations of use of nerve gas on American defectors by the US military in Laos? And let's not forget ABC's tainted story on Food Lion. And NBC's attempt to show that GM pickup trucks were explosion-prone by intentionally installing and detonating model rocket engines on the truck's fuel fillers! So I guess he's not the first (or "worse than usual"), I guess that must somehow mean it's OK.

Yes, he does bend the "rules" as you put it. Like the one that says "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbour!" (I'm no bible-thumper, that would be too funny, but my mama did raise me right). Even the most lenient relativist can understand that if only from a practical standpoint this is wrong, because it causes people to disbelieve media in general and assume that everyone is a liar.

So, if Mr Moore wants to play in the same arena as The Matrix or Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, that's all fine. But a fairytale is a fairytale, and will never be a documentary. This is not a comment on his political views, the quality of his cinematography or even his personal hygeine, just the importance of truth, credibility and integrity. If reality is so elusive, that just means that we all have to work harder to get it right.

My mentioning of "Winged Migration" wasn't to expose the film as some kind of fraud. The filmmakers are very up front about their tactics (admirably more so than Mr. Moore), but to illustrate the point that documentaries like this have more to do with their overall themes. "Winged Migration" was about how cool birds are. I don't think anyone who comes away with that impression after seeing the film is cheated even though they may be unaware they haven't seen any bird migrate anywhere. In the case of "Bowling for Columbine," Moore really does demonstrate his themes, even though people can argue in perpetuity about the particulars of what's on screen. Guns are amazingly accesssible in this country -- there is a bank that gives them away for God's sake. So what if Moore got his a couple of days sooner than most customers? The NRA showed great callousness in holding that annual conference. Okay, misidentifying the date of Heston's quote is just plain deceitful. But that's the most egregious falsification associated with this film that I'm aware of, and anyway, the main point is true. Most of the controversial elements in this film range from things that aren't that important, or are seriously in dispute, to, well, the Heston thing. I don't have any way to justify that. It's still a tremendously powerful film, and on its themes, tells a lot of truth about this country. In the end, people need to know that they can't rely on any single source to provide them with hard information. Above all -- and I know this isn't going to win me any friends here -- they should READ, not go to movies.