Bowling for Columbine (excellent film!)

Just rented this Thursday, I've seen it twice and planning on watching it again tonight. Anyone else seen this (I have a feeling there's an old thread lurking about that concerned the film)? I've been a big Mike Moore fan since "TV Nation", but maybe that's 'cause I'm a Democrat...

The "An American View of France" thread had a long "expose" of MM's supposed lack of a "fair and balanced" perspective in his documentary.

Haven't seen "Bowling for Columbine," but loved "The Big One" and "Roger and Me."

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr The "An American View of France" thread had a long "expose" of MM's supposed lack of a "fair and balanced" perspective in his documentary.Haven't seen "Bowling for Columbine," but loved "The Big One" and "Roger and Me."

Well yeah, I knew going into it that it would've rubbed me the wrong way if I was an idiot, erm, conservative (:p ), but it was really good. I grew up with "TV Nation", that was fun TV.Isn't that on DVD now?

Michael Moore is the liberal equivalent of Scarborough or O'Reilly bad films and agenda

What specifically did you not like about "Roger and Me"? About "The Big One"?

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Just rented this Thursday, I've seen it twice and planning on watching it again tonight. Anyone else seen this (I have a feeling there's an old thread lurking about that concerned the film)? I've been a big Mike Moore fan since "TV Nation", but maybe that's 'cause I'm a Democrat...

Good G_d Almighty, Trevor..........

"Bowling For Columbine"?!?!?!?!?!? You're smarter than that. That "documentary" was a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, steaming pile of crap.

you're more predictable than my dog's afternoon shit. smell is similar though.

Canadian Bacon was by far Michael Moore's best film.

Originally posted by almanso "intellectually dishonest" i think the guy is very honest intelectually with his own way of thinking. then you could like it or not, it´s up to you. i wonder if every time you see a person that thinks the opposite of what you think you call this person intellectually dishonest.....

Do I have to post, AGAIN, all the factual errors, misrepresentaions and outright lies of "Bowling For Columbine"? It was a "documentary", right?

I think the film was dead on about the "culture of fear" that the news media provides. Think about all the evening news broadcasts that start off with a murder or robbery(usually committed by a black man) that you've seen. Violence sells. And the interview with the Nichols brother was disturbing.

Let me put it this way, as I see it: There are nutjobs on BOTH sides of the aisle in terms of ideology, but the conservatives have had a free ride since Clinton (face it, Michael, Clinton's two terms were the best things that ever happened to the Republican Party. It's no coincidence that Rush became more of a national figure after Clinton won.) You've got Fox News, talk radio, and now even the big networks are swinging your way, just because it's unpopular to disagree. The Dixie Chicks (whose only crime was speaking their minds overseas, which I think was a mistake) were raked over the coals by G. Gordon Liddy (whose biggest crime was organizing the Watergate burglary, a hell of a more serious offence). Don't tell me there's a fucking "liberal" media, that's what ole Rupert and Rog and Bill O. want you to believe. Bill Maher said it best (in an interview I watched just this morning): the media is driven by ego, not ideology. Eight years of Clinton brought the Republicans together like Reagan and the first Bush never could. Please for the love of all that is holy, quit with the "liberal media" bullshit and acknowledge the fact that right now you conservatives rule the f-ing roost!

Now that I've gotten that out of my system, let me state again: I am well aware that Moore has been know for lying on occasion, but the film is STILL very good. Sorry it rubs you the wrong way. I wonder why, what with Fox News and talk radio, the conservatives haven't branched out into documentary film-making. If you're so damn upset about Michael Moore, why not make a film yourself?

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by almanso "intellectually dishonest" i think the guy is very honest intelectually with his own way of thinking. then you could like it or not, it´s up to you. i wonder if every time you see a person that thinks the opposite of what you think you call this person intellectually dishonest.....

Do I have to post, AGAIN, all the factual errors, misrepresentaions and outright lies of "Bowling For Columbine"? It was a "documentary", right?

Obviously you need to read Werner Herzog's "Minnesota Declaration" on Truth in Documentaries.

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I wonder why, what with Fox News and talk radio, the conservatives haven't branched out into documentary film-making. If you're so damn upset about Michael Moore, why not make a film yourself?

They did- Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will."

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by almanso "intellectually dishonest" i think the guy is very honest intelectually with his own way of thinking. then you could like it or not, it´s up to you. i wonder if every time you see a person that thinks the opposite of what you think you call this person intellectually dishonest.....

Do I have to post, AGAIN, all the factual errors, misrepresentaions and outright lies of "Bowling For Columbine"? It was a "documentary", right?

ah, another person to share my hate for Michael Moore with

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I think the film was dead on about the "culture of fear" that the news media provides. Think about all the evening news broadcasts that start off with a murder or robbery(usually committed by a black man) that you've seen. Violence sells. And the interview with the Nichols brother was disturbing.Let me put it this way, as I see it: There are nutjobs on BOTH sides of the aisle in terms of ideology, but the conservatives have had a free ride since Clinton (face it, Michael, Clinton's two terms were the best things that ever happened to the Republican Party. It's no coincidence that Rush became more of a national figure after Clinton won.) You've got Fox News, talk radio, and now even the big networks are swinging your way, just because it's unpopular to disagree. The Dixie Chicks (whose only crime was speaking their minds overseas, which I think was a mistake) were raked over the coals by G. Gordon Liddy (whose biggest crime was organizing the Watergate burglary, a hell of a more serious offence). Don't tell me there's a fucking "liberal" media, that's what ole Rupert and Rog and Bill O. want you to believe. Bill Maher said it best (in an interview I watched just this morning): the media is driven by ego, not ideology. Eight years of Clinton brought the Republicans together like Reagan and the first Bush never could. Please for the love of all that is holy, quit with the "liberal media" bullshit and acknowledge the fact that right now you conservatives rule the f-ing roost!Now that I've gotten that out of my system, let me state again: I am well aware that Moore has been know for lying on occasion, but the film is STILL very good. Sorry it rubs you the wrong way. I wonder why, what with Fox News and talk radio, the conservatives haven't branched out into documentary film-making. If you're so damn upset about Michael Moore, why not make a film yourself?

....."and now even the big networks are swinging your way."!?!?!?!? By your own words, you're admitting that the Big Three had and obviously still slant WAY left. The New York and L.A. Times almost fall over on their sides they slant so left. CNN had free reign until FNC came on the scene (competition's a bitch, ain't it?). This is not even to mention tax payer funded house organs of the DNC like NPR and PBS. So, no matter how many times Bill Mahr or Jeneen (s/p) Garofolo (nice dye job by the way) say there isn't a liberal media, it doesn't make it so.

As for BFC , dig on it if you want to. But to carry on the charade that it's a factual documentary insults both my and your intelligence.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > I wonder why, what with Fox News and talk radio, the conservatives haven't branched out into documentary film-making. If you're so damn upset about Michael Moore, why not make a film yourself?

They did- Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will."

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > > > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > > > I wonder why, what with Fox News and talk radio, the conservatives haven't branched out into documentary film-making. If you're so damn upset about Michael Moore, why not make a film yourself? >

They did- Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will."

Originally posted by Spotnick As far as I know, Elephant, the latest Gus Van Sant movie (people seem to like My Own Private Idaho on another thread), who won the palme d'or in Cannes this year is based on the same subject, well, it's inspired from the events of Colombine...

Hopefully there will be some meaningful dialogue in that. "Gerry" wasn't a bad film by Van Sant, but after watching matt damon and Casey Affleck have dialogue of no significance, the film slightly got boring. Then Casey Affleck gets stuck ontop of a rock, and, well, just can't get down.

I read a MM book. He said the problem with the GOP is that Clinton gets laid and that Hillary is HOT. They all want a piece of Hillary's ass.:sex:

But Taboo#7 is correct, the GOP has prospered quite well during the Clinto years, Democrats really need to get their shit together if they want to regain power.

My thing is, I hate taxes, enjoy my right to own firearms and I like the ability to drive a car that is quite thirsty. This would make me a Republican. Yet, alot of GOP are really Christain Socialists--Big Liberal Government in my wife's womb, attacks on my gay friends and drug laws. Thus the trade off--Big Liberal Government to help freaks and deadbeats and to take away my guns and cars OR Big Liberal government to round up my gay friends, force religion down my kids' ass and tell me what substances I can consume or not in the privacy in my own home. Guess that makes me a Liberatarian.

And Michael Moore is a cheater, too..............

Did Michael Moore deceive Academy? 'Bowling for Columbine' failed to meet Oscar submission rules

Posted: September 2, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Michael Moore, winner of the 2002 Oscar for Best Documentary for his controversial "Bowling for Columbine," failed to meet submission requirements of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a WorldNetDaily investigation reveals.

While critics of the filmmaker and author have called on the academy to investigate whether Moore fabricated scenes in the movie, it also appears he misled the academy about the film's eligibility on purely technical grounds.

Candidates for Best Documentary feature have unique procedural requirements for eligibility. According to Rule 12, qualification for the 75th Annual Academy Awards in this category demanded that films be exhibited in a commercial theater for paid admission for seven consecutive days in either Los Angeles County or Manhattan prior to Sept. 30, 2002, and that the entire engagement of the theatrical run be displayed in a major newspaper's movie pages.

While "Bowling for Columbine" reportedly had its qualifying run at Laemmle's Fallbrook 7 in Los Angeles County from Monday, Sept. 9, through Sunday, Sept. 15, the required major newspaper ads were never published.

A search through a library microfilm archive of Los Angeles Times issues from Friday, Sept. 6, through Sunday, Sept. 15, 2002, turned up only four published performances of "Bowling for Columbine" in the movie pages. Those performances were at 10 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at Laemmle's Fallbrook 7. Laemmle's Fallbrook 7 had no films listed for either Friday morning, Sept. 6, or Friday morning Sept. 13. "Bowling for Columbine" had no listing at all in the days following Thursday, Sept. 12.

A run of only four days would fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 12. Even a run of seven days accompanied by published notice of only four days' performances would fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 12.

While in 2001, the academy required submission of photocopies of newspaper movie pages containing the qualifying ads or listings, in 2002, the photocopies were no longer required.

Even before the latest findings, "Bowling for Columbine" was already one of the most controversial movies of its time. The film ostensibly blames the Columbine High School massacre on the U.S. military-industrial complex, as Littleton, Colo., is home to a Lockheed Martin factory. Moore suggests the factory makes weapons of mass destruction. In fact, it makes rockets that carry TV satellites into space.

At the March 23 Oscar festivities, Moore received a standing ovation when he won the award. But when he launched into a fiery criticism of President Bush and the Iraq war, his remarks were met with a cacophony of boos.

"We are against this war, Mr. Bush," he shouted. "Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you!"

Dan Gifford, an Academy Award nominee himself, has called on the academy to investigate whether Moore "fabricated scenes and video of real people that has been edited to manufacture a fictional reality intended to mislead viewers."

If it is determined those accusations are true, Gifford, the producer of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," wrote to Bruce Davis, executive director of the academy, Moore should be stripped of the Oscar and it should be awarded to the runner-up.

"Failure to conduct such an investigation and act according to its findings will diminish the stature of the Oscar, establish an exploitable precedent for future rule violators and be grossly unfair to the other nominees who did follow the rules," Gifford wrote. "That unfairness will be particularly bitter to those whose film would have been nominated in place of 'Bowling for Columbine.'

"Even the accusation of such rule violations taints the Academy Award with implications of politics and favoritism that are most damaging," he continued. "So, I again respectfully ask that you not delay your attention to this matter."

That letter was written April 21. Repeated attempts to reach Davis by telephone were unsuccessful.

Moore was unresponsive to e-mail requests for an interview and phone calls to his publicist.

As for the latest controversy over the film, Gifford was not surprised. Nor did he think the eligibility issue will have much resonance in Hollywood.

"On the political left, ends justify means," he said. "So, even if Michael Moore lied in his film to promote a leftist vision, his lies are defended as truth by those who agree with him."

Even if he lied in his submission to the academy, Gifford concluded, that deceit, too, would be overlooked by those who agree with him – including the vast majority of the entertainment-industry elite.

Los Angeles radio talk-show host and WorldNetDaily columnist Larry Elder is currently working on a documentary called "Michael & Me," patterned after Moore's "Roger & Me," but turning the tables on the filmmaker. He, too, is incensed about the way Moore has taken liberties with the truth in his "documentaries."

"As far as I know, the academy is doing nothing," Elder said.

At least two websites have been established to refute "Bowling for Columbine" and address other charges by Moore. They are RevoketheOscar.com and Moorelies.com.

Miramax, a Walt Disney Company, is bankrolling Moore's latest project, "Fahrenheit 911," a film that will reportedly show audiences the U.S. government and President Bush were culpable for Osama bin Laden's Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"Bowling for Columbine" has grossed over $21 million.

Besides his Oscar honors, the jury at the Cannes Film Festival in France created a special, one-time-only award to honor "Bowling for Columbine" and gave it a 13-minute standing ovation.

so micheal your main beef is that he didnt run an ad in the papers so therefore he cheated?

we must be saved from this man!

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> I think the film was dead on about the "culture of fear" that the news media provides. Think about all the evening news broadcasts that start off with a murder or robbery(usually committed by a black man) that you've seen. Violence sells. And the interview with the Nichols brother was disturbing.> > Let me put it this way, as I see it: There are nutjobs on BOTH sides of the aisle in terms of ideology, but the conservatives have had a free ride since Clinton (face it, Michael, Clinton's two terms were the best things that ever happened to the Republican Party. It's no coincidence that Rush became more of a national figure after Clinton won.) You've got Fox News, talk radio, and now even the big networks are swinging your way, just because it's unpopular to disagree. The Dixie Chicks (whose only crime was speaking their minds overseas, which I think was a mistake) were raked over the coals by G. Gordon Liddy (whose biggest crime was organizing the Watergate burglary, a hell of a more serious offence). Don't tell me there's a fucking "liberal" media, that's what ole Rupert and Rog and Bill O. want you to believe. Bill Maher said it best (in an interview I watched just this morning): the media is driven by ego, not ideology. Eight years of Clinton brought the Republicans together like Reagan and the first Bush never could. Please for the love of all that is holy, quit with the "liberal media" bullshit and acknowledge the fact that right now you conservatives rule the f-ing roost!> > Now that I've gotten that out of my system, let me state again: I am well aware that Moore has been know for lying on occasion, but the film is STILL very good. Sorry it rubs you the wrong way. I wonder why, what with Fox News and talk radio, the conservatives haven't branched out into documentary film-making. If you're so damn upset about Michael Moore, why not make a film yourself?

....."and now even the big networks are swinging your way."!?!?!?!? By your own words, you're admitting that the Big Three had and obviously still slant WAY left. The New York and L.A. Times almost fall over on their sides they slant so left. CNN had free reign until FNC came on the scene (competition's a bitch, ain't it?). This is not even to mention tax payer funded house organs of the DNC like NPR and PBS. So, no matter how many times Bill Mahr or Jeneen (s/p) Garofolo (nice dye job by the way) say there isn't a liberal media, it doesn't make it so.

As for BFC , dig on it if you want to. But to carry on the charade that it's a factual documentary insults both my and your intelligence.

have never read them, but slant way left? come off it - you dont have a left in the states, just different degrees of right...

Originally posted by masaaki sakai > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > I think the film was dead on about the "culture of fear" that the news media provides. Think about all the evening news broadcasts that start off with a murder or robbery(usually committed by a black man) that you've seen. Violence sells. And the interview with the Nichols brother was disturbing.> > > > Let me put it this way, as I see it: There are nutjobs on BOTH sides of the aisle in terms of ideology, but the conservatives have had a free ride since Clinton (face it, Michael, Clinton's two terms were the best things that ever happened to the Republican Party. It's no coincidence that Rush became more of a national figure after Clinton won.) You've got Fox News, talk radio, and now even the big networks are swinging your way, just because it's unpopular to disagree. The Dixie Chicks (whose only crime was speaking their minds overseas, which I think was a mistake) were raked over the coals by G. Gordon Liddy (whose biggest crime was organizing the Watergate burglary, a hell of a more serious offence). Don't tell me there's a fucking "liberal" media, that's what ole Rupert and Rog and Bill O. want you to believe. Bill Maher said it best (in an interview I watched just this morning): the media is driven by ego, not ideology. Eight years of Clinton brought the Republicans together like Reagan and the first Bush never could. Please for the love of all that is holy, quit with the "liberal media" bullshit and acknowledge the fact that right now you conservatives rule the f-ing roost!> > > > Now that I've gotten that out of my system, let me state again: I am well aware that Moore has been know for lying on occasion, but the film is STILL very good. Sorry it rubs you the wrong way. I wonder why, what with Fox News and talk radio, the conservatives haven't branched out into documentary film-making. If you're so damn upset about Michael Moore, why not make a film yourself? >

....."and now even the big networks are swinging your way."!?!?!?!? By your own words, you're admitting that the Big Three had and obviously still slant WAY left. The New York and L.A. Times almost fall over on their sides they slant so left. CNN had free reign until FNC came on the scene (competition's a bitch, ain't it?). This is not even to mention tax payer funded house organs of the DNC like NPR and PBS. So, no matter how many times Bill Mahr or Jeneen (s/p) Garofolo (nice dye job by the way) say there isn't a liberal media, it doesn't make it so.

As for BFC , dig on it if you want to. But to carry on the charade that it's a factual documentary insults both my and your intelligence.

have never read them, but slant way left? come off it - you dont have a left in the states, just different degrees of right...

Well, that certainly is your opinion. We may not have a left in terms of how you know "left", but I can assure you that we have institutionalized leftists in this country: the ACLU, NAACP, NOW, LULAC, MALDEF, GLAAD et al, most of the Democrat party, the major papers and their clients on both coasts, NPR and the over the air news organizations.

Jesus Fucking Christ!!!!!!! Stripping Lard Ass of his Oscar is like the Florida Recount. So he did not send grease money to LA newspaper racket. Big Fucking Deal. All the bitching and moaning about this is what Lard Ass Moore needs--free publicity to pimp his movie.

Agree with him or not, he has a right to make and air the film. But feed the hype about it keeps it in the market place. Ignore him and he will go away.

yes most excellent film. rock on.

Finally got around to watching Bowling for Columbine about 4 months ago and must say I was impressed. Sure, you have to approach it critically but what don't you have to? As an outsider looking in I'm sure I lose a lot of the intricacies of america and its politics but the similarities with 80s Britain are worrying. Even more worrying is that Britiain seems to be mindlessly following America though. Anyway-try and drag this back on topic-definately enjoyed the movie although I'm a long time Moore convert and remember the days of tv nation. Any feedback on Farenheit 9/11?

Also on the topic of the media-it's never gonna be entirely one way so calling it as such just makes people look stupid. For every Fox news there's always gonna be CNN...although there'll never be another Bill O'Reilly-man I love that show...only scary thing is some people actually take it seriously. Finally...what's the big thing about guns? Anyway...rant over..laters

Superb film,as is 9/11.

Bush is a Murdering Bastard, he has created hell on earth.

Listen to David Rovics , www.davidrovics.com

Originally posted by Spotnick Well, I've just seen it, and I must say I was impressed.. I don't know if all the facts are true, but I know what Michael Moore is saying about Canada is true, although it has been said that only 1 out of 15 canadian own a gun, and there are 7 million guns in Canada, so 1 out of 15 owns 7 guns I was amazed to see him running in Toronto's suburbs to see if doors were unlocked, does everybody in the US really lock their doors when they are home? >

I never lived in the US suburbs, but, in the city, it's a necessity to lock your doors. If you left them open, there's a good chance someone would break in. Around where my mother lives in Philly, everyone locks the doors, but they all park their cars on the streets, since most urban rowhomes don't have driveways. If people unlocked their doors, the inside of their houses would look like how the cars do on my street. My mother's had her car scratched and keyed several times, and so have the neighbors. Once, during the night, someone took an etching tool and carved a bunch of letters onto the roof of my mother's car. From my experience, I've had to stand guard for a few kids on my street while they lit a bunch of news papers on fire by the train station, and they tried to persuade me to break into a car by throwing a brick through the windshield, but I chickened out. I don't know how Canadian urban teenagers are, but if they're as careless and destructive as those in US cities like Philadelphia, I'm surprised they don't lock their doors.

Originally posted by Spotnick Funny though, I've been to Boston and except that their McDonalds needs serious cleanups, it seems just like Montreal...I loved Cambridge ;)

Actually, downtown Boston and Cambridge are rathe nice for American cities. But, Philadelphia, NYC, and the small NJ cities in between are far from desirable.

Have fun with this site http://www.moorewatch.com

Moore= good editing, good filmmaking, good fiction.