Michael Moore and his bullshit (Bowling for Columbine)

[Thecowgoooesmooo]

I tried to keep this on topic for awhile, but I think its impossible.

And I know, if I reply with a post relating to the topic, in less then 2 replys, it will be completely off topic ignoring my first reply. Ha

So have at it, all you master debaters!



chris

[kassius]

I liked "Bowling for Columbine".  I liked it, because the film could have easily been about why pro-gun advocates are so wrong and why anti-gun advocates are so right. But it wasn't.  

In the beginning... Moore approached the matter as: "getting rid of every gun in America" would make us safer. This was smart, because it grabbed a hold of the audience.  But then just when you think his case is done, he talks about how other countries have guns all over the place, but DON'T HAVE CRIME.

The bigger issue is, how we are as a people.  He gave a new argument in the entire gun issue... and one that hasn't been year before. It's a very powerful film.. and most people refused to see that because they were too busy trying to find ways to hate Moore as they watched it.  I for one, am a liberal who was against guns in the homes of Americans but since seeing Moore's movie... I am for it.  So to say that Moore's theories make people more liberal... your missing the point!

Don't get me wrong... he did attack Bush towards the end of the film... but a great hidden message was there... when all was said and done.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I for one, am a liberal who was against guns in the homes of Americans but since seeing Moore's movie... I am for it.

Why?

[Rudie Obias]

The fact that Moore blatantly lies and fools the viewer to be swayed by his viewpoint.

ummmm.....  that's what documentaries do.  once you edit footage you sway, no even better, you shape the way of the film is presented to the audience.  it's called editing, once you make a cut, footage is no longer object but rather subjective.  take a class on filmmaking and you'll know the reason why.

ps
everyone sways the facts, either liberal or conservative.  they take facts and sway people in believing this or not with arguements.  either "pro" or "con" but it's up the individual to make a choice whether to believe it or not.

pps
all documentaries and filmmakers do this, moron!!!

[pete]

people have told him that already, but, according to him, he saw a movie that declared absolute truth in chicago so everyone is wrong.

"the cinema is truth at 24 frames per second, and every cut is a lie."
-godard.

[Thecowgoooesmooo]

people have told him that already, but, according to him, he saw a movie that declared absolute truth in chicago so everyone is wrong.

I will stand by my arguement that Documentary films can be objective. Im taking a class right now VID112, my teacher is an acclaimed documentary filmmaker, I got into a debate about this issue today, with him.

Because this is interesting... Here is the definition of a Documentary...

doc·u·men·ta·ry    
adj.
1)Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2)Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Now if what your saying is true, that no documentary can be objective... Then these films, shouldn't be called a documentary. And that means the entire definition of the word Documentary is void. Get what Im saying?


chris

[godardian]

people have told him that already, but, according to him, he saw a movie that declared absolute truth in chicago so everyone is wrong.

I will stand by my arguement that Documentary films can be objective. Im taking a class right now VID112, my teacher is an acclaimed documentary filmmaker, I got into a debate about this issue today, with him.

Because this is interesting... Here is the definition of a Documentary...

doc·u·men·ta·ry    
adj.
1)Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2)Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Now if what your saying is true, that no documentary can be objective... Then these films, shouldn't be called a documentary. And that means the entire definition of the word Documentary is void. Get what Im saying?


chris

The definition doesn't specify that the work itself must be objective, though; you could easily say that that definition has to do with the intentions of the process, not the end result. Note also that "film" is excluded entirely from that definition (though I don't believe written journalism is ever entirely objective, either).

In a documentary film, every edit and every choice the filmmaker has made as far as where to point the camera is an editorialization, if not an insertion of fictional matter.

Therefore, that definition is either restricted to stylistic mores/intentions, is too broad for the purposes of this discussion, or is simply incomplete or inaccurate.

[Raikus]

In a documentary film, every edit and every choice the filmmaker has made as far as where to point the camera is an editorialization, if not an insertion of fictional matter.

But the job of a documentarian, a good documentarian, is to edit the film in a way that the facts are best displayed. As I said before, a documentary should be approached like a science project. Name your subject, name your situation and pronounce a hypothesis for the project. Then test it and reveal your result. Normally the conclusion displays a different outcome from the hypothesis.

The same should hold true for a documentary and many people agree with this (which is a major reason for the popularity of the Dogme 95 "Vows of Chasity"). If the outcome of a project is decided before the proof displays it, if fictional matter is inserted into and passed off as fact, and if parts are spun to get to the decided outcome, it shouldn't be considered a documentary.

[Jeremy Blackman]

But the job of a documentarian, a good documentarian, is to edit the film in a way that the facts are best displayed.

The meaning of that is subjective.

[kassius]

I for one, am a liberal who was against guns in the homes of Americans but since seeing Moore's movie... I am for it.

Why?

Because Moore proved the problem isn't how many guns we have, it's how we act as a people.  Most people are trying so hard to shove him off for being a liberal, that they are missing the point.  It's not the guns, it's us.

And if this board is about directors... not writers...what do you guys thinking of Moore's directing? Just curious.

[pete]

godardian is right in saying that the definition is either too broad or too incomplete, as it doesn't even specify if it's the intention of the filmmaker or the actual end product.
I've taken film classes on documentaries as well, I've chatted about documentary filmmaking with Albert Maysles, whose production company is now here based in Boston (if you're taking a documentary class right now then you don't need me to tell you who he is) and even that old slick mofo won't claim to be subjective.  How can you stay objective when you're presented 100 hours of raw information and have to narrow it all down to 2 hours?  

If you wanna play the game of looking shit up in the dictionary, here's a definition of objective in the merriam webster dictionary:

1ob•jec•tive \eb-"jek-tiv, ab-\ adjective (1620)
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence — used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries. . . are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a
c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c
d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>
b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum syn see material, fair
ob•jec•tive•ly adverb
ob•jec•tive•ness noun
ob•jec•tiv•i•ty \'ab-'jek-"ti-ve-te, eb-\ noun

(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.  All rights reserved.

see that?  Having reality INDEPENDENT OF THE MIND--how can you do that as a living breathing person making films?

people have told him that already, but, according to him, he saw a movie that declared absolute truth in chicago so everyone is wrong.

I will stand by my arguement that Documentary films can be objective. Im taking a class right now VID112, my teacher is an acclaimed documentary filmmaker, I got into a debate about this issue today, with him.

Because this is interesting... Here is the definition of a Documentary...

doc·u·men·ta·ry    
adj.
1)Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2)Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Now if what your saying is true, that no documentary can be objective... Then these films, shouldn't be called a documentary. And that means the entire definition of the word Documentary is void. Get what Im saying?


chris

[Jeremy Blackman]

see that?  Having reality INDEPENDENT OF THE MIND--how can you do that as a living breathing person making films?

Amen.

Because Moore proved the problem isn't how many guns we have, it's how we act as a people.  Most people are trying so hard to shove him off for being a liberal, that they are missing the point.  It's not the guns, it's us.

Alright, so you're not seeing guns as "evil" in themselves. But are they really necessary? Isn't the point that guns are pointless? And if we have a violent national personality, aren't guns going to perpetuate that, especially if we cling to them?

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

Alright, so you're not seeing guns as "evil" in themselves. But are they really necessary? Isn't the point that guns are pointless? And if we have a violent national personality, aren't guns going to perpetuate that, especially if we cling to them?

Guns serve on purpose: killing.  I think they were very helpful for hunting for a while, but we don't rely on venisen, squirrel and rabbit to survive.  The only reason for guns now is security to fight back against someone who has a gun.  

It's too late to much abuot them, and most folks who have guns are adamant about keeping them.  

There isn't a probable way to fix the problem without death.  Again, by the fault of guns.

[rustinglass]

pardon my ignorance. what is a mockumentary?

[mogwai]

a mockumentary or mocumentary is a fiction film presented as a documentary film. they are usually comedic, often parodic in nature, and are often presented as historical documentaries with b-roll and talking heads discussing past events or as cinema verite pieces following people as they go through various events.