Bowling For Columbine (please post about film)
#26
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: dc
Posts: 2,597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM was on oprah yesterday. they aired the cartoon and i thought it was hilarious, and amazingly profound! i've been dying to see this but until i get my presentation out of the way (nov. 6) i won't be able to.
i think what MM does it remarkable, i have loved his earlier stuff and this appears to be brilliant as well!
i think what MM does it remarkable, i have loved his earlier stuff and this appears to be brilliant as well!
#27
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by covenant
re: Mr. Heston:
Whether you like Mr. Heston or not, and whether your against the right to own guns or not, it's pretty jive to slam a guy as he's taking on Alzheimers. Mr. Hesten was nice enough to grant Mr. Moore an interview knowing the guy disagrees with his stance on the 2nd amendment and then Mr. Moore challenges the old man on everything, not giving him time to respond, leaving him utterly confused. Totally unprofessional and it shows you the lack of character Mr. Moore has. Very sad.
re: Mr. Heston:
Whether you like Mr. Heston or not, and whether your against the right to own guns or not, it's pretty jive to slam a guy as he's taking on Alzheimers. Mr. Hesten was nice enough to grant Mr. Moore an interview knowing the guy disagrees with his stance on the 2nd amendment and then Mr. Moore challenges the old man on everything, not giving him time to respond, leaving him utterly confused. Totally unprofessional and it shows you the lack of character Mr. Moore has. Very sad.
Finally, with Moore flaunting his favorite example of "safe, peaceful" Canada, and pushing relentlessly for some basis for America's more numerous murders, he forces a reluctant, uncertain suggestion from Heston. "I don't know," the great actor begins, and then tentatively mentions the greater racial diversity in the United States.
Mr. Moore pounces on this statement, and virtually accuses Heston of racism – never acknowledging (or telling his audience) that the current president of the NRA enjoyed a personal friendship with Dr. Martin Luther King and participated more prominently in the civil-rights movement and its marches than any other major Hollywood star. Unwilling (or unable) to make this point himself, Mr. Heston merely disconnects his microphone, gets up out of his chair and walks away from Moore and his camera – a wounded refugee seeking shelter in another wing of his own home.
Mr. Moore pounces on this statement, and virtually accuses Heston of racism – never acknowledging (or telling his audience) that the current president of the NRA enjoyed a personal friendship with Dr. Martin Luther King and participated more prominently in the civil-rights movement and its marches than any other major Hollywood star. Unwilling (or unable) to make this point himself, Mr. Heston merely disconnects his microphone, gets up out of his chair and walks away from Moore and his camera – a wounded refugee seeking shelter in another wing of his own home.
Even without Charlton Heston's courageous announcement of his own battle with Alzheimer's symptoms (an announcement which Moore, of course, never references), this appalling interview would represent a new low in a manipulative filmmaker's checkered career. [/B]
#28
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
plus, if heston was quick enough (mentally, that is) to know that he was being cornered and took off his mic because of it, then i'd say he isn't in the deepest throws of alzheimer's just yet...
on a different note, if you happen to live in a kerasotes dominated city, i e-mailed the folks at kerasotes and they said that bowling for columbine is scheduled to "open soon".. my hope is that means next week, not next year.
-di doctor-
on a different note, if you happen to live in a kerasotes dominated city, i e-mailed the folks at kerasotes and they said that bowling for columbine is scheduled to "open soon".. my hope is that means next week, not next year.
-di doctor-
#29
DVD Talk Hero - 2023 TOTY Award Winner
Originally posted by MrN
I think the interview exposed a deeper-rooted belief linking race and crime - regardless of Heston's earlier activities.
I think the interview exposed a deeper-rooted belief linking race and crime - regardless of Heston's earlier activities.
Moore was on Crossfire a couple of weeks ago and Tucker Carlson tore into him immediately about "picking on a guy with Alzheimers." Moore vociferously retorted that Heston has "symptoms of Alzheimers", not "Alzheimers." A rather weak rebuttal, but all in all, Moore wiped the floor with Tucker.
#30
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by JustinS
What belief. The link between race and violent crime is a statistical fact. To accuse someone of racism simply for pointing it out is silly.
What belief. The link between race and violent crime is a statistical fact. To accuse someone of racism simply for pointing it out is silly.
In the film, the 'liberal' media is blamed for perpetuating racial profiling. But its still shocking when Heston makes this remark on camera.
#31
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: dc
Posts: 2,597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's true though, he doesn't HAVE azheimer's, just SYMPTOMS. and if you think about it everyone HAS symptoms of the disease. doctors have told my family that several of my grandparent were suffering from symptoms but none of them ever/have ever developed the disease. in the world of medicine if alzheimers is caught early then there are better chances for the patient therefore doctors frequently try not to rule it out. i thought it was ridiculous that he recorded an announcement for it, there was no need. moore did also mention that he made the announcement the week of or week before the movie was released. i don't think he was insinuating anything but i wouldn't put it past heston. he's a very clever man and has been known to manipulate situations!
just my 2-cents
just my 2-cents
#32
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: dc
Posts: 2,597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by covenant
re: Mr. Heston:
Mr. Hesten was nice enough to grant Mr. Moore an interview knowing the guy disagrees with his stance on the 2nd amendment and then Mr. Moore challenges the old man on everything, not giving him time to respond, leaving him utterly confused. Totally unprofessional and it shows you the lack of character Mr. Moore has. Very sad.
Mr. Moore pounces on this statement, and virtually accuses Heston of racism – never acknowledging (or telling his audience) that the current president of the NRA enjoyed a personal friendship with Dr. Martin Luther King and participated more prominently in the civil-rights movement and its marches than any other major Hollywood star.
re: Mr. Heston:
Mr. Hesten was nice enough to grant Mr. Moore an interview knowing the guy disagrees with his stance on the 2nd amendment and then Mr. Moore challenges the old man on everything, not giving him time to respond, leaving him utterly confused. Totally unprofessional and it shows you the lack of character Mr. Moore has. Very sad.
Mr. Moore pounces on this statement, and virtually accuses Heston of racism – never acknowledging (or telling his audience) that the current president of the NRA enjoyed a personal friendship with Dr. Martin Luther King and participated more prominently in the civil-rights movement and its marches than any other major Hollywood star.
please! heston is a public figure he has spent his entire career, as do all celebrities, greatly aware of how he comes across to the public. many people do and say things that will be acceptable in our community, otherwise no one would support them! this is one of the biggest reasons people have publicists because they help the person remain acceptable. why else do you think politicians and other high profile men wore robes and mask when they belonged to the KKK? and before you take that out of context, i am in NO WAY saying that heston is involved in the organization, i'm just making a point! many high profile individuals WERE in the KKK and they knew that it would be unacceptable for many to know that they were, hence the mask.
the president is a good example (any prez, not bush in particular), he is surrounded by people who help to polish his image. frequently they have them appear in 'publicity' photos that will help their career (example might be prez and farakkan, b/c they appear together shows that prez. supports muslims yet they prob. have 2 very different beliefs and prob. don't want to be seen together)
also, what was moore supposed to do with heston's comments? ignore them? i think the whole idea of debate falls into this scenario! he has approached a subject that is highly sensitive and in order to come out with a statement he can't just sit back and let everyone off the hook. moore has his own beliefs, heston has his and their mutual connection with the nra invites this discussion. 2 very different voices, 1 common variable, you can't not explore this or else the film would would dissolve.
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sugar Grove, IL
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heston graciously accepted the interview, almost certainly because he was unaware of Moore's agenda/reputation (I believe Moore mentioned that he's been a member of the NRA for years when asking for the interview). However, I don't think Moore waas "badgering" him; he came up with the "ethnic diverdity" answer on his own - after which, realizing the deep water he's just gotten himself into, he basically stopped talking, took off his microphone, and walked away (without even attempting to "end" the interview). That scene, punctuated by Moore laying the photo of the little girl, was quite powerful and sad. Also, dont forget Heston's (and the NRA's) insensitivity in going ahead with the two rallies (one after Columbine in Colorado, and one after the little girl's death - I'm sorry I don't recall her name). I believe his only previous response to the Colorado rally was that it was a "scheduling" decision (weak); he claimed he was unaware of the girl's death (but couldn't say if he would have postponed it if he HAD known). Sure, Heston's mental faculties may not be as strong as they once were (with or without Alzheimer's symptons), but I still felt very little sympathy for him in that situation.
From your cold, dead hands indeed, Mr. Heston.
At the end of the day, though, I think that "Bowling For Columbine" reveals that the high rate of gun killings in America is not due to any single factor; however, attempting to reduce that phenomenon in an honest, thoughtful way should be applauded.
From your cold, dead hands indeed, Mr. Heston.
At the end of the day, though, I think that "Bowling For Columbine" reveals that the high rate of gun killings in America is not due to any single factor; however, attempting to reduce that phenomenon in an honest, thoughtful way should be applauded.
#34
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 3,807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by berserker37
Heston graciously accepted the interview, almost certainly because he was unaware of Moore's agenda/reputation (I believe Moore mentioned that he's been a member of the NRA for years when asking for the interview). However, I don't think Moore waas "badgering" him; he came up with the "ethnic diverdity" answer on his own - after which, realizing the deep water he's just gotten himself into, he basically stopped talking, took off his microphone, and walked away (without even attempting to "end" the interview). That scene, punctuated by Moore laying the photo of the little girl, was quite powerful and sad. Also, dont forget Heston's (and the NRA's) insensitivity in going ahead with the two rallies (one after Columbine in Colorado, and one after the little girl's death - I'm sorry I don't recall her name). I believe his only previous response to the Colorado rally was that it was a "scheduling" decision (weak); he claimed he was unaware of the girl's death (but couldn't say if he would have postponed it if he HAD known). Sure, Heston's mental faculties may not be as strong as they once were (with or without Alzheimer's symptons), but I still felt very little sympathy for him in that situation.
From your cold, dead hands indeed, Mr. Heston.
At the end of the day, though, I think that "Bowling For Columbine" reveals that the high rate of gun killings in America is not due to any single factor; however, attempting to reduce that phenomenon in an honest, thoughtful way should be applauded.
Heston graciously accepted the interview, almost certainly because he was unaware of Moore's agenda/reputation (I believe Moore mentioned that he's been a member of the NRA for years when asking for the interview). However, I don't think Moore waas "badgering" him; he came up with the "ethnic diverdity" answer on his own - after which, realizing the deep water he's just gotten himself into, he basically stopped talking, took off his microphone, and walked away (without even attempting to "end" the interview). That scene, punctuated by Moore laying the photo of the little girl, was quite powerful and sad. Also, dont forget Heston's (and the NRA's) insensitivity in going ahead with the two rallies (one after Columbine in Colorado, and one after the little girl's death - I'm sorry I don't recall her name). I believe his only previous response to the Colorado rally was that it was a "scheduling" decision (weak); he claimed he was unaware of the girl's death (but couldn't say if he would have postponed it if he HAD known). Sure, Heston's mental faculties may not be as strong as they once were (with or without Alzheimer's symptons), but I still felt very little sympathy for him in that situation.
From your cold, dead hands indeed, Mr. Heston.
At the end of the day, though, I think that "Bowling For Columbine" reveals that the high rate of gun killings in America is not due to any single factor; however, attempting to reduce that phenomenon in an honest, thoughtful way should be applauded.
I thought the interview was fine. Moore was not "badgering" Heston at all. He simply pressed him on a few questions when Heston wasn't giving direct answers. I prefer that to him lobbing softball questions to him. As has been mentioned in here, this interview took place before Heston's announcement he was displaying symptoms of Alzheimers and really Heston didn't show any signs of being feeble or having trouble answering the questions. The only trouble he had was because he didn't want to answer them.
And I doubt he didn't know who Michael Moore was when he buzzed him in the next day. You think you can just walk up to Heston's house, tell him your making a documentary and he will buzz you in the next day? I have my doubts.
Overall I thought this was a great movie and anybody who complains about it being anti-gun or anti-gun owners either missed the point or hasn't seen it. The issue isn't the guns people, although sometimes it is gun owners being irresponsible, but the fear factor of living in this country. Moore cast the net pretty widely I thought and took in many possible explanations. This movie wasn't a "gun movie" but a movie about violence and fear and the role coroporations, government, the news media and others play in perpetuating that fear. It also made me want to go bowling and once again made me cheer Marilyn Manson (first time was the Rolling Stone article he wrote after the Columbine shootings). Well worth my money and hope to see it again soon.
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I "loved" the way they portrayed every gunowner on the film to be wacked out yokels with sociopathic inclinations. Despite M. Moore's "epiphany" that his beloved Canada has 7 million guns in private hands (but does not have as many gun deaths as the U.S.) his narrow view is obvious. When he shows gunowners he brings out the parade of "freaks" and not the avg. honest hard working guy or gal who accepts personal defense as personal responsibility (in a truly free nation).
And oh, the only connection the NRA has with the KKK is that both organizations were (coincidentally) formed in the same year. Even if it was true what difference does it make? The NRA encourages people of color to exercise their 2nd Amend rights and wants people of color to actively take part in their organization. What connection is M. Moore trying to infer?
Just because you see it on TV or on film doesn't necessarily mean its true (even though you might badly want it to be).
*And yes, I do think race has something to do with "crime". The basic fact that we as a people from various ethnic and cultural groups have absolutely failed to connect with each other and realize we're all just Americans. And that in itself is a failure that we all must admit to. Our Constitution appeals to our common decency and gives us freedoms other "democracies" do not enjoy but it is up to all of us to make it work.
And oh, the only connection the NRA has with the KKK is that both organizations were (coincidentally) formed in the same year. Even if it was true what difference does it make? The NRA encourages people of color to exercise their 2nd Amend rights and wants people of color to actively take part in their organization. What connection is M. Moore trying to infer?
Just because you see it on TV or on film doesn't necessarily mean its true (even though you might badly want it to be).
*And yes, I do think race has something to do with "crime". The basic fact that we as a people from various ethnic and cultural groups have absolutely failed to connect with each other and realize we're all just Americans. And that in itself is a failure that we all must admit to. Our Constitution appeals to our common decency and gives us freedoms other "democracies" do not enjoy but it is up to all of us to make it work.
Last edited by Ian11; 11-04-02 at 04:42 AM.
#36
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,295
Received 372 Likes
on
266 Posts
Originally posted by Ian11
And oh, the only connection the NRA has with the KKK is that both organizations were (coincidentally) formed in the same year. Even if it was true what difference does it make? The NRA encourages people of color to exercise their 2nd Amend rights and wants people of color to actively take part in their organization. What connection is M. Moore trying to infer?
And oh, the only connection the NRA has with the KKK is that both organizations were (coincidentally) formed in the same year. Even if it was true what difference does it make? The NRA encourages people of color to exercise their 2nd Amend rights and wants people of color to actively take part in their organization. What connection is M. Moore trying to infer?
As for Heston not being aware of Moore's reputation, I don't see how that's possible. Moore has done pieces on the NRA before, and when he identifies himself as "Michael Moore, the filmmaker" Heston says "Of course." It seemed the Heston knew who he was dealing with.
#37
Cool New Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moore's making a documentary on violence by gunfire in America:
he's going after the NRA. Seems logical to me.
Whatever Alzheimer symptoms Heston has, the man still, to this day, represents the NRA.
If he's really too old to properly defend their interests, (or hide their secret agenda), it's the NRA's duty to replace him, not Moore's to avoid him.
The NRA benefited more than enough from Heston's celebrity, and Moore uses it against them for his own show. More power to him.
he's going after the NRA. Seems logical to me.
Whatever Alzheimer symptoms Heston has, the man still, to this day, represents the NRA.
If he's really too old to properly defend their interests, (or hide their secret agenda), it's the NRA's duty to replace him, not Moore's to avoid him.
The NRA benefited more than enough from Heston's celebrity, and Moore uses it against them for his own show. More power to him.
#38
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I thought the more important issue argued in the film is that we don't neccessarily have a "gun problem" perse, but a "fear problem" that manifests itself in gun violence. It is interesting to see what a hot button issue gun control is in America when a film that is about so many things: the media, US history, welfare, corporate America, our educational system, and just plain old fear, gets labeled as a "Film About Gun Control". Moore may paint with a broad brush, but the critics (both left and right) paint with an even broader brush. Why do critics always pidgeonhole films into one category or description?
#39
DVD Talk Hero - 2023 TOTY Award Winner
Originally posted by MrN
To say someone is more prone to commit a violent crime based on their race would be a rascist remark.
To say someone is more prone to commit a violent crime based on their race would be a rascist remark.
To say that a black person is born more prone to commit violent crime would be racism. To say that a black person is more likely to commit violent crime is not.
I would think economics is a better indicator of violent crime - people saying race is an indicator are looking for an easy answer.
It may be 'statistical' but that doesn't make it true or acceptable.
#40
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by JustinS
What exactly (or as close a paraphrase as you can recall) does Heston say?
What exactly (or as close a paraphrase as you can recall) does Heston say?
That's the best I can do, you'll just have to see it yourself.
#41
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by JustinS
What exactly (or as close a paraphrase as you can recall) does Heston say?
What exactly (or as close a paraphrase as you can recall) does Heston say?
To say that a black person is born more prone to commit violent crime would be racism. To say that a black person is more likely to commit violent crime is not.
How deliciously ironic of you to say that. Economics has been the proverbial "easy answer" for decades now. In truth, it is but one factor of many.
#42
DVD Talk Hero - 2023 TOTY Award Winner
Originally posted by MrN
I really don't see any difference between those statements - while admitting no genetic predisposition to violence, how is the same conclusion reached? To judge a person's actions and intentions based on their color is racist, whatever the reasons.
I really don't see any difference between those statements - while admitting no genetic predisposition to violence, how is the same conclusion reached? To judge a person's actions and intentions based on their color is racist, whatever the reasons.
"Men are more likely to commit murder than women."
Would you call the above a sexist statement? Or perhaps an accurate reflection of consistent crime statistics?
I clearly said economics was an indicator - not the catch all answer. I think its a better answer than race - long the 'easy answer' for racists.
It is so much easier to chalk something up as "the easy answer for racists" rather than consider it seriously, especially when that something conflicts with one's world view.
You can't predict individual human behavior based on statistics.
Was I? Not at all.
#43
Retired
Originally posted by MrN
I really don't see any difference between those statements - while admitting no genetic predisposition to violence, how is the same conclusion reached? To judge a person's actions and intentions based on their color is racist, whatever the reasons.
I really don't see any difference between those statements - while admitting no genetic predisposition to violence, how is the same conclusion reached? To judge a person's actions and intentions based on their color is racist, whatever the reasons.
Saying a black person is born with a higher likelihood of being a criminal would be saying that it was due to some genetic thing tied to their race, and would be a racist statement.
Saying that a black person is more likely to commit crime, is true statistically. It has nothing to do with race per se, just that minorities tend to be concentrated in poor inner-cities were crime and drugs is a major problem. Therefore a larger proportion of minorities commit crime compared to whites. It's due to socio-economic status, rather than race. It just happens that on an average, median income level, minorities are of a lower socio-economic status.
In otherwords, it's not saying that race directly produces criminal behavior, just that, statistically, a larger proportion of minorities commit crimes.
Last edited by Josh Hinkle; 11-05-02 at 07:27 PM.
#45
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by JustinS
Saying that someone is statistically more likely to commit a violent crime is neither judging a person's actions or intentions. You, of course, know this already and are just being difficult intentionally.
Saying that someone is statistically more likely to commit a violent crime is neither judging a person's actions or intentions. You, of course, know this already and are just being difficult intentionally.
"Men are more likely to commit murder than women."
Would you call the above a sexist statement? Or perhaps an accurate reflection of consistent crime statistics?
Would you call the above a sexist statement? Or perhaps an accurate reflection of consistent crime statistics?
No, economics is a factor, not an indicator. The correlation between income and violent crime committal rates alone is somewhat weak.
It is so much easier to chalk something up as "the easy answer for racists" rather than consider it seriously, especially when that something conflicts with one's world view.
Was Heston doing this? Nope, not if Matt925's post is accurate.
Was I? Not at all.
Was I? Not at all.
#46
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
Saying that a black person is more likely to commit crime, is true statistically. It has nothing to do with race per se, just that minorities tend to be concentrated in poor inner-cities were crime and drugs is a major problem. Therefore a larger proportion of minorities commit crime compared to whites. It's due to socio-economic status, rather than race. It just happens that on an average, median income level, minorities are of a lower socio-economic status.
Saying that a black person is more likely to commit crime, is true statistically. It has nothing to do with race per se, just that minorities tend to be concentrated in poor inner-cities were crime and drugs is a major problem. Therefore a larger proportion of minorities commit crime compared to whites. It's due to socio-economic status, rather than race. It just happens that on an average, median income level, minorities are of a lower socio-economic status.
I agree with what you're saying about economic status, but JustinS is refuting it, and thats where we stand.
#47
Uber Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Overlooking Pearl Harbor
Posts: 16,232
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by MrN
As I said in the previous post, 'more likely' implies a prediction, 'a black person' implies an individual and that is the root of my objection.
As I said in the previous post, 'more likely' implies a prediction, 'a black person' implies an individual and that is the root of my objection.
If he had said "this black person," then I could see your point.
All Justin, and Josh, are saying, it seems to me, is that, statistically, black people commit more violent crimes than white people (with obvious caveats about specific types of crimes, like serial killers).
They are not saying that this is because they are black, just that if you look at the people who commit violent crime, blacks are disproportionately represented, and as such, there is a greater chance that a "random black person" will have committed a violent crime than a "random white person."
And in the spirit of getting a little more back on topic, is it true that Moore, in Bowling for Columbine, uses the story of a six year old boy shooting a six year old girl with a gun he found in a relative's house back in 2000? And that he seems to blame this on society or the places she worked at that forced her into being an absentee mom?
I just read a review that said Moore left a lot of important (at least to the reviewer/commentator) details about the environment this child lived in...to quote:
For what Moore didn't tell us about Tamarla Owens and her family could fill several newspaper and magazine articles, and did. The uncle's house where Owens left her children was, additionally, a crack house, where guns were often traded for drugs. The gun that the boy stole from a shoebox on a mattress in his uncle's bedroom had been reported stolen once before. And Owens was hardly a model parent, merely getting squeezed by unfortunate circumstances. According to Time magazine, Owens herself was a drug addict (she denied it). Additionally, reported Newhouse News Service, according to a state Family Independence Agency petition, she admitted holding down her oldest boy so he could be beaten with a belt by two male friends, and she also admitted beating the boy with a belt while sitting on him, after first duct-taping his hands, feet and mouth.
-David
#48
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Blade
For what Moore didn't tell us about Tamarla Owens and her family could fill several newspaper and magazine articles, and did. The uncle's house where Owens left her children was, additionally, a crack house, where guns were often traded for drugs. The gun that the boy stole from a shoebox on a mattress in his uncle's bedroom had been reported stolen once before. And Owens was hardly a model parent, merely getting squeezed by unfortunate circumstances. According to Time magazine, Owens herself was a drug addict (she denied it).
For what Moore didn't tell us about Tamarla Owens and her family could fill several newspaper and magazine articles, and did. The uncle's house where Owens left her children was, additionally, a crack house, where guns were often traded for drugs. The gun that the boy stole from a shoebox on a mattress in his uncle's bedroom had been reported stolen once before. And Owens was hardly a model parent, merely getting squeezed by unfortunate circumstances. According to Time magazine, Owens herself was a drug addict (she denied it).
Additionally, reported Newhouse News Service, according to a state Family Independence Agency petition, she admitted holding down her oldest boy so he could be beaten with a belt by two male friends, and she also admitted beating the boy with a belt while sitting on him, after first duct-taping his hands, feet and mouth.
And as far as the whole "How can this be a documentary?" argument goes, the answer is that it isn't, and the sooner we accept that the better. The film has staged scenes and a fictional cartoon in it. I think "Video Essay" is much more appropriate and that is just what it is. When we all write essays we focus on the things that back up what we want to say. That's what he does. If you agree with his points great, if you don't, that's just fine. This is not "Violence in America," it is Michael Moore's take on violence in America. And I don't see what's wrong with that. It isn't a trick or anything, he is presenting what he is presenting. Anytime you hear anything from anyone you should be ready to hear other sides of the story as there always are other sides. I think critics of Michael Moore are giving him way more credibility than he deserves. If you don't agree with him, what's the big deal? It is just one mans opinion, no different from yours or mine.
#49
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by Blade
I don't think that's correct. "A black person," refers to a randomly picked individual... ie. it could be any black person. That's not the same thing as predicting what a specific individual might do.
If he had said "this black person," then I could see your point.
All Justin, and Josh, are saying, it seems to me, is that, statistically, black people commit more violent crimes than white people (with obvious caveats about specific types of crimes, like serial killers).
They are not saying that this is because they are black, just that if you look at the people who commit violent crime, blacks are disproportionately represented, and as such, there is a greater chance that a "random black person" will have committed a violent crime than a "random white person."
I don't think that's correct. "A black person," refers to a randomly picked individual... ie. it could be any black person. That's not the same thing as predicting what a specific individual might do.
If he had said "this black person," then I could see your point.
All Justin, and Josh, are saying, it seems to me, is that, statistically, black people commit more violent crimes than white people (with obvious caveats about specific types of crimes, like serial killers).
They are not saying that this is because they are black, just that if you look at the people who commit violent crime, blacks are disproportionately represented, and as such, there is a greater chance that a "random black person" will have committed a violent crime than a "random white person."
Its like flipping coins - you can calculate odds of heads or tails, but you can't use it to predict the next flip. Well, you can, but you'd only be right half the time. Thats a simplified example - what if the coin had free will and there were all kinds of other variables, as someone who turns to violence would have. Would race be the determining factor? Why not economics, or upbringing? Has the person been a victim of violence in the past?
By ignoring the other factors, and just saying a 'random black person' is more likely to have committed a violent crime, you are pointing to race as the determining factor.
Of course, my biggest objection to these kinds of statistics is they are basically meaningless. Now that the data shows black people are disproportionately represented in crime statistics, what is society to do about it? By saying 'ethnicity' is to blame for violence, there is an implication that by getting rid of certain groups, violence can be reduced. Is that a path Amercia needs to be exploring? Yeah, the statistics show the Klan was right all the time - maybe their solution should be considered as well....
#50
Retired
Blade summed it up exactly. I'm working on a master's in criminology, and that's what the relevant studies have found.
It's not predicting behavior, it's just saying that a larger proportion of violent crime is commited by blacks that whites. That's not saying that Person A who's black is more likely to commit a crime than Person B who's while. It's simply saying that in taking a random sample, you'll find that a larger percentage of black people commit crimes compared to whites.
It has nothing to do directly whith race, but simply the lower avg. social-economic and demographic conditions of blacks compared to whites.
At any rate, as said above, this is getting a little off topic, and I won't bother elaborating any further.
It's not predicting behavior, it's just saying that a larger proportion of violent crime is commited by blacks that whites. That's not saying that Person A who's black is more likely to commit a crime than Person B who's while. It's simply saying that in taking a random sample, you'll find that a larger percentage of black people commit crimes compared to whites.
It has nothing to do directly whith race, but simply the lower avg. social-economic and demographic conditions of blacks compared to whites.
At any rate, as said above, this is getting a little off topic, and I won't bother elaborating any further.