hgar78

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!

MrN

I don't think Heston would have granted the interview if he knew Moore by reputation.

I think the interview exposed a deeper-rooted belief linking race and crime - regardless of Heston's earlier activities.


Heston made his announcement about a month ago - Bowling for Columbine has been around at least since May. As Roger Ebert notes in his review, that Heston displayed no signs of Alzheimers in the interview - he just didn't have any answers.

DrRingDing

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-

jfoobar

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.

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.

MrN

To say someone is more prone to commit a violent crime based on their race would be a rascist remark. 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.

In the film, the 'liberal' media is blamed for perpetuating racial profiling. But its still shocking when Heston makes this remark on camera.

hgar78

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

hgar78

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.

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.

badger1997

Don't forget the fact that Heston was also in Arizona just a few days after the shooting at the University there. I was thinking of that as I was watching this movie because I heard about that on the radio that morning. As far as I can tell, the NRA leadership has no empathy or sense of dignity at all. They freely go into these areas right after gun incidents and talk about their right to be there. They have the right, but it sure is in bad taste.

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.

Ian11

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.

majorjoe23

They weren't formed in the same year, and that's not what Moore said, he pointed out that the NRA was founded the year that the Klan was declared an illeagal terrorist organization.

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.

old tree

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.

Pants

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?

jfoobar

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.

Matt925

As best as I can recall, Moore is asking why there is so much violence in our country. First Heston says it may have to do with our history, and violence just being ingrained in our society. Moore then asks why countries like Germany, Japan, and Great Britain, with very violent pasts, don't approach the US in violence today. Heston then mumbles something about the United States having a "mixed ethnicity." Moore asks him what that has to do with anything and Heston tries to backtrack.

That's the best I can do, you'll just have to see it yourself.

MrN

The bottom line is, Heston doesn't quote "statistical data." He seems to be searching for an answer and then brings up race.

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 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.


You can't predict individual human behavior based on statistics.

jfoobar

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?

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.

Josh H

The statements are totally different.

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.

fallow

It seems like this post needs to be moved to the Other Forum now. I haven't read anything about Bowling for Columbine in the last couple posts.

MrN

I must be misunderstanding then when you say "A black person is more likely to commit violent crime" - or maybe I'm stuck in my definition of statistical analysis the purpose of which is to predict future outcomes.


Actually, men are genetically more disposed to violence than women. So, this is not a good analogy.

To me, a factor is an indicator. Once again, I'm not trying to say its the only factor/indicator, but it would be a better one than race.

Maybe so. However, I haven't seen any proof to change my view. So even if the link between race and violence is irrefutable - what is the implied solution?

I consider meaningless statistics that say violence is based on ethnicity. And that is what Heston was saying in the film, and which you are arguing, whether you heard him or not.

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.

I agree with what you're saying about economic status, but JustinS is refuting it, and thats where we stand.

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."

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: I haven't seen the movie myself, but this makes Moore out to be incredibly dishonest. I don't really see the point in watching a "documentary" like this unless you're just looking for material that agrees with opinions you already have (and I think that's fine since this is a form of entertainment we're talking about here, but it also means that it won't be very useful or compelling for those with differing opinions).

-David

Matt925

None of this has the slightest bit of relevancy to the point Moore was making: That poor single mothers depend on welfare, and forcing them to work has no benefits and in fact has many detriments. She was evicted from her own home and in order to go to work, she had to leave her son with her brother. She didn't want to have him there but she had no choice.

Quote:

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.

While shocking and upsetting, this still has no relevance to the issue Moore was making. He wasn't trying to say that Owens was an angel. He was saying that single mothers who can't afford child care shouldn't be forced to work. I don't see how this damages his point at all, and I don't see how that makes him dishonest. The boy wouldn't have been in that specific situation if it weren't for the welfare to work program.

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.

MrN

What I'm saying is, you can't use aggregate data to predict an individual reaction - whether that individual is specific or random.

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....

Josh H

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.