Bowling for Columbine - Do the factual inaccuracies bother you?
 

I just finished watching this, and I was really impressed with it...at first. However, I stumbled upon this page, which documents, in great detail, all the of the deceitful tactics used by Moore to put his own spin on the subject at hand. I almost wish I hadn't read the page, because, assuming everything this author says it true (which I see no reason to believe otherwise), I now have a less positive opinion of <b>Bowling for Columbine</b> than I did right after watching it.

The page also brings up a very good point; that the film seems to entirely shift gears and change its main point. The first portions of the film seem to be about how gun ownership is the root of the problem of violence in our country. But as the film progresses, Moore begins showing how most other countries seem to also have a high gun ownership rate, yet don't have nearly the amount of gun violence as we do in the U.S. I finished the film feeling a bit confused as to what point Moore was actually trying to get across.

But my question to you all is, do these flaws in the film (and I do consider misleading information to be flaws) lessen your opinion of the film in any way? Does the fact that much of what Moore says is twisted around in order to deceive the viewer change your views of the film?

Haha - we are on amazing similar wavelengths! I watched this film earlier tonight and have spent the last hour reading that website and a few of the links from it (having found it from a yahoo search). As a supporter of the NRA and conservative in most of my views, I expected to be outraged by the film. However after watching it, I had just a few major thoughts about it:

1) The only point that Moore seems to have been trying to make in the end is that the NRA is an evil, evil organization, led my an evil, unsympathetic, racist in Charlton Heston.

2) I was surprised that he didn't seem to be blaming the accessability of guns in America on gun deaths, but rather the media's attention to murder and violence. I didn't expect that by any means.

3) I kept calculating my estimated populations of other countries and their gun deaths in my head as he spewed them out without mentioning the rates but just using total numbers. The way I see it, how can you not be trying to calculate that in your head while watching it... only idiots would completely ignore population and actually compare the US's 11,000 to the other numbers given without any adjustment (and they need A LOT of adjustment). But then again, wouldn't only idiots buy into Moore's insane ramblings anyway?

4) Some of his video clips and an interview or two were actually very moving... sad, and perhaps exploitative in a way, but undeniably moving. His video of the plane hitting the twin towers on 9/11 brought tears to my eyes for the first time regarding this terrible tragedy in well over a year. It was skillfully done following a very misleading montage, but so well done (as is much of the film) that it moved me.

There's more, but it's almost 4am and I'm not thinking that straight. But anyhow, I always rate film on the imdb after seeing them... always... but this one is impossible for me to rate! I just don't know how to feel about it. For the reasons in my #4 and his skill in keeping the film interesting for almost 2 hours and not being as damning in some areas as I thought he'd try to be, I felt I'd give the film a 7 or 8. However, after reading the other website, I just cannot do that. What infuriates me the most is his altering of clips of Heston and the staging of what he says while Heston's supposedly walking away. Moore paints Heston out to be a racist, and a completely uncaring individual. He does this well in the film - he even had me (a huge fan of Heston's), rather upset at the man... but after seeing how much manipulation went on, it becomes clear that arguably the main point of the film, showing how evil the NRA and Heston are, are completely made up! How can this even be a documentary??

Anyway, I don't know what I'll rate it, but I'll give it that it was at least an interesting piece of work, though much of the work amounts to propoganda.

An interesting page. One thing I immediately spotted: the thing about buying ammunition in Canada. It says it was either "fake or illegal." I doubt Moore faked this, I think what probably happened here was the same thing as someone under 21 in the U.S. not getting carded when buying alcohol. Some clerks just don't care. If that were the case, then I see no problem with that scene.

Other things: I was never under the impression that the NRA rushed to Columbine after the shootings to hold a meeting. I think Moore said it was scheduled.

My favorite part is that he talks about how Moore starts out by making one point, but then almost ends up making the opposite point. Somehow that gets thrown into the argument as proof that Moore is just pulling all of this stuff out of his ass. You know what happens when you do a documentary like this? You sometimes end up finding out things you didn't know, that change your position on the matter. I don't see how that lends any credence to the accusations of fabrication.

I too just read over that site and I really dont see all this fraud that they accuse Moore of. Moore showed Heston making statements which he did say. Its not like Moore made a CGI Heston and hired an immitator to have him say things he didnt. At no time did Moore say this is the speech he made in Denver...it was showing the type of man Heston is. I think all of this is funny...1000's of documentaries come out each year and if you really wanted to you could nit pick each and every one of them. But because this offends a large political group it should be burned.

And my understanding as far as the plot goes was that he was trying to find out why there was so much violence in America. He first hypothesised that it was the ease to attain and amount of guns in the country but then realized that cant be true because look at this country quite similar to ours that has just as many guns and they dont even have half the problems we do. So then he looks into other ideas until he finds the one that fits best.

I saw the film in its first theatrical run and loved it.

Then I saw that page, and refuse to watch it again. I lost a lot of respect for Moore and his work.

Thanks for the link. Puts things in a different perpsective now.

Speaking for myself politically, I have no vested interest in banning guns or expanding their proliferation amongst the American public. And not being part of a large politcal group, let me say, I felt douped and hookwinked by Moore here, and I've been a longtime supporter from Roger and Me, through the television projects, et al. Moore is no worse than the corporations he skewers for putting their "spin" on stories, if he's going to use your argument for defense that he didn't out and out say that these were Heston's verboten remarks in response to point A, point B, etc. As a film watcher, and not someone with an agenda, it was a patent misrepresentation as it appears on the film. Yes, the words came from his mouth. Moore, by your logic, could say, "Many Americans use prostitutes" and cut to Heston saying "I have" in context to something else, but the connection of ideas is established.

I think to blindly defend this movie is to align yourself with a large politcal group of apologists for Moore. He was trying to make "Roger and Me" again here, as he did with "The Big One". The Big One is done to marginal effect, but is equally distasteful. Now Phil Knight made his own bed and he can lie in it with his statements, but Moore showed a deplorable lack of good faith, because for the better part of 2 films, he had only critiques for big business ignoring the "little guy", and when a CEO goes on the record with him, Moore cuts his documentary to make him look like an ass. Moore only validated their silence, because if a CEO isn't going to get a fair shake in his piece, why should he even give an interview. Same deal with his sandbagging a figurehead Altimerzers patient president of the NRA.

Maybe next time he can interview Ronald Reagan and really show us what a tough guy he can be. Of course, I"m sure he'd have to cut the interview out of sequence to get his broad point across.

Umm... so how do we know that this David T. Hardy is any more truthful than Mr. Moore? This is some guy's personal web site.

Although I don't agree that Mr. Moore actually calls anyone evil... he certainly isn't attacking the gun industry... though some people close to it will get offended easily and think he is. In fact he is asking us to question gun society and see if it is actually logical anymore. The opening of the movie sets the tone for this... with the obtaining of a free gun for opening a bank account... and getting it -in the bank.

People get offended too easily and grab their guns closer whenever they get scared. Mr. Moore is just pointing out that perhaps this is seeping out into other areas of our culture and politics... and shows some possible examples. He never really accuses anyone of anything... he just goes around asking questions... and it, editing or not... people tend to demonstrate this f-cked up trend.

A very entertaining movie... but give it a rest folks... there's no reason for people to get all worked up everytime Mr. Moore farts.

I respected Michael Moore until this film came out and even less as his deceit became apparent in the way he shows Heston's remarks pasted together and out of context. I liked Roger and Me and really liked The Awful Truth. I really liked his wit.
That was then. Now I think he is a weasel and that his winning of an Oscar just shows how meaningless the Academy Awards are in regards to artful cinema.

Oh great, a micheal moore bashing thread.

As for the bank, who do you think had it worse in the story. the bank of course and Moore has stated that he had proof that they gave him the gun then and there. Eh, it's a good film. Some things are scewed to better tell it from moore's side and it might be a little too Moore happy, but which documentary wouldn't be swayed by the story teller?


True.dat

Those who bash Michael Moore are those who aren't smart enough to question their own government.

What an intelligent contribution.

Well, it's interesting that this David T. Hardy is a documentary filmmaker in his own right. I would be very curious to see his work, as he has set an awfully high standard for himself as he takes Moore apart for just about every editing style in the book.

The website is just some guy's slanted opinion. Look at how he writes some of his statements. For example what does "Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech" mean? Is he suggesting a CGI Heston or that Moore is trying to make us think 2 seperate speeches are the same? I hope most people realized the speeches were from two different events because it was pretty evident when you watched the film.

The website keeps going on and on about Moore's intent and how it's all to deceive. If it wants to be taken seriously, they should put "fair and balanced" at the top.

:rolleyes:

I've heard the whole story was not told on the bank/shotgun thing. Moore conveniently left out some details that made it seem like obtaining the gun was easier than it really was.


EDIT: Here is the link

...excerpt from the above link...

One of the segments of the movie that gets the most airplay on TV takes place at the very beginning. There's a bank in Northern Michigan that will give you a free gun if you open an account. Moore is shown walking into the bank and asking to open "the account where you get the free gun." He's led to an office where he fills out a couple of forms, answers a couple of questions, a quick background check is completed (Moore comments about the speed and ease of the process) and presto: he exits the bank, proudly raising his new Weatherby rifle in the air.

So I called the bank, North Country Bank & Trust. The spokesperson who processed Moore's free gun in the film doesn't work there any more, but I spoke to one of the gun program's customer-service reps. It turns out that it's impossible to duplicate Moore's experience.

Here's the procedure for the gun program, as it was explained to me:

1) You walk into the bank and ask for "the account where you get the free gun."

2) You're shown a catalogue of available products. They're famous for their guns, but you can also choose a set of golf clubs, a grandfather clock, or other expensive bric-a-brac. You pick out an item.

3) The gun isn't actually "free"; you're buying a Certificate of Deposit and the bank is paying you all of the interest from the account in advance, in the form of fabulous prizes. The bank employee knows what each item costs and calculates how much money you'll have to desposit and how long you'll have to keep it in there to pay off the gun. For instance, I was told that to get the Mark 5 Stainless Weatherby, I'd have to deposit $5697 and keep it there for three years.

4) You fill out paperwork. Two sets, actually. One is the usual paperwork for opening a CD, the second is information for the required firearms background check.

5) You go home and wait. The bank processes your paperwork, both to make sure that no other bank has ever lost money doing business with you, and to make sure that they can legally sell you a firearm. I asked the rep how long the bank took to approve a customer and get him his gun, but she was uncomfortable with giving me an actual number.

"Well, are we talking hours? Days?" I asked.

"Oh, days, definitely." Later in the conversation, she described it as "Like, two weeks' worth of days."

6) When the bank is satisfied that it's safe to issue you a CD and a gun, they notify you. You have the option of picking up the weapon at a local gun dealer or right at the bank but in either case, the weapon has to be shipped there from a different location. No gun inventory is kept at the bank; the only firearms they have on hand are display models so you can fondle the merchandise before you make a selection.

For someone who applauds a man for being skeptical and "asking questions," your statement seems quite naïve in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. It is quite clear that Moore carries a heavy agenda. Why wouldn't he skew fact to favor his opinion and further his cause? People with that kind of power and a huge axe to grind will usually always wield it.

yay...another moore bashing thread. :rolleyes:

he was right about heston...who is indeed a racist jerk. he was also right about the war in iraq. turns out he was right about a lot of things, and the more that fact bears fruit, the louder the opposition gets. interesting.

the only thing he was wrong about was thinking that he could make a film to promote independent thought. it seems people would rather be told what to think by some moron's webpage or some fat fascist idiot on talk radio.

[crayon]IT IS JUST THERE TO MAKE YOU THINK![/crayon]

Oh great, another obligatory michael moore bashing thread reproach. -ptth-

ack

moore wanted to get people talking and debating. he seemed to succeed. its not he was even arrogant enough to say "this is how we fix this problem". there are no easy solutions to things like this. there are a lot of contributing factors.

also theres a whole lot of latitue between moore's perspective (skewed left) and this guys site which has an axe to grind obviously. the truth of the matter most likely lies in between. a lot of the points are good, some moore has addressed and said are false. but when we knit pick every detail of what is truth on not in this film, we also need to remember to discuss the aspects which may well be accurate and disturbing.

you can't just get two sources on something and make up your mind. well you can but you probably shouldn't. noone should believe what moore says without questioning just like we shouldn't believe the site (or any other bit of news or information) without questioning.

It;s funny, the more moore bashing there is, the better he does. after the oscars the film was preordered by the masses, his book shot up to #1 again and his website is flooded with both hate mail and praise. You folks are indeed helping him to succeed even though you might hate him. :p

I watched this yesterday. I could see some validity in what Moore was trying to argue, but the main problem that I see with the entire documentary is that he fails hold people personally responsible for their actions. He blames K-Mart for selling the ammunition for Columbine, but he does nothing to chastise Harris and Kleibold for committing the acts. He blames the Michigan Welfare system for one 6 year old shooting another, while never talking about the Uncle to accidentally left the gun out for the young child.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can so freely take some guys website as gospel as long as it refutes something they don't agree with. What exactly is it about that website that is so persuasive? Nothing, that's what....other than the fact that he sets out to bash Moore....almost entirely with weak and unsubstantiated 'facts.' or at the least...irrelevant ones. This is the only website anti-Moore folks seem to have in the arsenal, and it always gets trotted out as irrefutable proof that Moore is a big fat liar. well guess what, the only thing proven in that site is that the owner of it hates Moore and thus sets out to pick his film apart....hardly compelling imho.

for the thousandth time on the gun at the bank thing:

So Mr. Hardy called them and they told him it took two weeks....imagine that....maybe it did after the film came out and they got tons of bad press for the piece...The fact of the matter is that Moore did get the gun within an hour.

What is most amusing as well as frustrating is how many people get so hung up criticizing minutia and editing and Heston (something that can be done with ANY documentary if you try hard enough), that they miss the main point of the movie....the Culture of Fear in this country and the prevalence of sensationalism and violence in the media. As JonTurner noted above, he didn't expect that aspect of the film at all....and the fact is, neither did Moore. The film is an exploration of a very very large problem that seems unique to American culture....Moore made some attempt to try and understand that problem. Heston isn't the reason we kill each other, but the culture that bred a view that 'all the minorities' in our country is why we kill each other so frequently is very much part of the problem. It's a profoundly endemic issue of skewed worldviews and a particularly American strain of xenophobia. What is the answer? I don't know...neither does Moore....he just wants us to think about it, talk about it, and maybe make some strides towards changing things.

I highly recommend the book "Culture of Fear" by Barry Glassner....it's an eye-opening read.

Ok, I'd love to know how he was "right" about the war in Iraq. Near as I can tell, there is still a story to be told from the oilpit in the desert, but very little of what has emerged has convinced me personally that we should not have went to war(but given the ambigous nature of the conflict's aftermath, I can respect reasoned dissent). Naturally, we'll chase our tail discussing that, my belief is that the WMOD information will come out, and signs point to that happening in September. If that information is produced, I can't see how someone would be against a war that happened. Bush will never win with the left, however. If he doesn't find them, he's a liar/idiot, if he does, he's planted them. Which at this point is crazy to say, because why would he take this political fire if he could have just planted them 3 months ago and scored his points then, and probably had us in Syria by now.

How is he promoting independent thought? It seems both our government and media have both swung anti-gun in the last 2 decades. The media is rather obvious, or have I missed something on 4 national news channels and the 3 networks. Ok, maybe Fox would be ambivlent toward gun rights, but they haven't been vocal about their preservation. And lets not forget, our goverment plowed through Waco 10 years ago for no good reason other than some guy thought he was Jesus and had a bunch of guns in his house. Which may not be in good taste, and may not be legal if the guns are unregistered, but didn't warrant the Feds torching his place, and dozens of people. What's more facist, Rush Limbaugh talking about lowering taxes or Clinton/Reno rolling through Waco, Bosnia, Iraq(on the day of the Lewnsky mess), and blowing up asprin factories. The guy may be a moron, but that's the best you can do is name call and not dispute any of his points.

I never thought I'd see the day where I defended Charlton Heston, but for the record, I'm pretty sure he was friends with and a supporter of Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s.

Not that the statement isn't racist, or that Heston isn't a jerk, I just wouldn't broadly paint him as a racist jerk.

heston did a pretty good job making himself look bad, i don't really think moore needed to do anything. hell and i don't even think he looks that bad. mostly its just sad when he interviews him. heston is just another guy who seems to have beliefs and speak about them for the nra and whatnot, but when he really is pressed to why, why he thins the way he does, he just seems at a loss. as for the racial stuff, it is pretty silly to think heston is racist. i take his statements as racists but it hink he made himself look bad by panicking and leaving the interview. i understand the points he was trying to make about lots of races mixing and creating conflicts, but i think its just another easy answer for a complex situation.

But he didnt do that. The viewer may assume the quotes were all from the same speech but that is not Moore's responsibility. I thought it was apparent they were made at seperate times.

BTW has he gotten rid of his guns yet? I mean if he is too senile to be able to conduct an interview then he certainly shouldnt be allowed to have loaded weapons.

Recalling the film, I seem to remember there was coverage in a wideshot taken from video of Heston at the Denver event as I recall(or perhaps it was the even near Flint). There was a cursory gladhanding shot "It's great to be here...blah blah blah" but the vitriol that Moore took umbrage with was covered in an xtreme closeup with a video zoom. Now, that may have been done for artistic choice or effect, but the cynic in me might also say it was done to remove the background. Now it's not unreasonable to put trust in the filmmaker that the points being proven will correspond with reality, at least in a documentary. Yes Moore is no journalist, he doesnt have that "responsibility", but based on his film, he's no documentarian either. What he produced was a quasi fact based work of fiction, and he only served to hurt his point. And the shame of it is, there is enough material and reasoning to question our gun ownership laws without obscuring and distoring facts, and outright mispresenting reality(like when he said Heston and the NRA "rushed" to Flint, when it was a full 8 months later to an event scheduled well in advance of that young person's death.

And regarding his gun ownership, I agree with you 100 percent. If he's not in full control of his faculities, he shouldn't be packing.

Heston the racist:
http://afroamhistory.about.com/libra..._belafonte.gif
1963 Civil Rights March on Washington

An avid supporter of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the strong-jawed performer said one of his proudest moments was the day he was in the gallery when the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Hey Nature Boy,
That's kind of interesting because doesn't why we went into Waco sound sort of like why we went into Iraq? "They have illegal weapons in there..." Remember they had Senate hearings and some of the Branch Davidian kids testified that they were being molested by Koresh but the gun lobby paints the case as government out to get your guns. I also recall law enforcement officers being shot dead when they entered the facility so I don't have a lot of sympathy for those criminals, though I do feel bad for any people who were trapped with Koresh who were innocent.

Michael Moore also showed a bit about how our politics are different than other countries that maybe shadows our aggressiveness with guns. We're all Americans but we spend way too much time trying to destroy political opponents we don't agree with and coddle the ones we like no matter how similar they are to other politicians before them.

Anyway, I digress. My point is I liked the movie a whole lot because it gave me a lot to think about, whether I agree or not.

Good for him. Really. I don't think he's a bad person. But what he said was inexcusable and shows maybe he's changed some of his views.

George McGovern, I beleive, did not believe in equality when he was young but in his later years was a strong supporter for all races.

People change -- I accept that -- and what Heston said was pretty damning is all.

No, we went into Iraq in 1990, with a clear mandate to liberate Kuwait, preseve Saudi soverignty, and preemptively disrupt Iraq's buergoning weapons of mass destruction(WMOD) development. With objective 1 and 2 accomplished, a cease fire was declared, pending full UN inspections of Iraq and their weapons cadre. As you may be aware, after being stonewall for years by Sadaam on this contract agreed to by him, he could produce neither the WMOD nor proof of their destruction. He did that dosy-do for the better part of 4 years, but despite no clear Iraqi involvment, our urgency regarding matter stepped up following 9-11. We were clearly a terrorist target after that day. After 18 months of further demands to merely live up to his agreement, by producing weapons or evidence of their destruction, and popular evidence from more than just U.S. sources, the decision was made to invade and first and foremost, protect our national interest. For this to be roughly equivalent with Waco, we also would have nuked downtown Baghdad, instead of stratgeic bombing designed at preserving as much infrastructure as can be possible in a war. Did we kill civilians with collateral damage? Yes, an unfortunate, but never insignicant by product of going to war. But were more Iraqi lives saved with our invasion? I say yes, as do most people informed on the conflict, be they for our action or not.

Koresh was no saint, and I did not say he was innocent of any crimes. But we don't give out 20 year sentences for jaywalking, and there was no clear and present danger eminating from the Waco ranch. And read the congressional report on the subject, Reno herself as much admits Federal agents fired first, and she admitted that the firing was "inappropriate". Not to defend the Branch Davidians, but if I've got my family with me, and I'm being fired upon, I'm returning fire, I don't care what the circumstance is. It's a shame it's not on DVD, and it's got it's leanings as much as Moore's earlier work, but check out "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" for a more indepth look at the situation.

And as for other countries politically, check out Spainsh and Polish parliment(the equivalent of our congress) and see some of the wrestling matches breaking out on the floors. International politics are just as dirty as ours, they just don't have the tv proliferation we do.

And if it made you think, more power to you. My biggest issue with the piece is that people quote it as fact or hold it up as true journalism, while I stick by my reasoning that it's closer to a fiction piece. When you are thinking about this piece, in my opinion, there is much more to think about than just the information presented. it's as much about what you are not told from Moore too.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same deal with his sandbagging a figurehead Altimerzers patient president of the NRA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call me lazy, but I'm wondering where this quote came from in this thread, I can't seem to find it. Heston hadn't announced that he was suffering from symptoms of Alzheimers(symptoms, not the disease itself) at the time of the interview, to it's not like Moore went into the interview with the idea "Alright, now that I know he's mentally infirm, I can really trash him!"

At the time Heston had made no public annoucements about his condition, when in fact, he may have been inelligible to own a gun under California law.

Actually it would be the equivilant of Sadaam nuking down town Baghdad.

Actually, I agreed with everything the movie said. I think guns are pointless and we would be better without them. The reason I feel persuaded by this website is because of how clearly and completely it lays out the facts.

And for all those "Great another Moore bashing thread" comments - Just for the record, I didn't intend this to be a Moore bashing thread. Hell, I like the guy. I just wanted to hear others' opinions on the film in light of all the accusations against it.

In Caiman's defense, I didn't see it as Moore bashing, I think he brought to the table a legitmate point. My instinct is to like Moore, and I enjoyed Roger and Me, TV Nation and the Awful Truth a great deal. I had problems with "The Big One", but I was relatviely entertained. My big issue is with "Bowling". Perhaps I mentioned it earlier, but the problem was his lack of focus for me. His vitriol was so righteous and so just in Roger and Me, who better to skewer than Roger Smith, as he country clubs it up while Flint burned. Moore had the facts on his side. He did in many of the TV segments too, and in the Big One, which I detailed earlier my distaste for his handling of Phil Knight, was also all over the map. But Columbine has proven itself to be something else. He's trying to skewer here, but to pardon a pun, he's saturation bombing rather than being a sniper.

Whether I agree with Moore %1000 percent or not, his views are expressed in a howling wind tunnel that ranges from extreme right wing thought to abject apathy. The fact that he’s a theatrically squeaky wheel seems justified to me.
This is a country where poor to middle class people actually vote Republican for godsake! I see no evidence of fraudulent presentation, just a definite slant. A slant I share, actually, so my grimace of anger at our culture actually became a rictus grin.

The notion that we are controlled by fear was (IMfirmO) spot on. The killer bees segment was a beautiful analogy and illustration of this.

I will say that I thought the animated history segment was infantile and crudely simplified. It was a glaringly lame part of a film that was otherwise right up my alley.

It’s nice to read that the Moore haters are not necessarily the majority around here, but just tend to be the most vocal normally.

It’s nice to read that the Moore lovers are not necessarily the majority around here, but just tend to be the most vocal normally.

But you essentially did. You said "And lets not forget, our goverment plowed through Waco 10 years ago for no good reason other than some guy thought he was Jesus and had a bunch of guns in his house." Doesn't sound like he did anything wrong to me. Maybe you don't think gunning down federal agents is a bad thing (after all, they did work for Janet Reno).

By leaving out half the story and adjusting the context to suit your agenda, you're doing the exact same thing that you're accusing Moore of doing. I'm seeing this tactic more and more from the right.