baracine

You open the whole debate of whether we, as spectators, are totally impervious to the power of works of art and entertainment. The easy answer is: If we were, we wouldn't even bother with them, we sould stay home and devise our own entertainments. The media have the power to move us into action and that places a certain responsibility in the hands of the creators. If a film like "Natural Born Killers" can move a psycho to shoot randomly on a Montreal street, who knows what other bad effects it may already have had on individual attitudes, human relationships, etc. in supposedly normal people, even if those effects are not as spectacular as the Montreal massacre?

Furthermore, "Natural Born Killers" is just an example among many. It is getting very hard to find a TV show, film, video game, etc. that doesn't market shock value and deal in blood and gore.

Michael Moore thinks like you do in his pseudo-documentary and dismisses the whole question of media responsibility out of hand, in effect whitewashing the whole entertainment industry. He only uses Columbine in the title of his film for easy moralizing purposes in order to go after his pet peeves: big corporations. His film has the logical structure of a pot trip and was probably devised on the same table where he rolls his joints. None of it makes sense to me.

Michael Moore is not the only one to blame. There are many others. But I was particularly shocked, watching the local coverage of the massacre, to hear, every five minutes, otherwise sober and thoughtful TV commentators mention Columbine and Michael Moore's film in the same breath as if the latter somewhat explained the former or as if Moore's film explained the Montreal massacre when that film was the work of lousy slob who made absolutely no effort to go to the bottom of the question.

Films may be not the final cause of murder, rape, ignorance, poverty, etc. If they were, Tarantino, Stone and Cronenberg, among others, would already be on Death Row. Still, I recommend extreme caution in handling films that effectively advocate murder and rape, without even a disclaimer.

I also believe that a shabby piece of work like "Bowling for Columbine" precludes serious discussion about the roots and causes of violence and trivializes them to the point where you, among others, probably think "If violent entertainment had anything to do with real violence, Michael Moore would have surely mentioned it", in the same way a bad film about history like Sofia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette" will probably discourage a whole generation of film-goers from the serious study of history.

FinkPish

I still don't see how you are connecting the dots between Michael Moore's film and the violence that happened in Montreal. That he didn't delve into the facts of the case surrounding Columbine the way that you thought he should have doesn't implicate him in the continuing violence in this culture.

PixyJunket

Is this your first baracine thread?

baracine

I was writing this while you were typing your reply:

baracine

No, FinkPish is a faithful addict.

FinkPish

Indeed, I just know I need to get to the point fast otherwise his threads tend to fly off on tangents that eventually end up getting them locked.

RyoHazuki

Baracine you never cease to entertain. Thank you sir.

FinkPish

Obviously you feel Bowling for Columbine is a deeply flawed movie. If it is so flawed, why are you giving it so much power by claiming it is going to kill the discussion about societal violence? And by the same token, why are you giving Michael Moore such power as well, since he is a man you seem to hate? Since his film was released, have you seen a sharp drop off of discussion regarding violence in society? Do you seriously believe that people believe that everything has been answered by that film?

They are only films, and while they do have some power to influence and inform, they aren't the end-all be-all of information and discussion. I think you just want something to rage against, and this is the simplest thing to choose.

maxfisher

Not that many were taking you seriously anyway, but I'm pretty sure you're going to lose about everyone on the forum when you start claiming the only reason we go to see movies is so they can tell us how to live...

Numanoid

If you had actually seen BFC, you'd know that Moore does not, in any way shape or form, blame ANYBODY for Columbine. He ASKS us questions. Could our sensational media and gun-loving culture be the reason? He delves into that possibility by citing the myriad ways in which we are beaten over the head with a fearmongering media every day. But the answer is up for you to decide. There is no blame placed in that movie upon anyone.

baracine

Here's a book you could read:

baracine

Everyone agrees Michael Moore is a big, fat slob but a successful one. I couldn't give him more power if I tried. I am reacting to the misinformed media commentators who have given him free publicity (the last thing he needs) over the Montreal massacre, as if he was some kind of prophet. There was practically no discussion of violence in society before his film and there is literally none now. So much so that a character like myself appears very much like Don Quixote tilting at windmills by just bringing up the subject.

They are only films but if they weren't important, we wouldn't be discussing them in the "Movie Talk" forum of dvdtalk.com. And it is good to let a little rage out in a safe way, isn't it?

baracine

If you're actually saying that there is nothing to be learned from "Bowling from Columbine", then I agree with you. Michael Moore could have reached the same anti-Bush conclusions (with which I partially agree) from any point of departure. The question is: Why did he have to drag Columbine into this?

FinkPish

I grow weary.....

How are the media commentators misinformed? Because they think Michael Moore's film is still relevant? I think it still is, because the questions he raises in the film still don't (and maybe never will) have answers. Maybe if you gave a specific example of how these media commentators are calling Michael Moore a prophet, more people would understand what you are trying to get at in this thread, because I'm still not sure. Your focus seems to be wavering between hating Michael Moore for who he is rather than what he has done with films like BFC.

I never said films weren't important, but you are giving a hell of a lot more weight than most people tend to assign them. They can be influential, but in the end people are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what films they've seen.

baracine

Yes. Just by mentioning his film as if we wouldn't know what the Columbine massacre is if they didn't mention Michael Moore's little opus is a deep insult to my and anybody's intelligence. What I would really like to do, of course, is devise a way to quietly remove Michael Moore from polite society but murder being out of the question, I post rants like this one. It's a relatively harmless pastime.

But you already knew that...

FinkPish

But you are not everybody. Your opinion doesn't represent everybody's opinion. And people that have an opinion different from your own are not stupid or misinformed. This is a constant problem in nearly every one of your threads; you assume that your opinion is the "right" one, and anyone else coming in with anything different is an idiot.

Obviously, this forum is the place to discuss and compare opinions, but coming in with this self-righteous attitude only brings the conversation to a halt, because people don't like having it implied that they are somehow stupid or ignorant.

baracine

Don't be paranoid. The only one I call stupid is Michael Moore, and possibly Canadian TV commentators who mention his name with holy reverence, and I've stated my reasons for that. You have asked me to re-state my original opinion over and over and I have done that. I was happy to clarify the points you found obscure but I don't think I can do that all night.

You have stated four opinions on your own so far:

1. That this thread is in the wrong forum.
2. That what I say doesn't matter because I just like to rage about things.
3. That you disagree that "Bowling for Columbine" has dried up the well of intelligent discussion on violence in the media. And...
4. That films aren't that important anyway so why bother discussing this?

I ignored numbers 1 and 2 and answered numbers 3 and 4. Maybe it's time we moved on.

FinkPish

Paranoid because I think you're calling me stupid? Not at all. Seriously. If I had thought that I would have reported this thread already.

What bothers me is that you seem unable to see how your attitude affects others in these threads, whether by design or by ignorance. For example, there is a huge difference between saying "I didn't like _____ movie, I thought it was trite and condescending" and saying "People who thought this movie was good have a great deal to learn about cinematic culture." You never see to want to have a discussion about things, you just want people to listen to your grand opinion and either agree with it or piss off. That's the reason I said that this thread probably doesn't belong in this forum, because you weren't starting out by wanting to discuss the merits of the film or hear anyone else's opinion on it, you just wanted to tear it apart.

In short, I agree, let's be done with it. I really don't have anything more to add.

freshticles

Canadian TV commentators mention Michael Moore's name with holy reverence?? Where'd you get that from?

baracine

RDI (Réseau de l'information), the French CBC news service, Wednesday night.

NatrlBornThrllr

I beg to differ. Dude's not entertaining...he's just plain tedious.

-JP

joliom

It's a Michael Moore film, dude. That means it's, a) agenda based, b) at least 50% staged, c) filled with factual inaccuracies, and d) engineered to be controversial. Whether you agree with his politics and world view or not, I think everybody can at least agree on that much. So why are you pretending that it's more influential than it really is? It's just a psuedo-documentary. There are lots of others that take lots of other positions, advocating or decrying lots of other world events. Imo, you are right that he raises no real substantive questions and is narrow-minded in his "investigation" of the causes leading to the Columbine massacre, but so what? If you wanted to start a thread about why Bowling for Columbine sucks, then why didn't you just do that? Although I agree with a lot of the opinions belied by your comments, your argument is not on point and lacks any semblance of logical structure. What is the exact point you wish to make? That Michael Moore is a hack filmmaker? That Bowling for Columbine is a weak film? That violence in the media is an antecedent to real violence? That society is in denial about this chain of causation? That Michael Moore's point about Canadian gun laws and comparative low violent crime rate has been contradicted by this latest event? You're all over the place.

thebunk

Two things.

1) Canada is hardly a small country.
2) Please do not speak for OUR country. Who the hell are you to say it caused major groans throughout our *small* country?

Supermallet

Baracine, your posts make me want to mow down people with a gun far more than ANY movie I've ever seen.

I'd like to see you make a movie that would actually meet your standards of quality.

Darkfriend

Here is a guy falling from a ladder to provide you guys a break from Racine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khwwt1HjN6w



And proof that grapes can be as lethal as guns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6nEMwUuHHI