Not a fan of politically motivated documentary

[stevetseitz]

I have always been wary of "documentary" filmmakers who approach their subjects with their minds already made up. As someone said Moore's movies come off as network "hack" pieces rather than serious documentary filmmaking.

[Sola]

Maybe he has his mind already made up when he makes the movie, but thats because of a fairly good understanding of the situation. Roger and Me was not "overstated" in any way. He documented the victims of cruel economic forces, and that is reality...

He is heavy-handed at times, but overall, I think his films are very worthwhile. Going to see "Bowling For Columbine" today. I'll let you know what I think of it!

solang

[stevetseitz]

I find that there are at least two sides to every story and Moore ends up on the radical left-wing side more often than not. Including his new " anti-second amendment" film masquerading as an "anti-culture of violence" film. Here is a quote from Moore's own website shortly after the attacks of September 11th:

>>"I have a film to finish. Our editor has been unable to make it in from New Jersey, but he is there now waiting for some word on what to do. I can't even think about this movie. I don't WANT to think about it because if I think about it I will have to face an ugly truth that has been gnawing through my head...

This started out as a documentary on gun violence in America, but the largest mass murder in our history was just committed -- without the use of a single gun! Not a single bullet fired! No bomb was set off, no missile was fired, no weapon (i.e., a device that was solely and specifically manufactured to kill humans) was used. A boxcutter! -- I can't stop thinking about this. A thousand gun control laws would not have prevented this massacre. What am I doing? "<<

Sometimes those who think they have a good understanding of a situation don't really know much at all!

[Sola]

Actually Id say his ability to admit the complexity of the situation shows that hes more able to discern the truth than those who arent able to question themselves. In the quote you provide Moore says he believed one thing and now must question his own prior beliefs on a problem that is compunded by a new one. That characteristic is essential to getting to the heart of the matter, not evidence of his inability to do so.

>Sometimes those who think they have a good understanding of a situation don't really know much at all!

I dont think Moore was saying that he doesnt know much at all. He is simply stating that one problem is complicated completely by the presence of a larger problem (gun control complicated by terrorism). Certainly he isnt saying that acts of terrorism negate the presence of a gun control problem. His thesis for one problem has been wiped away, and he must now widen his lense to account for a new and larger problem.

Solang

[stevetseitz]

Moore's lack of conviction shows me one thing, that is is undecided on the issue. He admits being an NRA member etc. in the movie. In light of his confusion we should rely on the judgement of those who aren't so wishy-washy. Like so much in the agenda of the political left, gun control arguments would collapse like a house of cards if people just stopped to think through what is being said, instead of being swept along by emotional rhetoric.

Start with the very name "gun control." Do gun control laws actually control guns? Why would someone who is obviously willing to repeatedly break the laws against murder be unwilling to break gun control laws?

Gun control laws do not control people who are in the business of breaking laws. Gun control simply disarms their potential victims, making crime a safer occupation, and hence one that can be indulged in more widely by more people.

If you are going to look at the record, then empirical studies have already shown that allowing law-abiding citizens to own and carry concealed weapons tends to produce less violence, not more. Some communities have gone the opposite direction on gun control -- requiring each home owner to have a firearm in the house -- and this has led to fewer burglaries in such communities.

Killings seldom start where someone else is known in advance to be carrying a gun. Have you ever heard of one of these supposedly "senseless" killers opening fire on a gathering of members of the National Rifle Association? They always seem to have better sense than to do that.

While many members of the public are swept along by the emotional rhetoric of the gun control advocates, we need to also look at the dishonest arguments and bogus statistics used by those advocates to try to promote their agenda.

There are, for example, their widely publicized statistics on how many "children" die from guns each year. To get these numbers, gun control advocates include young people whose ages reach up above the legal age of 18 for adulthood. That way, the killings between teenage criminal gangs get counted as "children" killed by firearms, as if they were toddlers who found a loaded gun in the house.

Gun control laws might reduce the much smaller number of genuine children killed in genuine accidents. That would have to be weighed against the lives saved when widespread gun ownership reduces violent crime. But we need honest numbers and this the gun control crusaders clearly do not intend to provide.

Other misleading statistics used by gun control advocates include statistics on lower murder rates in selected countries with strong gun control laws, as compared to murder rates in the United States. What these advocates studiously avoid mentioning are higher murder rates than ours in other countries that also have strong gun control laws (Brazil, Russia) -- or lower murder rates in some countries, such as Israel, where guns are more widely available than in the United States.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. Weapons matter primarily when the wrong people have them and the right people don't. It is the imbalance in weapons that creates the danger.

This is not rocket science. We should not even have needed the studies which have shown that gun control laws don't work. What we really need to do is stop and think.

[Sola]

Ok, I'll be brief as we are on opposite ends of this issue. First and something that you're missing is that Moore isn't advocating taking away the right to bear arms/guns. Have you seen this film? I ask that in all honesty because he goes way out of his way to make this clear. He was an award winning marksmen as a child and is a lifetime member of the NRA. Part of that membership is a bit tongue-in-cheek as you'll see if and when you see the movie. What he is in favor of is limiting the ownership of certain kinds of guns (ie military assault weapons which serve no reasonable purpose).

He also does quite a few of the things you think he doesnt do. One is that he brings up Canada as an example. A country where 7,000,000 guns are owned but where the deaths by gun are less than 100 per year. The US is close to 11,000. His point as you start to make yourself is that the problem runs deeper than gun use. But guns in the hands of people with deeper problems IS a problem in itself. It was a problem 11,000 times last year. Thats irrefutable.

Having them in the hands of the right people is impossible to do without giving them to the wrong people. Remember noone is a criminal until they do something. And with more gun owners there would be more criminals. If you gave everybody in this country a gun, there would be 100,000 deaths a year. You might be a reasonable person, but there are quite a few people who arent. Why? I dont know. Its a culturally deep issue. Whos going to decide that you should have a gun and the idiot down the street shouldnt. Noone. Someones going to get shot and then you'll say "well hes a criminal, just dont give guns to criminals". Making guns less available will keep them out of the hands of the idiots who just want to shoot when they get hot headed. Having them around will make them an option. In a very, very theoretical world, giving the right people guns would be a deterrent to criminals using them. But most gun violence isnt in "showdown" fashion when they break into your home. Its between people who are angry at one another, and if a gun is around someones going to use it.

More guns also equals more kids getting ahold of guns because there are a lot of idiotic parents out there. Dont get me wrong. Im sure you can hold your own with a gun and keep it out of the wrong hands, but Columbine and the 6yr old shooting in Flint are two prominent examples of a large problem: irresponsible Americans with guns, and what happens when kids get a hold of them. These are facts. I respect your right to have one and to use it responsibly, but arming our neighbors to the teeth so we can all feel safe is primitive thinking and an inaccurate assessment of the American public. Were the only country killing each other, save for the nearly third world economies you mention. Theirs is another problem that we certainly do not share.

[stevetseitz]

>>Ok, I'll be brief as we are on opposite ends of this issue. First and something that you're missing is that Moore isn't advocating taking away the right to bear arms/guns. Have you seen this film? I ask that in all honesty because he goes way out of his way to make this clear.<<

He also makes it clear in his quote (from the website) that the film advocates more and stricter gun laws, which gun grabbers always support by way of compromise. In this way the right to bear arms is eroded. Freedoms are never taken all at once it usually happens in small baby-steps as people trade freedom for security. There is a fascinating book on the subject by F. A. Hayek called "The Road to Serfdom".


>>He was an award winning marksmen as a child and is a lifetime member of the NRA. Part of that membership is a bit tongue-in-cheek as you'll see if and when you see the movie. What he is in favor of is limiting the ownership of certain kinds of guns (ie military assault weapons which serve no reasonable purpose). <<

The military assualt weapons used by the Korean shop owners during the LA riots certainly served a purpose, they prevented the lawless rioters from destroying their business. It's sad but ironic that the area where the "serial sniper" is murdering people is the same areas where gun control laws are tightest. He knows the population is defenseless.

>>He also does quite a few of the things you think he doesnt do. One is that he brings up Canada as an example. A country where 7,000,000 guns are owned but where the deaths by gun are less than 100 per year. The US is close to 11,000.<<

Canada has 300,000 more sq. miles than the U.S. with fraction of our population. That argument is really a straw man. Apples and Oranges.

>>His point as you start to make yourself is that the problem runs deeper than gun use. But guns in the hands of people with deeper problems IS a problem in itself. It was a problem 11,000 times last year. Thats irrefutable.<<

Automobile deaths far outnumber deaths due to firearms yet I don't hear an outcry to ban that particular invention. If the deaths involved are the issue, then certainly the same folks who want to ban military assault weapons want to ban Geo Metros and Ferraris.

>>Having them in the hands of the right people is impossible to do without giving them to the wrong people. Remember noone is a criminal until they do something. And with more gun owners there would be more criminals. If you gave everybody in this country a gun, there would be 100,000 deaths a year.<<

There is no guarantee that a madman like the sniper or Son of Sam won't shoot people, but laws are no guarantee either. It's already illegal to kill people why wouldn't criminals violate gun control laws to? Also, this point proceeds from the assumption that people are guilty until proven innocent. Our legal system doesn't operate that way.

>>You might be a reasonable person, but there are quite a few people who arent. Why? I dont know. Its a culturally deep issue.<<

Agreed. Our culture has traded freedom for security for so long in this country that people no longer have faith in the responsibility, self-reliance or strenth of the individual. Isn't it time to reverse the trend? Are we willing to look at the CAUSE of the problem?

>>Whos going to decide that you should have a gun and the idiot down the street shouldnt. Noone. Someones going to get shot and then you'll say "well hes a criminal, just dont give guns to criminals". Making guns less available will keep them out of the hands of the idiots who just want to shoot when they get hot headed. <<

Unfortunately you can't UN-INVENT the gun. For $50 a criminal could BUILD or BUY a saturday night special (a home-made gun) and use it in a crime. It happens all the time. It's a cliche but "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". Every year, thousands of law-abiding citizens brandish weapons peacefully to prevent crimes from occuring.

I don't disagree that gun violence is horrible to behold and disgusting, but so are car accidents. On one hand, we must understand that there are risks to living in a free society. Certainly registering and backround checks are common sense.

[Sola]

>I don't disagree that gun violence is horrible to behold and disgusting, but so are car accidents. On one hand, we must understand that there are risks to living in a free society. Certainly registering and backround checks are common sense.

Ok so we're in the same place on this one. BUT theres a huge difference between a car accident and killing someone with a gun. One is an accident, one generally isnt...Id like to end all disease too.

>Unfortunately you can't UN-INVENT the gun. For $50 a criminal could BUILD or BUY a saturday night special (a home-made gun) and use it in a crime. It happens all the time.

Well if someone is angry odds are they'll cool down before they can A-team a gun out of spare kitchen parts. If they've got one handy, they'll head down to the office and kill their coworkers because they got laid off. The widespread availability of saturday night specials is a problem that should be cracked down on with or without gun laws. Saying that we shouldnt have certain laws because people will break them anyway is basically resigning our society to a poorer standard.

Youre an optimist and so am I. I have faith in the general populus to take care of themselves. It'd just be nice if we could do that without needing to back up our "good-will" with a gun. Goodwill, friendship, community do not need to be mitigated by an ever present threat. Thats low level societal infrastructure.

Solang

[stevetseitz]

You make excellent points. I would have to differ on this one though:

>>Well if someone is angry odds are they'll cool down before they can A-team a gun out of spare kitchen parts. If they've got one handy, they'll head down to the office and kill their coworkers because they got laid off.<<

The kind of individual that would devise a homicidal attack on co-workers, fellow students or strangers isn't the kind of person who would just "got mad" and then "cool down". That person is someone with serious issues and is a ticking time bomb.

Someone like the current "serial sniper" or Son of Sam is going to find a way to viciously hurt people, and I for one would rather the law abiding citizens be armed and careful rather than just fearful.

[MrHonorama]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
You make excellent points. I would have to differ on this one though:

>>Well if someone is angry odds are they'll cool down before they can A-team a gun out of spare kitchen parts. If they've got one handy, they'll head down to the office and kill their coworkers because they got laid off.<<

The kind of individual that would devise a homicidal attack on co-workers, fellow students or strangers isn't the kind of person who would just "got mad" and then "cool down". That person is someone with serious issues and is a ticking time bomb.

Someone like the current "serial sniper" or Son of Sam is going to find a way to viciously hurt people, and I for one would rather the law abiding citizens be armed and careful rather than just fearful.

And earlier you noted that the "serial sniper" would be less likely if everyone were armed...presumably with assault rifles, considering the distance he is firing from.

Anyway, two points regarding "ticking time bombs" --

1. There is a great deal of alienation in American society, some which is attributable to mental health problems. There are a lot more of these time bombs waiting to explode. And they can strike before an armed citzenry can stop some serious damage.

2. Many of these time bombs don't pick on an office or something -- it's two guys in a bar getting to an argument or the scourge of gang violence.

The premise that arming citizens makes it safer only holds in a context where so many citizens are armed to begin with. Which do you believe would be safer -- a society with no guns, or a society where everyone had a gun?

And as long as I asking questions -- have you seen the movie? To use a quote from a website as proof of Moore's viewpoint as opposed to the actual movie is extremely disingenuous. As for political documentaries -- I notice that on your top 10 favorite movies, you have Schindler's List -- that's a telling of a true story with a decided political slant -- what's the difference? Shoah was a political documentary, as was Triumph Of The Will. Both, in their own way, are extremely powerful film statements -- or are they invalidated by their political biases?

[stevetseitz]

>>The premise that arming citizens makes it safer only holds in a context where so many citizens are armed to begin with.<<


Since we all live in REALITY, not some alternate time-line universe where guns were never invented, it's a "context" that is accurate. I think that it is not only preposterous to imagine such a world, it's also counterproductive. Why don't we find a real solution to the problem rather than daydream about something that will never exist. Alfred Nobel, the man the peace prize is named after, invented dynamite in order to create a weapon so devastating that "no one would possible use it". This is the same kind of naive thinking.

>>Which do you believe would be safer -- a society with no guns, or a society where everyone had a gun?<<

A society that had NO guns would be extremely unsafe for anyone who wasn't a large, aggressive, athletic male. If you think a society with no guns would be a panacea for human suffering you are wrong. Thousands of years of bitter brutal warfare occured prior to the invention of the gun. People fought with swords and crossbows and their bare hands. At least guns are a gender nuetralizer, I have two friends both female, who would have been raped had they not been carrying weapons.

>>And as long as I asking questions -- have you seen the movie? To use a quote from a website as proof of Moore's viewpoint as opposed to the actual movie is extremely disingenuous.<<

It's not disingenuous at all. In fact, it's far more disingenuous to proceed with a film that makes a point that you know to be false (as can be seen from his own words.)

>> As for political documentaries -- I notice that on your top 10 favorite movies, you have Schindler's List -- that's a telling of a true story with a decided political slant -- what's the difference?<<

Don't forget despite Spielberg's use of black-and-white predominantly hand-held footage, "Schindler's List" is a narrative feature motion picture based on a true story. It's historical fact, which can be backed up by any number of objective sources. You aren't one of those whackos that denies the holocaust are you?

Having read Oscar Schindler's story in Thomas Keneally's book I can tell you that the movie was a fiction that took some liberties with the story. Yet, Spielberg's masterpiece was some of the finest filmmaking I have ever seen. A true work of art.

Micheal Moore's film is opinion masquerading as fact. More like a network news hack job than a thoughtful or considered documentary. His own words (from the website) prove that his agenda and philosophy is on a shaky intellectual foundation at best.

[MrHonorama]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
>>The premise that arming citizens makes it safer only holds in a context where so many citizens are armed to begin with.<<


Since we all live in REALITY, not some alternate time-line universe where guns were never invented, it's a "context" that is accurate. I think that it is not only preposterous to imagine such a world, it's also counterproductive. Why don't we find a real solution to the problem rather than daydream about something that will never exist. Alfred Nobel, the man the peace prize is named after, invented dynamite in order to create a weapon so devastating that "no one would possible use it". This is the same kind of naive thinking.

***Sorry to be naive and think of a better place. Since I work in the criminal justice system, I am all-too-familiar with reality, thank you very much.

>>Which do you believe would be safer -- a society with no guns, or a society where everyone had a gun?<<

A society that had NO guns would be extremely unsafe for anyone who wasn't a large, aggressive, athletic male. If you think a society with no guns would be a panacea for human suffering you are wrong. Thousands of years of bitter brutal warfare occured prior to the invention of the gun. People fought with swords and crossbows and their bare hands. At least guns are a gender nuetralizer, I have two friends both female, who would have been raped had they not been carrying weapons.

***I like how you continually change the context of your argument. Regardless of the weapons being used, wars are bitter and brutal. The Civil War and World War I were chock full of guns, and dying from gunshot wounds or the disease that infected them probably wasn't more pleasant than dying by a pike or a sword. And soldiers who will die in chemical attacks -- either on the field of battle or years afterwards due to exposure probably aren't going to care too much about the relative amounts of suffering those who died in battle of yore felt.

Moreover, your nattering on about the protective merits of guns, regardless of its validity, does not address many other problems that go to the root of crime -- problems that are alluded to in the movie and are extremely complex. I don't think that you're saying that guns are the ultimate solution, but you need to recognize that the movie is not premised solely on the idea that 'guns are bad'.

>>And as long as I asking questions -- have you seen the movie? To use a quote from a website as proof of Moore's viewpoint as opposed to the actual movie is extremely disingenuous.<<

It's not disingenuous at all. In fact, it's far more disingenuous to proceed with a film that makes a point that you know to be false (as can be seen from his own words.)

***It's at this point that you cease to have any credibility whatsoever. This would be like a judge trying a case without hearing evidence, and solely relying on media accounts. You may be 100% correct in your facts about guns, but your criticism of a movie you have not seen has absolutely no value whatsoever. You see, if you watch the movie, you may find ideas in it that are not contained in a website statement that excerpted.

>> As for political documentaries -- I notice that on your top 10 favorite movies, you have Schindler's List -- that's a telling of a true story with a decided political slant -- what's the difference?<<

Don't forget despite Spielberg's use of black-and-white predominantly hand-held footage, "Schindler's List" is a narrative feature motion picture based on a true story. It's historical fact, which can be backed up by any number of objective sources. You aren't one of those whackos that denies the holocaust are you?

Having read Oscar Schindler's story in Thomas Keneally's book I can tell you that the movie was a fiction that took some liberties with the story. Yet, Spielberg's masterpiece was some of the finest filmmaking I have ever seen. A true work of art.

Micheal Moore's film is opinion masquerading as fact. More like a network news hack job than a thoughtful or considered documentary. His own words (from the website) prove that his agenda and philosophy is on a shaky intellectual foundation at best.

No, I'm not a Holocaust denier. The movie still makes a political statement and has a definitive point of view. I notice that you didn't bother to address Shoah or Triumph Of The Will. Presumably, we'd both agree that the former is based on 'historical fact', while the latter is propaganda. That does not mean that Triumph lacks value -- it still is an intellectual (albeit misguided one) effort that has a certain artistic merit. Or, another example, Birth Of A Nation -- racist spew, yes (though Woodrow Wilson thought it was like 'history written with lightning'), yet still a great example of early American narrative filmmaking.

Moore is not the only voice in the movie -- perhaps you'd agree or disagree with the other voices in the movie, but as long as you don't bother to listen to them, don't bother to indirectly invalidate them with your unsupported criticisms.

[stevetseitz]

>>Sorry to be naive and think of a better place. Since I work in the criminal justice system, I am all-too-familiar with reality, thank you very much.<<

I don't think your idyllic dream land is a "better place." Our reality is chock full of opportunities for all of us to be better people. It's a testing place not a resting place as the Jesuits used to say.


>>I like how you continually change the context of your argument.<<

I clearly answered your obtuse hypothetical question. I didn't change the context.

>>Moreover, your nattering on about the protective merits of guns, regardless of its validity, does not address many other problems that go to the root of crime -- problems that are alluded to in the movie and are extremely complex.<<

Complexity is the liberal code word for "bigger government and more erosion of freedom" . It's the solution to every problem in their minds. The economy? "It's complex." Foreign affairs? "They're complex." Taxes? "It's complex." Substitute bigger government and erosion of freedom in for "complex" and you will get the picture. Meanwhile people have less freedom, less responsibility and NO accountability for themselves and their actions. You want to get to the "root" of crime? Look no further.

>>I don't think that you're saying that guns are the ultimate solution, but you need to recognize that the movie is not premised solely on the idea that 'guns are bad'.<<

From Moore's own words from his website, and his film it was clear to me (and others) that more gun laws were at least a part of his agenda. To deny this is laughable. He gave only token presentations of alternate points of view, but it doesn't change the facts or his agenda.


>>No, I'm not a Holocaust denier. The movie still makes a political statement and has a definitive point of view. I notice that you didn't bother to address Shoah or Triumph Of The Will.<<

I have not seen all of Shoah. It is a lot of tape to rent and watch and a subject that isn't exactly "feel good movie of the year" material. I have seen Leni Riefenstahls's propaganda pieces and they remind me of Moore's manipulative work. Moore is more clever at maintaining the illusion of objectivity. I found Muller's "Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl" quite interesting.

>>Presumably, we'd both agree that the former is based on 'historical fact', while the latter is propaganda. That does not mean that Triumph lacks value -- it still is an intellectual (albeit misguided one) effort that has a certain artistic merit. Or, another example, Birth Of A Nation -- racist spew, yes (though Woodrow Wilson thought it was like 'history written with lightning'), yet still a great example of early American narrative filmmaking.<<

I never thought "Birth of a Nation" was all that impressive. Aside from being a landmark "first" in cinema it just isn't a compelling story.

>>Moore is not the only voice in the movie -- perhaps you'd agree or disagree with the other voices in the movie, but as long as you don't bother to listen to them, don't bother to indirectly invalidate them with your unsupported criticisms.<<

The point is it's HIS film. The token presentations of other "voices" within the fim are carefully edited and controlled by the man with the agenda. There's the rub. If I interview someone and ask "Yes or No. Have you stopped beating your wife?" It frames the entire interview in an unfavorable manner. Moore uses this technique by juxtaposing his questions with images like the security camera footage of Columbine. This was obvious throughout, if you couldn't see this. I'll have to turn your question 180 degrees. Did you even SEE the film?