list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Bowling For Columbine on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Bowling_For_Columbine/207197/default.aspx Title: Bowling For Columbine
Year: 2002
Director: Michael Moore
Plot: Filmmaker, author, and political activist Michael Moore trains his satirical eye on America's obsession with guns and violence in his third feature-length documentary, which gets its title from a pair of loosely related incidents. On April 20, 1999, shortly before they began their infamous killing spree at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold attended their favorite class, a no-credit bowling course held at a bowling alley near the school, the same bowling alley which would become the scene of a robbery and triple homicide two years later. While pondering these events, Moore humorously considers the link between random violence and the game of ten pins; along the way, Moore calls on the Michigan Militia (and gets to know some of the models for their "Militia Babes" calendar); spends some time with James Nichols, brother of Oklahoma City bombing accomplice Terry Nichols; visits K-Mart's corporate offices with two teenagers injured in the Columbine massacre as they ask the retail chain to stop selling bullets for handguns; investigates the media's role in the American climate of fear and anger; compares crime statistics in the United States with those of Canada (which, despite higher unemployment and a larger number of guns per capita, manages to rack up a small fraction of the homicides committed in the United States), and questions actor and National Rifle Association president Charlton Heston regarding his appearance at a pro-gun rally held in Littleton a few days after the Columbine massacre, and a similar rally in Flint, MI, after a six-year-old boy killed a classmate with a gun he took from his uncle's house. Bowling for Columbine received its first public screening at the 2002 Ann Arbor Film Festival; the film's official premiere took place a few months later at the Cannes Film Festival. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 82
Number of Lists: 63
Number of blog posts: 3
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sun, 10 May 2009 22:52:33 GMTBowling For Columbine2002Michael MooreFilmmaker, author, and political activist <a href="/players/P___103383/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Moore</a> trains his satirical eye on America's obsession with guns and violence in his third feature-length documentary, which gets its title from a pair of loosely related incidents. On April 20, 1999, shortly before they began their infamous killing spree at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold attended their favorite class, a no-credit bowling course held at a bowling alley near the school, the same bowling alley which would become the scene of a robbery and triple homicide two years later. While pondering these events, Moore humorously considers the link between random violence and the game of ten pins; along the way, Moore calls on the Michigan Militia (and gets to know some of the models for their "Militia Babes" calendar); spends some time with James Nichols, brother of Oklahoma City bombing accomplice Terry Nichols; visits K-Mart's corporate offices with two teenagers injured in the Columbine massacre as they ask the retail chain to stop selling bullets for handguns; investigates the media's role in the American climate of fear and anger; compares crime statistics in the United States with those of Canada (which, despite higher unemployment and a larger number of guns per capita, manages to rack up a small fraction of the homicides committed in the United States), and questions actor and National Rifle Association president <a href="/players/P____94233/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Charlton Heston</a> regarding his appearance at a pro-gun rally held in Littleton a few days after the Columbine massacre, and a similar rally in Flint, MI, after a six-year-old boy killed a classmate with a gun he took from his uncle's house. Bowling for Columbine received its first public screening at the 2002 Ann Arbor Film Festival; the film's official premiere took place a few months later at the Cannes Film Festival. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide82Tag Target (>10)63333http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t27581v95g8.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Bowling_For_Columbine/207197/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/6/37036.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/6/2008 5:01:07 PM
Body: While watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno, it is possible to occasionally forget that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie. Mainly because he doesn’t show up in the film, a rare and appreciated move for the guy who has played “Silent Bob” in 6 out of the 8 theatrical releases he’s directed. Then there’s the cast that is involved, which makes Z&M seem like the offspring of Judd Apatow and John Waters. But there are a number of things that do make it clearly a Smith joint, such as the obligatory employment of Jason Mewes — in the role he was born to play, even moreso than “Jay” — and the potentially pitying use of Jeff Anderson, who may have been the only actor to agree to receiving that accidental Hot Carl. And then there’s the most recognizable element: Smith’s inability let the poop jokes go in order to concentrate on his characters, and the relationships between them. It’s the filmmaker’s Achilles heel, and it’s one of five we at SpoutBlog have noticed are holding back the esteem of five would-be better directors. Director: Kevin Smith Achilles Heel: Interest in sex and shit over character and story Contrast often creates comedy, and in Z&M Smith acquires some of his best, most shock-inspired laughs when two significantly saccharine moments are interrupted by some incredibly foul scenarios. But despite the comedic benefit of pushing the contrived rom-com plot points to the back burner in favor of scat and scrotum, Smith proves that he doesn’t really care about what is going on with his characters, and so neither may his audience. The irony is that one of the major themes in Z&M is the triumph of love over meaningless sex, yet Smith doesn’t love his characters; he simply uses them as tools for his tasteless jokes and gags. And he’s been doing this since the beginning, though he has made two distinct attempts at giving more attention to characters than crudeness (Chasing Amy; Jersey Girl), which resulted in differing effectiveness. After eight features, it seems to actually be best for him to continue concentrating on the sex and shit and leave all his need to be sweet behind. Unfortunately, he’s too nice a guy to go completely balls out (like his friend Mewes), and anyway if he left all care for his characters behind, he’ll just seem like a second-rate John Waters. Director: Michael Moore Achilles Heel: Self-satisfying need to be comedic and important When Michael Moore began making documentaries, his brand of first-person, subjective non-fiction narrative was fresh and satisfying as far as the subject matter of Roger & Me is concerned. And his comedic touch was much appreciated, because he seemed more humorist than activist. But as he kept expanding his scope to more objective issues that are more important or significant to his audience, and as he seemed to become more interested in changing the world, he should have put the jokes up on the shelf, to some extent anyway. Compared to something like The Daily Show, Moore’s films are more intent on presenting an argument than comedy, and they’re sold as more documentary than The Daily Show is sold as actual news. Therefore, Moore should make up his mind. He’s good at humor, and he’s also good at serious documentary — look at a lot of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore’s need for self-importance is pulled back. He can keep on mixing the two together, but he’s not going to win any arguments when he’s twisting facts for the benefit of a gag. Director: M. Night Shyamalan Achilles Heel: Last-minute reveals There’s nothing wrong with twist endings, or twists in general. But the way Shyamalan works them, they come off as punch lines to really long jokes. And most of the time, such as with Signs, The Village and The Happening, the whole movie ends up a joke (in the bad sense) in retrospect after knowing. Even The Sixth Sense, which does still have its supporters (and its Oscar nomination clout), is difficult to rewatch once you’re conscious of how it ends. Shyamalan’s best film, Unbreakable, disappointed many for having a relatively anticlimactic ending, but that’s because the twist wasn’t as much of a reveal as it was a logical direction for the story. Shyamalan should go back to that sort of reveal while also learning that a story (and movie) should be more about the road than the destination. Director: Cameron Crowe Achilles Heel: Writing manic, pixie dream girls as female leads Watching a film by Cameron Crowe, it’s possible to wonder just how he sees his own leading lady, rocker Nancy Wilson. Is she a dumb, obnoxiously flaky girl, like most of the female leads in his movies? Does she say cute but idiotic things like “We peaked on the phone,” “You had me at hello,” and “I’ll tell you in another life, when we are both cats”? I doubt she’s anything like those female characters from Elizabethtown, Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky, because otherwise Crowe wouldn’t have been married to her for 22 years. He would have realized after a week that she’s only exciting from a distance, or for as long as an interesting story arc that will later be nestled into one’s past, because she’s too insane, too desperate, too irritating, and not dependable enough to stick with. It might be interesting to see a sequel to any one of Crowe’s films, because it’s hard to believe any of the couples he’s written have lasted long past the credits. Director: Uwe Boll Achilles Heel: Doesn’t care what anybody thinks of his movies It’s understandable that true artists don’t need to please anyone but themselves. But even Boll would likely agree that he’s no artist. So, then is he an entertainer? Nope, he’s not that either, because he clearly isn’t interested in pleasing his audience with entertaining movies. It’s doubtful that Boll could be a good let alone great filmmaker if he started listening to his critics and improved on his flaws. However, by learning from his mistakes he could at least make action movies that could pass with the standard of Hollywood fare these days. Maybe that’s not what he wants. It would surely keep him out of the public consciousness to no longer be “the worst living filmmaker in the world.” But one day the money is going to run out for his brand of film production, and if he truly wants to be a movie director, he’ll have to eventually display some kind of talent for the work. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:01:07 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/6/2008 5:01:07 PMWhile watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno, it is possible to occasionally forget that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie. Mainly because he doesn’t show up in the film, a rare and appreciated move for the guy who has played “Silent Bob” in 6 out of the 8 theatrical releases he’s directed. Then there’s the cast that is involved, which makes Z&M seem like the offspring of Judd Apatow and John Waters. But there are a number of things that do make it clearly a Smith joint, such as the obligatory employment of Jason Mewes — in the role he was born to play, even moreso than “Jay” — and the potentially pitying use of Jeff Anderson, who may have been the only actor to agree to receiving that accidental Hot Carl. And then there’s the most recognizable element: Smith’s inability let the poop jokes go in order to concentrate on his characters, and the relationships between them. It’s the filmmaker’s Achilles heel, and it’s one of five we at SpoutBlog have noticed are holding back the esteem of five would-be better directors. Director: Kevin Smith Achilles Heel: Interest in sex and shit over character and story Contrast often creates comedy, and in Z&M Smith acquires some of his best, most shock-inspired laughs when two significantly saccharine moments are interrupted by some incredibly foul scenarios. But despite the comedic benefit of pushing the contrived rom-com plot points to the back burner in favor of scat and scrotum, Smith proves that he doesn’t really care about what is going on with his characters, and so neither may his audience. The irony is that one of the major themes in Z&M is the triumph of love over meaningless sex, yet Smith doesn’t love his characters; he simply uses them as tools for his tasteless jokes and gags. And he’s been doing this since the beginning, though he has made two distinct attempts at giving more attention to characters than crudeness (Chasing Amy; Jersey Girl), which resulted in differing effectiveness. After eight features, it seems to actually be best for him to continue concentrating on the sex and shit and leave all his need to be sweet behind. Unfortunately, he’s too nice a guy to go completely balls out (like his friend Mewes), and anyway if he left all care for his characters behind, he’ll just seem like a second-rate John Waters. Director: Michael Moore Achilles Heel: Self-satisfying need to be comedic and important When Michael Moore began making documentaries, his brand of first-person, subjective non-fiction narrative was fresh and satisfying as far as the subject matter of Roger & Me is concerned. And his comedic touch was much appreciated, because he seemed more humorist than activist. But as he kept expanding his scope to more objective issues that are more important or significant to his audience, and as he seemed to become more interested in changing the world, he should have put the jokes up on the shelf, to some extent anyway. Compared to something like The Daily Show, Moore’s films are more intent on presenting an argument than comedy, and they’re sold as more documentary than The Daily Show is sold as actual news. Therefore, Moore should make up his mind. He’s good at humor, and he’s also good at serious documentary — look at a lot of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore’s need for self-importance is pulled back. He can keep on mixing the two together, but he’s not going to win any arguments when he’s twisting facts for the benefit of a gag. Director: M. Night Shyamalan Achilles Heel: Last-minute reveals There’s nothing wrong with twist endings, or twists in general. But the way Shyamalan works them, they come off as punch lines to really long jokes. And most of the time, such as with Signs, The Village and The Happening, the whole movie ends up a joke (in the bad sense) in retrospect after knowing. Even The Sixth Sense, which does still have its supporters (and its Oscar nomination clout), is difficult to rewatch once you’re conscious of how it ends. Shyamalan’s best film, Unbreakable, disappointed many for having a relatively anticlimactic ending, but that’s because the twist wasn’t as much of a reveal as it was a logical direction for the story. Shyamalan should go back to that sort of reveal while also learning that a story (and movie) should be more about the road than the destination. Director: Cameron Crowe Achilles Heel: Writing manic, pixie dream girls as female leads Watching a film by Cameron Crowe, it’s possible to wonder just how he sees his own leading lady, rocker Nancy Wilson. Is she a dumb, obnoxiously flaky girl, like most of the female leads in his movies? Does she say cute but idiotic things like “We peaked on the phone,” “You had me at hello,” and “I’ll tell you in another life, when we are both cats”? I doubt she’s anything like those female characters from Elizabethtown, Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky, because otherwise Crowe wouldn’t have been married to her for 22 years. He would have realized after a week that she’s only exciting from a distance, or for as long as an interesting story arc that will later be nestled into one’s past, because she’s too insane, too desperate, too irritating, and not dependable enough to stick with. It might be interesting to see a sequel to any one of Crowe’s films, because it’s hard to believe any of the couples he’s written have lasted long past the credits. Director: Uwe Boll Achilles Heel: Doesn’t care what anybody thinks of his movies It’s understandable that true artists don’t need to please anyone but themselves. But even Boll would likely agree that he’s no artist. So, then is he an entertainer? Nope, he’s not that either, because he clearly isn’t interested in pleasing his audience with entertaining movies. It’s doubtful that Boll could be a good let alone great filmmaker if he started listening to his critics and improved on his flaws. However, by learning from his mistakes he could at least make action movies that could pass with the standard of Hollywood fare these days. Maybe that’s not what he wants. It would surely keep him out of the public consciousness to no longer be “the worst living filmmaker in the world.” But one day the money is going to run out for his brand of film production, and if he truly wants to be a movie director, he’ll have to eventually display some kind of talent for the work. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/minerwerks/archive/2007/7/12/13715.aspx Post By: minerwerks
Post To: minerwerks Blog
Post Date: 7/12/2007 12:24:00 AM
Body: At the risk of being a polarizing figure right off the bat, I'm going to review Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' but there might be a bit of my own personal feelings in there as well. It's not that I planned this, it's just that I happened to see the film today, and it's the first thing I've watched since signing up at Spout.Since 'Fahrenheit 9/11' came out, Michael Moore probably doesn't need an introduction. Some love him and some hate him, but does that relate to the quality of his films? I have watched Moore ever since seeing 'Roger & Me' on video and being impressed with his particular ability to highlight the absurdity of real life and his firm grasp of film language which results in very compelling and emotionally charged films. His new film, 'Sicko,' is in many ways is obviously of the same pedigree, but other subtle things (good and bad) set this one apart.'Sicko' is possibly the most straight-forward presentation Moore has ever made on film. The stories here flow pretty smoothly from point-to-point, without as many of the digressions or stunts epitomized by, say, 'Bowling For Columbine.' The structure here is pretty much 1) show examples of insured Americans who have been wronged by HMOs, 2) provide evidence that the HMO's incentive is monetary rather than health-based and 3) show positive examples of "universal health care" programs and propose something similar as an alternative to HMOs. Michael Moore is surprisingly restrained throughout 'Sicko.' In fact, the most emphatic use of Moore's clout to spur change in the film actually comes from an average guy invoking Moore's name (without permission) to his insurance company. In a sense, this restraint robs the film of the mischievous tone found in Moore's other work, but it also serves to underline the seriousness of the issue. In fact, Moore may have gone a bit too far on the seriousness. The narration often comes across as cloying, which is not helped by the overly emotional music that underscores the scenes. There are a number of nice songs sprinkled throughout, but nothing that lives up to Moore's brilliant use of songs as counterpoint to his scenes in previous films (for instance, "Wouldn't It Be Nice" in 'Roger & Me'). Detractors of Michael Moore have a lot of complaints about his methods, and I agree with some of them. Moore always contends the facts in his film are 100% accurate. This, I choose not to argue, but Moore's strength has always been based on what he says in between those facts. He is a master at implying the ideas he wants you to take away from his films. On this point, I think 'Sicko' makes stronger arguments than Moore's other works, therefore the film feels stronger, despite the missteps. At the screening I attended, the theater was far from packed, but the film earned a round of applause from the audience.This is where my personal opinion comes in, however. Now that Moore is in such a position that his commentaries on the United States health care system can be considered influential, I think he needs to consider the impact of his methods on the state of political discourse. As pointed out in one of my favorite films of last year, 'Thank You For Smoking,' one never needs to succesfully argue their point of view as long as they can make the other side's argument look bad, which is a cheat - just because the other guy is wrong doesn't automatically make you right. Moore is sometimes guilty of this (witness his recent tirade on CNN, which does little for factual journalism, but does plenty for stirring up free publicity). The ethical question, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Moore, is about the fairness of the methods. I don't like a lot of television and radio personalities (who intentionally blur the line between 'journalist' and 'commentator') because their opinions are seething with distrust and superiority, and Moore is coming off like that sometimes instead of taking the high road. It makes it difficult to expand his influence beyond his core audience. And in this case, 'Sicko' probably has the most univerally appealing idea, thus the most to lose.
]]>Thu, 12 Jul 2007 04:24:00 GMTminerwerksminerwerks Blog7/12/2007 12:24:00 AMAt the risk of being a polarizing figure right off the bat, I'm going to review Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' but there might be a bit of my own personal feelings in there as well. It's not that I planned this, it's just that I happened to see the film today, and it's the first thing I've watched since signing up at Spout.Since 'Fahrenheit 9/11' came out, Michael Moore probably doesn't need an introduction. Some love him and some hate him, but does that relate to the quality of his films? I have watched Moore ever since seeing 'Roger &amp; Me' on video and being impressed with his particular ability to highlight the absurdity of real life and his firm grasp of film language which results in very compelling and emotionally charged films. His new film, 'Sicko,' is in many ways is obviously of the same pedigree, but other subtle things (good and bad) set this one apart.'Sicko' is possibly the most straight-forward presentation Moore has ever made on film. The stories here flow pretty smoothly from point-to-point, without as many of the digressions or stunts epitomized by, say, 'Bowling For Columbine.' The structure here is pretty much 1) show examples of insured Americans who have been wronged by HMOs, 2) provide evidence that the HMO's incentive is monetary rather than health-based and 3) show positive examples of "universal health care" programs and propose something similar as an alternative to HMOs. Michael Moore is surprisingly restrained throughout 'Sicko.' In fact, the most emphatic use of Moore's clout to spur change in the film actually comes from an average guy invoking Moore's name (without permission) to his insurance company. In a sense, this restraint robs the film of the mischievous tone found in Moore's other work, but it also serves to underline the seriousness of the issue. In fact, Moore may have gone a bit too far on the seriousness. The narration often comes across as cloying, which is not helped by the overly emotional music that underscores the scenes. There are a number of nice songs sprinkled throughout, but nothing that lives up to Moore's brilliant use of songs as counterpoint to his scenes in previous films (for instance, "Wouldn't It Be Nice" in 'Roger &amp; Me'). Detractors of Michael Moore have a lot of complaints about his methods, and I agree with some of them. Moore always contends the facts in his film are 100% accurate. This, I choose not to argue, but Moore's strength has always been based on what he says in between those facts. He is a master at implying the ideas he wants you to take away from his films. On this point, I think 'Sicko' makes stronger arguments than Moore's other works, therefore the film feels stronger, despite the missteps. At the screening I attended, the theater was far from packed, but the film earned a round of applause from the audience.This is where my personal opinion comes in, however. Now that Moore is in such a position that his commentaries on the United States health care system can be considered influential, I think he needs to consider the impact of his methods on the state of political discourse. As pointed out in one of my favorite films of last year, 'Thank You For Smoking,' one never needs to succesfully argue their point of view as long as they can make the other side's argument look bad, which is a cheat - just because the other guy is wrong doesn't automatically make you right. Moore is sometimes guilty of this (witness his recent tirade on CNN, which does little for factual journalism, but does plenty for stirring up free publicity). The ethical question, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Moore, is about the fairness of the methods. I don't like a lot of television and radio personalities (who intentionally blur the line between 'journalist' and 'commentator') because their opinions are seething with distrust and superiority, and Moore is coming off like that sometimes instead of taking the high road. It makes it difficult to expand his influence beyond his core audience. And in this case, 'Sicko' probably has the most univerally appealing idea, thus the most to lose. http://www.spout.com/blogs/stuntman_james/archive/2007/6/30/12713.aspx Post By: stuntman_James
Post To: stuntman_James Blog
Post Date: 6/30/2007 4:24:00 PM
Body: I am going to take a probably an unpopular stance here with my views on Michael Moore. It seems that in the time when being a right wing republican with conservative views is quite dangerous, I planned on discussing about Michael Moore with out injecting my political views, but I find that as I am crafting my blog, it seems quite hard. I am, or was a documentary filmmaker. With that said, I take great pride when documentaries take center stage for whatever reasons. It is a unique art form that shows reality in any form it wishes. However, I do also realize that documentary filmmakers give a very one-sided view on the subject matter the are filming. Take Jesus Camp. It was one of the few films that moved me when I viewed it last year. I sat in disgust and pure terror, and after several different viewings of the film, realized that even though it was disturbing, it was a one sided view. So, now comes my thoughts on Michael Moore. The conservative side of me becomes sick with thoughts of what this guy has become. The Irish, blue collar side of me sees the " everyday man" he portrays himself as and I feel good that someone is looking out for the little guy with no voice. But that voice is a whisper. I saw Roger and Me and was slightly amused that this rotund and portly guy was taking on the car giant. He was a gnat that the flyswatter of big brother could not smack and kill. It was a good film, but once again, a documentary that was extremely one-sided, although I did not realize it until I saw it again years later. Bowling for Columbine was his first real critical acclaim film that put the normal movie goer in the seats. It was his left wing take on gun control. Instead of giving people, especially those maybe not too intelligent to form their own opinions, a realistic view of gun violence in the world, he gave us misleading information. Walking in a affluent section of Toronto and opening the doors of residents in gated communities gave us no valuable information on how to control guns in the world. Fahrenheit 9/11 was the big one. He gave us a view of the terror attacks against innocent Americans and twisted it to look like we earned it. He skewed our views that our president and his cohorts were responsible for 3000 people dying. He shook his finger in shame to all those that supported an unpopular war and chastised those that morn the death of our heroes in Iraq. Now comes Sicko. It is his take on the American Medical System and health care. He berates the US for its poor health care system and even goes to Cuba to show that the prisoners of the war on terror. While I have not seen this movie yet, it is on my docket for viewing this week, I am going to assume that it is the same liberal BS he has been spilling for years. The problem with Michael Moore is that he offers no solution. He creates anarchy and misinformation. He gives us his personal beliefs and theories without offering on once of realistic solution. He berates those who do not fall into his fold of idiot political beliefs and creates personal vendettas. I may never agree with some when it comes to my personal political thoughts and beliefs, but I never chastise those that do not agree with me. I may debate and in the end come with a better understanding on why they believe what they do. Maybe someday he will also
]]>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:24:00 GMTstuntman_Jamesstuntman_James Blog6/30/2007 4:24:00 PM I am going to take a probably an unpopular stance here with my views on Michael Moore. It seems that in the time when being a right wing republican with conservative views is quite dangerous, I planned on discussing about Michael Moore with out injecting my political views, but I find that as I am crafting my blog, it seems quite hard. I am, or was a documentary filmmaker. With that said, I take great pride when documentaries take center stage for whatever reasons. It is a unique art form that shows reality in any form it wishes. However, I do also realize that documentary filmmakers give a very one-sided view on the subject matter the are filming. Take Jesus Camp. It was one of the few films that moved me when I viewed it last year. I sat in disgust and pure terror, and after several different viewings of the film, realized that even though it was disturbing, it was a one sided view. So, now comes my thoughts on Michael Moore. The conservative side of me becomes sick with thoughts of what this guy has become. The Irish, blue collar side of me sees the " everyday man" he portrays himself as and I feel good that someone is looking out for the little guy with no voice. But that voice is a whisper. I saw Roger and Me and was slightly amused that this rotund and portly guy was taking on the car giant. He was a gnat that the flyswatter of big brother could not smack and kill. It was a good film, but once again, a documentary that was extremely one-sided, although I did not realize it until I saw it again years later. Bowling for Columbine was his first real critical acclaim film that put the normal movie goer in the seats. It was his left wing take on gun control. Instead of giving people, especially those maybe not too intelligent to form their own opinions, a realistic view of gun violence in the world, he gave us misleading information. Walking in a affluent section of Toronto and opening the doors of residents in gated communities gave us no valuable information on how to control guns in the world. Fahrenheit 9/11 was the big one. He gave us a view of the terror attacks against innocent Americans and twisted it to look like we earned it. He skewed our views that our president and his cohorts were responsible for 3000 people dying. He shook his finger in shame to all those that supported an unpopular war and chastised those that morn the death of our heroes in Iraq. Now comes Sicko. It is his take on the American Medical System and health care. He berates the US for its poor health care system and even goes to Cuba to show that the prisoners of the war on terror. While I have not seen this movie yet, it is on my docket for viewing this week, I am going to assume that it is the same liberal BS he has been spilling for years. The problem with Michael Moore is that he offers no solution. He creates anarchy and misinformation. He gives us his personal beliefs and theories without offering on once of realistic solution. He berates those who do not fall into his fold of idiot political beliefs and creates personal vendettas. I may never agree with some when it comes to my personal political thoughts and beliefs, but I never chastise those that do not agree with me. I may debate and in the end come with a better understanding on why they believe what they do. Maybe someday he will also http://www.spout.com/groups/Philosophy_of_Film/Re_Deception/281/6781/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Philosophy of Film
Post Date: 4/6/2007 1:47:54 PM
Body: [quote user="BigJeffLebowski"] Would it be simplistic to say that being offended by Fargo's rather daft conceit indicates a more deeply seated sense of gullibility? Wouldn't that kind of reaction be better suited to something like a Michael Moore film, which shamelessly parades opinions (albeit ones which are largely supported by fact) as fact? [/quote]I suppose so.I guess I'm not surprised that people would be fooled by either. But I can understand why people would be rather upset by the Michael Moore type situation rather than the Coen brothers. What are the implications for our lives if Fargo isn't what they claim? Not much I'd suspect. What about something like Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11? Well the issues are about the government, and the movie itself is a claim that what it's saying is important. It's argument really.Fargo is a story. It doesn't need to justify itself. The others are claiming to be affecting arguments, calls to action. If the premises are deceitful, there seems to be more reason to be upset.But in some ways I would actually hope that people would be more likely to fall for Fargo's deceit than Michael Moore's for this very reason. If something presents itself as an argument, I think you should be inquisitive from the start. If it's just a story, whether based on actual events or not, it's still a staged narrative and you can take from it what you will.
]]>Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:47:54 GMTRisseladaPhilosophy of Film4/6/2007 1:47:54 PM[quote user="BigJeffLebowski"] Would it be simplistic to say that being offended by Fargo&#39;s rather daft conceit indicates a more deeply seated sense of gullibility? Wouldn&#39;t that kind of reaction be better suited to something like a Michael Moore film, which shamelessly parades opinions (albeit ones which are largely supported by fact) as fact? [/quote]I suppose so.I guess I&#39;m not surprised that people would be fooled by either. But I can understand why people would be rather upset by the Michael Moore type situation rather than the Coen brothers. What are the implications for our lives if Fargo isn&#39;t what they claim? Not much I&#39;d suspect. What about something like Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11? Well the issues are about the government, and the movie itself is a claim that what it&#39;s saying is important. It&#39;s argument really.Fargo is a story. It doesn&#39;t need to justify itself. The others are claiming to be affecting arguments, calls to action. If the premises are deceitful, there seems to be more reason to be upset.But in some ways I would actually hope that people would be more likely to fall for Fargo&#39;s deceit than Michael Moore&#39;s for this very reason. If something presents itself as an argument, I think you should be inquisitive from the start. If it&#39;s just a story, whether based on actual events or not, it&#39;s still a staged narrative and you can take from it what you will. http://www.spout.com/groups/PulpFiction1975/Re_Documentaries_That_Can_t_Exist/66/3154/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: PulpFiction1975
Post Date: 10/4/2006 9:13:38 AM
Body: In the tradition of documentaries that don't go where the director intended (Kurt and Courtney), Olaffson is elected to stay behind and protect the women and children because, at age 34, he's a little long in the tooth for battle.As Karlson says goodbye to his father, he leaves behind a critical piece of nautical gear—Olaffson's metaphorical baton passed on to his son. The horde wonders listlessly at sea much longer than expected until they turn back to go home.Meanwhile at the monastery, an unseasonable cold snap ruins th majority of the apple orchards production that year. The monks reluctantly open their stores of beer as their winter staple. It's going to be a long one. But a litter of orphaned squirrels appear in the cellar and, for the monks, serve as a providential distraction from the long winter months.In a last ditch effort to pull the film out of total banality, the director tries to arrange a marriage between Karlson and a girl from a rival tribe. Like Michael Moore chasing Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine, he milks Olaffson's refusal to let Karlson marry the girl for all it's worth. Which, in the end, isn't worth much at all.
]]>Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:13:38 GMTpaulPulpFiction197510/4/2006 9:13:38 AMIn the tradition of documentaries that don't go where the director intended (Kurt and Courtney), Olaffson is elected to stay behind and protect the women and children because, at age 34, he's a little long in the tooth for battle.As Karlson says goodbye to his father, he leaves behind a critical piece of nautical gear—Olaffson's metaphorical baton passed on to his son. The horde wonders listlessly at sea much longer than expected until they turn back to go home.Meanwhile at the monastery, an unseasonable cold snap ruins th majority of the apple orchards production that year. The monks reluctantly open their stores of beer as their winter staple. It's going to be a long one. But a litter of orphaned squirrels appear in the cellar and, for the monks, serve as a providential distraction from the long winter months.In a last ditch effort to pull the film out of total banality, the director tries to arrange a marriage between Karlson and a girl from a rival tribe. Like Michael Moore chasing Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine, he milks Olaffson's refusal to let Karlson marry the girl for all it's worth. Which, in the end, isn't worth much at all. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/documentary/MemberTagFilms.aspxdocumentary
Number of films tagged: 402

Number of people who tagged: 127

Number of times used: 496

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:11:06 GMT402127496Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 215

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:28 GMT226101215Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/violence/MemberTagFilms.aspxviolence
Number of films tagged: 952

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 240

]]>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:34:09 GMT95282240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/interesting/MemberTagFilms.aspxinteresting
Number of films tagged: 57

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 67

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:17:04 GMT574667Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/powerful/MemberTagFilms.aspxpowerful
Number of films tagged: 48

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 70

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:29 GMT484370Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/guns/MemberTagFilms.aspxguns
Number of films tagged: 103

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 125

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:32:56 GMT10342125Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Twisted/MemberTagFilms.aspxTwisted
Number of films tagged: 44

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 60

]]>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:28:12 GMT444260Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/manipulation/MemberTagFilms.aspxmanipulation
Number of films tagged: 249

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 65

]]>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:46:13 GMT2493965Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/truth/MemberTagFilms.aspxtruth
Number of films tagged: 359

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 63

]]>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:23:51 GMT3593663Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fear/MemberTagFilms.aspxfear
Number of films tagged: 461

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 90

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:42 GMT4613190Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/propaganda/MemberTagFilms.aspxpropaganda
Number of films tagged: 325

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 28

]]>Wed, 06 May 2009 13:04:03 GMT3252528Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gun/MemberTagFilms.aspxgun
Number of films tagged: 203

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 86

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:49:59 GMT2032386Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/controversial/MemberTagFilms.aspxcontroversial
Number of films tagged: 161

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 19

]]>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:51:39 GMT1611719Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/thought-provoking/MemberTagFilms.aspxthought-provoking
Number of films tagged: 15

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 19

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:12:13 GMT151719Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/think/MemberTagFilms.aspxthink
Number of films tagged: 34

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 43

]]>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:22:54 GMT341643Tag