Because he has been for a long time, and it’s largely a “figurehead” position anyway. Sort of like the Queen of England. “Smile and wave, smile and wave.”
But racist? Charlton Heston?! The person who applied that label needs to recall a little bit of the civil rights movement.
The theory that ethnically and culturally diverse societies may provide fertile grounds for a climate of violence isn’t racist, as no single race or culture is being singled out as “at fault” or somehow deficient.
Slapping a PC label on the theory and dismissing it does it and society a disservice, as it is an honest attempt to answer a very important question: why are we so violent in the USA?
I personally think that it’s both factor if ethnically and culturally diverse society (that is, a non-integrated, economically-disparate one) that was also the product of violent colonial expansion that ruthlessly oppressed or outright exterminated native populations.
Anywho, back OT: LaPierre could’ve handled Moore much better; would’ve handed him his head in a papersack (figuratively speaking). I haven’t seen the film, so I am kind of curious as to whether the subject of the interview was known in advance, or if Moore routed the request through the NRA’s Public Affairs Office.
Well then guess what: The NRA is, by your own defintion, moderate.
But racist? Charlton Heston?! The person who applied that label needs to recall a little bit of the civil rights movement.
I agree. I detest Heston’s politics and I believe in moderate gun control, but like Bush I’s war record, it can’t be denied. Heston really did march in civil rights rallies at a time when that was more likely to hurt your career than help, especially since he was in a career slump at the time (post Ben-Hur and pre- Planet of the Apes). He may have some loopy views, but I don’t think he’s a racist.
(John Wayne, on the other hand… but then he’s dead and not in COLUMBINE.)
I thought the movie had some good points. But it seemed that there were inconsistencies in Moore’s arguments. On one hand, he seems to be saying that guns are not the problem (he does this by stating that Canadians have more guns than us, but have less gun-related crime). But then later in the movie, he acts like he scored a victory when K-Mart offers to stop selling ammunition in its stores.
Maybe I wasn’t following the movie closely enough, but does this make sense? He says “guns aren’t the problem” (and I assume bullets aren’t, either), but then seems thrilled when his influence gets a major store to stop selling bullets.
Can someone explain this inconsistency? Again, maybe I missed something, but it seems like Moore doesn’t even know what his point is.
I thought the movie had some good points. But it seemed that there were inconsistencies in Moore’s arguments. On one hand, he seems to be saying that guns are not the problem (he does this by stating that Canadians have more guns than us, but have less gun-related crime). But then later in the movie, he acts like he scored a victory when K-Mart offers to stop selling ammunition in its stores.
Maybe I wasn’t following the movie closely enough, but does this make sense? He says “guns aren’t the problem” (and I assume bullets aren’t, either), but then seems thrilled when his influence gets a major store to stop selling bullets.
Can someone explain this inconsistency? Again, maybe I missed something, but it seems like Moore doesn’t even know what his point is.
KillerHamster: I could explain, but that would begin a process that wold hijack this thread into a GD. Feel free to e-mail me for my take, if you so desire, or start a thread in GD, asking your question there; be prepared for the “heat” the various answers will generate, though, and don’t tkae it personal.
GD makes the US Congress seem like a bunch of bipartisan chums.
Otherwise, search GD for gun control, second amendment, NRA, stuff like that, for a plethora of info and opinion, and then decide for yourself as to why Mr. Moore would consider getting K-Mart to abandon ammunition sales as a “victory.”
FYI, BFC is #2 on the RottenTomatoes T-meter, behind only Spirited Away. Why? Even though every critic I’ve read has called BFC “flawed,” they all say it’s worth a look. I think there’s only one rotten review in the whole bunch.
I haven’t had a chance to see the movie yet, but from what I hear he takes so many liberties with the truth that it might as well be a work of fiction.
For example, he walks into a bank, opens an account, and walks out with a gun. This is supposed to show how easy it is to get a gun. But the scene was apparently doctored, because what the bank does is give you a certificate, which you take to the local gun store and pick up your gun AFTER they do a background check.
He also walks into a store in Canada and buys some ammunition and walks out. Except, you can’t buy ammunition in Canada without identification and a Firearms Acquisition Certificate.
And that business about just barging into Canadian homes, showing how safe we are. If he tried that around these parts, he’d find five locked door for every one that was open, if he tried it in the early evening when the family is up and about. After bedtime, you won’t find 1 in 100 houses that are unlocked. I imagine the rate of door locking in Canada as a whole is about the same as what it would be in, say, New Hampshire.
I hate ‘documentaries’ that are not scrupulously factual. If you want to produce fiction, at least have the balls to call it that. But documentaries that play fast and loose with the facts distort the public record and hurt, not help the fight against ignorance.
You shouldn’t let your agreement with his political viewpoint give Moore a free pass with the truth. If his point of view is correct, he can make it without resorting to lies.
I didn’t think the Heston interview was unfair. If the man wants to be the poster boy for guns he should be abreast of the controversy surrounding them. Moore tricked him into having the interview in the first place, but it’s a toss up whether that’s unethical or just determined investigative journalism.
I thought the film’s major drawback was its lack of organization. Moore never studied film formally, and he readily admits that he doesn’t make his movies with a complete plan ahead of time. He simply chooses a question that’s nagging him and sets out to answer it. This documentary was a chronological record of his endeavor to find out why the US leads the world in violent crime. He never answers the question completely (although I agree the “culture of fear” theory seems to hold a lot of water), but along the way he stumbled into a network of related problems. He doesn’t delve all that deeply into any of them, but all in all it was a fine survey of many pressing issues plaguing America today that don’t get the attention they deserve. Violent crime, news media manipulation, foreign policy atrocities, corporate fraud, government corruption, interracial conflict, and socioeconomic inequality, its all there, a dyed in the wool liberal’s shopping list of hot topics to cram into the nation’s short attention span. And, all in a consistently funny and poignant format that keeps you glued to your seat. I felt myself wondering where Moore was going next?
It was incredibly brave of United Artists to release a film like this now, in our post 9.11 society, where dissent is disparaged and patriotic propaganda zealously publicizes our positive accomplishments and censors our failures. In the theater I saw it in at least a dozen people stood up and left the theater at various points. Most people left after a montage of U.S. interventions in the world in the past 50 years, starting with the Shah in Iran in 1953 moving through Pinochet, Noreaga, Khomeini, Saddam, Bin Laden, and a few others I’m forgetting. The images of death and destruction around the world concluded with video of tower two getting hit in NYC. Half the audience wanted to applaud, half wanted to put a brick through the screen.
I applauded. 9.11 wasn’t a freak occurrence, it has a history, and I’m glad Moore had the courage to show America that.
I absolutely and emphatically agree that this movie is a MUST see… and I think all the divergent opinions expressed here are proof that if nothing else, the movie gives you something to think about (and discuss passionately). Plus it is quite hilarious at times… I love the american history cartoon.
I also agree with whoever said how interesting and rational (dare we even say wise?) Marilyn Manson seemed in his interview.
What I find to be really funny is that Moore posted and promised that the Republicans would lose the mid-term elections. When the 'pubbies won Moore pulled his article from his website. Apparently Moore believes that only evil republicans pull articles that do not agree with the 'pubbies beliefs. Or not.
Moore is an idiot. Actually, he is a fucking idiot who survives only by taking the money of those he claims to be protecting. Moore has never produced a product or service in his life. His only claim to fame is that he disses people who actually work for a living. (Come on, tell me what Moore has produced besides some cheap ass movie that other people have paid for)
I thought it was a good film that could have been a brilliant film with a bit more organization and more of a coherent focus on the “culture of fear” idea.
I’m also troubled by the way Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. I think his main points are still valid, and I don’t think he’d have trouble finding ways to make those points with solidly factual and clearly-presented information.
At first I thought the Charleton Heston bit felt tacked on, but later I thought that Moore was looking for answers throughout the movie, and that he was hoping Heston might have some. I don’t think he was particularly playing hardball with Heston, but that Heston had simply not had his dogma challenged in a while, and hadn’t had to come up with better answers to those questions before. Chasing after him with the picture was a bit much, but again, I see the point; if he is going to justify his keeping a loaded gun in the house just by saying that he has a right to it, he should at least see the consequences of that right.
It might have been an equally good movie without the Heston interview. It definitely would have been as good or better without the K-Mart bit, which just seemed tacked on. In a movie with no easy answers, it seemed like he was presenting it as an easy answer.
It’s a wonderful movie, so much so that I’m going back to see Roger & Me. I’ve seen it twice, something I NEVER do. I’ve seen the cartoon at parties, which had people just as breathless as in the theater.
I snuck in to see BfC after paying for another movie that I decided I didn’t want to see. I figured me and this girl would sit in the aisle.
Which we did, along with 20 others! The house was electric.
I think it deserves a second viewing – the second time, I caught a lot more jokes: The “Africanized Killer Bee” – I didn’t get the double entendres relating to the “Scary Black men” segment until the second time through.
They still risked the wrath of the millions of ultra-patriotic Americans. The same group that the cowardly Dem’s were so frightened of that they chickened out of making a stand against Bush and war with Iraq. Speaking out against America in any manner is quite unpopular at the moment. I think the prevalent attitude is, “if you’re not gonna root for the home team, get out of the f-ing stadium.” Good for Michael Moore and good for UA for sticking to their guns (no pun intended).
The guy at the bank said they had a vault with 200+ guns in it at the bank. Why would they have the guns there if they were just sending people to another store? And they did the background check right in front of him, there is photage of him filling out the forms. Of course, if you had bothered to actually see the film instead of badly misquoting random Micheal Moore hater site, you would know this.
Yes, Damn him for not being a fortune teller.
Two best sellers. How many do YOU have? (granted having a best seller means little, but it is proof he is producing things other than movies). And you are forgetting his TV show.
He “tricked” him? He walked up to the man’s front gate and asked if he could interview him. Heston told him to come back the next day at 8, which he did.
