:dubious: Not sure how that’s going to make it considerably less likely for some idiot to start shooting when he shouldn’t be. If you wanna play Big Damn Hero, you’re going to do it regardless of whether it takes you one second or ten to get your gun out.
Weren’t you and I talking a few months ago about some sort of magical device for telling who’d be a responsible gun owner? Can’t we just hurry up and invent that already?
In another thread I challenged right-wingers to denounce Beck and Limbaugh. I was afraid they’d answer that I should denounce Michael Moore if I’m not a hypocrite! I almost wanted to start a Poll:
I am a liberal/conservative and think Moore is useful/useless and right-minded and Beck & Limbaugh are useful/useless and wrong-minded.
But I saw this thread, so I just skimmed it instead of doing a poll.
Let me see if I get this straight. Moore is accused of lying because he stages a bank episode where he gets a gun. Instead, what really happened is that Moore got a gun from the bank but had to show his driver’s license to get it!! And furthermore the bank, knowing it was going to appear in a feature film, actually complied with the law!! The nerve of Michael Moore, choosing a bank which complies with the law and then having the gall to “save film” by editing out the part where he presents his driver’s license!!
Let’s see; Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa both took controversial actions with equivocal Papal support. This identity means Hitler and Theresa are morally equivalent.
If these are the best the anti-Moore crowd can come up with it, I guess there’s no need for me to explore this question further.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601619/awards Here are the awards for the “hack”, Moore.
Yeah, but that’s the academy awards. I mean, the same year they gave “Sicko” a Best Documentary nomination, “No Country for Old Men” incomprehensibled and wooden-actinged its way to several Oscars. This appeal to authority falls flat. =P
Nope, the list begins with the Academy Awards. There are about 50 more.
Yeah, I was just going for a cheap joke that worked in my hatred of “No Country” 
He gets a lot of respect from movie makers . He gets respect for those who ideas he represents. He gets hated by people whose profession is threatened or their poorly thought out beliefs are being questioned. He is by no means a hack. He is highly respected at movie festivals and is the most successful documentary movie maker of all time.
If you stage scenes, it’s not a documentary, it’s fiction. A good portion of the Heston segment of Bowling for Columbine is staged.
Documentary films do include “staged” scenes. The Academy Award for Documentary films began during WWII; the first winners were what we’d call “propaganda.” Resisting Enemy Interrogation won in 1944. I doubt real German intelligence officers took part.
The Academy of Motion Pictures has given the Documentary award to many films that include “editing” and even “opinions.”
If you expect the filmmaker to just set up the camera & let it run, you’ll end up with works like Andy Warhol’s Empire.
Let go of the Heston thing. You guys are beating it to death and it was a long time and several movies ago.
When you film a lot of material, you do not have to run it untouched. If you edit it and keep the message you are fine. That is what Okeefe did not do. Moore is doing it on a much more honest level.
… You are dead to me now.
Staged =/= Edited.
Fair enough. If you stage scenes that didn’t happen or in such a way as to alter important details, then you have not documented the event, you have fictionalized it.
Moore’s interview with Heston was fictionalized.
I don’t give a flying fuck that the Oscars kissed his ass for it.
It’d minimize the number of idiots getting a gun lifted out of their open-carry holster while they’re face-first in a newspaper, anyway, which is what I was thinking of. More to the point, the discipline required to remember/execute that kind of thing under pressure is one more small indication that the gun owner might be disciplined enough in other things (like making a good shoot/no-shoot decision).
I’ll take some comfort in the implication that I wasn’t before.
(I loved the book, by the way, but I really hated how the movie essentially implied Llewelyn was the main character for 2/3 of it, and I couldn’t suspend disbelief at all on Anton “I killed Ringo Starr and wear his scalp as a hat” Chigurh’s hairdo. I’d probably enjoy the movie more after reading the novel than I did before, but can’t be arsed at this time.)
Possibly.
Oh god, yeah, reading the book first is pretty much an automatic movie-killer. I just really love the Cohen brothers–I haven’t yet met a film of theirs I didn’t like.
Okay, I figured out the difference between Moore and O’Keefe: both used the same shitty tactics, to push a political agenda, but only one of them caused the destruction of an organization–because O’Keefe allowed it to happen.
The NRA is still doing fine, GM continued to function, the US still has a shitty health care system.
I realize this is a hypothetical, but imagine if congress went after the NRA upon watching Bowling. Or went after that bank manager. Do you think Moore would have sat back and laughed? Or would he have produced the unedited and real interviews showing that he glossed over facts, moved segments around, and was a giant douche?
If O’Keefe had any stones, he would have manned up and stopped his journaltainment from destroying ACORN. That’s the difference.
Gotta admit, that’s a real thin distinction based on a hypothetical. What evidence do we have that Moore would act that way beyond “I think he would”?
As an aside, I don’t really have that much of a problem with guns per se, but when I was up in Door County, Wisconsin, last year, there was a jeweler’s advertisement on the local radio offering either a free hunting rifle or shotgun with the purchase of a diamond engagement ring.
While I can understand the logic: girl gets her bling, guy gets his present to use for hunting, it just seemed so fucking amusing and weird to me to pair the idea of an engagement ring with a firearm.
Yes, based on a hypothetical. Which oddly enough is what this whole shit is about.
After the filming of Bowling for Columbine, the Canadian government got pissed about a scene in from a Canadian Wal-mart. Moore pretends to go in and buy a gun, as if to say, “hey, look how easy it is up in Canada, but Canada doesn’t have the level of gun violence the US has.”
Like the bank scene, Moore glossed over the fact that a lot of paperwork and other shit has to happen before you get the gun.
Like the ACORN debacle, that scene could have been used to shut down Wal-mart. Imagine the headlines, “Wal-mart employee apparently caught on tape selling a gun without following legal procedures.”
Except, nothing happened to Wal-mart or its employees, because the shitty edited video wasn’t passed off as journalism. It was passed off as crappy entertainment. From what I remember, Moore and to admit he left out all the boring paper work and id checks.
If only O’Keefe had bothered to tell congress about all the offices that DIDN’T tell him how to set up a brothel.
See, that strikes me as a great bit of marketing for exactly the reason you described. It’s a cultural thing–my born-rural ass sees nothing out of place there.