BfT? Bowling for Transvestites? Baking for Tabby cats? Buttholes from Transylvania?
I guess that would be a resounding “No.”
I agree.
What this has to do with Michael Moore, I have no idea.
Is there evidence to the contrary? Or are you claiming that Michael Moore DIDN’T have to arrange his little scene months in advance, that ANYONE can just walk in there, with no prior arrangement - as the movie portrays - and walk out with a gun?
Are you claiming that Moore’s scenario is typical? Because if it isn’t, then his scene was dishonest. Pure and simple.
Calmly again I say please read this information. Link.
If it was set up in advance, then all the bank personnel are acting, because they pretend to walk Moore through the different accounts that he could set up and discuss different weapons that he could get for different amounts in a CD. They indicate that the weapons are in the vault on site. They walk Moore through the background check and fax it in. They are also good actors, because it seems very authentic. Eventually, a bank employee brings Moore the gun in a box.
There are also copies of the ad that can be read, and an article from the Chicago Sun Times that came out before Bowling for Columbine that says that the bank will hand you a gun for opening a CD.
Please check it out. You might find it educational. I doubt you will change your mind, though. Why bother?
Ah, that. I’m not good with acronyms (ironically).
I don’t see how anything in this thread answers the question I posed: If Moore is convinced that the typical actions of the bank result in a spread of fear, why does he depict ATYPICAL events in his movie?
So the counter to the contention is that the bank employees seem too natural for it to be staged. Is that an accurate summation of your rebuttal?
Because bank employees probably go through the same spiel hundreds of times. “Authentic” would be a good way to describe it. As would “practiced”.
He never claimed in the film that the events were typical. It seemed fairly obvious to me that they were being portrayed as an extreme (which we can all agree that, if true, they are). He also doesn’t claim that the actions of the bank cause a spread of fear, but as one example of the bizarre situations that occur in a fear-soaked culture with a strong and historic tradition of gun ownership.
So you’re saying that, because they look natural, they’re obviously doing what they were trained to do by Moore’s film crew? Occam’s Razor suggests otherwise…
I didn’t associate “BtF” with “Bowling for Truth”. While I saw the webpage, I didn’t pay attention to the URL (once you’ve seen one anti-Something site, you’ve seen 'em all).
“The BASEBALL broke the window, not me!” You’re picking nits here. He tried to pass the events depicted in the film as the norm, when in fact they are not.
Except if the “bizarre situation” is not typical, how does it show ANYTHING other than “Michael Moore knows good imagery”?
Think of it this way: Scientists don’t use isolated, unreplicable events as proof of anything. Why should we hold a different standard for “documentaries”?
Nope. They’re obviously doing what they were trained to do by the bank that they work at.
::sigh:: “The BASEBALL broke the window, not me!” This is exactly what I was talking about… he arranges his movies - quite brilliantly - to depict something, and when criticized, he just says, “That’s YOUR interpretation!”
Like I said: A con man.
“And nothing else”? Nice strawman.
I expect a documentary to show what usually happens. Moore didn’t show what usually happens. In fact, he went out of his way to show what DOESN’T usually happen.
Good enough reasons to… what? Embellish? Exaggerate? Distort?
I’ll say it again: Since the events Michael Moore portary in his movie are NOT indicative of actual, typical events, they cannot possibly support any point he wants to make.
Uh, no. I’m talking about, y’know, the training that a bank gives its employees. Or do you just think they hand a teller a million dollars and say “Have fun”?
To wit: A bank trains its employees to present its special gun-for-CD deal in a certain way. When Michael Moore comes in, the employee goes through the spiel in that particular way.
Is there some reason why we’d expect the bank employee to act in any other manner? They didn’t know that ol’ Mike was gonna twist and distort things. They didn’t know they were being conned. Were you expecting them to try to slip hidden messages into what they say?
No. My argument is that the outtakes depict the incident exactly as Moore described it. The statements that the bank personnel make support this. Their statements are consistent with: 1) a person newly opening an account, not someone with a pre-arrangement; 2) interactions with a person they have not met before; 3) the fact that the guns are kept on site and handed over to the person opening the account on the spot; 4) that this is the typical method in which this occurs.
In this way they would have to be acting. That is to say, they would have to be actively participating in a deception, in which they say things counter to the truth, playing roles for the purpose of deceiving.
But you are right. I am sure that they went through the same spiel hundreds of times. Just like Moore said. Standard operating procedure.
Did you watch the outtakes?
Why did I suspect that a more evidence-based discussion would not have any impact on you?
Moore didn’t say that, GorillaMan did. I am unaware of Moore ever attempting a “You’re just interpreting me wrong” defense of his own work. But if another viewer of the film interprets the meaning differently than you, doesn’t that indicate that other interpretations are possible and that yours is…well…yours, not the only one? If you think the film might give some people the wrong idea that’s one thing, and it’s right to be concerned about it. However, if you’re going to call Moore a con man you’d need some evidence that he both wanted to give people the wrong idea and that he knew it was the wrong idea.
Oh, not in response to SPOOFE but just in general, I rewatched the film the other day and wanted to point out that the NRA billboard shown in the film to introduce the Denver speech sequence says “NRA ANNUAL MEETING” in big letters. Moore calls it “a pro-gun rally” (Matt Stone, in his interview, says “a convention”), but the NRA’s own sign calling it an annual meeting does appear. Interestingly, the infamous “Bowling for Truth” site’s page on this sequence crops the screenshot of the billboard so you can only see the letters “RA ANNU”, even though there’s plenty of room on the page to show the complete phrase.
I felt this was worth mentioning, as Moore has been accused of dishonesty by many people here and on other sites for not explaining that it was the NRA’s long-planned annual meeting. He may not say it in the film, but he puts the words “NRA ANNUAL MEETING” with the date and location onscreen.
For his unscrupulous and mindless defense of Michael Moore, ignoring withering logic and at times, leaving behind common sense, I hereby present you with the Michael Moore Doughnut of Freedom. Be proud of yourself! You earned it.
Better tell sleeping, who apparently missed this in both Great debates and the BBQ Pit. Though to be fair, he was merely quoting Spinsanity, who also made the same mistake.
Not that this is crucial to the discussion or anything, but in Equipoise’s transcript “UP” almost certainly stands for “Upper Peninsula”. That’s the region of Michigan where most of this bank’s branches are located. It’s commonly referred to as “the U.P.” by people in the northern part of the Midwest. “Weatherbee” must be “Weatherby”, the gun manufacturer.
