Must See - Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, just released

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 6:26:53 PM10/11/02
to
I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine today and was totally
blown away.
This documentary explores the love/hate relationship that America has
with guns, war and violence. This movie is a definite must see and no
doubt will appear on
Best of 2002 movie lists.

Roger Ebert's comments:

TELLURIDE, Colo.--At some point early in his life, Michael Moore must
have found
himself wearing a baseball cap, a windbreaker, and a shirt hanging
outside his jeans, and decided he liked the look. That's what he was
wearing when I met him at the Telluride Film Festival in 1989, and
that's what he was wearing here Saturday. It is also what he wears in
"Bowling for Columbine," his new documentary film, when he goes
calling on K-Mart executives and Charlton Heston, the spokesman for
the National Rifle Association. He is not necessarily wearing the same
shirt and jeans, you understand. His closet must look a lot like
Archie's and Jughead's, with rows of identical uniforms. The clothes
send a message: Here is a man of the people, working-class. He may be
on television but he is not of television. In his films, he is a huge
hulking presence at the edge of the screen, doggedly firing questions
at people who desperately wish they were elsewhere. His face is
usually in shadow because of the baseball cap.

"Bowling for Columbine," which had its U.S. premiere here over the
weekend, as funny and abrasive as his hit "Roger & Me," and much more
sorrowful, is about the American love affair with guns. And not just
with guns, but with shooting: A higher percentage of Canadians than
Americans own guns, we learn, but they hardly ever shoot anyone with
them. Gunshot deaths in the United States are 10 to 20 times higher
than in other developed nations.

For once Moore does not seem to have the answers to all the questions
he asks, and there is a certain humility at moments in this film.

He talks to gun owners who say they feel safer with guns in the house,
and then he meditates on whether media coverage of violence may be
making them feel threatened. One of his many eye-opening statistics is
that in recent years violent death has been down 20 percent, but
coverage of it on TV has been up 600 percent.

In the most astonishing sequence in the film, he takes two survivors
of the Columbine massacre on a trip to K-Mart corporate headquarters.
Both teens still have bullets in their bodies that were purchased at
K-Mart, and in a Moore brainstorm they want to see if they can return
them for a refund. One of the boys actually shows a K-Mart
spokesperson the bullet scars on his back. K-Mart sends the usual
series of P.R.-types to deal with Moore's delegation, and we're
reminded of the General Motors spokesmen in "Roger & Me."

But then a totally unexpected thing happens. K-Mart tells Moore and
the boys it will stop selling ammunition in its stores. Moore is
stunned: No one has ever agreed with one of his demands before. He has
the K-Mart spokesperson repeat her promise. It's true. K-Mart won't
sell bullets.

That may help a little, but comedian Chris Rock may be on to something
in the film when he observes how cheap bullets are (the Columbine
bullets were 17 cents apiece). Why not price them at $5,000, he
suggests:

"And then you wouldn't have any innocent bystanders."

I'll review the movie at length when it opens, including Moore's
interview with
Charlton Heston and the way he links Michigan's "work for welfare"
laws to the death of a 6-year-old. After the Telluride screening, Ian
Waldron-Mantgani, a teenage film critic from Liverpool, England, was
shaking, literally shaking, as he left the theater. He was not alone.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 7:16:43 PM10/11/02
to
<< This documentary >>

Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of his frauds?

Hitman of Las Vegas

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 8:44:51 PM10/11/02
to
On 11 Oct 2002 23:16:43 GMT, anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk)
wrote:

><< This documentary >>
>
>Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of his frauds?

Moore is a fraud. He can't show his mug around Flint anymore, they
hate his guts. He used them to get his momentum and never once
genuinely helped them, though offered plenty of lip service and
sanctimonious crap at the time.

So I wager his film may have its moments, but its likely a fraud.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 11:18:45 PM10/11/02
to
<< From: Hitman of Las Vegas hitm...@goldust.com >>

<< Moore is a fraud. >>

<< So I wager his film may have its moments, but its likely a fraud. >>

I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.

David

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 1:16:17 AM10/12/02
to
moggymi...@yahoo.com (Mark) wrote in message news:<f15d9e31.02101...@posting.google.com>...

Notice how he blames everyone but the punks who shot everyone. Moore is an idiot.

Panic

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 3:10:12 AM10/12/02
to
moggymi...@yahoo.com (Mark) wrote in news:f15d9e31.0210111426.19c7eaa1
@posting.google.com:

> I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine today and was totally
> blown away.

No pun intended, right?

I think it's the best film of the year, so far. I absolutely loved it.

Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"It's a site."

Panic

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 3:11:06 AM10/12/02
to
anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote in
news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com:

> << This documentary >>
>
> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of his frauds?

It's more of that bitter reality your conservative mind just can't accept.

Gary T.

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 4:12:23 AM10/12/02
to
Hitman of Las Vegas <hitm...@goldust.com> wrote in message news:<s3sequ8js6e7gf5mc...@4ax.com>...

>
> So I wager his film may have its moments, but its likely a fraud.

You're an idiot -- more likely a right-winger -- spreading
disinformation. Michael Moore isn't thought of as a fraud anywhere
but people like you.

Gary T.

Hitman of Las Vegas

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 4:17:29 AM10/12/02
to
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 07:11:06 GMT, Panic <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote in
>news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com:
>
>> << This documentary >>
>>
>> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of his frauds?
>
>It's more of that bitter reality your conservative mind just can't accept.
>

I think its likely a fraud, and I don't have a conservative mind.

Animeg3282

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 10:35:25 AM10/12/02
to
Hitman said

>I think its likely a fraud, and I don't have a conservative mind.
>

Ok, why is it a fraud? Facts? Noone can think something is bad just on
someone's assertion that it is.

Hana no Kaitou
http://peachcoloredsky.keenspace.com <--- Archives up.
http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282/ <---Fancy Lala Club! Back to
original page.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fancy_lala <mailing list for Lala fans

Norman Wilner

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 11:37:52 AM10/12/02
to
"ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com...

>
>> This documentary
>
> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of
> his frauds?

I'm no fan of Moore's, and it bugs me that he still can't resist fudging
points here and there -- if you know anything at all about Toronto, his
assertions in a few key scenes are laughable -- but "Bowling for Columbine"
is still a terrific film.

I really don't know how to classify it in genre terms; it's less a
documentary than an audiovisual thesis, and yes, it ignores certain facts
that might not support the argument being presented. (Hey, it wouldn't be a
Moore film if it didn't.) But it's still amazing, and I'm pretty sure
Charlton Heston's recent claims of having a disease not dissimilar to
Alzheimer's are an attempt to dodge the absolutely horrifying -- and
apparently unprompted -- remarks he makes to Moore at the end of the film.

Norm "Hell, I'd dodge them, too" Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd


Rick

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 9:15:39 PM10/12/02
to
I have a conservative mind GO BUSH and more than likely it is a fraud cuz
Moore is
a liberal statist fraud. And I don't live that far from Flint either.

"Hitman of Las Vegas" <hitm...@goldust.com> wrote in message

news:pmmfqukl9sh6gb3fh...@4ax.com...

Richard

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 2:22:54 AM10/13/02
to
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:15:39 -0400, "Rick" <videoj...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I have a conservative mind GO BUSH and more than likely it is a fraud cuz
>Moore is
>a liberal statist fraud. And I don't live that far from Flint either.

Moore's problem is the same one facing the Luddites in the 18th
century; The same way the industrial revolution did away with the
need for semi-skilled labour, the new World economy is transferring
jobs from the First to Third World. If Moore really wanted to make
an impact, opposing the insidious Kyoto Treaty would be a start.
It will do more harm to the First World economy than
anything else. But, Moore, like others of his kind really don't
care about the average American and instead beat the tired old
drum of leftism.
-Rich


"If Blockbuster continues to offer only Pan & Scan versions of
major movies from Warner, or any other studio offering widescreen
and P&S, please consider NOT renting anything from them."

Roq

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 4:58:47 AM10/13/02
to
Hey Norm, I was born and raised in Toronto and am wondering what
assertions you found laughable. The no ghettos? The open doors? Or
what? I didn't hear anything I noted as being obviously incorrect. I
lived downtown, Etobicoke and in several suburbs, BTW.

Anyway, I live in LA now and the film was sold out all day here,
audiences were blown away by it, yes these were AMERICANS too ;>.
Incredible.

Roq


"Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in message news:<UkXp9.57910$zU5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...

spauldingae

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 5:01:29 AM10/13/02
to

"Mark" <moggymi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f15d9e31.02101...@posting.google.com...

> I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine today and was totally
> blown away.
> This documentary explores the love/hate relationship that America has
> with guns, war and violence. This movie is a definite must see and no
> doubt will appear on
> Best of 2002 movie lists.

Please tell me it's not Moore making a case that the Gun Industry and the
NRA are the roots of everything that is evil and wrong in America.

Because if it is, I've already seen it.


Sean O'Hara

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 1:48:20 PM10/13/02
to
Look, Mikey makes some very entertaining films and tv shows, but he's
not known for even-handedness. His documentaries are more slanted
than the sides of the Great Pyramids.

--
Sean O'Hara
"Thanks to these sterling efforts, they’re bringing significantly
closer the day when the entire Middle East, much of Africa and even
Europe will be under the Saddamite nuclear umbrella and thus safe
from Bush’s aggression." -Mark Steyn

Sean O'Hara

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 1:55:43 PM10/13/02
to
Richard wrote:
> If Moore really wanted to make
> an impact, opposing the insidious Kyoto Treaty would be a start.
>
Why would he want to oppose the Kyoto Treaty? It's deader than dead.

Kyoto was intended as a photo-op so world leaders could appear to be
fighting global warming, but no one ever intended to actually
enforce it.

Sean O'Hara

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 2:02:42 PM10/13/02
to
Norman Wilner wrote:
>
> I really don't know how to classify it in genre terms; it's less a
> documentary than an audiovisual thesis, and yes, it ignores certain facts
> that might not support the argument being presented.

Agitprop.

Kevin Skinner

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 11:40:31 PM10/13/02
to
Is it me, or is the title in very bad taste?

Norman Wilner

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 12:58:38 AM10/14/02
to
"Roq" <aroqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdb71665.0210...@posting.google.com...

> "Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in message
news:<UkXp9.57910$zU5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> "ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>>>
>>>> This documentary
>>>
>>> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of
>>> his frauds?
>>
>> I'm no fan of Moore's, and it bugs me that he still can't resist
>> fudging points here and there -- if you know anything at all
>> about Toronto, his assertions in a few key scenes are laughable --
>> but "Bowling for Columbine" is still a terrific film.
>
(snip)

>
> Hey Norm, I was born and raised in Toronto and am wondering what
> assertions you found laughable. The no ghettos? The open doors?
> Or what? I didn't hear anything I noted as being obviously incorrect.
> I lived downtown, Etobicoke and in several suburbs, BTW.

The no-ghettos thing for a start, yeah; Moore went down to a relatively new
apartment complex at Jarvis and the Esplanade and said it was Toronto's
version of a slum. Only some of it is public housing; the far more
distressed neighborhoods of Regent Park or the Jane-Finch corridor are
Toronto's real slums, but they wouldn't have suited the image of a
squeaky-clean Canada he was trying to get across.

And the bit where he wanders around opening people's doors is so obviously
edited to remove all the doors he found locked that I think it undermines
the joke; people in the well-to-do area of Toronto he canvassed (somewhere
to the northeast of College and Bathurst, I believe) are probably as likely
to leave their doors unlocked _when they're at home_ as anyone in any suburb
of a major city. It's not some super-trusting Canadian thing, as he seems to
suggest.

Norm "Still a great movie, though" Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd


Norman Wilner

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 12:59:18 AM10/14/02
to
"Sean O'Hara" <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
message news:3DA9B542...@myrealbox.com...

> Norman Wilner wrote:
>>
>> I really don't know how to classify it in genre terms; it's less a
>> documentary than an audiovisual thesis, and yes, it ignores
>> certain facts that might not support the argument being
>> presented.
>
> Agitprop.

Some of it, yes, but not all of it. There's some surprisingly intelligent
personal commentary in there as well.

Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd


Richard

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 1:55:01 AM10/14/02
to

Actually had he gone down to those neighbourhoods, he'd probably
still think that way. The city keeps the welfare housing in
pretty good shape, lawns always mowed, etc.
Some of the run down areas of downtown Toronto in the East would
suffice as slumlike.

SJRaff

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 4:46:11 AM10/14/02
to
>
>Please tell me it's not Moore making a case that the Gun Industry and the
>NRA are the roots of everything that is evil and wrong in America.
>
>Because if it is, I've already seen it.
>
>

Actually, and to my surprise, it's not. Sure, he takes Heston and the NRA to
task but for oncer I found Moore to be uniquely at a loss for answers here. He
brings up a simple statistical fact that is very obvious and rarely probed: why
is it that Americans shoot each other at an alarming rate? And blaming too many
guns isn't enough of an answer.

I found the film exploitive, funny, shockingly scary, informative, frustrating,
moving and ultimately reflective. One can only hope to see a film with those
qualities rarely these days.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Rafferty

*Los Angeles Celtic Supporters Club*

in TODD we trust

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 5:19:45 AM10/14/02
to
On 14 Oct 2002 03:40:31 GMT, ucfk...@aol.com (Kevin Skinner) wrote:

>Is it me, or is the title in very bad taste?

I think it's you...

What I think was in bad taste was trying to blame every form of media
for the fact that two disturbed kids with access to guns killed a
bunch of fellow students.

And considering how mean kids are to each other, and how easy it is to
load up on guns and ammo in this country, what surprises me is that
stories like Columbine aren't daily happenings.

Cheers,

Todd "Doom doesn't kill kids, kids with guns kill kids" McNeeley
.
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com

in TODD we trust

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 5:29:29 AM10/14/02
to
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 00:58:38 -0400, "Norman Wilner"
<xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote:

>The no-ghettos thing for a start, yeah; Moore went down to a relatively new
>apartment complex at Jarvis and the Esplanade and said it was Toronto's
>version of a slum. Only some of it is public housing; the far more
>distressed neighborhoods of Regent Park or the Jane-Finch corridor are
>Toronto's real slums, but they wouldn't have suited the image of a
>squeaky-clean Canada he was trying to get across.

NORM!

You know I love you right? And it is true that several years have past
since I was last in your fair city...

But I can eat a meal off the floor of your subways. I can drink the
water that collects in potholes on your streets. I can walk across the
city with cash safety pinned to my ass, and never once be accosted
(unless I were making disparaging remarks aboot hockey, eh).

Don't sit up there behind your unlocked door, in your Great Lily White
North city, and try to pretend you have slums. I'm from Chicago, and
see right through jealous little rant.

Cheers,

Todd "Americans may not have
invented slums, but we perfected them" McNeeley

in TODD we trust

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 5:33:47 AM10/14/02
to
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 09:01:29 GMT, "spauldingae" <spaul...@home.com>
wrote:

It would be a silly case to try and make. After all, the gun industry
and the gun lobby are just two of the many, many things that are evil
and wrong in America.

Cheers,

Todd "In fact, I like the NRA better than I like
the RIAA, the FCC, the FDA, and Oklahoma" McNeeley

RogerM

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 8:58:41 AM10/14/02
to
Mark wrote:
>
> I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine today and was totally
> blown away.
> This documentary explores the love/hate relationship that America has
> with guns, war and violence. This movie is a definite must see and no
> doubt will appear on
> Best of 2002 movie lists.
>

It doesn't seem fair to me. Only rich people would be able to afford to go on shooting sprees.

--

WARNING: The above message likely contains one or more generalizations.
Please do not attempt to disprove them with isolated exceptions.

"What? It IS personal! HE'S GOT OUR UNDERPANTS!" - Alec Baldwin

"We're wasting more energy than Ricky Martin's girlfriend." - Groundskeeper Willie

"Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Now THERE'S a useful invention." - Comic Book Guy

Carl: "Let's make litter out of those literati!"
Lenny: "That's too clever! YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!"

RogerM

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 9:05:31 AM10/14/02
to
in TODD we trust wrote:
> >Please tell me it's not Moore making a case that the Gun Industry and the
> >NRA are the roots of everything that is evil and wrong in America.
> >
> >Because if it is, I've already seen it.
>
> It would be a silly case to try and make. After all, the gun industry
> and the gun lobby are just two of the many, many things that are evil
> and wrong in America.
>

Exactly right. We haven't even mentioned the tobacco and liquor companies.

Panic

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 10:21:09 PM10/14/02
to
Hitman of Las Vegas <hitm...@goldust.com> wrote in
news:pmmfqukl9sh6gb3fh...@4ax.com:

Moore stages things, but I don't think he fakes them. The stuff in Bowling
for Columbine is definitely 1000% times more genuine than *anything* you
see on FOX NEWS. It's also less staged than the majority of news programs
on any network. He's being singled out because he's *gasp* a "liberal."

Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"It's a *gasp* 'liberal' site."

Panic

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 10:23:45 PM10/14/02
to
"Rick" <videoj...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mbOcnQbX1-
DQVDWg...@News.GigaNews.Com:

> I have a conservative mind GO BUSH and more than likely it is a fraud cuz
> Moore is
> a liberal statist fraud.

You more than likely think it's a "fraud" because you have a conservative
mind. You probably also believe things such as "global warming" and
"separation of church and state" are "frauds."


> And I don't live that far from Flint either.

Well hell, then you're 100% credible.

Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"It's a *gasp* 'liberal' site."

Panic

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 10:26:17 PM10/14/02
to
Richard <rande...@aol.com> wrote in
news:mu3iqu09gf7170st3...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:15:39 -0400, "Rick" <videoj...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I have a conservative mind GO BUSH and more than likely it is a fraud cuz
>>Moore is
>>a liberal statist fraud. And I don't live that far from Flint either.
>
> Moore's problem is the same one facing the Luddites in the 18th
> century; The same way the industrial revolution did away with the
> need for semi-skilled labour, the new World economy is transferring
> jobs from the First to Third World. If Moore really wanted to make
> an impact, opposing the insidious Kyoto Treaty would be a start.
> It will do more harm to the First World economy than
> anything else. But, Moore, like others of his kind really don't
> care about the average American and instead beat the tired old
> drum of leftism.
> -Rich

Are you that same idiot who REFUSED to answer me, in another group, when I
asked you to describe what's wrong with socialism, and how you feel it is
hurting places such as Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc.?

If you are, you are an idiot.

If you aren't, you are an idiot.

You have my condolensces.

Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"It's a *gasp* 'liberal' site."

Panic

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 10:27:11 PM10/14/02
to
ucfk...@aol.com (Kevin Skinner) wrote in
news:20021013234031...@mb-mu.aol.com:

> Is it me, or is the title in very bad taste?

You won't think so after it's put into context. Go see the film.

Panic

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 10:28:47 PM10/14/02
to
"Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
news:UkXp9.57910$zU5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:

> "ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>>
>>> This documentary
>>
>> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of
>> his frauds?
>
> I'm no fan of Moore's

Why not?

Just curious.

Glad you liked the movie. It's nice to agree with you, every so often.
;-)

Panic

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 10:31:34 PM10/14/02
to
"spauldingae" <spaul...@home.com> wrote in news:JDaq9.23787$oq6.9863
@sccrnsc01:

You haven't already seen it.

And the NRA can be a real group of creeps, sometimes.

Panic

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 10:33:00 PM10/14/02
to
RogerM <rog...@sprint.ca> wrote in news:3DAAC11B...@sprint.ca:

> in TODD we trust wrote:
>> >Please tell me it's not Moore making a case that the Gun Industry
>> >and the NRA are the roots of everything that is evil and wrong in
>> >America.
>> >
>> >Because if it is, I've already seen it.
>>
>> It would be a silly case to try and make. After all, the gun industry
>> and the gun lobby are just two of the many, many things that are evil
>> and wrong in America.
>>
>
> Exactly right. We haven't even mentioned the tobacco and liquor
> companies.

But, unlike the NRA, they're fucking up a lot more than just America. And
they're not all in American, either.

Norman Wilner

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 10:44:10 PM10/14/02
to
"Panic" <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92A7DA82A...@137.192.100.18...

> "Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
> news:UkXp9.57910$zU5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>> "ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>>>
>>>> This documentary
>>>
>>> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of
>>> his frauds?
>>
>> I'm no fan of Moore's
>
> Why not?
>
> Just curious.

For a start, I don't trust him. When he made "Roger and Me", he presented
the events as sequential, and we were led to believe that things in Flint
happened in the order they appeared on-screen. This was not the case; a
lengthy article in a subsequent issue of Film Comment enumerated the various
misstatements and leaps of truth in the film, and proved that not only did
Flint's three major employment-opportunity failures (Auto World, the Water
Street Pavillion and the renovated hotel) happen before the layoffs at the
Ford plant rather than after, as Moore's film appears to indicate, but that
Moore actually did meet with Ford CEO Roger Smith, and was even granted a
one-on-one interview with him during the "Roger and Me" production period.
Since the movie is all about Moore's pursuit of Smith, and his eventual
failure to speak with him, his failure to even mention that meeting within
the film seems to be a deliberate attempt to disregard the facts that don't
fit his thesis. That's unethical, to say the least.

And then there's the whole interview thing. He sets up every encounter so
that his subjects appear as defensive, and therefore as foolish, as
possible. If someone charges up to you unannounced, sticks a camera in your
face and starts asking hostile questions, you're going to stammer and
sputter too. I know people like to watch the suits squirm -- I certainly
enjoyed "Roger and Me" until I learned about the questions regarding its
veracity -- but there are ways to make the same point without tilting the
scales so unfairly, and Moore doesn't seem to care about doing that.

That said, in "Bowling for Columbine", the gravity of the subject seems to
ground him, and the movie's all the better for it.

Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd


Derek Janssen

unread,
Oct 15, 2002, 12:24:14 AM10/15/02
to
Norman Wilner wrote:
>
> For a start, I don't trust him. When he made "Roger and Me", he presented
> the events as sequential, and we were led to believe that things in Flint
> happened in the order they appeared on-screen. This was not the case; a
> lengthy article in a subsequent issue of Film Comment enumerated the various
> misstatements and leaps of truth in the film, and proved that not only did
> Flint's three major employment-opportunity failures (Auto World, the Water
> Street Pavillion and the renovated hotel) happen before the layoffs at the
> Ford plant rather than after, as Moore's film appears to indicate, but that
> Moore actually did meet with Ford CEO Roger Smith, and was even granted a
> one-on-one interview with him during the "Roger and Me" production period.
> Since the movie is all about Moore's pursuit of Smith, and his eventual
> failure to speak with him, his failure to even mention that meeting within
> the film seems to be a deliberate attempt to disregard the facts that don't
> fit his thesis. That's unethical, to say the least.

On a chat, I pointed out that on his last "Who cares what the network
lawyers say, NBC's cancelled us already anyway" TV Nation episode--in
the segment where he first got to spout the great and noble "White
people whine too much" theory he would build on for the next five
years--as "evidence", he showed news footage of a Pat Buchanan
photo-stunt where Buchanan had rich white executives caged on the
Capitol steps as "Endangered Species"...
Uh, not quite, Mike: Pat's "Endangered Species" were logging execs, re
the latest corporate lumber-vs.-owls lawsuit.

Mr. Moore's response, and I quote directly?:
"I don't get it...Some people just don't understand Satire."

> And then there's the whole interview thing. He sets up every encounter so
> that his subjects appear as defensive, and therefore as foolish, as
> possible. If someone charges up to you unannounced, sticks a camera in your
> face and starts asking hostile questions, you're going to stammer and
> sputter too. I know people like to watch the suits squirm

And, as E&R pointed out in their review, what information--besides the
obvious squirming-for-laughs--could Dick Clark POSSIBLY provide about a
shooting at a Dick Clark restaurant?
(Guess we're lucky Roy Rogers isn't still alive.)

> I certainly
> enjoyed "Roger and Me" until I learned about the questions regarding its
> veracity -- but there are ways to make the same point without tilting the
> scales so unfairly, and Moore doesn't seem to care about doing that.

And then there's the one basic question, these days--
No matter how noble your intentions (although those anti-smoking "Truth"
ads seem to get the idea right), how does doing big goofy stunts in
public, shouting on the street with a bullhorn, and acting all facetious
to normal employed people who don't know who you are in the hopes that
they'll embarrass themselves trying to treat you seriously NOT turn you
a big, fat, older version of Tom Green?

Derek Janssen (thanks loads, Tom, can't even *watch* "The Awful Truth" anymore)
dja...@rcn.com

Panic

unread,
Oct 15, 2002, 3:42:54 AM10/15/02
to
"Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
news:ZhLq9.3199$q83.4...@news20.bellglobal.com:

> "Panic" <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92A7DA82A...@137.192.100.18...
>> "Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
>> news:UkXp9.57910$zU5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>>> "ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>>> news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>>>>
>>>>> This documentary
>>>>
>>>> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of
>>>> his frauds?
>>>
>>> I'm no fan of Moore's
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
> For a start, I don't trust him. When he made "Roger and Me", he
> presented the events as sequential, and we were led to believe that
> things in Flint happened in the order they appeared on-screen. This
> was not the case; a lengthy article in a subsequent issue of Film
> Comment enumerated the various misstatements and leaps of truth in the
> film,

Back in 1991, I addressed this issue in an Ethics class I was taking. The
professor showed the class, Roger & Me, which I had already seen, and I
shocked him by asking whether or not it was ethical to cut and paste
different sections of film to create a slightly skewered version of
"reality" which is there to serve your purposes. My question, and the
subsequent facts I gave about how Moore filmed and edited the documentary,
left the class debating for the rest of the hour. It was concluded that
Moore did nothing worse than any politician does in a debate, any special
interest group does when creating a campaign ad, or any biographer does
embellishing or eliminating certain facts from a biography. The class
concluded, and I concurred, that Moore never took it to a point where the
ends did not justify the means, and the message was the truth, even if the
way it was presented wasn't entirely honest.

Most of the things that we were shown in Roger & Me actually happened.
Sure, not all of them happened in the order they appeared to in the film,
but they happened. The only scene that leaves me with doubts is when Moore
is in that sort of dark place that looks like the Intergalactic Senate,
asking a question of Smith, only to be completely ignored in front of the
corporate elite. It looks as though Moore edited footage of himself into
the picture, asking his questions, and then cut to different footage of
Smith. If this is actually what he did, that is definitely ethically
questionable.

> and proved that not only did Flint's three major
> employment-opportunity failures (Auto World, the Water Street
> Pavillion and the renovated hotel) happen before the layoffs at the
> Ford plant rather than after, as Moore's film appears to indicate,

But does that make the layoffs any less powerful? No. Does it make for a
more interesting story? Yes.

> but
> that Moore actually did meet with Ford CEO Roger Smith, and was even
> granted a one-on-one interview with him during the "Roger and Me"
> production period.

That I did not know. Still, does that make Smith any less of an asshole?
I don't think so. Does the way Moore presented Smith make for a more
entertaining movie, and nastier "bad guy?" Obviously. Is manipulating the
facts to make your own documentary more entertaining ethical? It depends
on what your intentions are.

If Moore wanted the message to get out and people to *get* the message,
Moore accomplished that, and didn't go against his own moral code of
conduct, in doing so. If Moore wanted a 100% honest portrayal of
everything that went on in Flint in the order that it all occurred, even
though he wouldn't have near the audience he did for his film, but opted
for a bigger audience, instead, he went against his moral code of conduct,
and wasn't being ethical. I'd go for the former.

I ask you to flip to C-SPAN in the next couple of weeks and tune into a
political debate. After listening to the candidates, go look at their
actual voting records. Read their past speeches. What are these
candidates doing in presenting themselves to the public in 2002? They are
twisting some things to deliver a "based on a true story" version of
themselves that any dork could understand, and hopefully identify with.

It isn't easy to reach the vast majority of the American public. A large
part of this vast majority is ignorant by choice, ignorant, or incredibly
dumb. They're reactionary and it takes a LOT to get them off the couch, or
to even get them to understand anything that doesn't directly effect their
current living environment. Roger & Me hit home for a lot of these people.
A 100% factual Roger & Me may have gone over a lot of their heads, and
would have bored them. Instead of coming away from the film with
something, they would have shut it off to watch the rest of that night's
episode of "Wheel of Fortune" before returning the movie to the video store
and renting a bunch of vids for their next Stallone marathon.

> Since the movie is all about Moore's pursuit of
> Smith, and his eventual failure to speak with him, his failure to even
> mention that meeting within the film seems to be a deliberate attempt
> to disregard the facts that don't fit his thesis. That's unethical, to
> say the least.

I guess that's all in the eye of the beholder. Also, was this interview
offered AFTER Moore had completed filming what we see on screen? If so, he
is giving us the truth, up to the point where the film ends. If Smith's PR
men told him that it looks like this thing may be big, and he should give a
few minutes to Moore, right at the end of production, after ignoring
Moore's every attempt at an interview, how would the film be dishonest?
Moore could have said, "Smith finally offered a one on one interview after
the events seen in this documentary took place," without hurting the film,
or Moore. It would have just made Smith look an even bigger prick. I
don't see how it was necessary.

In The Big One, Moore made a point to show interviews with Nike's Phil
Knight, and Knight didn't come off as a nice guy buy granting Moore an
interview, or two. He came off as a smug bastard who doesn't care about
America, Americans or the economy. Moore could have easily done the
interview with Smith in "Roger & Me," and would have inevitably revealed
him to be the same kind of person as Knight. I think Moore showed mercy by
not showing/conducting an interview with Smith.



> And then there's the whole interview thing. He sets up every encounter
> so that his subjects appear as defensive, and therefore as foolish, as
> possible. If someone charges up to you unannounced, sticks a camera in
> your face and starts asking hostile questions, you're going to stammer
> and sputter too. I know people like to watch the suits squirm -- I
> certainly enjoyed "Roger and Me" until I learned about the questions
> regarding its veracity -- but there are ways to make the same point
> without tilting the scales so unfairly, and Moore doesn't seem to care
> about doing that.

I don't agree. And why don't I hear these same complaints about Sean
Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or any of these other right wing zealots? These
people do the exact same thing every time they interview someone. Hannity
is a master of asking completely inappropriate questions that weren't
expected by the guest, for no other purpose than to throw the guest off and
make Hannity look like he's in the right (no pun intended). No, I don't
think two wrongs make a right, but I do think that people in the middle of
the road, or to the left of it, need to lay off of each other a little bit,
every so often, and possibly question somebody on the other side.



> That said, in "Bowling for Columbine", the gravity of the subject
> seems to ground him, and the movie's all the better for it.

I think Roger & Me is better, as a film, but Bowling for Columbine does
seem to be more honestly presented and Moore doesn't seem as though he had
as clear cut an idea for a "story" in the movie, and ends up with at least
as many questions as he had when he started filming, and not many more
answers. It's a wonderful documentary.

Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com

spauldingae

unread,
Oct 15, 2002, 3:58:01 AM10/15/02
to

"Panic" <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92A7DAFC...@137.192.100.18...

> "spauldingae" <spaul...@home.com> wrote in news:JDaq9.23787$oq6.9863
> @sccrnsc01:
>
> >
> > "Mark" <moggymi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:f15d9e31.02101...@posting.google.com...
> >> I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine today and was totally
> >> blown away.
> >> This documentary explores the love/hate relationship that America has
> >> with guns, war and violence. This movie is a definite must see and no
> >> doubt will appear on
> >> Best of 2002 movie lists.
> >
> > Please tell me it's not Moore making a case that the Gun Industry and
the
> > NRA are the roots of everything that is evil and wrong in America.
> >
> > Because if it is, I've already seen it.
>
> You haven't already seen it.

I remember right after Columbine happened. I got pretty sick of certain
segments of society using it for their political advantage before the blood
had dried.

And then every time there was a shooting.

> And the NRA can be a real group of creeps, sometimes.

How?

steve

unread,
Oct 15, 2002, 11:39:27 AM10/15/02
to
"kiss me I'm a liberal" (any phil ochs fans?) but i too think Moore is a bit
shallow, undereducated, lazy, and bias. Has anyone read Stupid White Men?
Some of it is very good - and some of it is the usual crackpot Moore stuff.
The move will probably be the same thing, but more than worth seeing.

steve

"Panic" <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Xns92A7D9A81...@137.192.100.18...

Thomas Andrews

unread,
Oct 15, 2002, 12:21:30 PM10/15/02
to

"steve" <stevel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aohcrg$mfotn$1...@ID-153269.news.dfncis.de...


> "kiss me I'm a liberal" (any phil ochs fans?) but i too think Moore is a
bit
> shallow, undereducated, lazy, and bias. Has anyone read Stupid White Men?
> Some of it is very good - and some of it is the usual crackpot Moore
stuff.
> The move will probably be the same thing, but more than worth seeing.
>
> steve
>

Moore re-won my affection when he had Yaphet Kotto try to hail a cab in NYC.

He had Kotto standing in a suit, about 10 yards in front of an-shaven white
guy in jeans and a T-shirt (the white guy was also a convicted murderer, but
that detail, IMHO, was irrelevant.) Anyway, almost all of the cabs stopped
for the white guy. So they put a huge bouquet of flowers in Kotto's hands,
and still the cabs picked up the white guy. Finally, they had Kotto holding
a baby in one arm, the boquet of flowers in another, and still, the cabs
by-passed him for the grungy white guy.

It was simultaneously hilarious and very sad.

--
Thomas Andrews (tho...@best.com) http://thomaso.best.vwh.net/
Misplaced Patriotism: http://thomaso.best.vwh.net/flag.html

Kevin FilmNutBoy

unread,
Oct 15, 2002, 12:42:09 PM10/15/02
to
"Thomas Andrews" tho...@best.com wrote:

>Moore re-won my affection when he had Yaphet Kotto try to hail a cab in NYC.
>
>He had Kotto standing in a suit, about 10 yards in front of an-shaven white
>guy in jeans and a T-shirt (the white guy was also a convicted murderer, but
>that detail, IMHO, was irrelevant.) Anyway, almost all of the cabs stopped
>for the white guy. So they put a huge bouquet of flowers in Kotto's hands,
>and still the cabs picked up the white guy. Finally, they had Kotto holding
>a baby in one arm, the boquet of flowers in another, and still, the cabs
>by-passed him for the grungy white guy.
>
>It was simultaneously hilarious and very sad.

Yes, that's a classic Moore skit. Very clever and memorable.

Like most of Moore's stuff, it doesn't actually address the problems it touches
upon with any depth, although it appears at a cursory glance that he's made a
point. But it is, like you say, both sad and funny.

(I haven't seen his new film yet.)

--Kevin

Derek Janssen

unread,
Oct 15, 2002, 12:55:03 PM10/15/02
to
Kevin FilmNutBoy wrote:
>
> "Thomas Andrews" tho...@best.com wrote:
>
> >Moore re-won my affection when he had Yaphet Kotto try to hail a cab in NYC.
> >
> >He had Kotto standing in a suit, about 10 yards in front of an-shaven white
> >guy in jeans and a T-shirt (the white guy was also a convicted murderer, but
> >that detail, IMHO, was irrelevant.) Anyway, almost all of the cabs stopped
> >for the white guy. So they put a huge bouquet of flowers in Kotto's hands,
> >and still the cabs picked up the white guy. Finally, they had Kotto holding
> >a baby in one arm, the boquet of flowers in another, and still, the cabs
> >by-passed him for the grungy white guy.
> >
> >It was simultaneously hilarious and very sad.
>
> Yes, that's a classic Moore skit. Very clever and memorable.

Unfortunately, so memorable that Moore hoped to turning it into a
signature franchise, and tried to bring on the grungy white ex-prison
guy as a crony-regular on the show--
And only Fox's cancellation stopped us from getting a "hilarious"
running TV Nation feature where Grungy White Ex-Prison Guy would read
viewer letters to the show, shrug "What a piece a' crap", and throw them away...

Derek Janssen (uh, Mike?...You just don't want to have a paying gig at
ALL, do you?)
dja...@rcn.com

andy

unread,
Oct 15, 2002, 2:01:26 PM10/15/02
to

"Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in message
news:v9sq9.1564$Lb1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...

True, but nevertheless Toronto (or Canada as a whole) does not have anything
as bad as some areas of Miami or Washington DC. Its Moore trying to make a
point to the masses by clobbering them over the head with extremes. I'd be
the first to admit, though, that sometimes his shamelessness has no
boundaries...

>
> And the bit where he wanders around opening people's doors is so obviously
> edited to remove all the doors he found locked that I think it undermines
> the joke; people in the well-to-do area of Toronto he canvassed (somewhere
> to the northeast of College and Bathurst, I believe) are probably as
likely
> to leave their doors unlocked _when they're at home_ as anyone in any
suburb
> of a major city. It's not some super-trusting Canadian thing, as he seems
to
> suggest.

College and Bathurst is the northwest corner of what could be considered
UofT campus - where students live primarily. In fact, 2 of the houses I
recognized as being on the street just south of College, east of St George
ie. right in the middle of campus.

My point? I believe a lot of doors were left open because students lived
there - nothing worth stealing anyways :-)

And it is a great film - his best work to date.

Thomas Andrews

unread,
Oct 15, 2002, 3:44:03 PM10/15/02
to

"Kevin FilmNutBoy" <filmn...@aol.commode> wrote in message
news:20021015124209...@mb-fz.aol.com...

Well, it depends on what you mean by "touches upon with any depth." My take
on it was that it was dispelling illusions whites have - "it's not so bad."
That is, many people had heard the complaints, but didn't really get the
extent and absurdity of it.

In other words, it was an education issue; not an exploration of blacks
being passed up by cabbies but an illustration of the problem in a way that
it couldn't be denied or glossed over.

The One and Only Billy Shears

unread,
Oct 15, 2002, 5:33:51 PM10/15/02
to
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:55:03 -0400, Derek Janssen <dja...@rcn.com>
wrote:

The ex-con's name was Louie Bruno. IIRC, Moore only used him in one
other sketch on TV Nation -- Louie was running for President with the
campaign slogan "Vote for Louie, he won't rat you out". The "Louie
for Prez" sketch was funny, but not as memorable as the cab sketch.
It ended with Louie shaking Bob Dole's hand and telling Dole he was
Dole's competition. Turned out that, for whatever reason, Crackers
the Crimefighting Chicken had more of a shelf life than Louie Bruno.
The Yaphet Kotto cab bit was probably the best bit to come from either
of Moore's TV series. I liked Moore cohort Louis Theroux's BBC/Bravo
series "Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends", too.

Tom Cervo

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 12:18:42 AM10/16/02
to
>For a start, I don't trust him. When he made "Roger and Me", he presented
>the events as sequential, and we were led to believe that things in Flint
>happened in the order they appeared on-screen. This was not the case; a
>lengthy article in a subsequent issue of Film Comment enumerated the various
>misstatements and leaps of truth in the film, and proved that not only did
>Flint's three major employment-opportunity failures (Auto World, the Water
>Street Pavillion and the renovated hotel) happen before the layoffs at the
>Ford plant rather than after, as Moore's film appears to indicate, but that
>Moore actually did meet with Ford CEO Roger Smith, and was even granted a
>one-on-one interview with him during the "Roger and Me" production period.
>Since the movie is all about Moore's pursuit of Smith, and his eventual
>failure to speak with him, his failure to even mention that meeting within
>the film seems to be a deliberate attempt to disregard the facts that don't
>fit his thesis. That's unethical, to say the least.

Obviously you weren't paying much attention, since the firm in question was
General Motors. Flint was the birthplace of same. In the 70's GM starting
moving its plants south to Mexico and to Right-to-Work (anti-Union) states.
Moore's movie was about that movement and the unconscionability of such a
move--US corporations moving their plants overseas to take advantage of
"pliable" governments.
You may see nothing wrong with that, right up to the moment that you find that
publishers start using cheap scribes from India to write articles for half your
price.
As for veracity, quoting "Film Comment" or Pauline Kael hardly ranks as
research. (I stopped looking at FC when they started sucking up to SS by
writing scholarly articles about "Hook".)
I've lived in Flint for 48 years. I knew Mike Moore and the Bunny Lady--to say
"Hi" to, but that's something PK couldn't say. He's right about most of what he
filmed; he may not be as smooth as Tucker Carlson but he believes what he talks
about, and knows it through experience.

Norman Wilner

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 1:02:16 AM10/16/02
to
"Tom Cervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021016001842...@mb-mg.aol.com...

>
>> For a start, I don't trust him. When he made "Roger and Me",
>> he presented the events as sequential, and we were led to
>> believe that things in Flint happened in the order they appeared
>> on-screen. This was not the case; a lengthy article in a
>> subsequent issue of Film Comment enumerated the various
>> misstatements and leaps of truth in the film, and proved that
>> not only did Flint's three major employment-opportunity failures
>> (Auto World, the Water Street Pavillion and the renovated hotel)
>> happen before the layoffs at the Ford plant rather than after, as
>> Moore's film appears to indicate, but that Moore actually did
>> meet with Ford CEO Roger Smith, and was even granted a one-
>> on-one interview with him during the "Roger and Me" production
>> period. Since the movie is all about Moore's pursuit of Smith,
>> and his eventual failure to speak with him, his failure to even
>> mention that meeting within the film seems to be a deliberate
>> attempt to disregard the facts that don't fit his thesis. That's
>> unethical, to say the least.
>
> Obviously you weren't paying much attention, since the firm in
> question was General Motors.

Yes, clearly, confusing one American automaker for another at two in the
morning invalidates everything else I've said ...

> Flint was the birthplace of same. In the 70's GM starting moving its
> plants south to Mexico and to Right-to-Work (anti-Union) states.
> Moore's movie was about that movement and the unconscionability
> of such a move--US corporations moving their plants overseas to
> take advantage of "pliable" governments. You may see nothing wrong
> with that, right up to the moment that you find that publishers start
> using cheap scribes from India to write articles for half your price.

Whether I agree or disagree with Moore's argument wasn't the issue. (I agree
with it, for the most part.) My problems are largely rooted in how he chose
to make that argument.

> As for veracity, quoting "Film Comment" or Pauline Kael hardly
> ranks as research. (I stopped looking at FC when they started
> sucking up to SS by writing scholarly articles about "Hook".)

Again, I must point out that you haven't actually disproved any of the
claims I cited. And why'd you bring up Pauline Kael? I never mentioned her.

> I've lived in Flint for 48 years. I knew Mike Moore and the Bunny
> Lady--to say "Hi" to, but that's something PK couldn't say. He's right
> about most of what he filmed; he may not be as smooth as Tucker
> Carlson but he believes what he talks about, and knows it through
> experience.

Again, can't help but notice you haven't actually addressed any the points
in my post. You can live in Flint and like Moore all you want. Hell, I met
him in Toronto last month, and _I_ like him; we had a terrific interview. It
doesn't mean I'll believe a thing he says without outside verification.

Norm "Is Tucker Carlson the CNN guy?" Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd


Kevin FilmNutBoy

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 1:53:00 AM10/16/02
to
"Norman Wilner" xn...@xwilnervision.xcom wrote:

Perhaps because two straw men arguments weren't quite enough?

--Kevin

Kevin FilmNutBoy

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 2:07:57 AM10/16/02
to
"Thomas Andrews" tho...@best.com wrote:

>Well, it depends on what you mean by "touches upon with any depth." My take


>on it was that it was dispelling illusions whites have - "it's not so bad."
>That is, many people had heard the complaints, but didn't really get the
>extent and absurdity of it.
>
>In other words, it was an education issue; not an exploration of blacks
>being passed up by cabbies but an illustration of the problem in a way that
>it couldn't be denied or glossed over.

But the trouble with Moore's approach is that it could be denied. If Kotto had
been picked up by a cab immediately after filming began, do you think Moore
would have showed this, and said, "Well, I guess the problem isn't so bad after
all"? Of course not. He would have edited it out. It's conceivable that
Kotto got a cab a number of times that were not shown to us. This wasn't a
scientific experiment, of course, and we certainly didn't see all the data, nor
can we really be sure that what was shown is an accurate representation of the
problem. All we can be sure of is that it was a clever illustration of a
widely reported situation.

Moore isn't an objective documentarian, out to discover the truth with his
camera. He's a video essayist, and he concocts scenarios that will illustrate
opinions that he held before the cameras rolled. There's nothing inherently
wrong with this approach, as long as the viewer is saavy to what's going on.

--Kevin

Kevin FilmNutBoy

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 2:14:03 AM10/16/02
to
Panic viti...@hotmail.com wrote:

>"Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
>news:ZhLq9.3199$q83.4...@news20.bellglobal.com:

>I know people like to watch the suits squirm -- I


>> certainly enjoyed "Roger and Me" until I learned about the questions
>> regarding its veracity -- but there are ways to make the same point
>> without tilting the scales so unfairly, and Moore doesn't seem to care
>> about doing that.
>
>I don't agree. And why don't I hear these same complaints about Sean
>Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or any of these other right wing zealots?

Because you're not listening?

Seriously, if you haven't heard these same complaints about guys like Limbaugh,
it's time to come out of the cave.

--Kevin

Panic

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 4:29:15 AM10/16/02
to
"steve" <stevel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:aohcrg$mfotn$1...@ID-153269.news.dfncis.de:

> "kiss me I'm a liberal" (any phil ochs fans?) but i too think Moore is
> a bit shallow, undereducated, lazy, and bias. Has anyone read Stupid
> White Men? Some of it is very good - and some of it is the usual
> crackpot Moore stuff. The move will probably be the same thing, but
> more than worth seeing.

The movie is far better than the Stupid White Men novel. Stupid White Men
was more like Moore's film, "The Big One," which left me a bit
disappointed. I agree with you 100% that Stupid White Men was excellent in
parts, but sort of lost it in other parts, where it went off into mindless
sort of SNL skit type chapters. Overall, I still thought it was a good
read.

Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"It's still called, 'germs.'"

Panic

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 4:30:55 AM10/16/02
to
filmn...@aol.commode (Kevin FilmNutBoy) wrote in
news:20021015124209...@mb-fz.aol.com:

It's both sad and funny.

Panic

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 4:32:37 AM10/16/02
to
The One and Only Billy Shears <bsh...@sgtpepperslhcb.org> wrote in
news:mr1pqu8e1i70ajljm...@4ax.com:

I also really enjoyed the bit where a bunch of people "invaded" an
exclusive beach for the ultra-elite.

Classic stuff.

Panic

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 4:33:36 AM10/16/02
to
"Thomas Andrews" <tho...@best.com> wrote in
news:7e_q9.126786$Yb1.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net:

I agree. Unfortunately, some people want everything spelled out for
them. This is something Moore rarely does.

Panic

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 4:40:34 AM10/16/02
to
"Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
news:kp6r9.3953$q83.8...@news20.bellglobal.com:

> Again, I must point out that you haven't actually disproved any of the
> claims I cited.

I challenged them and gave reasons why I didn't think how Moore put the
film together wasn't unethical, but you chose not to address anything I
said. Either that or my server never downloaded your response. Oh well.

> Norm "Is Tucker Carlson the CNN guy?" Wilner

He's the conservative geek with the little tie. I don't know what network
he's currently working for. He was doing a show for CNN for a while during
the whole Florida hanging chads thingie.

Norman Wilner

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 8:07:17 AM10/16/02
to
"Panic" <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92A925689...@137.192.100.18...

> "Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
> news:kp6r9.3953$q83.8...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>> Again, I must point out that you haven't actually disproved any
>> of the claims I cited.
>
> I challenged them and gave reasons why I didn't think how Moore
> put the film together wasn't unethical, but you chose not to
> address anything I said. Either that or my server never downloaded
> your response. Oh well.

The reply above was addressed to Tom Cervo; my reply to your post was lost
when my computer crashed the other day, but with any luck I'll have
something for you later tonight. (It mostly amounts to "With moral high
ground comes great responsibility", but I intend to elaborate.)

>> Norm "Is Tucker Carlson the CNN guy?" Wilner
>
> He's the conservative geek with the little tie. I don't know what
> network he's currently working for. He was doing a show for CNN
> for a while during the whole Florida hanging chads thingie.

I thought I flipped past him on "Crossfire", but I couldn't really tell --
all the pundits are starting to look the same to me, conservative or
otherwise.

Norm "Except Carville; he's distinctive" Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd


Giftzwerg

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 9:22:11 AM10/16/02
to
In article <ZhLq9.3199$q83.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
xn...@xwilnervision.xcom says...

> Moore actually did meet with Ford CEO Roger Smith, and was even granted a
> one-on-one interview with him during the "Roger and Me" production period.
> Since the movie is all about Moore's pursuit of Smith, and his eventual
> failure to speak with him, his failure to even mention that meeting within
> the film seems to be a deliberate attempt to disregard the facts that don't
> fit his thesis. That's unethical, to say the least.

Feh. You expected *ethics* from that fat fuckin' greaseball blivet?

Moore just makes his dopey socialist points in the only way that such
points can be made; serial prevarication. I'm astounded that you
expected anything more interesting from such a repugnant little leftist
troll.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The sight of the Democratic Party 'wrestling'
(as Al [Gore] put it) with its conscience over
Iraq is like some old-time carney freakshow:
It's strangely compelling, but you can't help
feeling it's cruel to put these misfits on public
display."
- Mark Steyn

Panic

unread,
Oct 17, 2002, 6:28:58 AM10/17/02
to
"Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
news:NDcr9.5265$q83.8...@news20.bellglobal.com:

> "Panic" <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92A925689...@137.192.100.18...
>> "Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
>> news:kp6r9.3953$q83.8...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>>
>>> Again, I must point out that you haven't actually disproved any
>>> of the claims I cited.
>>
>> I challenged them and gave reasons why I didn't think how Moore
>> put the film together wasn't unethical, but you chose not to
>> address anything I said. Either that or my server never downloaded
>> your response. Oh well.
>
> The reply above was addressed to Tom Cervo; my reply to your post was
> lost when my computer crashed the other day, but with any luck I'll
> have something for you later tonight.

If you don't, don't worry about it.

> (It mostly amounts to "With
> moral high ground comes great responsibility", but I intend to
> elaborate.)

Now you've peaked my interest.



>>> Norm "Is Tucker Carlson the CNN guy?" Wilner
>>
>> He's the conservative geek with the little tie. I don't know what
>> network he's currently working for. He was doing a show for CNN
>> for a while during the whole Florida hanging chads thingie.
>
> I thought I flipped past him on "Crossfire", but I couldn't really
> tell -- all the pundits are starting to look the same to me,
> conservative or otherwise.

They're starting to sound the same, also.

Yikes.

> Norm "Except Carville; he's distinctive" Wilner

In looks, voice and mannerisms. That guy looks and acts like a
friggin' bulldog, only not as polite. ;-)

Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"Full-length review of THE RING added today!"

Panic

unread,
Oct 17, 2002, 6:30:27 AM10/17/02
to
mikah <mi...@nospam4me.invalid> wrote in
news:jumqqu4552ahsbe4a...@4ax.com:

>> From: steve (Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:39:27 -0400)
>> MsgId: <aohcrg$mfotn$1...@ID-153269.news.dfncis.de>
>>
>> "kiss me I'm a liberal" (any phil ochs fans?) but i too think Moore
>> is a bit shallow, undereducated, lazy, and bias. Has anyone read
>> Stupid White Men? Some of it is very good - and some of it is the
>> usual crackpot Moore stuff. The move will probably be the same thing,
>> but more than worth seeing.
>

> Nobody is claiming Mr. Moore is a Rhodes Scholar. He's an average guy
> with above average ambition and determination to get his observations
> across. (Ambition will beat talent almost every time).

See George W. Bush. ;-)

Norman Wilner

unread,
Oct 17, 2002, 12:18:40 PM10/17/02