catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

Bowling for Columbine

Default

BBC
Oct 26 2002
08:03 am

I don’t know what all you film nuts think about Michael Moore, but i just saw his new film, “Bowling for Columbine”, which is an interesting exploration of guns, crime, gun laws, fear, violence, America, and the NRA. Anybody else seen it? What did ya’ll think?

Default

JabirdV
Jan 08 2003
01:17 pm

Yasmin Alibhai-Browns article title is a bit deceptive:

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=366725

Default

jonner
Jan 08 2003
01:18 pm

oh, and i forgot to add — If it is true, then it’s pretty stupid and reprehensible.

edit — ok, there’s the alibhai-brown article. Although that still only supports a very small bit of the worldNet article: the idiotic remark about white men on the plane.

Default

JabirdV
Jan 08 2003
01:22 pm

I just wonder what king of rock he is living under. The comment is offensive no matter whether you are a liberal or conservative.

Default

grant
Jan 08 2003
03:05 pm

I haven’t seen the “Bowling for Columbine” movie yet, but I did see Michael Moore in the flesh in Toronto last year. He was interviewing a guy downtown and I walked past him. I told DvdSchp, who was walking next to me, that I thought I had just seen Michael Moore but then we both agreed that Moore wouldn’t be filming a movie in Toronto. Now I wish I had stepped up to the microphone. I would have said that I have all his albums, of course. Then I’d say: “And what gives you the right to shoot me for your movie, Mr. Moore?”

I have seen other Michael Moore movies and there is definitely violence in the way he spins things his own way. But as Todd Solondz’ (yes, I’m going to pull it out again) STORYTELLING displays so well, there is often a great deal of cruelty in telling a story. Yet, there is something to be said for one’s responsibility to the people of his/her film. I must say that Rush Limbaugh does treat liberal callers with a good deal more respect than one would think, but Dan is right to make the comparison when it comes to their methods.

Default

JabirdV
Sep 02 2003
09:47 am

Did Michael Moore deceive Academy?

‘Bowling for Columbine’ failed to meet Oscar submission rules

By Joseph Farah

Tuesday, September 2, 2003

Michael Moore, winner of the 2002 Oscar for Best Documentary for his controversial “Bowling for Columbine,” failed to meet submission requirements of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a WorldNetDaily investigation reveals.

While critics of the filmmaker and author have called on the academy to investigate whether Moore fabricated scenes in the movie, it also appears he misled the academy about the film’s eligibility on purely technical grounds.

Candidates for Best Documentary feature have unique procedural requirements for eligibility. According to Rule 12, qualification for the 75th Annual Academy Awards in this category demanded that films be exhibited in a commercial theater for paid admission for seven consecutive days in either Los Angeles County or Manhattan prior to Sept. 30, 2002, and that the entire engagement of the theatrical run be displayed in a major newspaper’s movie pages.

While “Bowling for Columbine” reportedly had its qualifying run at Laemmle’s Fallbrook 7 in Los Angeles County from Monday, Sept. 9, through Sunday, Sept. 15, the required major newspaper ads were never published.

A search through a library microfilm archive of Los Angeles Times issues from Friday, Sept. 6, through Sunday, Sept. 15, 2002, turned up only four published performances of “Bowling for Columbine” in the movie pages. Those performances were at 10 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at Laemmle’s Fallbrook 7. Laemmle’s Fallbrook 7 had no films listed for either Friday morning, Sept. 6, or Friday morning Sept. 13. “Bowling for Columbine” had no listing at all in the days following Thursday, Sept. 12.

A run of only four days would fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 12. Even a run of seven days accompanied by published notice of only four days’ performances would fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 12.

While in 2001, the academy required submission of photocopies of newspaper movie pages containing the qualifying ads or listings, in 2002, the photocopies were no longer required.

Even before the latest findings, “Bowling for Columbine” was already one of the most controversial movies of its time. The film ostensibly blames the Columbine High School massacre on the U.S. military-industrial complex, as Littleton, Colo., is home to a Lockheed Martin factory. Moore suggests the factory makes weapons of mass destruction. In fact, it makes rockets that carry TV satellites into space.

At the March 23 Oscar festivities, Moore received a standing ovation when he won the award. But when he launched into a fiery criticism of President Bush and the Iraq war, his remarks were met with a cacophony of boos.

“We are against this war, Mr. Bush,” he shouted. “Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you!”

Dan Gifford, an Academy Award nominee himself, has called on the academy to investigate whether Moore “fabricated scenes and video of real people that has been edited to manufacture a fictional reality intended to mislead viewers.”

If it is determined those accusations are true, Gifford, the producer of “Waco: The Rules of Engagement,” wrote to Bruce Davis, executive director of the academy, Moore should be stripped of the Oscar and it should be awarded to the runner-up.

“Failure to conduct such an investigation and act according to its findings will diminish the stature of the Oscar, establish an exploitable precedent for future rule violators and be grossly unfair to the other nominees who did follow the rules,” Gifford wrote. "That unfairness will be particularly bitter to those whose film would have been nominated in place of ‘Bowling for Columbine.’

“Even the accusation of such rule violations taints the Academy Award with implications of politics and favoritism that are most damaging,” he continued. “So, I again respectfully ask that you not delay your attention to this matter.”

That letter was written April 21. Repeated attempts to reach Davis by telephone were unsuccessful.

Moore was unresponsive to e-mail requests for an interview and phone calls to his publicist.

As for the latest controversy over the film, Gifford was not surprised. Nor did he think the eligibility issue will have much resonance in Hollywood.

“On the political left, ends justify means,” he said. “So, even if Michael Moore lied in his film to promote a leftist vision, his lies are defended as truth by those who agree with him.”

Even if he lied in his submission to the academy, Gifford concluded, that deceit, too, would be overlooked by those who agree with him ? including the vast majority of the entertainment-industry elite.

Los Angeles radio talk-show host and WorldNetDaily columnist Larry Elder is currently working on a documentary called “Michael & Me,” patterned after Moore’s “Roger & Me,” but turning the tables on the filmmaker. He, too, is incensed about the way Moore has taken liberties with the truth in his “documentaries.”

“As far as I know, the academy is doing nothing,” Elder said.

At least two websites have been established to refute “Bowling for Columbine” and address other charges by Moore. They are RevoketheOscar.com and Moorelies.com.

Miramax, a Walt Disney Company, is bankrolling Moore’s latest project, “Fahrenheit 911,” a film that will reportedly show audiences the U.S. government and President Bush were culpable for Osama bin Laden’s Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

“Bowling for Columbine” has grossed over $21 million.

Besides his Oscar honors, the jury at the Cannes Film Festival in France created a special, one-time-only award to honor “Bowling for Columbine” and gave it a 13-minute standing ovation.

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34367

Default

joelspace
Sep 04 2003
05:42 am

I wonder if Moore should be thought of more as an artist than a factual documentarian. Watching Bowling for Columbine was one of the most emotionally engaging film experiences I’ve ever had. I haven’t read Stupid White Men but I’ve heard that despite its political headbanging, the writing is both eloquent and soulful. And even if the rocket plant in Littleton has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, in Moore’s mind its the broader themes that matter. I doubt that a real weapons of mass destruction plant would let him anywhere near it anyway. And what fun would that be? I believed I was seeing real missiles. I was enjoying my illusion until you wrecked it!

I think Moore cheapened his cause at the academy awards. He should stay away from making those types of statements. His strength is in bringing out the emotions in the political turmoil.

Default

grant
Sep 04 2003
06:59 am

The more I hear of Moore’s dishonesties, the more I loathe his speech at the Oscars last year. I didn’t care about his political message so much as his claim that he, along with all the other documentarians on stage with him, were in the business of telling the truth. They were the ones, according to Moore, that show things as they “really are”. Bullshit. Moore may be a skillful story-teller and entertainer, but dishonesty is not the trait of a good artist. A good artist should be the first to admit that he is telling a certain story, that all his “lies are always wishes”(Wilco).

Default

Paul
Sep 04 2003
09:00 am

Hearing about these things really annoys me. Documentaries are supposed to give us the truth through the documentarian’s eyes. When the documentarian lies it’s no longer a documentary but propaganda.

It’s a shame because I enjoyed the film and Moore’s work in general.

Default

JabirdV
Sep 04 2003
09:24 am

It is frustrating in the same way that the whole New Tork Time/Jayson Blair fiasco is. When I watch an ethical documentary I am aware of the fact that there is an inevitable slant caused by the direction, but I am still hoping to look at facts and make my own mind up from the realities that I am seeing. The same goes for the news I read either on the net or in print. The fact that Moore’s work in “Columbine” is being discovered as a fraud is aggravating for those who are always interested in the real story and trust the directors and producers to do an ethical job of presenting an ethical dilemna.

I feel cheap and used.

Default

jonner
Sep 04 2003
09:42 am

Just what about “bowling for columbine” is being discovered as fraud? Clearly he has an ‘agenda’, but to act like this is the first documentary with any sort of agenda seems a little odd. The article that was posted focuses on some minor technical requirements that may or may not be true (the source, worldnetdaily, is as big a propaganda-mouthpiece as Moore is, if not more), but even if the accusations are correct, does the fact that he didn’t run advertisements for the required number of days really change how you view the movie? Or is there something else I’m missing?