More Moore

[prettygirlsmakegrave]

I agree that Moore does make several conclusions that seem to be as bizare as the ones he discounts. As far as Moore's Oscar acceptance speech, he spoke at University of Denver, I believe about a month before the Oscars and said that he did not want an Oscar because he couldn't be trusted on live TV. Moore's popular image is based on him being a raging liberal. The way I would have viewed this in Moore's shoes is that if he did not say something at the Oscars that was expected of him (something anti-Bush and anti-War) his fans and followers would have been disapointed. If I were Moore I would rather make my fans/cult like following happy than please those who oppose me.
I saw Bowling for Columbine three times, the first was around its opening in a packed theatre. I live in Denver, Colorado so the audience was obviously very sensitive to the movie and the Columbine shootings. At the end of the movie there was a huge standing ovation (is that spelled correctly?). I left the theatre feeling that the movie was perfect for Colorado. It gave us new conclusions and new people to blame. The next few times I saw it I left thinking, wait a second why do we need to blame people? I wish that there was a film that was truely a documentary about Columbine that suggested healing (instead of placing blame). Yet would that sell to anyone except therapists?
Maybe..maybe not.

 

[Questioninggeller]

if he did not say something at the Oscars that was expected of him (something anti-Bush and anti-War) his fans and followers would have been disapointed.

You really think he said what he said for other people. I'll play the devil's advocate; read his book, he's book written before (scheduled to be released on) 9/11 explained it. It's called "voter cleansing" on how thousands of votes did not get counted in Florida. It has nothing to do with hanging chads, or Iraq. It's about counting all valid votes, and being anti-imperialistic war. Read his work.

It gave us new conclusions and new people to blame. The next few times I saw it I left thinking, wait a second why do we need to blame people?

I only saw the movie once and was not impressed, but who do you think the movie "blamed"? I was left thinking about society in general, He did not "blame" the NRA, video games, any particular people, and didn't directly point at government (he noted U.S., Germany, France, ect.). What he did was focus on the collection of society's ills that only seem to perpuate violence.

I wish that there was a film that was truely a documentary about Columbine that suggested healing (instead of placing blame).

That wasn't the point of Moore's film, and I doubt the Columbine's Sherrif office wants to be shown in a film as a bunch of asses. They recieved and after the killing "lost," but "found by ABC News" that several people reported those two kids making bombs in their house. Not to mention their internet site, and their "mafia". Plus a video the kids made for a class about how to conduct a commado raid on the school. People simply want to think there was nothing they could about it, even though there was several chances.

Moore did not even discuss that in the film because that wasn't really the premise of his plot.