The Moore the Scarier

[Tony]

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1...ID=1051-032503B ..full article

He calls Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft the "real axis of evil." He blamed 9-11 attacks on too many White people and not enough Black men on the planes.

And in his Oscar Night diatribe, film-maker Michael Moore used his win of an Academy Award to rant against a "fictitious" President Bush, "fictitious election results," and the War on Iraq, which he claimed was for "fictitious reasons."

"We live in fictitious times," he said when picking up the award for best documentary for his anti-gun film "Bowling for Columbine."

And Michael Moore should know. Because everything from his "working-class Joe" persona to his so-called documentary, for which he won the award, is largely fictitious. Michael Moore is the master of the truly fictitious.

His public persona is that of an anti-corporate crusader from working-class Flint, Michigan, who wears a constant uniform of slouchy jeans, a plaid shirt and a Detroit Tigers baseball cap. But the real Michael Moore rides in limos and lives in a swanky $1.2 million Manhattan apartment. Moore's "blue collar bonhomie" is bunk.

According to Detroit Free Press film critic Terry Lawson, Moore's first documentary, "Roger and Me" featured manipulated facts and the breaking of established documentary rules.

Then there's his latest "documentary," "Bowling for Columbine."

Documentary might not be the best word for this manipulative piece of cinematic celluloid. "Fictitious," Moore's current term of choice, would be more accurate.

That includes the title. Moore says he chose "Bowling for Columbine" because Columbine High mass murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold attended a bowling class the morning of the massacre. Reality check: Jefferson County Sheriffs, who investigated the killings, say they skipped the class that day, and have the attendance sheets and blank bowling scoring sheets to prove it. Had Moore bothered to check the official report of the police investigation, he'd have known that. But why bother with the facts when you're the fictitious Michael Moore?

Moore's vehement anti-war ideology gets the best of his fact-checking capabilities. His film implies Harris and Klebold had violent tendencies because of "weapons of mass destruction" produced by a Lockheed Martin assembly plant in their hometown of Littleton. "Bowling" actually features footage of giant rocket assembly to make the point. But, according to Daniel Lyons in Forbes magazine, Lockheed Martin's Littleton plant makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites, not weapons.

And Moore's anti-gun fervor also trumps the facts. He stages an event at North Country Bank and Trust in Michigan's Traverse City, claiming that opening an account would entitle one to walk out of the bank with a gun in hand. The film shows him doing just that. But the key word is "staged." In reality, the bank does not provide guns for opening accounts, and you can't walk in or out of the bank with one—unless you're a security guard employed by the bank. The gun is one of several "giveaways" that can be chosen by customers in exchange for opening a CD account. In order to qualify for the gun, customers must open a 3-year CD with at least $5,000 and then must pass a background check for the gun, which can only be picked up at a licensed gun dealer.

Arguably, the worst fiction in Moore's documentary is visited upon Hollywood producer Dick Clark of "American Bandstand" fame. Moore confronts Clark, trying to ask him questions and accusing him of responsibility for the fatal shooting in 2000 of 6-year-old Kayla Rowland of Mount Morris Township, Michigan, by her classmate, at Buell Elementary School.

Moore blames the shooting on Michigan's work-to-welfare program, which he claims prevented the shooter's mother, Tamarla Owens, from spending time with him. And he blames Clark, because Owens work-to-welfare job was at his "American Bandstand" restaurant at an area mall.

But Clark and the work-to-welfare program had nothing to do with it. Owens, who had three children with three different fathers and was once charged as a drug dealer, married a convicted drug dealer. Before the shooting, she abandoned her son, turning him over to her brother, who lived in a flophouse rife with stolen guns and ammunition, where drug deals went on at all hours. Michigan's Family Independence Agency reported that she was a poor mother, and she later lost custody of all three children, two of them permanently.

Blaming the shooting of a classmate by Owen's son on Dick Clark is outrageous.

But that's Michael Moore. A fictitious man living in a fictitious time. With a fictitious, Academy Award winning "documentary." As Brian Rohrbough, whose son Daniel died at Columbine, said, "This is just a guy trying to capitalize on the tragedy of others."

 

[RichardR]

Some of this was discussed here.

 

[Bjorn]

Tony, no big deal, but you shouldn't post full articles as the owners of the forum are worried about copyright issues.

From the rules of the forum:

-Examples of unacceptable (illegal) posts could include: a Dilbert cartoon, the entire text of a magazine article, etc.

-- snip --

It is not possible to declare precisely how much material may be quoted, as it will vary from article to article. A good rule of thumb is a paragraph.

Maybe you shold delete parts of it before the moderators do?

 

[Tony]

Tony, no big deal, but you shouldn't post full articles as the owners of the forum are worried about copyright issues.

From the rules of the forum:

Maybe you shold delete parts of it before the moderators do?

This wasnt the full article.

 

[Reager]

And Moore's anti-gun fervor also trumps the facts. He stages an event at North Country Bank and Trust in Michigan's Traverse City, claiming that opening an account would entitle one to walk out of the bank with a gun in hand. The film shows him doing just that. But the key word is "staged." In reality, the bank does not provide guns for opening accounts, and you can't walk in or out of the bank with one—unless you're a security guard employed by the bank. The gun is one of several "giveaways" that can be chosen by customers in exchange for opening a CD account. In order to qualify for the gun, customers must open a 3-year CD with at least $5,000 and then must pass a background check for the gun, which can only be picked up at a licensed gun dealer.

I don't understand. The author is complaining because Moore claimed he "opened a bank account" in order to get the gun, but in reality he "opened a CD account"? That's not exactly what I'd call a worthwhile criticism.

Incidentaly, I found this exchange on the issue in Roger Ebert's current Q &A column:

-----------------------------------------------------------
Q. I was the "Bowling for Columbine" producer who scouted the bank that gives you a gun. I was there for Michael Moore's only and entire visit to the bank and was dismayed to see you repeating an outright lie about this scene. Mike walked into North County Bank and walked out with a gun in less than an hour. He opened a CD account, they faxed in his check, it came back all clear, and a bank official handed him his rifle. The crew, Mike and I then drove to directly the barber shop where Mike bought the bullets for his new rifle just as you see in the film. All this occurred before lunch that day, the final day of filming. Then everyone flew home. Maybe you ought to expose the origin of this lie rather than repeat this easily refuted fabrication.

Jeff Gibbs,

Traverse City, Mich.

A. I am happy to oblige. It originated at

www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printT...l ?id=110003233

Of the bank incident Gibbs mentions, author John Fund writes:

"Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. 'What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing,' she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. 'Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period,' she says."

I asked Michael Moore about this report. His response: "I walked in cold. It happened exactly as you see in the film. A producer did call ahead and said I wanted to come in. It is not true that an ordinary person could not have walked in and gotten a gun. No need to go to a gun shop; they had 500 guns in their vault. There's a 2001 story in the St. Petersburg Times about how the bank is proud as a peacock about its gun offer."
-----------------------------------------------------------

The rest can be found here:

http://suntimes.com/output/answ-man...ay-ebert06.html

 

[Bjorn]

This wasnt the full article.

Hehe.

I read the original, what did you do - leave out one paragraph?

 

[Wolverine]

Re: Re: The Moore the Scarier

I don't understand. The author is complaining because Moore claimed he "opened a bank account" in order to get the gun, but in reality he "opened a CD account"? That's not exactly what I'd call a worthwhile criticism.

Try again:

In order to qualify for the gun, customers must open a 3-year CD with at least $5,000 and then must pass a background check for the gun, which can only be picked up at a licensed gun dealer.

 

[Reager]

Re: Re: Re: The Moore the Scarier

Try again:

In order to qualify for the gun, customers must open a 3-year CD with at least $5,000 and then must pass a background check for the gun, which can only be picked up at a licensed gun dealer.

Ahhh. I missed that. However, although I could be mistaken, I believe Moore said in the film that the bank itself was a licensed gun dealer (which , presumably it would have to be to distribute firearms). Either way, it seems we have two different stories here, as Moore wrote to Roger Ebert:

"I walked in cold. It happened exactly as you see in the film. A producer did call ahead and said I wanted to come in. It is not true that an ordinary person could not have walked in and gotten a gun. No need to go to a gun shop; they had 500 guns in their vault."


Mike

 

[corplinx]

The only thing I have to say about the article in the starting post is..........


NO DUH

 

[Vorticity]

From the article Tony cited:

...he said when picking up the award for best documentary for his anti-gun film "Bowling for Columbine." ...

This is a minor point, but... believe it or not "Bowling for Columbine" was not an anti-gun film. It may be hard for many here who haven't seen the film to believe, but Moore actually made a point in the film of debunking several gun-control advocate claims. For example, he cites statistics in the film refuting the claim that there is a correlation between violent crime rates and gun legality/ownership.
The film was really supposed to be about America as a culture of fear and paranoia. By showing that we have by far the highest violent crime rate in the developed world, even compared to other countries, such as Canada, where people have lots of guns, he was attempting to illustrate that there is something different in our national character that goes beyond mere gun ownership. He was specifically trying to make the point that outlawing guns would be ineffective in decreasing violence in this country. This intent was made extremely clear in the film.

I'm not a huge fan of Michael Moore. I dislike his simplistic tactics, and I hate the way he selectively quoted that Heston speech. There's plenty to disagree with in "Bowling for Columbine".

However: the fact that all of these articles are calling it an "anti-gun film" irks me, since anyone who would write that clearly hasn't seen the movie.

 

[Wolverine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Moore the Scarier

However, although I could be mistaken, I believe Moore said in the film that the bank itself was a licensed gun dealer (which , presumably it would have to be to distribute firearms).

If Michael Moore told me the sky was blue, I'd have to go outside and check.

Jacobson says the movie is misleading because it leaves the impression that a person can come in, sign up and walk out with a gun. But, this is not done because no guns are kept at her bank, although one would think so. She says that ordinarily a person entitled to one of the long-guns must go to a gun-dealer where the gun is shipped.

In fact, despite what BFC wants us to believe, Jacobson says there are no long-guns at her bank. The 500 guns mentioned in the movie are in a vault four hours away. She says that Moore's signing papers in the film was just for show. His immediately walking out of the bank with a long-gun was allowed because "this whole thing was set up two months prior to the filming of the movie" when he had already complied with all the rules, including a background check. (Source)

I doubt Larry Pratt from GOA is basing his statements upon John Fund's conclusions, since his op-ed piece is dated 1/03.

In case folks take issue with the evil conservatives whose work I've referenced , I found a page on the subject by what appears to be an independent writer who's researching BFC:

So I called the bank, North Country Bank & Trust. The spokesperson who processed Moore's free gun in the film doesn't work there any more, but I spoke to one of the gun program's customer-service reps. It turns out that it's impossible to duplicate Moore's experience.

Here's the procedure for the gun program, as it was explained to me:

1) You walk into the bank and ask for "the account where you get the free gun."

2) You're shown a catalogue of available products. They're famous for their guns, but you can also choose a set of golf clubs, a grandfather clock, or other expensive bric-a-brac. You pick out an item.

3) The gun isn't actually "free"; you're buying a Certificate of Deposit and the bank is paying you all of the interest from the account in advance, in the form of fabulous prizes. The bank employee knows what each item costs and calculates how much money you'll have to desposit and how long you'll have to keep it in there to pay off the gun. For instance, I was told that to get the Mark 5 Stainless Weatherby, I'd have to deposit $5697 and keep it there for three years.

4) You fill out paperwork. Two sets, actually. One is the usual paperwork for opening a CD, the second is information for the required firearms background check.

5) You go home and wait. The bank processes your paperwork, both to make sure that no other bank has ever lost money doing business with you, and to make sure that they can legally sell you a firearm. I asked the rep how long the bank took to approve a customer and get him his gun, but she was uncomfortable with giving me an actual number.

"Well, are we talking hours? Days?" I asked.

"Oh, days, definitely." Later in the conversation, she described it as "Like, two weeks' worth of days."

6) When the bank is satisfied that it's safe to issue you a CD and a gun, they notify you. You have the option of picking up the weapon at a local gun dealer or right at the bank but in either case, the weapon has to be shipped there from a different location. No gun inventory is kept at the bank; the only firearms they have on hand are display models so you can fondle the merchandise before you make a selection. (Source)

I'm still skeptical of NCB&T being a FFL dealer (and that you can pick up your rifle at the bank itself... I'd read previous articles covering the bank's promotion long before BFC's debut, all of which stated that in order to take possession, the rifle must be picked up at a licensed dealer in the area -- unfortunately those articles are no longer available online). Perhaps I'll call them myself.

Regardless, it seems apparent that Moore's "vault" claim does not withstand scrutiny, and fittingly so -- it's the case with the vast majority of his film.

 

[Reager]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Moore the Scarier

If Michael Moore told me the sky was blue, I'd have to go outside and check.

I doubt Larry Pratt from GOA is basing his statements upon John Fund's conclusions, since his op-ed piece is dated 1/03.

In case folks take issue with the evil conservatives whose work I've referenced , I found a page on the subject by what appears to be an independent writer who's researching BFC:

I'm still skeptical of NCB&T being a FFL dealer (and that you can pick up your rifle at the bank itself... I'd read previous articles covering the bank's promotion long before BFC's debut, all of which stated that in order to take possession, the rifle must be picked up at a licensed dealer in the area -- unfortunately those articles are no longer available online). Perhaps I'll call them myself.

Regardless, it seems apparent that Moore's "vault" claim does not withstand scrutiny, and fittingly so -- it's the case with the vast majority of his film.

I don't know if the claim withstands scrutiny or not. I don't have enough information. It seems odd that Moore would blatantly lie to Ebert about something so easily checked. I also note that the first source you cited (and interviewee) has an obvious ax to grind against Moore. I'm not accusing them of lying, but we all know how the truth can be manipulated to no end. As for the second source, he continues:

"...Again, this is preliminary stuff: it's possible that the process was indeed just that simple when Moore came to film. But it's also possible that the bank agreed to streamline it for the purposes of filming. Unfortunately, the woman who actually chairs the program (and perhaps can speak more authoritatively) was on vacation when I called, but I've got her return-date circled on the calendar. Stay tuned."

Im still undecided as to whose version of the Truth I'm ready to accept.

Mike

 

[Wolverine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Moore the Scarier

It seems odd that Moore would blatantly lie to Ebert about something so easily checked.

Sure didn't stop him with anything else.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

He blamed 9-11 attacks on too many White people and not enough Black men on the planes.

...snip...

I went to see Moore's show when in he was in the UK and unless he has changed his position he certainly did not blame September 11th attacks on "too many White people and not enough Black men on the planes".

His actual point was that many people - and as a class in the US he did single out "white" people - now belong to the "comfortable" class. The comfortable people are a class that can afford to have other people do the dirty work for them and never have to face "reality", other people always clean-up after them. (And a consequence of this is that it has led to a sheep-like docility were we all do as we are told rather then think or more importantly act for ourselves.)

His point about "black people" and the Sept 11th hijacks was that as a generalisation black people in the USA are not part of the "comfortable people" and therefore have to face reality everyday – they have no one to “clean-up” after them – because they are the ones that clean-up after the comfortable people. His suggestion was that “black people” would have reacted differently when threatened by the hijackers. In other words they wouldn't be expecting someone else to help them they'd have helped themselves.

Personally I think his argument was a bit simplistic. But I do agree with his sentiment that we (and I put myself in the comfortable class) are too willing to let "authority" tell us what to do, how to behave and what to think rather then having to deal with “dirty, nasty reality” ourselves.