Log in

No account? Create an account
Bowling For Columbine deceitful? - Chaz Meyers [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Chaz Meyers

[ website | chazmeyers.com ]
[ profile | view profile ]
[ archive | view archive ]

[Links:| chazmeyers.com Twitter ]

Bowling For Columbine deceitful? [Apr. 2nd, 2003|12:12 pm]
Chaz Meyers
It seems as though Bowling For Columbine was one big lie. I had not intended on seeing it, despite receiving an Acadamy award, but now I must say I'm now disinterested in seeing it. There are few things I dislike more than an intentional deception of facts.
[Link stolen from evan.]

[User Picture]From: sayceman
2003-04-02 10:48 am (UTC)
I am more interested in seeing it. The problem is that these issues become so polarizing in American culture that I find it hard to separate the truth from fiction. What you can probably assume is that that website is not all correct, and that Moore's documentary is not all wrong. Without having seen the film, I would still venture to say that Moore probably imbued his piece with some exaggerations and that the author of that article probably did the same. A point I noticed the article made was that the movie tried to make Charlton Heston out to be a cold-hearted man, when in fact he is not. But the author is basically arguing against his interpretation of the movie. Who is to say that I didn't notice his clothes or the background were different in different shots? Unless Moore specifically put up a false piece of information (i.e. labelling the Heston speech with an incorrect date in the film), then I consider that to be a fault by the viewer in not watching well enough. Moore obviously made that film to prove a point - that is what you do with films, books, tv shows, etc. Just because you disapprove of someone's point doesn't mean that you shouldn't at least listen to what they have to say.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cpm
2003-04-02 12:49 pm (UTC)
Now that I think about it, part of me is a bit more intrigued by this movie now. Kind of torn, really. :)

From what I read from the article, he spliced parts of different speeches together to put together phrases Heston didn't say, and strongly implied, if not flat out said, that particular speeches took place at different times. If that's the case, I would say that's flat out lying, if not slander. It's one thing to try to get a point across, but when you misrepresent what people say like that, I believe a line of ethical journalism is being crossed.

I do agree that most things on a website should not be taken at face value. I plan on checking up on all those sources they cited. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)