lies? [ e ]

What were the lies that you think are in "Bowling for Columbine"?
I agree that Micheal Moore has a tendancy to bully his point around
and would make a stronger argument if he spent more time listening and
less time bludgeoning his interviewees with his preconceived notions.
However, I didn't see anything that I would classify as outright "lies" in the movie. At most what I saw was creative perspectives that forced you to rethink what you thought you knew. That is one of the main functions of powerful documentaries. If it was all happy and safe and no one took issue with it, then it wouldn't be a very good movie would it?
I am a Canadian, so this argument isn't central to my being like it seems to be for many US citizens, but I am interested all the same (we don't live that far away, after all). I think that under no curcumstances should it have its award stripped away. It is a very important movie for one simple reason; it got people asking questions again. The scariest part of the whole gun situation in the states (for me personally, at least) was the "don't rock the boat" status quo mentality that has allowed it to slowly degrade to the level it is at now. If this movie manages to shake loose some new thinking (especially among the young kids coming up through high school now) then I am all for it.
p.s. I enjoy reading of your adventures in Japan very much. Keep up the good work.

posted by JamesMacMillanSeptember 22, 2003 at 11:53

[ e ]

>I think that under no curcumstances should it

>have its award stripped away

Since it won the award for "best documentary", I would assume that one circumstance that would warrent stripping the award away WOULD be if the film contained actual verifiable lies...correct?  I don't know if the film has verifiable lies or not, but you'd have to agree that "under no circumstances" wouldn't hold if a film that won an award for "best documentary" had verifiable lies in it?

anon na na na

posted by nananaSeptember 22, 2003 at 13:08

Only kind of related... [ e ]

...the stereotype of Japanese people (as opposed to Japanese-Americans) is that they are "all" afraid of Black/African American/Negro/??? people.  Is that true (not "all", but "a lot"), or is it just a bad stereotype?  Is it significant that Japan is, for the most part, a homogeneous society?

anon na na na

posted by anonnananaSeptember 22, 2003 at 13:12

Japan and Columbine [ e ]

I didn't say Bowling for Columbine was a bad movie nor did I say it didn't have an important message.  It's a very well made movie and it's got several important messages.  But, also having several lies in it it's not a documentary and doesn't deserve an award as one.  It may deserve some kind of award for something else but it's a wrong to give it an award as a documentary.  Allowing it to keep that award removes the whole meaning of the award.

As for Japanese being afraid of people of African descent, I haven't noticed that.

I do find it significant that most countries over this way seem to be pretty homogeneous.

Japan: 99.3% Japanese
Korea: 99.999% Korean
China: 92% Chinese
Taiwan: 98% Chinese

Compare with the U.S.A.

64% european descent
16% latin american descent
12% african descent
4% asian descent
5% other

and of course those are basically by continent, not by country or culture so europeans, asians, africans, latinos can be broken down into all the different areas, English, Scottish, French, Italian, German, Mexican, Brazilian, Peruvian, Moroccan, Zimbaweian(sp?), Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Filipino, etc, ....

Quite a difference.

Even other countries which I considered more mixed are not nearly as mixed.

UK: 81% English. 97% white
Canada: is like under 11% non white even if it doesn't seem that way if you live have visited Vancouver or Toronto

So, the point is, most people in most countries just don't have to deal with the race or culture issue because they never meet someone of another race or culture.

By the way, I'm 7 races and according to the 2000 census my guess is there are only about 100 people in the US with 7 or more.  I guess that makes me one of the ultimate minorities

posted by greggmanSeptember 22, 2003 at 23:58

Lies? [ e ]

Gregg,

Are you Rush Limbaughing us with these facts?

The facts:

China: 92% Chinese
Taiwan: 98% Chinese

What is your source for this information?

I lived in Taiwan for over two years. It's more like 95% "Chnese," and 5% aboriginal (of which 10 predominant tribes make up most of that population). (al ofthis is obsevation, but I still think my questioning ofthe original ratios is valid)

Still, "Chinese" is bogus. You have Hakkanese, Fujianese, Cantonese, etc. Different languages and cultural background, bu yes - a similar genetic make up. Still, China is more like 95% "Chinese" too, with a lot of Mongolian and other Eurasian and middle-easter-Asian ethnicities thrown in.

A "Documetnary" is not truth. it is a "document" recorded in picure 9and sound) that is completely subjective. A simple "record" if you will, and all records have a slant from which they roll ou of the starting gae from. They help when they tell us something or offer up facts, but I wonder what you consider a "documentary" to be.

The Academy Awards are a sham anyway (overglorified Knights of Columbus awards that they are - Hollywood patting itself onthe ass every year) but BFC deserve the awards it got (namely the one at Cannes) because it works as a film. It even works as a documentary because it "documents" its points clearly. It never pretended to be objective  not once - but it did try to offer up a point of view rarely covered in such detail - with possible hope that it, coupel with NRA dogma - can offer up a ounterpoint for folks to then form an objective idea.

Ciao,

Django

posted by DjangoSeptember 25, 2003 at 7:13

Get a life, Django [ e ]

Yeah, Django is right.  Also, you MUST be Limbaughing us with the US statistics...

64% european descent - "European Descent" is bogus. You have Finish, Anglo, Saxon, Armenian, etc. Different languages and cultural background, but yes - a similar genetic make up.

16% latin american descent - "Latin American Descent" is bogus. You have Brazilian, Incan, Chilean, Mexican, Rusian-Mexican, etc. Different languages and cultural background, but yes - a similar genetic make up...except not really, because most of these people are a mix of "white", "native american", "black", and "asian".

12% african descent - you get the picture...

4% asian descent - you get the picture...

5% othe - same here.

So you see, China and Taiwan ARE just as diverse as the United States, ethnicly, religiously, and geneticly, right Django?

Good thing we have you here to set us straight with facts.

   - anonnanana

r

posted by anonnananaSeptember 25, 2003 at 13:19

Lose your life, anonnanana [ e ]

Have you been to these places?  And, outside of your unwarrante vitriol, no concrete statistics and their sources have been sighted by you (and Gregg, but I'l leave him out of the fray because he didn't start this brawl - you did).

Now, salad-tosser, get a clue, off yerself and up the common-sense pool of the human race.

Fox news must be workin' on ya. Can I call you schtazi?

I love it when some technoscum come out and attack me for making a valid inquiry abut facts and statistics. YOU, anonnanana, are Limbaughing us. Drop of the 89th floor of a building, dittohead.  It only proves that the stereotype about techno geeks aving little in terms of a life, little in terms of a grasp of reality, and little in terms of a brain capable of abstract thought. Sorry, binary bogosity - it's time you deal with real life and peole and put the os on hold, turn off your techo lover/computer  and rid the planet of wastes of life like yourself.

Screw you, anonnanana, and your warped idea of status quo.

Django

posted by DjangoSeptember 25, 2003 at 19:25

Jeez... [ e ]

Jeez, you agree with a guy and he jumps all over you...

anonnanana

posted by anonnananaSeptember 26, 2003 at 0:18

Speaking of Earthquakes... [ e ]

Looks like Hokkaido got hit with a biggie...

- anonnanana

posted by anonnananaSeptember 26, 2003 at 0:20

statistics [ e ]

You can get every one of my *facts* from the CIA World Fact Book except for the stats of the U.S.A. which you can get from the USA 2000 Census.

Anonnanana, I didn't see your point.  Yes, you can break down people into smaller groups.  Instead of just Asians, Europeans, Africans, Latinos, Etc you can break it down more.  So what?  Most Asian cultures have more in common with each other than they do with the other *races*.  Most Europeans have more in common with each other than they do with the other *races*, etc.  The point is people in many of the countries I mentioned don't have to deal with people that are vastly different from them, that have a 100% completely different cultural background etc.

Django, prove your stats.   China is larger than the U.S.  I doubt you've seen 1/10000th of it.  Most people that are familiar with Tokyo don't believe the 99.3% Japanese statistic for Japan but it's pretty easy to figure since although (1) at every glance you can see some non-Japanese, if you actually pay attention you'll notice that at each glance you can see 500 to 1000 people of which only 3 or 4 are foreign and that (2) Tokyo is the exception, their are plenty of places outside of Tokyo where there are plently of people that have never seen a non Japanese person ever in their entire life except on TV.

I'm sure possibly Seoul, Shanghai, Taipei and other large cites *feel* like they have a mix but that's just a feeling, not actual stats and they are the exceptions for those countries, not the norm.

As for documentaries not being the truth well,

Rule Twelve
Special Rules for The Documentary Awards

I. Definition
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

What do I consider a documentary?  How about this.  I consider Bowling for Columbine to be propaganda.  Whether or not I agree with any or all if its points it is NOT a documentary.  As I pointed out I agree with many of its points.

posted by greggmanSeptember 26, 2003 at 8:34

My real point re: diversity question [ e ]

>Anonnanana, I didn't see your point. 

It was my lame attempt at mocking Django, but that Wiley Coyote is just to smart for me..."I would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those medling kids".

My point being that if it's valid in this discussion to lump people of "European Descent" (et al) together, then it is equally valid (or maybe even more so) to lump people of "Chinese Descent" together (again, for the sake of this diversity discussion).

My real point being that the US seems more diverse (geneticly, culturaly, religiously) than Japan, and I was wondering if that made any difference in how much Japanese trust one another (lack of car alarms, etc.).

A question for you, Greggman...what differences in Japanese culture or history might account for the "trust" (i.e. lower incident of people stealing one another's peoperty)?

  - anonnanana

posted by anonnananaSeptember 26, 2003 at 10:33

C. I. A.factbook? [ e ]

Yawn.

Trusting their 'information' - I reference 9/11 for that (how the information was faulty, that which was solid was unable to be shared with the FBI, etc.).

Greg, your point about CHina can be turned around back at you. You ahven't been there and 1/10000 whatever percent of what you might see, blah blah blah.

Seriously, your ASS umption about me being in al arge city of Twian: I was all over the tisland. From Taipei to Taichung to Hsinchu to Junan to Fengyuan to Puli in Nantou, to Green Island and Kenting.

That's a whole lot of places and all ahd differing populations.

Here are some Taiwanese FACTS:

http://ebook.de-han.org/attitude/taibun/ch2/
ch2.htm

http://www.yahooligans.com/r
eference/factbook/tw/popula.
html

http://www.nationbynation.co
m/Taiwan/Population.html

http://www.taiwanfirstnation
s.org/

Your speculation about homogenaity and safety makes sense and offers up some food for thought, but trust more than the C. I .fuckin' aye.

It's not hard to find aboriginals in Taiwan in the large cities, but yeah, in some smaller cities they don't immediately register unelss youv'e been in the country a while.

It should be noted - regarding Taiwan - that there is Ehtnic in-fighting and ethnocentric politics that affect the country. SKin games/race cards are played a lot. Aboriginals couldn't use their own names on ID cards until last year. They had to adopt Chinese names. So-called 'Tawianese' claim it's their island though they are not aboriginals but descendants of Han Chinese immigrants - and they descriminate against other Han Chinese who jumped ship from China in the fourties and fifties. They call them "waishenren." Like the Demoncrats and Republicunts in the U. S. - the "Pan Blue" (waishenren) and "Green" (the "Taiwanese") Camp dominate the island's political spectrum and put partisanship ahead of the island's needs.

I digress, only to offer up there is diversity. It's not "our" (i. e. AMERICNA) diversity - but it's there. S

NOVA are biased too. They just have the bourgeois pretense that they are "objective" regarding some topics, as to the ham-and-egg Michael Moore.

Even seemingly harmless anture documentaries are bogus. Things are made to happen to illustrate a natural point/phenomena that normally occurs - but the filmmaker is unable to capture it during their initial shoot - so they fake it. It's still not real, however based in reality it may be; such is documentary - from whale docs to docs about Mickey Mouse and Hitler. It's all the same: subjective.

The first rule of documentaries is that by virtue making a documentary (this boils down on deciding what to photograph, how to edit it together and present it) true objectivity is thrown out of the window. A documentary can disply an opinion - it becomes propaganda - i. e. subjectivity - but the fact someone is presenting something to another person who wasn't there to observe on their own - is in and of itself propaganda.

Whatever definition some sucker wants to buy into - the point is that bourgeois NOVA or ham and egg Micahel Moore - they are out to make people think. 

That's something you could possibly agree with.

Django

posted by DjangoSeptember 26, 2003 at 23:17

Demoncrats and Republicunts...? [ e ]

Republicunts?  Wow, what's THAT all about?

- anonnanana

posted by anonnananaSeptember 27, 2003 at 11:01

Maybe you should check your sources [ e ]

http://www.yahooligans.com/r
eference/factbook/tw/popula.
html
This IS the CIA Factbook (see the bottom of the page -- Washington D.C.: Central Intelligence Agency, 2000 )

http://www.taiwanfirstnation
s.org/
says (Aboriginal people number about 1.7% of the population) which again makes my point, nearly no diversity relative to the U.S.

http://www.nationbynation.co
m/Taiwan/Population.html
give an even smaller number then the one above

As for the documentary issue, it seems like you by your definition ANY movie as long as it has something to say is a documentary.  12 Monkeys, Signs, Starship Troopers all had something to say, they are not documentaries.

Let's use some Michael Moore techniques shall we:

Django wrote: "Taiwan is seriously ASS" "So-called 'Tawianese' couldn't use their own names on ID cards" " the C. I .fuckin' aye try to offer up a point of view rarely covered in such detail"

posted by greggmanSeptember 28, 2003 at 3:14

Numeric geeks [ e ]

011011 101001

Or, in human speak - your point?

First - the census' are bullshit. try the American one which not only failed to reach all citizens, but had some outright refusing to participate (remember Mitch Snyder and his reasons for encouraging others not to participate, namely the homeless? I odubt you will, given he's not a computer gamer, so he might be beyond your reach -the fact that he's dead might add to that too).

I experienced the South Korean census and refused to participate - along with a good hundred other foreigners - why? Because it ammoutned to NOTHING. It did nothingfor our status as foreingers.

I'm sure we were not he onl ones who react to such bullshit.

Also, where do he CIA get their facts?

So, your points about DOCUMENTaries and whatnot - throw 'em back at ya, pup.

By your assenine logic regarding STARSHIP TROOPERS (why am I not surprised the guy who claimed "all Japanese movies suck" would bring that up???) and documentaries - nevermnd. why bother. You're a fool.

Yo uare misreable. You cna't find radio or tv or any local (i. e. Japanese) movies ot really really enjoy and you seem to fucking whine and cry and whatnot.  I forgot why I even read this page anymore. Damn, nee to asses why I bother. Boredom. Oh yeah. Got it.

I posted the links as PROOF there is some diversity.

In typical El Lame fashion you marginalize the minorties by basicall yimplying they don't count because the numbers you read  on the net were small.

Influence goes far. Jsut because you DON' see the numbers in some fucng CIA shitbook doesn't mean it's NOT true. goand find out. Pry your sticky little fingers from yoru Lynix floppies and go live life. Get off the tourist path and stop going tofoo foo cafes.

Your'e a yuppie and a crybaby one at that. Youre' whiter than the color of your site's background. To quote Jim Kelly from ENTER ThE DRAGON, "Man, you're like some cat out of a comic book."

 Read more of the details on thsoe sites. GO BEYOND Statistics. I know as a guy who punches numbers all day and who is obsessed with numbers and superficial "proof" in them, and who thinks NOVA is the singular definition of documentary and who has seen what - 10 Japanese movies but says they all suck and Japanese radio sucks (lol) - whatever Greg. Talk about food and toys because that's about all you're able to do without revealing how anal and obsessed with numbers you really are. Shit, even then you soud like a crbaby yuppie.

Better yet, put that energy into getting a girlfriend or boyfriend. You're what, almost 40?

Here are some numbers you might understand: the clock's ticking and you're growing old alone. You are the ony guy in Tokyo who can't find Ms. Right. We're talking GREGU NO OTAKU. rip into my por Japanese. It will make you feel better. Anyway, of the umpteen people I know living there you're the ony one who's batting age runs ibarely above the negative.

yourview on other blgos that you dont' bother to read but your buddies -reveals that youthink your shit's aboveothers. Man, you're neurotic!

Maybe that documentary anal-retentive narrowcasting you have, and the obsession with numbers points out WHY.

tick-tick-tick.

Ciao,

Django

posted by DjangoSeptember 28, 2003 at 5:14

you keep showing your ignorance... [ e ]

and result to name calling when you can't actually backup your arguements with logic or facts.

Maybe you should learn how statistics work to know that a census doesn't have to reach every single person to come up with accurate numbers.

Sorry if I trust the CIA which has hundreds if not thousands of people checking these statistics vs Django that pretty much without fail tries to belittle people in every post he's made on this site.

What assenine logic did I use with Starship Troopers?  I argued that it has a statement.  It does, that statement is "Facism is bad" which you can hear/read in interviews with its director.  You seemed to be saying that for something to be considered a documentary in your opinion all it needed to do was make a point.  All I did was point out the flaw in that idea.

As for my false quotes of you at the end of my last post.  You did write every single one of those words on this page.  I might have edited them together to make them mean something you didn't mean but you did write them.  Michael Moore did exactly the same thing with many of scenes in Bowling for Columbine.  I would call what I claimed you wrote a "lie" plain and simple.  It was a bald faced lie.  But, in doing so I also have to call Michael Moore a bald faced liar since he did exactly the same thing.  He took speeches and other so called events and re-mixed and edited them to make it appear that people had done things, said things, and had agendas they didn't actually say, do or have.

So, either he did lie, BFC is therefore a work of fiction, with a point but still a work a fiction, not a documentary and therefore not deserving of a "Best Documentary" award --OR--, what he did is fair game, it's not a lie and QED neither is what I claimed you wrote.  Personally I call that kind of editing lying.  If you disagree then welcome to the world where I can claim

Django said: "Chinese are sticky little yuppie crybaby neurotic shit aboriginals"

And I would not be considered lying.

posted by greggmanSeptember 28, 2003 at 7:34

What flavor of crack do you smoke? [ e ]

Gregg said: "Django said: "Chinese are sticky little yuppie crybaby neurotic shit aboriginals"

And I would not be considered lying."

That's a nice Rush Limbaughism/fox news act on your behalf.

Trustign the CIA. Shows where you stand. Your'e a fool if you thinkthey ahve people whsoe sole job is to count heads. They get their "facs" from antiquated sources.

Of course, you TRUSt the CIA - nice job they did assassinating Salvador Allande and fucking up Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran.

Nice side to be on. NOT!

Cheers,

Django

posted by DjangoSeptember 28, 2003 at 20:40

Back to Bowling for Columbine... [ e ]

Hey Gregg -

I still don't think you answered the orginal poster's question as to what you think the lies in Bowling for Columbine were.

Here is Michael Moore's rebuttal to what some other people have claimed were lies:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/
words/wackoattacko/

Were these the same gripes you had?

I think it's important to point out that there have been 0 lawsuits against MM regarding any of the "slanderous" information in the film...

posted by BionicRoachSeptember 29, 2003 at 14:07

[ e ]

Not addressed on MMoore's web page:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Trut
h_About_Bowling.html

"Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically, done"

1. To illustrate politicians' (and especially Republican politicians') willingness to play the "race card,"..."whether you're a psychotic killer or running for president of the United States, the one thing you can always count on is white America's fear of the black man"...Bowling splices together two different election ads...There is nothing to reveal that most of the ad just seen (and all of it that was relevant to Moore's claim) was not the Bush-Quayle ad.

2A. Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver...When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

2B. Mt. Morris shooting/ Flint rally..."Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."...Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting...Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK...This sequence is intended to create the impression either that NRA and the Klan were parallel groups or that when the Klan was outlawed its members formed the NRA...Both impressions are not merely false, but directly opposed to the real facts....

There are a lot moore (get it?), but you can read them when you have time.

I can't comment on "Bowling For Columbine" myself because I haven't watched it...maybe I'll pick up a copy today.

- anonnanana

posted by anonnananaSeptember 29, 2003 at 15:49

I must confess... [ e ]

...That I deliberately "yank Django's chain" every once in a while, probably out of boredom.  Truce Django?

The reason some of us push your buttons is that it's fun to see the fireworks that happen afterwords.  Push button->hey look at the cool fireworks->push button->hey look at the cool fireworks->push button...

>Fox news must be workin' on ya...schtazi...Limbaughing..
.status quo...bourgeois pretense...marginalize the minorties...whiter than the color of your site's background...Rush Limbaughism/fox news act

Where do you get all of these sayings?   I'm NOT trying to yank your chain here, just wondering where you get (or form) your political views from...

  - anonnanana

posted by anonnananaSeptember 29, 2003 at 17:05

Facts. [ e ]

China

Han Chinese 91.9%, Zhuang, Uygur, Hui, Yi, Tibetan, Miao, Manchu, Mongol, Buyi, Korean, and other nationalities 8.1%

More here.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publi
cations/factbook/geos/ch.htm
l

posted by HarveySeptember 29, 2003 at 19:46

B for C [ e ]

I really enjoyed the Bowling for Columbine movie. Any movie maker that can show Marilyn Manson as down to earth and Charleton Heston as pathetic really has something going for it.

No one should be afraid to describe any movie or documentary as manipulative. Sequences of images and audio are always a manipulation of timing and effect. B for C is manipulative, and humourously and outrageously so.

Some great points that are explored in the film and it really doesn't matter the level of truth that they contain. MM is saying throughout all of his productions one thing "Be a productive citizen through questioning authority". There is nothing wrong with promoting thought. But I suppose I'd be sad if there are many out there that just think he is "right" about everything when he says it.

Some great points in the movie:

1) there are countries that are safer than the US

2) lots of US "news" thrives on the commercialization of fear

3) the US have a history of puratanism and preaching of fear

4) Some people live pretty bleak lives in the US and that isn't the American Dream that politicians love to speak about.

5) In high school, the people that were meek and possibly "didn't fit in" may actually have very creative and satisfying lives in the future. Kids and teachers taking things too seriously at that age is not healthy.

Well, that is some of the things I remember from the film. I read lots of sites around that time that pointed out some of the manipulations in the film regarding when certain events actually took place and so on. I'm sure he manipulated things for effect.

So anyhow, I'm in the camp of: He deserves the documentary award because he was put in that category by the people who give out the awards. It might be better placed as a dark comedy, but they weren't bold enough to put it there.

Interesting points about race and violence. Homogenous culture begets lower violence? I wonder. And what really is homogenous culture? Any group can be separated and conflicted on all sorts of divisions: religious, racial, educational, wealth, etc...

I've lived in a few countries. I suppose I am a little more scared to live in the US in general, but I've really enjoyed it there as well. I think both the US and Japan are very insular in general, if you look at the general media in both countries your probably looking in the wrong place if you want to find diversity and exploration of deep topics. If you are in the US and you view it as MM versus RL, you should get out more often and not worry about mass culture so much. The really free minds and speech in the US are not on TV and rarely on Radio.

PS - I'm not really replying to Gregg specifically here, really the whole thread.

posted by rodinSeptember 30, 2003 at 19:56

more stuff for the fire [ e ]

Bionicroach:

I checked out that link.  Funny that the transcript on Moore's own site, in which he tries to claim he didn't use anything that was not from the speech for his movie, doesn't actually match the clip from the movie which is also on his own site.

And, even if you read the transcript on Moore site and compare it to the clip you can see that the message Moore tries to claim Heston is giving (ie, "f**k you Columbine") is not the message the Heston was actually giving (ie, "we should be respectful of the tragedy", "we cancelled a ton of stuff in response", "it's upsetting people are blaming the NRA for the shooting", "NRA people helped rescue those kids from the school", "people will take stuff out of context and use it against the NRA")

I guess that last message was pretty much on target.

I call that a sequence a lie and I see it as no different than the editing I did on Django's stuff below.

Harvey:

I'm not sure what your point was?  I wrote 92% Chinese, you wrote 91.8% ?? Is there a difference?  Were you just backing me up?

The differences between those groups are far less than say a European and one of those groups or an African and one of those groups.

The original question was if all Japanese are afraid of people of African descent.  I answered "No, don't think so" but that most Japanese and most people in most countries in general don't even have to deal with that kind of issue because they will never meet someone who's culture or ancestry is from another continent.  Unlike say the USA where we have plenty of people with ancestry or culture from all continents.

Rodin:

A agree with you that BFC has lots of good points.  I even said it was a good movie.  I only feel that it is not a documentary because of the definition of documentary.  Your opinion that "because they gave it the award" doesn't really make any sense.  Following that line of reasoning I guess next year they could give "Lord of the Rings" best documentary and you'd be fine with it because "hey, they chose it".

Bowling for Columbine is more like the movies "JFK" or "The Insider".  Movies that appear to be based on fact but are not but still are very good movies and still give us many things to think about.

posted by greggmanOctober 4, 2003 at 5:21

Everyone I know has a big but. [ e ]

I do understand your point, Gregg, and admittedly, the QuickTime clip and the written transcript of Heston's speech are very divergent, but I think this is more an example of sloppy work by whoever handles MM's web site than an illustration that mirrors what you did with Django's comments in this thread.  What SHOULD be posted on MM's web site is an EXACT transcript of whatever Heston said at the actual rally, including whatever was edited out of the clip.  What appears to be posted on the site is perhaps from a generic handout that the press got from Heston's people, i.e. maybe it was something that Heston had written down in preparation before the event, but not what he ACTUALLY SAID live at the rally.  I agree that this is sloppy and doesn't back up MM's arguments very well.  As far as I'm concerned, though, as long as Heston really did make the remarks he made in the clip - and he did, because I live in Denver and remember seeing the same clip on the local news -  MM is not "lying" per se, but just cutting factual pieces down to illustrate a point and to fit the time allotted.  In other words, the remarks Heston made would still seem arrogant and inappropriate to most people affected by Columbine, no matter what else he said to sugar coat them in any adjoining paragraphs.  In this respect, MM did not really put words in Heston's mouth or paint him as someone he's not.  He just didn't bother to say, "Heston's said some nice things and then he said X".  MM just got right to the point and said, "Heston said X, and here's where and when he said it."  It's sort of like the difference between saying, "This guy is good at his job, and well liked at the office, but unfortunately, at night, he goes home and beats his wife." and saying, "Here is a guy who beats his wife.  Here is a clip of him doing it."  The point being that whatever he said overall, the facts are that Heston did not cancel or reschedule the NRA rally - which would have been the respectful thing to do in the face of so much opposition - and that at that same rally, he DID actually make comments that mocked Denver's mayor and came off as rather insensitive, because he's a jerk or because he was pandering to the macho attitude of his supporters, or whatever the case may be.  Actions speak louder than words is the appropriate clich� here.  In my view, such editing is not lying, but rather just putting emphasis on certain FACTS that support a given opinion.  The viewer still has a choice of whether or not to agree.  That is very different from piecing together tiny parts that have no significant meaning on their own to create a new message COMPLETELY different from anything the original person ever stated.  I don't think anyone in their right mind would try to make the argument that B.F.C. is an OBJECTIVE documentary (such as a purely scientific nature film with no environmentalist spin) by any stretch of the imagination.  While MM lets you draw your own conclusions, it is very obvious throughout what his opinion is.

At the same time, I definitely agree that the terminology "Documentary" as used by the Academy Awards is vague and far too all-encompassing.  They could create a specific new category such as "Socio-Political Portrait" or, more vaguely, "Slice of Life", but then it might be hard to fill it every year.  The same accusations of "lying" could be made against many biographies, too, because since even the most boring person in the world has way too many events in their life to fit into a typical movie format, things have to be selectively cut.  A biographer can then choose to take advantage of this limitation and select events in such a way as to create a certain spin on the subject's life.  Though the movie would "come off" a certain way because of this, it doesn't mean that the movie would be fiction as long as real events were used, and it also doesn't mean that the biographer lied; it just means that the events in the film were chosen to make the point that the biographer wanted to make.  It would probably be possible to do a lot of research and then make a film about Hitler that showed all sorts of positive things that he did before he did all the terrible things that he is remembered for.  Would this be considered a well-balanced, "honest" film?  No.  But if done in the right style, it would fit into the documentary category as it stands with the Academy.  Here is what their web site says:

Rule Twelve
Special Rules for The Documentary Awards

I. DEFINITION
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.

Full page is here.

posted by BionicRoachOctober 4, 2003 at 13:20

I think you missed a couple of points [ e ]

Read the definition again.  My impression is you noticed "creatively" and "emphasis is on fact" and assumed that meant you don't have to be completely true.  But appearently you missed the first sentence "non-fiction motion picture"  Look up the definition of Non-Fiction and you'll see that there's no room for lies, fictions and made up facts in a "non-fiction motion picture".  I guess you also didn't notice I posted that exact definition of the rules and links a week ago down this page.

As for MM and Heston's speech, MM tries to make it appear the rally is about Columbine.  It's not, it's a yearly meeting required by law for an organization such as the NRA.  MM doesn't tell you that the Major ran on an anti-gun platform as one of his major issues and was losing support and that he was taking advantage of Columbine for political gain.  What MM did is take an arguement between the Webb and the NRA and try to make it appear like a statement against Columbine.

It's also ludicrous to think that a meeting as large as that meeting could be so easily cancelled.  Given that it's a national meeting and it was already scheduled thousands of people had already booked their flights, their hotels, rented cars, arranged vacations with their bosses and teams, made arrangements for kids and pets, the building and meeting halls had been booked, caterers hired.  Thousands of man hours go into planning events that large and as for one required by law it's not a simple matter to up and cancel at the last second and someout try to redo all that work again, have everyone try to get their non-refundable plane tickets refunded, try to re-schedule vacation etc.  That fact that after all that work and effort spent they cancelled the majority of their event and just kept it to the minimum shows major support for victims of Columbine, not defiance as MM would have you believe.

posted by greggmanOctober 4, 2003 at 22:03

Non-Fiction [ e ]

Since I love argument, I'd just point out that to say something must only contain facts in order to be a documentary might sound literally correct, but is really not realistic. Fact is not the litmus test for documentaries. Why? Facts change when new information is discovered after the documentary is made, witnesses can change their story after the documentary is made, new investigative techniques can lead to new analysis of information, etc...

Instead, my (probably lame and incomplete, but I like it) definition is:

Documentaries don't have actors. So B for C is not like JFK or The Insider in this sense.

Regardless, I still say that if the Academy put the film in a category and then voted it best in that category, they can't take it back. Too late. No crying over spilt milk.

posted by rodinOctober 5, 2003 at 19:14

Actually the Academy has [ e ]

revoked an award before.  "The Young Americans" won the 1968 Best Documentary Oscar and it was later revoked.  So, yes, they can take it back.

It would seem pretty straight forward.  If the award was wrongly given to something that doesn't actually fit the category in question it should be revoked.  It's like cheating on a test.  Just because your teacher marked A+ when you took it doesn't mean that he can't change your grade or even revoke your diploma and expel you from school if he found out later you cheated.

posted by greggmanOctober 6, 2003 at 4:26

But, but, but... [ e ]

Gregg - I did not realize that you cited the same page from the Academy web site.  Touch�.  That's what I get for speed-surfing at work.

However, I still disagree with the idea of classifying B.F.C. as a work of fiction.  Regardless of the way that MM chose to present the information gathered for the film - or which bits he chose to focus on - the fact of the matter is that he did not make up the "characters" in the film - or their dialogue - using his imagination.  He is not really telling a "story"; There is no plot, suspense, character development or any of the other traditional story elements.  In the same way that you feel B.F.C. does not deserve to be included with the other "documentary" nominees, it would also be unfair to compare it to a true work of fiction where the screenwriter had to come up with all the original story elements from scratch without the luxury of using real events in the real world to make a point.  I think that this is what the Academy means when they say "non-fiction"; not that the film must be footage of the periodic table of the elements filmed on a nice, steady tripod.  A film that does not prompt dialogue and counter-analysis from its audience is probably just dealing with a really boring subject, because almost anything - even science - is open to debate.  As rodin said, whether or not some viewers would consider B.F.C. to be propaganda is not the litmus test for whether or not it is a documentary.  There is nothing in the rules that says the filmmaker cannot be biased or that both sides of an issue have to be shown.

So if you were the Academy, what category would you put B.F.C. in?

p.s. - According to Google, "The Young Americans" award was revoked because of a cut and dry rule violation.  It was released too early to qualify for the 1968 awards.  That's a lot less dramatic than calling someone a bald-faced liar.

posted by BionicRoachOctober 6, 2003 at 14:39

more... [ e ]

actually I see those as cut and dry.  It's cut and dry that a movie not made in the correct year is ineligeble and it's cut and dry that a movie with made up falsehoods is not a "non-fiction" movie and is not therefore a documentary

Here's a easier example to follow

In BFC, MM brings up the Kayla Rolland incident after which he says

MM: Just as he did after the Columbine shooting Charlton Heston showed up in Flint to have a big pro-gun rally.

Heston: "Freedom has never seen greater peril, nor needed you more urgently to come to her defense than now."

MM: Before he came to Flint, Heston was interviewed by the Georgetown Hoya about Kayla's death and even his own NRA website talked about it.

During that sequence he shows the website and highlights these words

It's clear he's trying to make it appear that the Heston appeared and said those things 48 hrs after the incident.  There's no other context those highlighted words could apply to.  BUT, if you have the movie and you pause it.  You'll see that it really says

It's about Bill Clinton appearing on "The Today Show" 48 hours after the incident.  It's this kind of lying that the movie is full of.  (note: click on either image for a full frame screen capture)

But, instead of discussing why BFC is not a documentary, here's a more interesting article about why it doesn't actually bring up any good points but only made me think it did.

posted by greggmanOctober 10, 2003 at 10:42

Use of word Technoscum [ e ]

Technoscum - A creature that has an affinity to the technical community that suggests innovations which are not applicable to solving real problems. One who pretends that they are knowledgeable about technical innovation but who knows very little about the tech matters. First used by Alexander Cohen, a high school student, in 1986 while working for a computer store in Wappingers Falls, NY The customer, technoscum, wished to purchase an Apple® LaserWriter® printer, and told Alexander how he invented the Postscript® language. The term, technoscum, rapidly spread through the computer community since it so aptly described a brand new class of people who felt inadequate in their everyday lives. The term continues with a claimed innovation of a very famous politician.

posted by AndrewMasselliMarch 31, 2008 at 9:48