The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Let's get the hard bit out of the way.. I'm going to level with you; "Bowling for Columbine" is a documentary. That's right a documentary. Woah there, did I hear someone say boring, or was it educational?
See, "Bowling for Columbine" isn't your average documentary. For a start it's got a fairly wide cinema release, though that's partly due to the fact that Potter and Bond are currently on general release and so cinema's tend only to screen those and their exact opposites. Secondly it's won awards in the film categories at festivals, and that's pretty rare. Finally it's by this guy called Michael Moore, a big fat ol' American comedian. He's basically who UK comedian Mark Thomas really really wants to be - an irreverant, brutally funny pursuer of corporations. Moore once, fantastically, took a choir of people who had lost their larynxs through smoking to Philip Morris' (manufacturers of Marlborough and friends) HQ and had them 'sing' "Tis the season to be merry" while holding a sign saying that they wished Philip Morris employees a Merry Christmas.
Shocking? Check
Irreverant? Check
Funny? In the pre-amble to the event, yes, and that's how Moore's documentaries work. He spends a while taking pot shots at his target and making cheap digs, which everyone laughs at, but then he'll go for the jugular and the serious point he's trying to make hits home. "Bowling for Columbine" is a perfect example of this technique; it's a halfway house between the absolute satire of Brasseye and the brutal exposé documentaries that occasionally crop up on the BBC, and it's all the better for it.
Moore starts off by slowly circling his opponent, making a few little jabs and then retreating. We begin in a bank that Moore has discovered offers a free rifle with every new account opened ("It says here 'have I ever been ajudged mentally deficient in relation to a criminal offence?' If I'm just normally mentally deficient is that okay?" "Yes sir") Moore's opening question manages to capture the utterly absurd essence of the attitude to guns in America: "Well, my first question is, Don't you think it's slightly dangerous giving out guns in a bank?" From then on we dive head long into a tour that takes us from McVey to Marilyn Manson, and from Columbine to Canada, all the while focusing on the central theme of guns.
Ever watched Twin Peaks? Well, in that you always knew that you were getting to the heart of the mystery, of the series when an episode touched on the black lodge. Moore's documentary proves more than anything else that the black heart of the gun issue is the culture of fear in the United States, the culture that tells you if you're fat you'll never be happy; if you fail at school you'll end up a bum; that crime is out of control and that you *need* guns. Apparently one state saw it's 40% reduction in crime met with a 600% increase in media reports on crime and an increase in gun sales as a result. You see the same thing in the media here; how many children are abducted by "paedophiles" each year? Under 10 I imagine, and yet the fear of the stranger, of the potential abductor is at such a height that concerned parents are shelling out on having their children fitted with tracking devices.
Ironically, it's one of the people right-wing America fears the most that raises this shrewd point, one Marilyn Manson. He actually emerges from the film in a far better light than all of the fundamentalists who try to work out why Columbine happened. Note that Manson was so reviled after Columbine that he cancelled the rest of his tour, which was moving on to Denver, as a mark of respect. The National Rifle Assocation purposefully went to Denver a week after the shooting and Charlton Heston stood at the podium and, while waving a rifle above his head, said "From my cold dead hands!". When asked what he would have said to the Columbine killers, Manson - the cause of Columbine if you believe the media - said "I wouldn't have said anything; I would have listened."
These points do go into very serious matters, but Moore still manages to move seamlessly into humour and back. One particularly funny episode involves him talking to a militia member on whose farm Timothy McVey lived for 3 months and practised making bombs. This guy was a complete nut-case, fulfilling every Hollywood stereotype, from random giggling to scary intensity; but Moore drew this gem out of him:
"Now wait a minute... The Constitution says you've got the right to bear arms. What do you think 'arms' means?
"Well it's not like these..." *waves arms* "It means we ought to have handguns if we want to."
"What about nuclear weapons? Should you be able to have weapons-grade plutonium?"
[pauses] "...Well I think that oughta be restricted." *giggles manically* "...There's a lot of wackos out there."
Perhaps some things shouldn't be funny, but that got a big laugh in the surprisingly sold-out 11pm showing I went to. The real skill of Moore can be seen though, when he can also bring people to the point of tears. Together with two Columbine victims, disabled in the massacre, Moore goes to Wal-Mart's HQ and they try and return the bullets with which they were shot - cue embarrassed PR people and much mumbling and back-tracking - and nothing happens. The next day they go back with about 40 news stations and Walmart agrees to stop selling ammunition. It's a beautiful thing to see.
Perhaps the most amusing part of the film is Moore's attempt to discover why Canada doesn't have the same gun crime problem as America, despite the same level of gun ownership and cultural influences. He doesn't get very far on that one but then no-one seems to be able to explain why America has so many more gun murders than the rest of the world. Everything gets blamed from her violent past, to violent movies, to Marilyn Manson but the best answer he can provide is the American media's obsession with fear, death and destruction.
Yes, Moore's approach is a little rough around the edges. He does miss sometimes; notably the interview with Charlton Heston, but that's more Heston's fault than his. However, it does manage to merge humour, tragedy and investigative journalism into one documentary with great success. Most importantly, he doesn't shove an opinion down your throat, nor does he start with an anti-gun premise; you are left to think about what he has shown and reach your own conclusion, and that's the way it should be.
"Bowling for Columbine" was most newspaper's selection for film of the week, despite the Potter and Bond releases. It wasn't out of cinematic snobbery, it was because Moore had made something genuinely inspired.
Make sure you catch this while it's on general release.
See, "Bowling for Columbine" isn't your average documentary. For a start it's got a fairly wide cinema release, though that's partly due to the fact that Potter and Bond are currently on general release and so cinema's tend only to screen those and their exact opposites. Secondly it's won awards in the film categories at festivals, and that's pretty rare. Finally it's by this guy called Michael Moore, a big fat ol' American comedian. He's basically who UK comedian Mark Thomas really really wants to be - an irreverant, brutally funny pursuer of corporations. Moore once, fantastically, took a choir of people who had lost their larynxs through smoking to Philip Morris' (manufacturers of Marlborough and friends) HQ and had them 'sing' "Tis the season to be merry" while holding a sign saying that they wished Philip Morris employees a Merry Christmas.
Shocking? Check
Irreverant? Check
Funny? In the pre-amble to the event, yes, and that's how Moore's documentaries work. He spends a while taking pot shots at his target and making cheap digs, which everyone laughs at, but then he'll go for the jugular and the serious point he's trying to make hits home. "Bowling for Columbine" is a perfect example of this technique; it's a halfway house between the absolute satire of Brasseye and the brutal exposé documentaries that occasionally crop up on the BBC, and it's all the better for it.
Moore starts off by slowly circling his opponent, making a few little jabs and then retreating. We begin in a bank that Moore has discovered offers a free rifle with every new account opened ("It says here 'have I ever been ajudged mentally deficient in relation to a criminal offence?' If I'm just normally mentally deficient is that okay?" "Yes sir") Moore's opening question manages to capture the utterly absurd essence of the attitude to guns in America: "Well, my first question is, Don't you think it's slightly dangerous giving out guns in a bank?" From then on we dive head long into a tour that takes us from McVey to Marilyn Manson, and from Columbine to Canada, all the while focusing on the central theme of guns.
Ever watched Twin Peaks? Well, in that you always knew that you were getting to the heart of the mystery, of the series when an episode touched on the black lodge. Moore's documentary proves more than anything else that the black heart of the gun issue is the culture of fear in the United States, the culture that tells you if you're fat you'll never be happy; if you fail at school you'll end up a bum; that crime is out of control and that you *need* guns. Apparently one state saw it's 40% reduction in crime met with a 600% increase in media reports on crime and an increase in gun sales as a result. You see the same thing in the media here; how many children are abducted by "paedophiles" each year? Under 10 I imagine, and yet the fear of the stranger, of the potential abductor is at such a height that concerned parents are shelling out on having their children fitted with tracking devices.
Ironically, it's one of the people right-wing America fears the most that raises this shrewd point, one Marilyn Manson. He actually emerges from the film in a far better light than all of the fundamentalists who try to work out why Columbine happened. Note that Manson was so reviled after Columbine that he cancelled the rest of his tour, which was moving on to Denver, as a mark of respect. The National Rifle Assocation purposefully went to Denver a week after the shooting and Charlton Heston stood at the podium and, while waving a rifle above his head, said "From my cold dead hands!". When asked what he would have said to the Columbine killers, Manson - the cause of Columbine if you believe the media - said "I wouldn't have said anything; I would have listened."
These points do go into very serious matters, but Moore still manages to move seamlessly into humour and back. One particularly funny episode involves him talking to a militia member on whose farm Timothy McVey lived for 3 months and practised making bombs. This guy was a complete nut-case, fulfilling every Hollywood stereotype, from random giggling to scary intensity; but Moore drew this gem out of him:
"Now wait a minute... The Constitution says you've got the right to bear arms. What do you think 'arms' means?
"Well it's not like these..." *waves arms* "It means we ought to have handguns if we want to."
"What about nuclear weapons? Should you be able to have weapons-grade plutonium?"
[pauses] "...Well I think that oughta be restricted." *giggles manically* "...There's a lot of wackos out there."
Perhaps some things shouldn't be funny, but that got a big laugh in the surprisingly sold-out 11pm showing I went to. The real skill of Moore can be seen though, when he can also bring people to the point of tears. Together with two Columbine victims, disabled in the massacre, Moore goes to Wal-Mart's HQ and they try and return the bullets with which they were shot - cue embarrassed PR people and much mumbling and back-tracking - and nothing happens. The next day they go back with about 40 news stations and Walmart agrees to stop selling ammunition. It's a beautiful thing to see.
Perhaps the most amusing part of the film is Moore's attempt to discover why Canada doesn't have the same gun crime problem as America, despite the same level of gun ownership and cultural influences. He doesn't get very far on that one but then no-one seems to be able to explain why America has so many more gun murders than the rest of the world. Everything gets blamed from her violent past, to violent movies, to Marilyn Manson but the best answer he can provide is the American media's obsession with fear, death and destruction.
Yes, Moore's approach is a little rough around the edges. He does miss sometimes; notably the interview with Charlton Heston, but that's more Heston's fault than his. However, it does manage to merge humour, tragedy and investigative journalism into one documentary with great success. Most importantly, he doesn't shove an opinion down your throat, nor does he start with an anti-gun premise; you are left to think about what he has shown and reach your own conclusion, and that's the way it should be.
"Bowling for Columbine" was most newspaper's selection for film of the week, despite the Potter and Bond releases. It wasn't out of cinematic snobbery, it was because Moore had made something genuinely inspired.
Make sure you catch this while it's on general release.
Page:
I couldn't help but laugh at Goaty's sigh...
(Sorry, but I didn't actually read the topic. But I will.) The interesting thing is that it's made by an American. On Belldandy's point on a similar documentary about Britain, the truth is, America will always be stereotyped as the stupid society in Western culture, so, unfortunately, a similar documentary based on England wouldn't be as popular here. At times, Britain's stereotyped as the posh Western country.
But then again, not everyone's in favour of thinking Bowling for Columbine's acceptable.
(Sorry, but I didn't actually read the topic. But I will.) The interesting thing is that it's made by an American. On Belldandy's point on a similar documentary about Britain, the truth is, America will always be stereotyped as the stupid society in Western culture, so, unfortunately, a similar documentary based on England wouldn't be as popular here. At times, Britain's stereotyped as the posh Western country.
But then again, not everyone's in favour of thinking Bowling for Columbine's acceptable.
Oops
Now where did I say it was anti american eh ? I didn't, you assumed. Did I say that you could not praise this documentary ? No.
I simply pointed out that many like to draw attention to another country's problems, whilst ignoring those in their own, which I think is a fair and valid point, don't you ?
Anyone is entitled to criticise their own government, whether it is Micheal Moore or me, or you, or whoever. That's the whole point of democracy isn't it ? I'm allowed to disagree with you, and there's nothing you can do to stop me disagreeing.
The documentary itself risks becoming another traffic - which was a film, not a documentary, I know - where people go see it and think just seeing it instantly qualifies them as knowledgeable and intelligent on the subject. Same happened with Traffic - people went to see it and many assumed it was the whole drugs problem in a nutshell, which it wasn't, just a few views on it.
Funny and absurd ? But thats how those outside America do view it. An overwhelming majority of Americans do no oppose gun ownership, why ? There has to be a reason. In the UK, I would hazard a guess there are, in proportion, just as many guns because a large majority are unregistered and illegal in all ways. Nottingham, where I live, is currently having at least 1 -3 shootings a week. We have armed patrols going around many parts of the city. The same can be said, to lesser and greater degrees, about the rest of the countries major cities. Only two weeks ago, in Nottingham, a woman walking out of a club was shot with a single bullet straight through the head in what is assumed to be a drugs hit. A week ago, another man was found with multiple gun shots dead in his flat after another suspected hit. And we're bothered about America ?
~~Belldandy~~
I simply pointed out that many like to draw attention to another country's problems, whilst ignoring those in their own, which I think is a fair and valid point, don't you ?
Anyone is entitled to criticise their own government, whether it is Micheal Moore or me, or you, or whoever. That's the whole point of democracy isn't it ? I'm allowed to disagree with you, and there's nothing you can do to stop me disagreeing.
The documentary itself risks becoming another traffic - which was a film, not a documentary, I know - where people go see it and think just seeing it instantly qualifies them as knowledgeable and intelligent on the subject. Same happened with Traffic - people went to see it and many assumed it was the whole drugs problem in a nutshell, which it wasn't, just a few views on it.
Funny and absurd ? But thats how those outside America do view it. An overwhelming majority of Americans do no oppose gun ownership, why ? There has to be a reason. In the UK, I would hazard a guess there are, in proportion, just as many guns because a large majority are unregistered and illegal in all ways. Nottingham, where I live, is currently having at least 1 -3 shootings a week. We have armed patrols going around many parts of the city. The same can be said, to lesser and greater degrees, about the rest of the countries major cities. Only two weeks ago, in Nottingham, a woman walking out of a club was shot with a single bullet straight through the head in what is assumed to be a drugs hit. A week ago, another man was found with multiple gun shots dead in his flat after another suspected hit. And we're bothered about America ?
~~Belldandy~~
Now where did I say it was anti american eh ? I didn't, you assumed. Did I say that you could not praise this documentary ? No.
I simply pointed out that many like to draw attention to another country's problems, whilst ignoring those in their own, which I think is a fair and valid point, don't you ?
Anyone is entitled to criticise their own government, whether it is Micheal Moore or me, or you, or whoever. That's the whole point of democracy isn't it ? I'm allowed to disagree with you, and there's nothing you can do to stop me disagreeing.
The documentary itself risks becoming another traffic - which was a film, not a documentary, I know - where people go see it and think just seeing it instantly qualifies them as knowledgeable and intelligent on the subject. Same happened with Traffic - people went to see it and many assumed it was the whole drugs problem in a nutshell, which it wasn't, just a few views on it.
Funny and absurd ? But thats how those outside America do view it. An overwhelming majority of Americans do no oppose gun ownership, why ? There has to be a reason. In the UK, I would hazard a guess there are, in proportion, just as many guns because a large majority are unregistered and illegal in all ways. Nottingham, where I live, is currently having at least 1 -3 shootings a week. We have armed patrols going around many parts of the city. The same can be said, to lesser and greater degrees, about the rest of the countries major cities. Only two weeks ago, in Nottingham, a woman walking out of a club was shot with a single bullet straight through the head in what is assumed to be a drugs hit. A week ago, another man was found with multiple gun shots dead in his flat after another suspected hit. And we're bothered about America ?
~~Belldandy~~
I simply pointed out that many like to draw attention to another country's problems, whilst ignoring those in their own, which I think is a fair and valid point, don't you ?
Anyone is entitled to criticise their own government, whether it is Micheal Moore or me, or you, or whoever. That's the whole point of democracy isn't it ? I'm allowed to disagree with you, and there's nothing you can do to stop me disagreeing.
The documentary itself risks becoming another traffic - which was a film, not a documentary, I know - where people go see it and think just seeing it instantly qualifies them as knowledgeable and intelligent on the subject. Same happened with Traffic - people went to see it and many assumed it was the whole drugs problem in a nutshell, which it wasn't, just a few views on it.
Funny and absurd ? But thats how those outside America do view it. An overwhelming majority of Americans do no oppose gun ownership, why ? There has to be a reason. In the UK, I would hazard a guess there are, in proportion, just as many guns because a large majority are unregistered and illegal in all ways. Nottingham, where I live, is currently having at least 1 -3 shootings a week. We have armed patrols going around many parts of the city. The same can be said, to lesser and greater degrees, about the rest of the countries major cities. Only two weeks ago, in Nottingham, a woman walking out of a club was shot with a single bullet straight through the head in what is assumed to be a drugs hit. A week ago, another man was found with multiple gun shots dead in his flat after another suspected hit. And we're bothered about America ?
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Would a film criticising an aspect of British culture do so well, or
> get such good reviews / media attention ? Nope.
Wow. Great premise there. I am not allowed to praise Michael Moore's documentary because I was not aware of a C4 documentary? Or was it that the documentary was not allowed to be well-received because it picks up on a cultural oddity?
The thing is your sacred cow, that great bastion of liberty and morality, the US of A, has the highest gun murder rates in the world. And that's picking up on something "Funny or absurd" about their culture? Moore reels off the statistics; countries like the UK, Germany and Australia clock in at around 150 gun murders a year, the USA has 11,000+.
Moore himself is an American and sometime member of the NRA, making a documentary about why his country seems to have such an obsession with the gun. One person raises the point that if the second amendment is justified America would be the safest country in the world, which it is not.
The reason, belldandy, that this documentary has received widespread acclaim and, more remarkably, a general release has nothing to do with anti-Americanism. It is not anti-American. What it actually is, is funny, informative, well-made and above all thought-provoking. Equally it hit screens across the country because it came out in the same week as Potter and Bond - and studios only release complete anti-blockbusters when the real heavy hitters come out. As such newspapers and TV shows are more inclined to select the intelligent anti-blockbuster as film of the week than the cash-cow blockbuster (see the critical success of the Polish Bride released at the same time as the Phantom Menace).
Or perhaps you've seen it and were shocked to see an American criticising his country's actions in Chile, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Nicaragua et al?
How dare he.
How dare he observe that more bombs were dropped on Kosovo than at any other point in that war on the day of the Columbine massacre. Did Clinton massacre people? Oh no, not him, he *liberated* them with remorse for the collateral damage. Then again at least he knew where Kosovo was on a map.
> Would a film criticising an aspect of British culture do so well, or
> get such good reviews / media attention ? Nope.
Wow. Great premise there. I am not allowed to praise Michael Moore's documentary because I was not aware of a C4 documentary? Or was it that the documentary was not allowed to be well-received because it picks up on a cultural oddity?
The thing is your sacred cow, that great bastion of liberty and morality, the US of A, has the highest gun murder rates in the world. And that's picking up on something "Funny or absurd" about their culture? Moore reels off the statistics; countries like the UK, Germany and Australia clock in at around 150 gun murders a year, the USA has 11,000+.
Moore himself is an American and sometime member of the NRA, making a documentary about why his country seems to have such an obsession with the gun. One person raises the point that if the second amendment is justified America would be the safest country in the world, which it is not.
The reason, belldandy, that this documentary has received widespread acclaim and, more remarkably, a general release has nothing to do with anti-Americanism. It is not anti-American. What it actually is, is funny, informative, well-made and above all thought-provoking. Equally it hit screens across the country because it came out in the same week as Potter and Bond - and studios only release complete anti-blockbusters when the real heavy hitters come out. As such newspapers and TV shows are more inclined to select the intelligent anti-blockbuster as film of the week than the cash-cow blockbuster (see the critical success of the Polish Bride released at the same time as the Phantom Menace).
Or perhaps you've seen it and were shocked to see an American criticising his country's actions in Chile, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Nicaragua et al?
How dare he.
How dare he observe that more bombs were dropped on Kosovo than at any other point in that war on the day of the Columbine massacre. Did Clinton massacre people? Oh no, not him, he *liberated* them with remorse for the collateral damage. Then again at least he knew where Kosovo was on a map.
Belldandy wrote:
> Would a film criticising an aspect of British culture do so well, or
> get such good reviews / media attention ? Nope.
>
> A month or so back there was something on C4 where a reported followed
> this 18 year old who was the leader of the youth BNP in Britain,
> without telling this guy he was Jewish. What was recorded, and shown,
> was massively shocking to any right thinking person, yet the issues it
> raised are barely in the news, and if it continues to do so the whole
> thing will end up exploding, as Burnley shows.
>
> And I bet a fair few people reading hae no clue what I'm on about, but
> you live here !
I watched that show, and being Jewish myself I found it quite unsettling how many people believe getting rid of 'non-whites' is the answer to lack of jobs. There is a problem with the welfare Britain is giving, but it is down to swindlers and people sitting at home all day rather than geniune immigrants escaping from war and working over here.
Michael Moore is an American and makes American films which happen to be critically acclaimed. If a Brit did the same thing with films as good, of course it'd get the same exposure, perhaps more so as the British film industry needs all the help it can possibly get. To think otherwise is foolish.
And well done for the GAD, I thought it might be in with a chance.
> Would a film criticising an aspect of British culture do so well, or
> get such good reviews / media attention ? Nope.
>
> A month or so back there was something on C4 where a reported followed
> this 18 year old who was the leader of the youth BNP in Britain,
> without telling this guy he was Jewish. What was recorded, and shown,
> was massively shocking to any right thinking person, yet the issues it
> raised are barely in the news, and if it continues to do so the whole
> thing will end up exploding, as Burnley shows.
>
> And I bet a fair few people reading hae no clue what I'm on about, but
> you live here !
I watched that show, and being Jewish myself I found it quite unsettling how many people believe getting rid of 'non-whites' is the answer to lack of jobs. There is a problem with the welfare Britain is giving, but it is down to swindlers and people sitting at home all day rather than geniune immigrants escaping from war and working over here.
Michael Moore is an American and makes American films which happen to be critically acclaimed. If a Brit did the same thing with films as good, of course it'd get the same exposure, perhaps more so as the British film industry needs all the help it can possibly get. To think otherwise is foolish.
And well done for the GAD, I thought it might be in with a chance.
*sigh*
If you look at any country then you can find something about it's culture which seems really funny and absurd to people in another.
Would a film criticising an aspect of British culture do so well, or get such good reviews / media attention ? Nope.
A month or so back there was something on C4 where a reported followed this 18 year old who was the leader of the youth BNP in Britain, without telling this guy he was Jewish. What was recorded, and shown, was massively shocking to any right thinking person, yet the issues it raised are barely in the news, and if it continues to do so the whole thing will end up exploding, as Burnley shows.
And I bet a fair few people reading hae no clue what I'm on about, but you live here ! But you're all experts on American gun culture ? Okay....
~~Belldandy~~
Would a film criticising an aspect of British culture do so well, or get such good reviews / media attention ? Nope.
A month or so back there was something on C4 where a reported followed this 18 year old who was the leader of the youth BNP in Britain, without telling this guy he was Jewish. What was recorded, and shown, was massively shocking to any right thinking person, yet the issues it raised are barely in the news, and if it continues to do so the whole thing will end up exploding, as Burnley shows.
And I bet a fair few people reading hae no clue what I'm on about, but you live here ! But you're all experts on American gun culture ? Okay....
~~Belldandy~~
I'd never heard of this guy and then all of a sudden he's on Johnny Vaughan and some other show and he's taken over the world and I'm thinking "How has my dad never told me how I should grow up to be him?".
He's exactly the kind of person my dad would like, if you know what I mean. He thinks America is stupid, and blah blah. The film looks very interesting, but I'd rather watch LOTR in the cinema. This can wait for video.
He's exactly the kind of person my dad would like, if you know what I mean. He thinks America is stupid, and blah blah. The film looks very interesting, but I'd rather watch LOTR in the cinema. This can wait for video.
Seeing it next weekend, hopefully. I was busy being stuck at the M4 this weekend.
Page: