![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
... bowling for columbine
Dec. 20th, 2002 11:36 pmWent to see Bowling for Columbine today with a bunch of friends. This is a movie I would like to see again. One part that has really struck a reaction out of me is the portion in which the filmmaker Michael Moore goes to Canada. He is attempting to compare American and Canadian cultures etc to understand our insane gun-death rate. He beings this segment with a series of New Yorkers describing what Canadians do -- and what they believe is entirely urban legends. But even more than that, there was a segment that had me twitching in my theater seat: Michael Moore learns from some residents of Toronto (I think it was Toronto, maybe Windsor, Ontario) that they do not lock their doors. Then he goes and tests this by opening several front doors in a residential neighborhood. In fact, the homes are not locked, so Moore ends up sticking his head unannounced into folk's foyers.
Ok, so we learn that the big-city Canadians leave their homes open, and the Americans have triple-locked doors. Perhaps we learn to believe the smarmy triteness of the coffee-sipping Toronto boy declaiming that when you lock your house, you aren't really locking away others, you are "locking yourself in." But what I mainly learned is that Michael Moore is an incredibly rude man.
No, that's not seriously all I learned, but I strongly do not approve of his actions in that neighborhood. He is persistent to the point of rudeness with Charlton Heston and with Dick Clark etc, which I do not object to. These are people who did something, and he wants to get answers out of them. The residents of that Toronto block did nothing to him -- he doesn't even know who they are. Although they chose to leave their homes accessible, that does not absolve the visitor of the obligation to respect the residents' space. To announce his presence with a knock (even if he followed with the knob-twist immediately) is part of that respect.
As for the rest of the points that Moore argues in the film, I feel that I should see the movie again before I debate them. I get the clear impression that the filmmaker has slanted most of the clips and perhaps some of the evidence. His main thesis is apparently that America has a disproportionately high level of gun violence in part because our mass media condition the populace into a constant state of fear or uneasiness. He also argues that Welfare/Workfare and other forms of what a sociologist might call institutional/structural violence are a further part of the reason. I do not think that Bowling for Columbine has fully proved the second connection, but the first is well-enough argued to feel plausible.
After film hung out at Bishop's Lounge with old friend and her roommate. Chatted it up with the Bearded Lady, the one who does piercings in P-Town. She's fun!
Ok, so we learn that the big-city Canadians leave their homes open, and the Americans have triple-locked doors. Perhaps we learn to believe the smarmy triteness of the coffee-sipping Toronto boy declaiming that when you lock your house, you aren't really locking away others, you are "locking yourself in." But what I mainly learned is that Michael Moore is an incredibly rude man.
No, that's not seriously all I learned, but I strongly do not approve of his actions in that neighborhood. He is persistent to the point of rudeness with Charlton Heston and with Dick Clark etc, which I do not object to. These are people who did something, and he wants to get answers out of them. The residents of that Toronto block did nothing to him -- he doesn't even know who they are. Although they chose to leave their homes accessible, that does not absolve the visitor of the obligation to respect the residents' space. To announce his presence with a knock (even if he followed with the knob-twist immediately) is part of that respect.
As for the rest of the points that Moore argues in the film, I feel that I should see the movie again before I debate them. I get the clear impression that the filmmaker has slanted most of the clips and perhaps some of the evidence. His main thesis is apparently that America has a disproportionately high level of gun violence in part because our mass media condition the populace into a constant state of fear or uneasiness. He also argues that Welfare/Workfare and other forms of what a sociologist might call institutional/structural violence are a further part of the reason. I do not think that Bowling for Columbine has fully proved the second connection, but the first is well-enough argued to feel plausible.
After film hung out at Bishop's Lounge with old friend and her roommate. Chatted it up with the Bearded Lady, the one who does piercings in P-Town. She's fun!
