Fwd: Michael Moore

[Don Smith <dasmith@rotse2.physics.lsa.umich.edu>]

I don't think this went through for some reason, so I thought I would try
again...

----- Forwarded message from Don Smith <donaldas@umich.edu> -----

> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:09:57 -0500
> From: Don Smith <donaldas@umich.edu>
> To: Over the Rhine List <Over-the-Rhine@actwin.com>
> Subject: Michael Moore
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
> 
> Howdy,
> 
> > my biggest problem with BFC is that he brings up the question of America's
> > media promoting fear, and points out that maybe it's not the presence of guns
> > but rather a fearful and violent society which is the culprit, then moves on
> > as if he never brought it up and once more makes the film about "guns=evil,"
> > indicating that was probably his intention all along.
> 
> I don't see that.  Could you explain in more detail?  From what I've read,
> Moore started out expecting to show how "lots of guns = lots of deaths by
> guns", but found to his own surprise that the story is more complicated than
> that.  E.g. 7 million guns in 10 million Canadian households and relatively
> small numbers of deaths by gunfire.  So he reworked what he was doing to make
> it more an exploration of the question rather than pushing a particular answer,
> and although he comes down in support of Grossman's thesis (and I recommend
> _The Culture of Fear_ for those who are curious.  It's a very interesting
> book.), I wouldn't say the film promotes a "guns=evil" standpoint.  I think
> it's actually Moore's most powerful work yet, precisely because he is exploring
> different possibilities rather than beating a single drum.  In the end, he
> doesn't have a simple answer, except that we need to chill out and stop
> shooting each other.  :-)
> 
> Now, that said, all the Canadians *I* know lock their house doors, and I know a
> fair number of Americans who do not.  I have no idea if he staged that bit
> about checking random house doors, but certainly my friends in Toronto lock
> their doors.  Peter?  :-)
> 
> So, I like Michael Moore, but that doesn't mean I mindlessly accept what he
> says.  I think he really blew his opportunity when talking to Charlton Heston
> -- instead of taking the opportunity to really get to the heart of the issues,
> he chose to browbeat the guy and ask unanswerable questions about little kids
> being shot.  I mean, maybe Heston said some very eloquent things that ended up
> on the cutting room floor, but it's too bad that interview couldn't have looked
> like the Marilyn Manson interview, which was great.  I mean, can it really be
> true that the spokesperson for the NRA has never thought through these issues?
> Maybe that's so, but I thought Moore just made himself look like a bully when
> he could have elicited a much more thoughtful and in-depth treatment of the
> subject.
> 
> On the other hand, every king needs a fool to make sure he's actually wearing
> clothes, and I'm glad there's a fly like Moore in the ointment, if only to
> shake things up and get people talking about these things.
> 
> And with that horrendously mixed metaphor, I have to get back to work,
> -- 
> Don Smith                           Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment
> donaldas@umich.edu                                http://www.rotse.net/dasmith/
> 

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Don Smith                           Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment
donaldas@umich.edu                                http://www.rotse.net/dasmith/

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/