Anti-Gun film wins American Screenwriters Guild Award

[Kurashima]

Bowling for Columbine, the anti-gun documentary by satirist Michael Moore, has won best original screenplay in the Writers Guild of America's awards.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/2833677.stm

This absoloutely fascinated me. Not only has the film taken a huge amount of money (the largest amount ever for a Documentary) , but it beat off Oscar contenders My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Antwone Fisher, Far From Heaven, and Gangs of New York to win this prize.

Thats nothing short of astonishing.

[Muslim]

this fella has an excellent who
hes funneh and neat, likes to put arrogant people in embaracing situations
hes mean

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Muslim
this fella has an excellent who
hes funneh and neat, likes to put arrogant people in embaracing situations
hes mean

he's adept at handling his own kind. And as pointed out previously, BFC wasn't anti-gun.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Muslim
[he] likes to put arrogant people in embaracing situations

While I like Michael Moore, I'm not sure what this particular tactic does aside from being cringe worthy to watch.

[Kurashima]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
he's adept at handling his own kind. And as pointed out previously, BFC wasn't anti-gun.

How exactly would you define taking a victim of columbine , with a bullet still embedded in them , to visit Charlton Heston , Chairman of the NRA?

Im thinking of a more "Anti-Gun" statement that i could make, and you know what , im all outta ideas.

[Dante Hicks]

I still haven't seen the movie (my flat mates got it on his HDD, but the twat has got ZoneAlarm with stupid settings on at the moment) but from what I've heard it's anti-gun culture. Whether this makes it anti-gun per se is another matter.

[Kegluneq]

Well, it's definately against the American gun culture, and keenly advocates gun control. It doesn't really condemn the guns themselves, though.

the fat man in it even says that he likes guns.

[WarFalcon]

The film was a radical left wing propaganda piece, so of course its going to win awards from the far left hollywood elite.

[Kegluneq]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
The film was a radical left wing propaganda piece, so of course its going to win awards from the far left hollywood elite.

Predictable response. Presumably the fact that he attacks Clinton as much as Bush (if not more) alerted you to this fact? I don't recall gun control being fundamental to either left or right wing ideology...

[G_frog]

Originally posted by Kurashima
How exactly would you define taking a victim of columbine , with a bullet still embedded in them , to visit Charlton Heston , Chairman of the NRA?

Looked at in context it was an attack on the NRA as a symptom of, and contributing factor to, current american culture. The question wasn't 'why did these kids have guns?', but rather 'why should they choose to use them in this manner?'.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
The film was a radical left wing propaganda piece, so of course its going to win awards from the far left hollywood elite.

The main thrust of the piece was a more responsible attitude by corporations (currently being advocated in the pages of The Economist, which is hardly 'radical left') and the television news networks (you surely can't contend they are bastions of deep, thoughtful, balanced coverage), and a better attitude to one's neighbours.

The main negative connotations of 'propaganda' concern it being doctrinal or false; the film was demonstrably non-doctrinal and so far has not been shown to be false. This leaves it as 'disemination of information by an interested party' (source, OED online) which is what it claimed to be and is hardly a condemnation.

Can you show that the 'hollywood elite' are 'far left'? Can you demonstrate a causal relationship with their award programs?

Or are you integrating everything that happens into a world-view based on false premises?

[W]

I agree with Giant_frog

[MrL_JaKiri]

Giles The Frog of The_TTP_Planet surely

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by G_frog
The question wasn't 'why did these kids have guns?', but rather 'why should they choose to use them in this manner?'.

That indeed is the question. A whole lot of people in America own guns; very, very few of them go on shooting sprees.

[djbass]

Originally posted by Kurashima
This absoloutely fascinated me. Not only has the film taken a huge amount of money (the largest amount ever for a Documentary) , but it beat off Oscar contenders My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Antwone Fisher, Far From Heaven, and Gangs of New York to win this prize.

Thats nothing short of astonishing.

Not really, all except possibly the last movie you mentioned should never have even made it to the cinema yet alone received nominations.

=[DJ Bass]=

Michael moore is a wonderfull and caring human being.
anybody who thinks otherwise, should watch his show the awfull truth.
I was specially touched of the way he helped a dying man force his health insurance Humana ( a big health insurance company) to pay for his 57000 $ pancreas operation by going to the company and staging the mans funeral.
After bringing shame to those greedy bastardos they even made it firm policy to pay for all pancreas operations.
Now there is a man that makes a difference.
I can understand how right wing radicals like warfalcon who only understand egoism and brute force can despise him.
I for one admire the man very deeply.

[Nodrog]

http://www.lileks.com/writings/screed/moore.html

[Snurx]

I like Moore, but the movie was not anti-gun. As he pointed out, there are about as many guns in Canada, but a lot less gun-crimes and murders. He critizizes the culture of guns, as far as i could "grasp".

Moore is a "good" guy, in my book, although, sometimes, he goes over the line.


PS Warfalcon, welcome back!

[Pyr0 MK III]

Originally posted by Snurx
PS Warfalcon, welcome back!

Don't welcome tubes

Originally posted by Pyr0 MK III
Don't welcome tubes

why not??

I think pople like warfalcon are important.
they remind us of our evil potentials.

Originally posted by Nodrog
http://www.lileks.com/writings/screed/moore.html

Oh comon nod, that article is really one piece of crap.
why do you keep posting it?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
The film was a radical left wing propaganda piece, so of course its going to win awards from the far left hollywood elite.

Ignoring the fantasy of Hollywood being "far left" (are they for the socialisation of the means of produciton?) the Writers Guild of America cannot really be said to be representative of the elite.

btw former winners in this category have included :

- You Can Count on Me
- Gosford Park
- Shakespeare in Love
- As Good as it Gets
- Fargo
- Braveheart

So it's not like every it's usual that the winner is a political film (unless you count Braveheart...)

Originally posted by Nodrog
http://www.lileks.com/writings/screed/moore.html

From the article :
"Moore’s book is “Stupid White Men,” a blistering indictment of fellow multimillionaires who behave in ways Mr. Moore finds objectionable. It’s apparently selling well, and good for him; I always enjoy seeing class warriors kicked into the 38% tax bracket."

Wasn't it you that posted a cartoon rightly ridiculing this type of argument?

[Chrism]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
The film was a radical left wing propaganda piece, so of course its going to win awards from the far left hollywood elite.

'heh'

That's really really funny

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
Oh comon nod, that article is really one piece of crap.
why do you keep posting it?

It's funny and amuses me.

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
The film was a radical left wing propaganda piece, so of course its going to win awards from the far left hollywood elite.

------
Yes, Hollywood even made Pearl Harbour, clearly radical left wing propaganda. Bloody bolsheviks....

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Kegluneq
Predictable response. Presumably the fact that he attacks Clinton as much as Bush (if not more) alerted you to this fact? I don't recall gun control being fundamental to either left or right wing ideology...

I attack Bush using my right wing ideology just as that movie made a few remarks on Clinton despite its vast left wing bias.
Gun control is a fundamental part of the left wing's agenda, but they try to play it down because it kills them at the polls.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Calling Clinton left wing is like calling IDS verbose and witty.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
I attack Bush using my right wing ideology just as that movie made a few remarks on Clinton despite its vast left wing bias.
Gun control is a fundamental part of the left wing's agenda, but they try to play it down because it kills them at the polls.

The movie did not advocate gun control. Have you even seen it? Have you even read this thread?

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by G_frog
The main thrust of the piece was a more responsible attitude by corporations (currently being advocated in the pages of The Economist, which is hardly 'radical left') and the television news networks (you surely can't contend they are bastions of deep, thoughtful, balanced coverage), and a better attitude to one's neighbours.

1. Buzz words for more regulation on business
2. The news media reports that which is of public interest. This includes murders, robberies, bad behavior by bad people, public security alerts, etc News agencies are mostly approached like businesses, ie give the people what they want. I for one like the free market deciding whats on the nightly news.
3. Better attitudes towards ones neighbors is so subjective that without a more precise defination of what you're trying to say there is really nothing I can comment on. I will say that my idea of a good neighbor is probably vastly different from that movie's idea of a good neighbor.

The main negative connotations of 'propaganda' concern it being doctrinal or false; the film was demonstrably non-doctrinal and so far has not been shown to be false. This leaves it as 'disemination of information by an interested party' (source, OED online) which is what it claimed to be and is hardly a condemnation.

It pushed an anti-gun, anti-business message, using all the common themes you hear from the local DNC. It was full of historical flaws in the form of a cute little cartoon. It was a left wing propaganda piece if ever there was one.

Can you show that the 'hollywood elite' are 'far left'? Can you demonstrate a causal relationship with their award programs?

Hollywood traditionally votes Democrat and spends more money on Democrat campaigns than Republican ones (though they do double dip somewhat for obvious reasons). Also, Democrats have a long history, and a well known history, of voting with left wing candidates\causes.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
Michael moore is a wonderfull and caring human being.
anybody who thinks otherwise, should watch his show the awfull truth.
I was specially touched of the way he helped a dying man force his health insurance Humana ( a big health insurance company) to pay for his 57000 $ pancreas operation by going to the company and staging the mans funeral.
After bringing shame to those greedy bastardos they even made it firm policy to pay for all pancreas operations.
Now there is a man that makes a difference.
I can understand how right wing radicals like warfalcon who only understand egoism and brute force can despise him.
I for one admire the man very deeply.

There are more people who need organs than there are organs to give those people. I wonder who was condemned to die so that Mr. Moore could 'save' one person for his own PR profit?

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by G_frog
The movie did not advocate gun control. Have you even seen it? Have you even read this thread?

Yes I saw the movie

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
Also, Democrats have a long history, and a well known history, of voting with left wing candidates\causes.

Like that well known right wing crackpot, Al Gore?

He's very socialistic!

Originally posted by WarFalcon
There are more people who need organs than there are organs to give those people. I wonder who was condemned to die so that Mr. Moore could 'save' one person for his own PR profit?

now this i really do not understand.
the man had a full health care coverage with humana.
they refused to pay for his operation on base of some technicality and were delaying the inverstigation of the mans claim hoping for him to die before they would be forced to pay the 57000$ .
And somehow you turn this all around and make michael moore the bad guy??
what kind of logic is that??
And its not like the man got first in the list of donation recipants.
The only thing moore did was embarass Humana to the level that they had to pay for the operation. He didnt put the man first on the list.
your logic is very weird and confusing
or maybe i misuderstood.
maybe what you mean is that only people who are rich enough to afford it or lucky enough to have insurances with companies that are not as evil as humana should get on the list and the rest should die because maybe some corporate boss would have 57000$ less in his pocket and that hurt the economy or something like that.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
now this i really do not understand.
the man had a full health care coverage with humana.
they refused to pay for his operation on base of some technicality and were delaying the inverstigation of the mans claim hoping for him to die before they would be forced to pay the 57000$ .
And somehow you turn this all around and make michael moore the bad guy??
what kind of logic is that??
And its not like the man got first in the list of donation recipants.
The only thing moore did was embarass Humana to the level that they had to pay for the operation. He didnt put the man first on the list.
your logic is very weird and confusing.

The way I read it, the man wasn't elegiable for a transplant, Moore got him one. That means someone else didn't get one. I might be mistaken, its hard to get info on such situations because both sides are so baised and vague.

Originally posted by WarFalcon
The way I read it, the man wasn't elegiable for a transplant, Moore got him one. That means someone else didn't get one. I might be mistaken, its hard to get info on such situations because both sides are so baised and vague.

nono the man was elegiable for a tranplant . he had full healthcare.
Humana didnt wanna pay because they didnt want to lose 57000$.
After Moores actions they agreed to pay for all pancreas tranplantations of their customer.

Originally posted by WarFalcon
.



It pushed an anti-gun, anti-business message, using all the common themes you hear from the local DNC. It was full of historical flaws in the form of a cute little cartoon. It was a left wing propaganda piece if ever there was one.



.

That cute little cartoon was full of historical flaws.
it was to make it funny. and it was very funny.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
1. Buzz words for more regulation on business
2. The news media reports that which is of public interest. This includes murders, robberies, bad behavior by bad people, public security alerts, etc News agencies are mostly approached like businesses, ie give the people what they want. I for one like the free market deciding whats on the nightly news.
3. Better attitudes towards ones neighbors is so subjective that without a more precise defination of what you're trying to say there is really nothing I can comment on. I will say that my idea of a good neighbor is probably vastly different from that movie's idea of a good neighbor.

1. Yes they are buzz words. But they are not empty of semantic content, and they are not buzzing around the radical left institutions you fingered.
2. Firstly, meeting demand does not absolve one of moral responsibility. Secondarily, the media form part of the social background which not only responds to but also creates demand. These points were covered in the film.
3. I meant attitudes as suggested in the film, i.e. mutually trusting and supportive relationships. Could you be specific as to what is wrong with these, and what you advocate?

Originally posted by WarFalcon
It pushed an anti-gun, anti-business message, using all the common themes you hear from the local DNC. It was full of historical flaws in the form of a cute little cartoon. It was a left wing propaganda piece if ever there was one.

It was critical of specific business, I will admit that. It did not generalise. It was not anti-gun, hence the segment on canada.

The fact that more than one person holds an opinion demonstrates neither that they are allied, nor that the opinion is wrong.

Can you stipulate specific historical flaws?

I agreed that it was propaganda, but explained why it did not have the negative qualities normally associated with the term.

Whether it was left wing or not is irrelevant.

Originally posted by WarFalcon
Hollywood traditionally votes Democrat and spends more money on Democrat campaigns than Republican ones (though they do double dip somewhat for obvious reasons). Also, Democrats have a long history, and a well known history, of voting with left wing candidates\causes.

Sources please?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
Hollywood traditionally votes Democrat and spends more money on Democrat campaigns than Republican ones (though they do double dip somewhat for obvious reasons). Also, Democrats have a long history, and a well known history, of voting with left wing candidates\causes.

That's not what you said though. Yes, "Hollywood" (whomever they are, on average) probably vote Democrat more than Republican. But can even you suggest that the Democrats are far-left? Saying that Hollywood is pro-Democrat is one thing, but "far-left" is utterly ludicrous.

The only genuinely leftist films I can think of (that are American) off the top of my head are Warren Beaty's "Reds" and the brilliant "Salt of the Earth". And I don't think either of them came from the established studio system anyway. You'd think that genuine far-leftists who are also owners of the means of production could do a better job.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
nono the man was elegiable for a tranplant . he had full healthcare.
Humana didnt wanna pay because they didnt want to lose 57000$.
After Moores actions they agreed to pay for all pancreas tranplantations of their customer.

So moore says, is there any way to verify that story instead of the version I heard?

[wu_trax]

Hi WF !!!! i already thought you were gone nice to see you here again i was already worried you ended up in one of bushs secret political reeducation camps

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
So moore says, is there any way to verify that story instead of the version I heard?

http://www.dogeatdogfilms.com/tv/aw/humana.html

Although, to be fair I've never heard of " Broward Daily Business Review" so I've no idea how credible they are.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by G_frog
1. Yes they are buzz words. But they are not empty of semantic content, and they are not buzzing around the radical left institutions you fingered.
2. Firstly, meeting demand does not absolve one of moral responsibility. Secondarily, the media form part of the social background which not only responds to but also creates demand. These points were covered in the film.
3. I meant attitudes as suggested in the film, i.e. mutually trusting and supportive relationships. Could you be specific as to what is wrong with these, and what you advocate?

1. Who, besides the left, wants to heavily regulate business?
2. 'Moral responsibility' doesn't mean squat. Such a highly subjective term cannot be realistically debated. What I feel is moral is likely to be utterly different than what you think is moral, in this context.
3. Thats still too vague. More over, thats a societial issue, one which is utterly unenforcable. I don't have to trust you if I don't want to. Someone coming out and saying 'I support common trust' might sound good, but it means nothing.

It was critical of specific business, I will admit that. It did not generalise. It was not anti-gun, hence the segment on canada.

What about the segments on K-Mart, Heston, etc

The fact that more than one person holds an opinion demonstrates neither that they are allied, nor that the opinion is wrong.

I suppose not, but it draws an ideological line in the sand, so to speak.

Can you stipulate specific historical flaws?

I'd have to go back over it and take notes to get most of them, its been a while since I watched it. m.ar.d might be able to point out some of them since he seems to remember them too

I agreed that it was propaganda, but explained why it did not have the negative qualities normally associated with the term.

this matters...how?

Whether it was left wing or not is irrelevant.

it establishes, actually further confirms, the left wing's anti business, anti-gun, (anti-america) agenda

Sources please?

try the FEC

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
That's not what you said though. Yes, "Hollywood" (whomever they are, on average) probably vote Democrat more than Republican. But can even you suggest that the Democrats are far-left? Saying that Hollywood is pro-Democrat is one thing, but "far-left" is utterly ludicrous.

The only genuinely leftist films I can think of (that are American) off the top of my head are Warren Beaty's "Reds" and the brilliant "Salt of the Earth". And I don't think either of them came from the established studio system anyway. You'd think that genuine far-leftists who are also owners of the means of production could do a better job.

why would far leftists make (blatently leftist) movies that no one would want to see?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
why would far leftists make (blatently leftist) movies that no one would want to see?

I don't know, ask Ken Loach.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
But can even you suggest that the Democrats are far-left? Saying that Hollywood is pro-Democrat is one thing, but "far-left" is utterly ludicrous.

how many conservative democrats can you think of? at one point in time there was such a thing as conservative democrats, but most switched parties.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by logamus
how many conservative democrats can you think of? at one point in time there was such a thing as conservative democrats, but most switched parties.

Al Gore

[MrL_JaKiri]

and warfalcon, stop reiterating a flawed argument

[G_frog]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
1. Who, besides the left, wants to heavily regulate business?
No one said heavily, but ignoring that, The Economist for one. Hardly considered a bastion of the 'radical left'.

2. 'Moral responsibility' doesn't mean squat. Such a highly subjective term cannot be realistically debated. What I feel is moral is likely to be utterly different than what you think is moral, in this context.
That we can't agree on what is right and wrong doesn't mean that we are not obliged to try to act to properly. And you haven't answered Moore's point (which i was explaining) - that the media are not merely passively responsive to social trends.

3. Thats still too vague. More over, thats a societial issue, one which is utterly unenforcable. I don't have to trust you if I don't want to. Someone coming out and saying 'I support common trust' might sound good, but it means nothing.
It's not supposed to be enforced. Moore was asking why american society has departed so much further from such a desirable state than other western nations.

What about the segments on K-Mart, Heston, etc
The section on Heston was attacking the NRA's attitude, not saying that guns should be regulated. The section on K-Mart was about corporations choosing to act in a certain way, not regulation from above. Moore could have taken the victims to washington and lobbied. It was actually a positive depiction of corporate america.

I suppose not, but it draws an ideological line in the sand, so to speak.
There's no need to divide everyone into two sides using one line.

I'd have to go back over it and take notes to get most of them, its been a while since I watched it. m.ar.d might be able to point out some of them since he seems to remember them too
ok

this matters...how?
It doesn't leave your statement meaning much.

it establishes, actually further confirms, the left wing's anti business, anti-gun, (anti-america) agenda
Stop pigeon-holing people.

[Intrepid00]

Guns are good, without guns Planetarion would be boring. What we use then to shoot at people? Boogers?