Hardy: The Truth about Bowling for Columbine
I seem unable to stop posting links about Michael Moore and Bowling for Columbine. Maybe I should actually see the movie. Anyway, here’s the latest: from David T. Harvey, Bowling for Columbine: Documentary or Fiction? According to Harvey, Columbine cannot be considered a documentary, because in making it Moore consistently lied about his subject matter.
March 28th, 2003 at 9:08 pm
the link for harvey’s critique of moore’s bowling for columbine has the very end of the article deleted. do you know where i could find the complete article?
March 28th, 2003 at 9:18 pm
Yeah; it looks like the maintainer of that page accidentally truncated it while doing an update. I’ve emailed him to that effect.
In the meantime, here’s the part of the page that got snipped, as available via Google’s cache. It might be a bit out-of-date compared to the official version, but at least it doesn’t cut off in mid-sentance:
[excerpt follows]
The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest.
It is fraudulent. It fixes upon a theme, and advances it, whenever
necessary, by deception. It even uses the audio/video editor to assemble
a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and to turn sympathetic phrases
into arrogant ones. You can’t even trust the narrator to read you a
plaque or show you a speech, for Pete’s sake.
The bottom line: can a film be called a documentary when the viewer cannot
trust an iota of it, not only the narration, but the video? I suppose film
critics could debate that one for a long time, and some might prefer entertainment
and effect to fact and truth. But the Academy Award rules here are specific.
Rule 12 lays out "Special Rules for the Documentary Award." And
it begins with the definition: "A documentary film is defined as a
non-fiction motion picture . . . ." It goes on to say that a
documentary doesn’t always have to show the "actual occurrence":
it can employ re-enactment, animation, etc., "as long as the emphasis
is on factual content and not on fiction."
Unfortunately, the Academy seems to have considered Rule 12 as dispensible
so long as the film in question is one attacking one Charlton Heston, and
the NRA.
David T. Hardy [an amateur who has for the last year been working on
a serious bill of rights documentary],
to include the Second Amendment.
dthardy@mindspring.com
[PS–if I don’t reply quickly–I’m getting about 200 emails a day on
this, so often I can reply immediately only to the more amusing threats
and have to leave the rest for a quiet moment.]
A few additions:
Wall
Street Journal weights in on criticism of Bowling, as does Debbie
Schussel.
A list of some criticisms not given on this
page, and reasons why.
Where Moore did have a point, and should
have done his homework.
Equal time: emails critical of this page.
[NB: I’m getting around 200 emails per day, of which about 40 are critical,
for a total of 250-300 to date, and I’ve had time to post a half dozen or
so. Please don’t feel ignored if yours doesn’t make it. And don’t try to
jump to the head of the list with "You don’t have guts enough to post
this." It’s been done. I get 4-5 of those a day.]
A brief reply to two responses I’ve received in emails:
Objectivity: (sample from email): "In other words is fiction
and non-fiction that far removed from one another. My immediate response
is NO!" "Your entire article is retarded. We’re talking about
making FILM. ALL film is subjective. Have you not even taken an entry level
course in film before?"
Response: The point is not that Bowling is non-objective, or
even that it is biased. Probably no two of us would agree on how to define
either term, and nothing would bar a biased production from being called
a documentary. The point is that it is deceptive, and that is a different
matter entirely.
Nothing is real: I’ve received several responses to the effect
that the camera changes everything, etc., so in video there can be no truth
or falsity, hence lying is not unethical. Samples: "tv and movies,
newspapers or even documentaries *are* constructions, not "the truth"
("truth" is subjective personal opinion/experience, which would
be impossible to commit to videotape or celluloid)." "My question
to you is this: When is anything presented to us by our fellow human beings
viable "non-fiction"?"
This certainly has given me some insight into how some in the media
view things!
I would respond: perhaps we can agree upon one core premise: to deliberately
deceive a viewer is wrong. I’m not talking bias, nor emphasis. Editing
a speech to create sentences that were not spoken. Telling the viewer that
this is the history, when you know the opposite happened. Talking about
a plant making weapons of mass destruction when you know it does not. Set
aside the elaborate wording and talk basic ethics. Is that what you’d teach
your children? Everything is subjective, so truth and lies are ultimately
the same, all that matter is whether you’re good at it?
A book
I’ve published, on the Waco affair (OK, what’s a page without some shameless
commercialism? At least it wasn’t one of those %$#^^@ popups, and I stuck
it at the very end.)
July 25th, 2003 at 2:55 am
Mr Hardy,
I just recently saw Michael Moore’s film “Bowling for Columbine.” Aside from the fact that it’s anti-American tone made my blood rise, I suspected something fishy about its “facts.” I found your expose on your site. It is very, very appreciated. Good work!
Randall
August 21st, 2003 at 3:27 pm
wah wah wah, don’t get all upset because you stand on the right. the people on the left have to deal with the AP and stations like fox news every day. Use your time to do something besides undermining Moore. your likely pro-war stance says enough about you to even think about taking you serious.
August 24th, 2003 at 4:04 pm
Mr. Hardy’s review is instructive, but it misses the point. I understand Moore wanted to bias viewers regarding, for example, Charlton Heston by splicing different speeches into one moment of the film. However, the point that is being missed by Mr. Hardy is simple: Why are we so violent in this country? It isn’t the guns themselves – Bowling for columbine makes that clear with the comparisons to Canada. What is the matter with America’s soul? Why do we have a history of oppression and slaughter and wars and violence here at home and overseas?
Hardy would do better to deal with these issues rather than if Heston came shortly after Kayla was murdered or 6 months later. Who cares? She was murdered by a kid with a gun.
August 24th, 2003 at 10:28 pm
Even that point is spun and presented dishonestly.
Check http://www.bowlingfortruth.com for a scene by scene fact check up.
Michael Moore is a liar and a fake.
August 26th, 2003 at 6:43 am
if you’ve not even seen the film, i’m not gonna take your criticisms of the film seriously at all. i’m not saying everything in the film is as we see it, i’d hope noone is that naive, but at least see the damn thing before you pass judgement.
August 29th, 2003 at 4:41 pm
I don’t know who you were directing those comments to Kevin, but just in case it was me – I have a copy of Bowling For Columbine and have seen it more than 20 times.
The screen shots on the website and the transcripts from various parts of the movie make it impossible to concieve otherwise. I couldn’t possibly make the ‘criticisms’ on there without seeing the film and studying it many times.
Furthermore, I’m passing little ‘judgment’s. I’m just making observations (for the most part. There is definitely subjective criticism on the site as well). I do not loath Michael Moore for his views. I loath him for his lies and the extent of deception he takes to persuade his viewers.
There are points to be made on issues of gun control, fear in the media and racism in America – none presented honestly in Bowling For Columbine.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com
November 9th, 2003 at 9:28 am
are you aware david t. hardy is a gun activist and writes for gun publications? dont you see this bias?
if you watch the movie and compare hardys notes to what is in the film, you will see many of hardys claims are completely unsubstantiated, and i might add, many of these claims are entirely false.
moore lies. hardy lies. why does everybody have to lie?
do not take one persons word just because you want it to be true. look at the facts.
November 12th, 2003 at 2:58 pm
You’re right – Since Hardy is a gun activist, everything he says is false. That’s logical.
On Bowlingfortruth.com – Bushnell even admits that he doesn’t like propaganda and distortion!dont you see this bias?
If you watch the movie and compare what Bowlingfortruth.com says you’ll find that it’s exactly correct. -why does everybody have to lie?
November 24th, 2003 at 12:16 pm
All the facts in the film are true.
All the websites are the same NRA spammers repeating old information that has long been discredited.
http://www.wackoattacko.com
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607
http://www.bigsugar.wrestling-fan.com/truthaboutbowling.html
you can watch the video evidence of mike buying the gun on his website, and see the police reports that show the kids were bowling.
All irrelevant to the basic premise of the film, but its worthwhile pointing out that these scenes were not staged and it all happened
kind regards
kev
http://www.michaelmooreonline.com
November 24th, 2003 at 7:09 pm
Moore mad a movie about gun crime, and the need in America for gun control. This can be seen from the movie (minus the last twenty minutes) and from his postings on the website (the “honest” SOB decided to delete them all, and take the forums on his site down). Several months into the filming, 9/11 occurs. Moore realized that guns weren’t the problem, and opens his eyes to Canada, and even realizes that gun control isn’t the answer. Look at http://www.hardylaw.net/mooresepiphany.html.
I’m sorry to say this, but too many Moore fans are giving him too much credit, considering he didn’t actually touch on the real problems of violent crime (narcotics and inner city crime), and he didn’t honestly discuss his thesis, because the school attacks he claimed were solely a US commodity occur in most of the industrialized world. Maybe he said a few important things about fear (also, look at this, from hardy, talking about Moore’s movie about fear in America, “Then Moore does exactly what he condemns in the media.
Given the prominence of schoolyard killings as a theme in Bowling for Columbine, Moore must have asked Glassner about that subject. Whatever Glassner said is, however, left on the cutting-room floor. That’s because Glassner lists schoolyard shootings as one of the mythical fears. He points out that “More than three times as many people are killed by lightning as by violence at schools.””) in America, and some of the nuts in America. But it wasn’t an honest look, and it didn’t address violent crime in reality. Also, one of the most damning things to the movie is the fact that he tries so hard to deceive people about Heston’s appearances in Flint and Columbine. The man is a lying idiot. He made a movie that pathetically attacked gun owners, and then, even more pathetically, runs away from the idea once he realizes how dumb it is, without re-editing or changing the movie before the last twenty minutes. Watching the movie was a waste of my time. It is pathetic.
December 8th, 2003 at 1:07 pm
Good show MMOnline man. Bowlingfortruth.com is an NRA site!
July 1st, 2004 at 4:49 pm
The premise regarding Bowling for Columbine appears well grounded. Frankly, I was unaware of the manipulative editing that Moore utilized to evoke the desired audience perspective. Interesting, if one were to compare (perhaps contrast) to the documentary One Day in September (MacDonald 2000), the individuals interviewed at key news footage told the tale and allowed the viewers to develop their own thoughts regarding that tragedy (Munich Olympics 1971). Or for that matter, the more imaginative Riefenstahl’s Triumph des Willens (1934) was selective and no doubt subjective, but her portrayal of the Nazi rally and Hitler’s preeminence was not the result of “cut & paste” but camera angle & judicious aesthetic editing.
I concur that Moore’s film would not qualify, in the academic sense, as a “true” documentary. If it were a written work, an essay, it would be an editorial, not an expose or explanatory narrative of events. As an editorial it has its place, but not as a documentary. By definition, a documentary recounts a recorded event or sequence of events as they occur or have occurred. In an expose, the hidden truth or newly discovered facts are revealed. Based on Hardy’s research, it appears that Moore “invented” associations to lead to pre-ordained conclusions (as an editorial would) but without following valid principles of reasoning. To intentionally quote out of context [known as ‘sampling’] and to re-assemble for a specific thesis, a formal fallacy, would fail an essay in any university level class.
In film, it would seem, serious documentaries should follow (and have followed) the accepted rules of valid reasoning. Consider the abundance of “schlock-umentaries” on pop- cult topics like UFOs and Bigfoot, et al. Although selective or discriminate in the evidence presented, they are not normally “engineered” to deceive the viewing public, merely to entertain. Of course, film is also art, and should stimulate if not provoke strong emotions to or for the subject. For a true and fair documentary film, the creative technique should not obscure the objectivity for the subject, even if the director’s position leans to a particular point of view. The viewer should be allowed to discern the outcome without being steered in that direction.
That an Oscar went to Moore’s film as the top documentary does raise considerable questions of the judge’s credulity, albeit dependant on the Academy’s definitions. Ultimately Hardy’s premise clearly explicates the propaganda chic inherent in Bowling for Columbine, if not also, perhaps foreshadows a dangerous trend in the future of documentary film.
July 20th, 2004 at 4:08 am
What a suprise a right wing pro gun lobbyist doesn’t like Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” or “Farenhiet 9/11” a film that makes the case AGAINST the invasion, occupation and financial exploitation of IRAQ and it’s natural resource, OIL, by the chosen few of corporate america and asks in my view some fundemental questions about the relationship between governement and corporate america especially under bush the younger.
So what are Mr Moore’s so called “un-american” activities? What ever the right wing decides they are, I am sure that your nation’s founding fathers are turning in their graves at how their vision of a nation has been corrupted by a few greedy individuals who can never be satisfied until they excploit the world for their own financial gain.
Keep on keepin’ on…………
Russ Morris, Northampton, UK.