At 05:03 13/06/03 -0400, Dan wrote:
>Why does Moore's film have such a bad reputation? In a review for a =
>proposed book on Ethics and Film, one of my readers said that Bowling =
>for Columbine is so inaccurate and manipulative that it should be ruled
=
>out for pedagogical use.
Gary replied:
I repeat what I said in my earlier post - the challenge that
Moore represents in theoretical terms is quite complex. Roger and Me
manipulates time sequences to convey an absolute truth that American
Capital does not care about the American community. This brings us
close to Walter Benjamin's point that the meaning of life is not
available empirically. It requires an act of imagination often to
uncover the truth.
Yes, it's clear that Moore does not wish to pretend that his viewpoint
is the objective truth, and therefore the only truth---but this is not
epistemic hesitation, it's manipulation of the facts, plain and
simple---though I don't see a problem with that, since what he did is
neither grossly misleading nor damaging. For example, the footage of the
NRA rallies he showed where Heston was exuberantly shouting, "From my
cold, dead hands!" was not from the rally in a city where there had
recently been a school shooting. The rally at Columbine was much smaller
(though this doesn't excuse them from having it). And the quote itself
is out of context, since someone in the audience reportedly shouted that
they wanted his gun, to which Heston replied "from my cold, dead hands".
So of course this is a bit misleading, since he's jacking up the shock
value quite a lot. But that was a lesser blow to Heston than the
non-manipulated interview with him at the end of the film.
Moore never shows only "his version", though---he is always in the realm
of nonfiction. But we must remember that fiction is not the only thing
structured by ideology.
Sarah Barmak
[log in to unmask]
University of Toronto
