Author Topic: Bowling for Columbine on C4 at 11:05 tonight. (five star rating) (Read 1604 times)

Nash · « **Reply #15 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:22:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Most of the criticism as to whether or not it's a documentary revolve around the evidence that it is not presented objectively and is edited to be misleading.

I think you've got that confused with White House press briefings.

No no no... Bowling for Columbine is a completely different thing. It's a movie. A documentary to be more specific.

Martlet · « **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:24:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
I think you've got that confused with White House press briefings.

No no no... Bowling for Columbine is a completely different thing. It's a movie. A documentary to be more specific.

Aaaah, so you're admitting you didn't see it. Well, I see that didn't stop you from having an opinion.

Carry on. The Democrats need sheep too.

Sandman · « **Reply #17 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:26:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet

Most of the criticism as to whether or not it's a documentary revolve around the evidence that it is not presented objectively and is edited to be misleading.

That's fine, but whether the film is objective or not really isn't a relevant point.

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Quote

Fact-based film that depicts actual events and persons.

Documentaries can deal with scientific or educational topics, can be a form of journalism or social commentary, or can be a conduit for propaganda or personal expression. The term was first coined by Scottish-born filmmaker John Grierson to describe fact-based features such as Robert Flaherty's Nanook of the North (1922). Grierson's Drifters (1929) and Pare Lorentz's The Plow That Broke the Plains (1936) influenced documentary filmmaking in the 1930s. During the World War II era documentary filmmaking was a valuable propaganda tool used by all sides. Leni Riefenstahl contributed to the Nazi propaganda efforts in the 1930s; the U.S. made films such as Frank Capra's series Why We Fight (1942–45); and Britain released London Can Take It (1940). Cinéma vérité documentaries, which gained notoriety in the 1960s, emphasized a more informal and intimate relationship between camera and subject. Television became an important medium for documentary films with goals that were more journalistic (such as CBS's Harvest of Shame [1960]) and educational (such as Ken Burns's Civil War [1990]).

Martlet · « **Reply #18 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:31:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
That's fine, but whether the film is objective or not really isn't a relevant point.

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Whether or not it is relevant is what the issue is. I didn't pass judgement either way. I was just stating facts.

Some people argue, and can back up, that it doesn't qualify as a documentary due to it's content and editing.

Sandman · « **Reply #19 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:34:51 PM »

Some people are narrow minded and wrong.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #20 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:37:50 PM »

Martlet is on the mark.

It got 5 stars because its the type of propaganda that the rater agrees with.

Its called a documentary because its the type of propaganda that those who call it such want to believe despite being blatantly and delibertly misleading and often false. It's not even original in being so. This is the kind of work that Joseph Goebbels, Rudolf Hess and Leni Riefenstahl pioneered in the 30's and 40's. It's just a different flavor for a different cause. The methods and complete lack of respect for the basics of humanity for the sake of greed are the same.

Nash · « **Reply #21 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:40:27 PM »

But did you enjoy it?

Martlet · « **Reply #22 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:40:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Some people are narrow minded and wrong.

Yeah, but I didn't think it was the proper forum to point out your flaws.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #23 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:41:29 PM »

I don't support human waste of any type.

Sandman · « **Reply #24 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:51:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
I don't support human waste of any type.

Ah! An informed opinion!

Steve · « **Reply #25 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:53:18 PM »

Quote

Are you sure about that?

Yes, a documentary is supposed to have an unbiased view of the subject matter. Moore is so far to the left that he's almost off the horizon. The only people who consider his work documentary are left wing idiots and whackjobs. Notice the tards that are commenting that it's a documentary, like Thrawn and Nash. They don't get any more Kooky and dangerous than those two wingnuts.

Steve · « **Reply #26 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:55:24 PM »

Quote

That's fine, but whether the film is objective or not really isn't a relevant point.

From Merriam Webster:

Documentary:

: of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE

edit: BTW, I didn't add the caps, Webster's did. How appropriate here.

Nash · « **Reply #27 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:56:05 PM »

Now that's just slander.

I'm not dangerous.

beet1e · « **Reply #28 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:56:45 PM »

But Steve, what about all the awards described in IMDB? At least a dozen for best documentary, from various organisations. Are you saying that they're all wrong?

Steve · « **Reply #29 on:** February 21, 2005, 04:57:23 PM »

Lol Nash. I apologize.

You're only dangerous if you andyour ilk weild political power.