Bowling For Columbine
I forgot what a good movie this was. Much better than F 9/11. Great construction, visuals, humor, emotions. The sad part is that I fear it espouses a leftist viewpoint that in time will be revealed as a viciously anti-American, pro-totalitarian, nihilistic point of view. The most obvious example is the cartoon sequence of American history which shows white people being fearful, violent, horrific perpetrators of evil against everyone - including each other. This sarcastic, parodic view of American history is the preferred by the Michael Moore Left. I fear that it's moral relativity and misguided blame for the world's problems will in time be revealed as grossly incorrect, selective, and worst, giving aid and comfort to terrorists and autocrats, thugs, and dictators, who can point to how evil America (and the west in general) is, and use it as a tool to maintain power. Will Michael Moore be remembered as the next Leni Reifanstahl?
4 comments:
No.
i don't think he ever blamed the world's problems on the us. he merely pointed out THINGS WE'VE ACTUALLY DONE and how they affected other countries. naturally, many dubbed these assertions unpatriotic and false because we are brainwashed in this country to think that we can do no wrong and that the only reason another country or entity would hate us is because they're jealous and they hate freedom.
I realize the Reifenstahl connection is a bit much and maybe even irresponsible and lazy...but the connection is based upon their respective "documentary" filmmaking skills and the underlying political message that neither directly come out and say.
Kevin makes a point that the Left often makes - that what Michael M is saying is without spin, without ideology, is without consequence, that he is merely pointing out FACTs (selective facts in selective order, come on now, we're all filmmakers, we know what we're doing) and they only reason he is so criticized is that the rest of us are brainwashed and taught that America can do no wrong. This is a position I do not understand. Textbook history is certainly open to criticism...I think much of what is taught in classrooms about American history glorifies America and neglects bad things America has done. And we ought to be able to discuss these issues candidly, which we do.
But why can't Michael Moore's version of American history also be criticized and examined and called for what it is: simplistic, incorrect, and maliciously anti-establishment, and anti-white?
I suggest taking a look at the cartoon sequence...when he describes white people coming over massacring all the Native Americans, then killing the British, then going over to Africa and catching slaves, and so on....or the "It's a Wonderful World Sequence."
These are meant to be funny, ironic, paradoic histories...but that doesn't make them accurate or immune from criticism. What if someone were to take your entire life and select the 10 worst things you ever did - cheat on a girlfriend, lie to your parents, steal a CD from a friend...and only pointed out those 10 things. Would that be a more truthful version of yourself than if someone else picked out the 10 Best things your ever did?
While textbook American history may not all be right and truthful - that does not mean the Michael Moore version IS truthful. Cindy and Alice last night argued that Michael Moore's history is more accurate. That, to me, seems a little outrageous.
The ironic thing about this whole discussion is that the notion of being being brainwashed and unable to criticize America is something the Left jumps up and down about all the time - yet in my experience, all the people claiming that we can't criticize America, spend all their time criticizing America...and hanging out with other people who candidly criticize America.
In my grade school we were taught about the Japanese internments and the trail of tears and slavery. Maybe in other places these things are not taught, but I grew up learning about bad thing America has done, so for me, it is a given that America has faults. So this entire notion that people are patriotic and congratulatory about America because we are brainwashed has no resonance, because it doesn't apply to myself, or so I think. I suppose I could be brainwashed and not know it. But then again, so could the people claiming I'm brainwashed. :)
I don't think either of us are really brainwashed. I think the Left prefers to think that those who disagree with them are brainwashed because they are more interested in reinforcing their own political ideology and assumptions than critically engaging difficult subject matter. And I think I like picking on the Left these days because they're off their rocker.
well greg, i'm pleased that some of the harangue i gave you on the phone the other night when you floated your leni riefenstahl comparison has made its way into your recent post (dare i flatter myself?)
my main criticisms of your arguments are as follows:
1) michael moore's movie is not called "the history of america" (maybe that "wonderful world" section of the movie is, i don't recall). but even if that is that section's title, the movie is called "bowling for columbine" and it is about investigating the roots of violence in america. i didn't understand the point of the "wonderful world" section to be "america is awful, our history is wholly and utterly vicious, bad bad US," but rather "look at the history of violent/genocidal acts in our country's development - we should acknowlege these as huge influences on today's culture of violence (as opposed to blaming marilyn manson, comic books, etc etc)"
So I think you're misreading his message there - and while I found the section a bit sloppy and manipulative, I agree with him there - not that US history is all awful, but that our destructive acts around the world inform our culture, and that's something to look at (instead of just bashing marilyn).
2) even if michael moore WERE saying that america is the perpetrator of great evil in the world, it does not necesarily follow that he is pro-totalitarian, nihilistic, morally relativistic, or even Anti-American - and I think it's misguided that you leap to the conclusion that places you with the right wing.
even the harshest, most radical criticism of America should be carefully examined before being lumped with terrorist rhetoric. harsh, radical criticism of America could lead to wonderful, dramatic improvement to America. the conservative arguments against F 9/11 were exactly what you claim in your first post - that michael moore gives comfort to the terrorists, endangers our troops, etc. those who say we've been brainwashed to view criticism of the country as unpatriotic say that b/c we watched the dixie chicks get their concerts cancelled after they criticized our war-time president, susan sarandan get her speaking engagements cancelled because of her pro-peace sentiments, bill mahr get yanked off the air, howard stern get threatened/ limited, etc etc.
i think the right wing (conciously or reflexively) lumps all criticism of the US into subversive, dangerous acts of sedition b/c they are the ones who have the most to lose were the conditions for the majority of the world to improve. i don't know why you have to do that to michael moore though - i'm certainly interested in your criticisms of liberalism and am interested in engaging them - but i'm less interested when you make extreme statements.
3) leni riefenstahl used her considerable artistic skills to glorify a man and a regime that were blatantly, specifically racist. at the time she made "triumph of the will," Hitler was proclaiming the superiority of the Aryan race above all others, and discussing the "Jewish problem," and limiting the rights of non-Aryans in Germany/ encouraging harm to their property and selves. In addition, Leni used Gypsies starving in concentration camps as free extras in her later movies (this is all in the documentary about her, can't remember it's name but it's really fascinating).
I'm not trying to pull "you can't touch the Holocaust," but let's keep it and the people who supported it as an extreme low on the ideological spectrum. I know you were trying to be provocative, and I know you like picking on the Left, but i think your points are interesting and provocative enough without undermining them with hyperbole or "reductums ad absurdum."
not trying to get personal :)
Post a Comment