comment #1

D.Z. says ...

Yeah, we should all feel sorry for Heston's Alzheimer's Disease, but not the victims of the Columbine Massacre. But hey, that's the "liberal" media for you.

comment #2

alynch says ...

That's exactly right D.Z., since it's totally an either/or situation. It is simply impossible to feel sorry for both. I'm so glad you pointed this out so insightfully.

comment #3

D.Z. says ...

alynch: I can feel sorry for both, but Heston still had the advantage of living longer than the students.

comment #4

Mgmax says ...

He had the advantage of living longer than the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, too. As long as we're talking about societies where only the police have firearms.

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "He had the advantage of living longer than the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, too. As long as we're talking about societies where only the police have firearms."

What's a gun going to do against an machine gun, a flamethrower, or a tank, Mgmax?

comment #6

Mgmax says ...

Shit, Dark City, 1950. That's what I meant. So all surviving people in Jules Dassin films are safe. Maximilian Schell, Tatum O'Neal and Ruby Dee can rest easy tonight.

comment #7

D.Z. says ...

Guns didn't seem to help much in Yugoslavia, either...

comment #8

Mgmax says ...

Scratch the one beginning "Shit, Dark City." Meant to put it in a different thread. I was distracted by having to fire some warning shots at teenagers going by my house.

comment #9

Mgmax says ...

"What's a gun going to do against an machine gun, a flamethrower, or a tank, Mgmax?"

Assassinate a general while he's eating in the hotel he turned into his headquarters. Hijack a truck full of explosives and turn them against their makers. Hell, you got a gun in your hand, be creative! Honestly, these kids today don't know how to rise up against the Man like we did back in my day.

comment #10

drgogol says ...

Moore fecked up.

Here's the thing: He had Heston dead to rights, and unable -- whether morally or by virtue of Heston's condition -- to defend himself. But in "BfC" he clearly tinkered. The shots of him standing sanctimoniously with the images of the girl who died by gunfire while her mom worked for Dick Clark were obviously insert shots created after the fact. They're presented to us as being quote-unquote 'real time' while Heston flees the scene, which may have happened in reality but is impossible in movie-reality unless your cameraman is The Flash. Look at it carefully, Zapruder-like: it's clear that there's only one camera on scene *until* Moore starts to moralize and Heston walks out. Suddenly we can see Heston leave from the POV of the room in which the chat has taken place and *then* in quote-unquote real-time we see Moore sanctimoniously holding a photo of the dead girl from a POV at the bottom of the staircase to which Heston is heading. Either Moore sucker-punched Heston with a second cameraman OR -- more likely -- he shot coverage after Heston left and then inserted it in the editing to make Heston look bad. Bottom line: Heston did a lot to denigrate his own legacy w/o Moore bending over unnaturally to abet him. Heston = not a good guy; Moore = kind of a good guy who thinks lying about things makes him more good. And Moore knew that Heston was ill at the time. Shame on Heston; but equal (if not double) shame on Moore.

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Assassinate a general while he's eating in the hotel he turned into his headquarters."

Hitler had plenty of assassination attempts on his life, and just ended up killing more Jews in revenge for his fellow Nazis checking out early.

But it's ironic that you should bring up the Nazis at all, considering the shooting occurred on Hitler's birthday...So maybe you're right; the last thing we need is gun control. After all, if that L.A. family that got shot in their red van on the freeway was armed, they would've had a chance, right?

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

gogol: If Moore's a liar, how come a judge said his film was accurate?

comment #13

Mark B says ...

Quite frankly, although I'm very much pro gun control, I feel that Moore's tactics with Heston in Bowling for Columbine were shameful, to say the least. It was painful to watch Moore disingenuously pass himself off as an ally of Heston's and then completely ambush him during the interview.

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

Mark: Heston passed himself off as an ally to the civil rights movement, but still managed to ambush the mourning family of a victim murdered in a hate crime.

comment #15

Mark B says ...

D.Z.: I'm certainly not defending Heston's actions, which were certainly worthy of Moore's criticisms. However, it doesn't excuse Moore's tactics.

comment #16

drgogol says ...

"gogol: If Moore's a liar, how come a judge said his film was accurate?"

Is this serious?

Judges appointed George Bush president and stood by while OJ Simpson was acquited.

Fuck judges.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

Mark: Moore's tactics might be questionable, but they weren't a case of "too soon" like Heston's tactics.

gogol: "Judges appointed George Bush president"

They also disagreed with him on global warming.

"and stood by while OJ Simpson was acquited."

That's because our legal system involves a little something called juries.

comment #18

Walter Sobchak says ...

Am I hallucinating or are otherwise intelligent people on here actually responding to the idiotic, Directional-State College-Marxism ramblings of D.Z.?

comment #19

Walter Sobchak says ...

And.... leave it to Michael Moore to keep it classy as always.

comment #20

drgogol says ...

Sobchak: "Am I hallucinating or are otherwise intelligent people on here actually responding to the idiotic, Directional-State College-Marxism ramblings of D.Z.?"

Poimt taken.

I am a half-an-ass for engaging the cunt.

comment #21

alynch says ...

Heston passed himself off as an ally to the civil rights movement

Yeah, you've got him nailed once again. I'm continuously amazed at just how insightful you are. You see, Heston supported the civil rights movement as part of an evil plan to make people think he supported the civil rights movement. It's so devilishly clever, but thankfully we have geniuses like D.Z. who are able to smoke him out.

(Last time I'll engage him....honest).

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

alynch: "You see, Heston supported the civil rights movement as part of an evil plan to make people think he supported the civil rights movement."

That's not what I said. My argument was that he was for a selective form of civil rights which did not breech gun rights, even though MLK was a victim of a gun-related murder.

comment #23

Hickenlooper says ...

Moore's sandbagging of Heston in 'Bowling for Columbine' was disgraceful. Moore showed up unannounced and Heston was gracious enough to let him in for an interview without having any real clue who Moore was or what his political agenda was. It was obvious that Heston wasn't entirely there but yet was willing to have a constructive polemic on the issue of fire arms. I myself am not a fan of the NRA and I didn't agree with Heston's position, but still I felt very uncomfortable watching this elderly man being ambushed by Moore who should have had more class and should have known better. As a documentary filmmaker myself, I find Moore's style far too invasive. He often gets in the way of the point he's trying to make. Like many leftists, he behaves sanctimoniously because he believes his liberal ideology is above all others. He's right because he holds this almost Rouseauian Social Contract with all of his other comrades in arms. Consequently, his manners and style (invading Heston's home) can be excused for the greater good. In my view Moore's filmmaking style is the equivalent of an Islamic Extremist hijacking a jet and flying it into skyscrapers. Poor Charleton Heston just happened to be an American Icon who was an easy target on a sunny Los Angeles morning.

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

Hicken: "Moore's sandbagging of Heston in 'Bowling for Columbine' was disgraceful. Moore showed up unannounced"

I'm sure the families of the Columbine victims were equally pleased to see Heston show up at an inappropriate time.

"and Heston was gracious enough to let him in for an interview without having any real clue who Moore was or what his political agenda was."

That's more respect than Heston showed to Columbine.

"As a documentary filmmaker myself, I find Moore's style far too invasive."

It's no more invasive than tapping people's phones...

"In my view Moore's filmmaking style is the equivalent of an Islamic Extremist hijacking a jet and flying it into skyscrapers."

Yes, Moore forces people to do interviews the way hijackers force people to crash planes into buildings.

comment #25

dangovich says ...

In my view Moore's filmmaking style is the equivalent of an Islamic Extremist hijacking a jet and flying it into skyscrapers.

Huh? Wha...?

Moore has many faults as a documentarian, but let's not get carried away.

comment #26

BurmaShave says ...

Yeah the hijacking line was ridiculous, just was was most of what DZ said. This is officially my new least favorite thread ever.

comment #27

Nate West says ...

I liked Heston and feel that he was treated unfairly by Moore.

But, of course, if Moore had said, "Hickenlooper's filmmaking style is the equivalent of an Islamic Extremist hijacking a jet and flying it into skyscrapers," we'd all be saying there goes Moore again with his loopy, several-steps-too-far agitprop.

comment #28

Mgmax says ...

If Obama's preacher had said it we'd all be saying there was a lot of truth to it.

"My argument was that he was for a selective form of civil rights which did not breech gun rights, even though MLK was a victim of a gun-related murder."

I'm still for free speech even though it has on occasion led to murder, too. That's why they're civil rights.

comment #29

GonePostal says ...

To DZ and the others beating up on Heston over the Columbine/Denver NRA Convention, you've clearly never been to Colorado and also don't realize that the convention had been planned months before the shootings. They could have cancelled it at great cost to the NRA, losing booking fees, etc, and did not. Despite Moore's film's painting of the incident, few actually protested. The reason is that Colorado is an extremely gun-friendly state. Even Democrats get B ratings from the NRA. I went to a gun show in Denver(not a regular thing for me, but as a cultural experience it's quite something), and Coloradans in general are passionate about Gun rights, which is why Denver was chosen.

Moore was grandstanding with Heston, and the man deserved better. He marched with MLK and others. Being for gun rights and civil rights are not mutually exclusive. That King was killed by a sniper is tragic, but it is not related at all to Heston's supporting them later in life. Only a fool would think otherwise.

comment #30

bents75 says ...

"They could have cancelled it at great cost to the NRA, losing booking fees, etc, and did not."

I think that depends on your defintion of 'great cost'. Because I sincerely doubt postponing a convention for a few months or even weeks really would have hurt an organization which takes in an estimated 150-200 million a year in revenue and remains one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington (for non-profit, of course!)

Booking fees? - that's funny.

comment #31

Mgmax says ...

It wasn't the money. They didn't cancel because doing so would have been a tacit admission that the other side was right that guns were the cause of the violence.

Did the ACLU cancel after 9/11?

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "I'm still for free speech even though it has on occasion led to murder, too. That's why they're civil rights."

Owning a gun is not a civil right. It's a privilege. Otherwise, they'd let you have bazookas, too.

Postal: "They could have cancelled it at great cost to the NRA, losing booking fees, etc, and did not."

Yes, money's more important than dead children. That's why gun manufacturers continue to profit off of gang violence and oil companies profit off of the Iraq war. I understand.

"Despite Moore's film's painting of the incident, few actually protested."

I'm guessing it was because most people were too filled with grief to be able to do anything about the NRA, not because they agreed with the type of extremist ideology which believes that explosives and mines should not be regulated by the government.

"I went to a gun show in Denver(not a regular thing for me, but as a cultural experience it's quite something), and Coloradans in general are passionate about Gun rights, which is why Denver was chosen."

Then they'll be happy to know that the TCM was just preserving a fine tradition.

"Moore was grandstanding with Heston, and the man deserved better. He marched with MLK and others."

He didn't march with MLK down South where he could actually be hurt, so that's not really that impressive.

"Being for gun rights and civil rights are not mutually exclusive."

Tell that to Isaiah Shoels' family and the families of those victims of that Jewish Community Center Shooting.

"That King was killed by a sniper is tragic, but it is not related at all to Heston's supporting them later in life."

Well he did seem to forget about King's belief in non-violence shortly afterward...

comment #33

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Did the ACLU cancel after 9/11?"

The ACLU's nothing like the NRA; it believes in defending terrorist suspects in court, not arming them.

comment #34

BurmaShave says ...

Yeah it's a privilege, that's why it's the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Privileges.

comment #35

vp19 says ...

I agree with much of what Michael Moore has stood for over the years -- "TV Nation" was a splendid series, which made its points with humor -- but ideology should never be allowed to trump humanity, and sad to say, that's what Moore did with Heston.

Say what you will about Heston's politics in the final few decades of his life, but like Sinatra, his art will outlive it.

My family knew Charlton Heston and his wife dating back to the late 1940s; we used to receive Christmas cards from them for years. Find out more as part of my Heston appreciation at http://community.livejournal.com/carole_and_co/#92580

comment #36

Mgmax says ...

"The ACLU's nothing like the NRA"

Which only proves that you have no philosophical conception of civil rights, and are totally partisan-results-oriented in your thinking, not principle oriented.

Look, I think the NRA is wacky on guns. But I think the ACLU is wacky on the separation of church and state sometimes too-- Santa in the public square really probably isn't a threat to democracy. A lot of people thought Martin Luther King was wacky on negro rights, if he'd just waited and worked within the system, we could have had a modest level of equality for blacks in certain areas with none of this fuss and unpleasantness that was making the South look bad. (Charlton Heston, of course, rejected such thinking.) More to the point, all civil rights should have such extreme defenders. There is a perfectly reasonable case to be made that the ACLU cost American lives on 9/11. Measures which prevented the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence on people in the US probably did make it impossible to prevent the attacks (no, don't even say it, I know you have this fantasy that Bush was given a report containing Mohammad Atta's flight information, but it's just not so).

Everyone is willing to defend civil rights when there's no cost involved; it's who's willing to stand up for them when there's a real tradeoff in money or social standing or even lives that matters. If the NRA should slunk away after Columbine and accepted the idea that guns kill people, not teenagers who've watched Hollywood slaughter-fests too many times and go to school in an oppressive bullying atmosphere, then the NRA is no defender of that civil right-- any more than the ACLU would have been if it had slunk away after 9/11 and said the government should have every capability to spy on us it can, or Martin Luther King if he'd slunk away after the church bombing in Birmingham, saying the rights of millions of black Americans have to take a backseat to the threat of violence from white racists.

comment #37

bents75 says ...

Mgmax. I won't disagree with most of your points, but isn't the scenario in which the NRA "slunk s away" and is therefore accepting of accustations that they're accountable simply your interpretation of what would have happened?

Granted, many people would have thought the same thing afterwards if they had, but what ultimately would have been the net result of that? The NRA wouldn't have crumbled or ceased to hold any sway that they currently have. There's a difference between saying, "yeah, you're right, we f'd up, and we're going away" and saying, "you know, out of respect to the victims, maybe we'll just postpone this shindig a couple months until everything blows over."

There's nothing criminal about sensitivity. They could have just sent out pamplets the following week and spun the situation saying that more guns and security would have prevented the incident and asked for a donation to the cause. They probably did anyway.

Just as many people blamed Hollywood and its violent movies...and they responded by allegedly curtailing the violence on several movies in the wake of it. That hasn't stopped people from giving them more money or continuing to watch more violent films since then.

And I'm sure for at least a few weeks there, bullies in high schools were a little more cautious before picking on the quiet kid dressed in black. That doesn't mean wedgies haven't resumed since.

comment #38

christian says ...

"That King was killed by a sniper is tragic, but it is not related at all to Heston's supporting them later in life. Only a fool would think otherwise."

Sterling logic from Gone Postal.

To ignore the long history of gun nuts offing beloved leaders and civilians is more foolish. The NRA post-Columbine propaganda was loathsome. And the madness continues.

But I never thought Moore's ambush of Heston was cool either. Heston was good enough to let him in and Moore could have presented his argument with tact and dignity. He didn't and I hate that scene.

comment #39

Joe B. says ...

I am soooo sick of people attacking Moore for "haranguing" Heston in his "feeble state."

If he was so "feeble" (which I'm not saying he wasn't) why was he still President of the NRA? Until 2003!!!(which was about two years later than the BfC events) If he's going to be held up as a figurehead for a controversial organization, he's going to get attacked.

If he's not able to be criticized or pestered with a camera, he should have stepped down or been made to step down.

Will this be the next way for controversial groups to be made "unassailable?" Put someone in charge and in front who can't be attacked or hassled?

That scene made me initially uncomfortable watching the movie -- until I thought for a second: "Moore isn't harassing some random old, feeble guy on the street. This is the President of the NR-fucking-A!"

comment #40

SaveFarris says ...

"Yes, money's more important than dead children. "

I'm curious: would postponing the NRA convention have brought those kids back to life?

Oh wait, it's just DZ. Nevermind...

comment #41

Mgmax says ...

Bents-- The point you're still missing is, they don't think they're related to the problem. They think they are the solution. Armed teachers, pow pow, Harris and Klebold down, lives saved. Armed pilots, no 9/11, armed everybody, no crime. So meeting was bringing help, not thumbing their nose at tragedy.

comment #42

SpinDozer says ...

AC: The Heston interview is, for some, somewhat contentious. For those who haven't seen the film, he invites Michael into his home to be interviewed, and some people have found that interview to be uncomfortable. He certainly did. Some have said that he seems to be senile or in some way not to be completely in control of his mental faculties and that you run rings around him. I didn't see it that way because this is the guy who appears in public straight after shootings and says, "We should all have rifles" and "To take my gun away from me, you'd have to prise it from out of my cold, dead hand". Do you see why some people are uncomfortable? Just talk about that interview you did with him.

MM: Well, I've read that in some American reviews of it. They feel sorry for him, he's an old man. Just before the film was released in America, he went on TV and announced that he had been told that he had Alzheimer-like symptoms. He doesn't have Alzheimer's but he might get it. And then he went out on the campaign trail for two or three weeks, 12 to 15 cities, campaigning for Senate and House candidates to make sure that Bush had control of the House and Senate. And he's in pre-production on his next movie. God I hope he doesn't get any bad diseases, I wouldn't wish that on anybody. I hope he lives a long life. I feel that the argument on my side of the fence is strong enough that I don't need him to be weakened by any disease. But I think they're very afraid of this film - they've been afraid of it since Cannes and they've been trying to figure out how to control it. Because it's not a gun control movie - this is a movie which says that something is more seriously and deeply wrong with the USA and our gun problem is a symptom of the larger illness that exists. Charlton Heston said in this interview with me, with no prompting from me, that the problem with America is "our mixed ethnicity". I'd asked a question about why Canadians don't have as many gun murders as we do and he said he was very proud that our country had been invented by those wise and dead white guys. And he kept making these kind of racial comments, but then he'd back off from them when I repeated the question to him. People were very afraid as to how that was going to come across. I don't know why anybody would feel sorry for a guy who leads the most powerful lobby group in the US and whose sole purpose is to make sure that people can have as many guns as they want to have and fire as many bullets as the guns can possibly fire. These people are insane and they have to be stopped. And the majority of Americans, according to every poll, want gun control. This group succeeds with a minority position and I think it's time to hear from the other side; time for the other side to not be afraid to stand up for what they believe in and until we correct the mental problem, we have to put the guns away. So I do believe in gun control - guns have to be put aside until we can act more Canadian-like.

comment #43

D.Z. says ...

Burma: "Yeah it's a privilege, that's why it's the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Privileges."

Free Speech is a privilege when it comes to shouting "fire" in a movie theater.

Mgmax: "But I think the ACLU is wacky on the separation of church and state sometimes too-- Santa in the public square really probably isn't a threat to democracy."

Neither is evolution in schools, but I don't see you trashing Kansas' Board of Education.

"More to the point, all civil rights should have such extreme defenders."

Thus canceling any argument you have against the ACLU.

"There is a perfectly reasonable case to be made that the ACLU cost American lives on 9/11."

Did the ACLU put the radio tower in the WTC or ignore warnings about Al Qaeda attacking?

"Measures which prevented the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence on people in the US probably did make it impossible to prevent the attacks"

And yet all that wiretapping couldn't stop New Orleans from being flooded.

"(no, don't even say it, I know you have this fantasy that Bush was given a report containing Mohammad Atta's flight information, but it's just not so)."

You're right. His brother was the one who helped him get flying lessons.

"If the NRA should slunk away after Columbine and accepted the idea that guns kill people, not teenagers who've watched Hollywood slaughter-fests too many times and go to school in an oppressive bullying atmosphere, then the NRA is no defender of that civil right--"

Guns aren't a civil right. And teens watch plenty of violent flicks and deal with plenty of bullying in other countries, but they can't get their hands on weapons as easily as in the U.S.

"any more than the ACLU would have been if it had slunk away after 9/11 and said the government should have every capability to spy on us it can, or Martin Luther King if he'd slunk away after the church bombing in Birmingham, saying the rights of millions of black Americans have to take a backseat to the threat of violence from white racists."

You're amusing, equating the power to kill innocent people with a government which watches and hears your every move, or separates you based on your color.
There are plenty of ways to defend yourself without guns, but there's not much you can do against a church-bombing or a Kafka-esque jail sentence.

christian: "Heston was good enough to let him in and Moore could have presented his argument with tact and dignity. He didn't and I hate that scene."

Heston didn't exactly show tact and dignity during the tragedy, so par for the course...

Farris: "I'm curious: would postponing the NRA convention have brought those kids back to life?"

No, but the NRA's lobbying for easy gun access led to their deaths, so they kind of owe the family for their mistake.

Mgmax: "The point you're still missing is, they don't think they're related to the problem. They think they are the solution. Armed teachers, pow pow, Harris and Klebold down, lives saved."

Assuming that the teachers could pull out their weapons in time, what with Harris and Klebold hiding them in their bags and all...

comment #44

Mgmax says ...

"Neither is evolution in schools, but I don't see you trashing Kansas' Board of Education."

Um... those losers were defeated-- in the Republican primary, I might add, not in the general election-- in 2006.

So no, I'm not trashing them much these days. Or the Ford administration, the Commodore 64, or the service on TWA...

comment #45

D.Z. says ...

"Um... those losers were defeated-- in the Republican primary, I might add, not in the general election-- in 2006."

That doesn't mean others like them haven't tried to pass Intelligent Design as a science, though. *cough* Grand Canyon only 2,000 years old *cough*

comment #46

Major Calloway says ...

DZ: Owning a gun is not a civil right. It's a privilege. Otherwise, they'd let you have bazookas, too.

Burma: Yeah it's a privilege, that's why it's the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Privileges.

DZ: Free Speech is a privilege when it comes to shouting "fire" in a movie theater.

Milk just came out of my nose.

So the argument has resolved to: owning a gun is a right, but owning a bazooka is a privilege.