First of all, let me say that I don't want this thread to become a gun debate, we have had enough here already. It's just some thoughts about Moore's documentary style.
I've seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" before this one. I assume that when people want to make a point, they will try not to show contrary opinions, that is good for both parties. I mean, if Moore want's to make a point about people having guns, they will ask a couple of them about how many guns they do have. If the first two say that they have ten guns each, and the filmmaker have only 60 seconds to display on the film, then job done, no more asking. But if it happens that the first two interviewed have no guns, he would have to keep interviewing until he finds somebody with enough guns to show on the film.
At the end of the film they go to K-Mart headquarters with two kids that were wounded at Columbine. They stay until the PR goes down to talk to them. They wanted to express their disgust because K-Mart was selling bullets. I certainly would have not liked to be in that women' shoes, but she did well in my opinion: showed sympathy for the victims but what the heck did Moore expect from her? She is just an employee, she can't take such decisions nor make public statements just like that. The next day they returned with tens of media cameras. The spokeswoman announced that they would stop selling bullets after 90 days -I guess that's the time they guessed they would run out of inventory-. That seemed to be like a victory, but did K-Mart really stopped selling bullets? Has anybody of you recently go to K-Mart and didn't find bullets? Obviously, K-Mart had to face the loss of profit for stopping selling bullets, or the loss of profit for a possible harm on their image to the public view and the ensuing boycott. After all, they probably chose the lesser of two evils. They got rid of a problem right there, and as they didn't say their decision to stop selling bullets was definitive, they could start over again in a few months when everybody has forgotten about it.
But that's when I don't agree with Moore. It's clear their intentions were good, but wasn't they blaming the wrong one? If law allows people to buy bullets, why can't K-Mart sell them? A supermarket is not a church; they are there to make profit and corporations are not known for having strong principles. When there is money to be made, there they are. If people want to buy bullets and K-Mart doesn't sell them, people will go somewhere else. So why should K-Mart stop selling bullets and not everybody else too? Shouldn't they have appealed to congressmen to enact laws so it's not allowed to sell bullets?
Then he goes to Charlton Heston's house. I can't say I like Mr. Heston's role as president as the NRA, though I think he is an excellent actor. Well, out of the clear blue sky apears Michael Moore, rings Heston's door, and he schedule an interview for the very next morning.
Even when I can't agree with NRA principles, I can't agree with the way Moore interviewed Heston. First of all, he identified himself as member of the NRA, that seemed to me a cheap way to make Heston lower his defenses. Then there is a couple of questions, and Heston says he thinks there are more murders in American because of the violence experienced in recent american history. Moore asks then if germans, english, japanese doesn't have a violent history too, but he makes a blunder: first of all, he gets a little excited, and second, he almost doesn't let Heston talk. The actor, clever enough, starts to notice that the interview seems much more like a trap, so he just retort what his opinion is. Then, Moore talks about how the NRA had rallies in Littleton and Flint just a few days after the crimes, and Heston says he didn't know about the gunshooting. Moore asks Heston if he is willing to apologize to the citizens of both cities for being there just short after the crimes, and Heston decides the interview is over.
And this is what I don't like about how the interview was conducted: Mr. Heston was kind enough to schedule an interview with just a few hours advance. He may be right or wrong, but he has his own opinions and, from what I know, has done nothing illegal yet. I'm positive he suffered for those crimes, like did everybody else. Who would not suffer for some kids killed at gunshooting? But that's not what it as stake. In my opinion, Moore was kind of suggesting that the crimes involving guns are responsability of the NRA. What did he expect, that Heston would publicly say he was sorry for the 6-year girl killed buy a schoolmate the same age? That would show like if he feels responsible for that. If he didn't expect any sadness, that would put him as a man with no feelings. Heston opened his house's doors to give an interview and Moore abused of him in my opinion. It would have been enough to ask Heston: "Do you think it's positive that children have easy access to guns? What's the best way in your opinion to restrict the access to guns to people under age (I mean legal age)? I mean, just ask open questions so the interviewed can really express his point of view. When you are interviewing, even if you are biased (who is not?) you have to leave the interwiewe to express his opinion if you really want to know it. Otherwise, you are just lousily trying to make him tell what you want him to do, or letting him speak when he says what you want, but avoid what you don't want him to say.
As I said, I don't pretend this thread to become a gun debate. It's just some thoughts about how to interview somebody that you don't agree with, be it guns or any other subject.
That being said, I thin'k it's good there is somebody that stirs the pot a little (Moore) and create some controversy and some food for thought. May there would be a Moore in Spain too.
Raul
