I thought the film was superficially entertaining, but presented a very distorted view of life in the US.
I live in an older neighborhood in the middle of a large US city, and do not live in fear. I rarely lock my doors. My neighborhood is racially mixed and diverse economically, and I live there by choice.
I strongly resent Moore's implication that gun violence in the US is predicated by racism. A tiny minority of gun violence is the result of media-spectacular massacres and serial killings. A rather small minority is done in self-defense.
Moore implies that it is somehow racist to even discuss the nature of the vast majority of US gun violence- as if not discussing a problem will solve it. No, instead, the problem is apparently a result of inadequate social services (as if we need bad money after good), the imperial nature of our foreign policy, both of which are the result of tacit, ubiquitous racism.
I find Moore's pseudo-journalistic style to be an affront on reason. He portrays the issues in a cartoonish fashion, selecting easy targets such as Heston, being careful to make him look like a dotard by not editing the film, while expertly editing the interviews with those with whom he agrees.
One of my favorite moments of unintentional humor in the film was the interview of Marilyn Manson. After several minutes of film of helmet-haired fundies demonizing him, Manson (now inoculated) is interviewed. He asserts that consumerism is driven by fear- an old charge made by Veblen, Vance Packard, and others.
Although the charge may be true in part, it is ironic to hear it come from someone eager to sell products (recordings, concerts, T-shirts, etc) designed to appeal to adolescents. What demographic has its spending driven by fear more than that of adolescents? Did Moore think to ask, "Do people buy your CDs out of fear?" Or would this question simply have detracted from the unambivalent gesture he was trying to make?
Moore is every bit as guilty of sensationalism and exploitation as the mass media he deplores. |
