bowling for bombs essays

bowling for bombs essays a great movie, Michael Moore is a great comedian and he did make some interesting point. But it was anything but a documentary. It was very biased and I would even go as far as saying it was a brilliant piece of propaganda. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with producing a piece of propaganda in a free environment. But then you should admit it. Bowling for Columbine was good propaganda, but not a documentary. Let me give you some examples: Did you notice that the people in favour of liberal gun laws appearing in the movie were nearly all total morons whereas the people who support stricter gun laws were generally educated and/or intelligent people. It was hilarious to hear the brother of the Oklahoma bomber say that, 'There are lots of whackos out there', and it certainly illustrates well Moore's point. However selecting stupid people to oppose your argument is not really the way to make a documentary. As a matter of fact, documentaries are meant to expose issues and ask questions instead of giving answers. Another example would be the interview with Charlton Heston. Did you know that Heston announced shortly after the interview he had "Altzheimer-like symptoms". Isn't it wrong to take advantage and make fun of a sick person? Now, as has been put forward by Moore, Heston might be faking it in order to make us THINK Moore is just a reckless bastard who tries to manipulate us. Yet, that seems unlikely to me: First of all, Heston would hence have sacrificed his career in the NRA for a movie (which didn't go that well in the States BTW) and secondly, why did Moore not point this Altzheimer-thing out in the movie anyway? In doubt, we should, I think just ignore the interview and not interpret it in a fashion that reflects either positively or negatively on Moore's movie. Third example: The animated-movie, which most people thought was quite funny. Though Moore may have a point about the American ...