Darth Wong wrote:
Except that the "something else" in question is mythical. I've seen the ENTIRE transcript of Heston's speech, and it gives me the exact same impression that Moore's abbreviated version does.
It gives
you the exact same impression Mike. But does it give most other viewers that impresion? Let's not forget something here. Before you ever saw this film, you read a great deal about it right here on this board. So you already knew, presumably, that Heston's speech in the movie was actually cobbled together out of two separate speeches, given a year apart. And perhaps you also knew before seeing the film that the Denver meeting had been scheduled in advance, and was not made in response to the Columbine massacre. But had you not sat down to watch the movie forearmed with this knowledge, would you have come away with the same impression of Charlton Heston and the NRA?
Here's a sampling of what some actual film critics thought after watching it:
He certainly was not aware that the meeting was scheduled long in advance. And why should he be? He probably didn't know it beforehand. And Moore's film certainly doesn't fill you in on this rather significant fact.
Notice this? The rally is ill-conceived. How can it be ill-conceived when it was scheduled in advance of the massacre, at a time when nothing was amiss?
The reviewer obviously thinks the meeting was planned after the masacre. Now why would he think that? Could it be because that's the impression that a person with no prior knowledge gets after watching "Bowling for Columbine"?
So Heston is "determined to give his 'my cold dead hands' speech wherever a massacre occurred", eh?
Heston must be a clairvoyant then, to divine when a massacre will take place, and schedule big NRA meetings to coincide with such tragedies.
The arrogant and decrepit Heston, held NRA rallies in Denver 10 days after the massacre and soon after the Flint murder (one can't blame his disease for that kind of insensitivity). He's on film saying the inflammatory unapolegetic words "From my cold dead hands" while holding up a rifle, as there's no concern about the public's safety as all he cares about is that every American has the right without any interference from the government to own a gun.
Dennis Schwartz - Ozus' World Movie Reviews
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/mov ... rid=825616
Gee, it looks as though this fellow is completely unaware that Heston never made that "cold dead hands" remark in Denver, in the immediate aftermath of the Columbine massacre. Where do you suppose he might have gotten the idea that old Chuck Heston did?
Throughout the film, Moore follows the no-coincidence scheduling of National Rifle Association rallies at sites of gun violence, with Charlton Heston repeatedly showing up only days after the latest handgun outrage.
Robert Keser – Dail-Reviews.com
http://www.daily-reviews.com/b/rkbowling.htm
Hmm... Yet
another reviewer that seems to think the NRA scheduled the Denver meeting in response to the Columbine massacre, rather than in advance of it.
Heston, current head of the NRA, famous for his overacting in various pictures such as, Planet of the Apes, seems to make a habit of holding NRA meetings immediately following tragedies such as Columbine, in close proximity to where the tragedies occurred. Holding a rifle into the air, Heston defiantly declares to a screaming audience of insensitive gun-toting whackos impervious to the protesting parents outside of the building, "from my cold, dead hands."
Alex Sandell – Juicy Cerebellum
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/mov ... rid=811077
Wow. This chap thinks Heston callously and cruelly made the "cold dead hands remark" while protesting parents, in the wake of the Columbine massacre, were demonstrating outside the very doors of the auditorium. Pity he seems unaware that those same doors were located in South Carolina, not Colorado.
Mike, you've argued that only idiots would think the NRA planned this meeting in response to the Columbine tragedy - that my objection is based only on what "some idiot", who "interpreted it in an entirely unreasonable fashion" thinks. Well it's not. My objection is based on what impression the typical viewer is likely to carry away after seeing this film - especially if he/she is unaware of the facts of the matter. It's a false and misleading impression carefully induced by Michael Moore.
This is just a selection of reviews I found in a quick, 20 minute search. There were lots of other reviews that said nothing about the Denver meeting. But any review that treated the subject in depth, and mentioned the Denver meeting at all, invariably made it clear that the reviewer thought the NRA had planned the meeting after the tragedy, as though to take advantage of the event for publicity. There were none I found that appeared to understand that a meeting such as this would have to be planned farther ahead. No surprise there. As I said, most people are easily led. Stir up an emotional reaction and most people will run with it without atopping to think. Any politician could tell you that if you want to sway an audience, don't use logic; it's a waste of time. Stir up their emotions. Fallacy it may be, but it works. Well that's precisely what Moore does. He selectively presents carefully edited footage in order to make a blatant appeal to emotion, and evoke a negative emotional response from his audience.
Appeal to emotion is a fallacy. You don't hesitate to call people on that sort of thing when they do it on this board. Yet when Michael Moore does it, and we point out that that's what he's doing, you tell us we're nitpicking.
