Bowling for Columbine just talk about it

1. This is a film rated as the best documentary in history by the International Documentary Association in 2002. In Cannes, the audience stood and applauded for 13 minutes after the film screening. I have a good impression of Moore's fat and bloated look, and I also like his unscrupulous tone in the interview, all of which makes him look like a cultural naughty. I like smart, educated children. His movies are full of Lu Xun's "shun shot", attacking many aspects of mainstream American society. Using the Oklahoma bombing and the Columbine High School massacre as an introduction, he discovered that since 9/11 in American society, fear has become a part of Americans’ red blood cells and circulates throughout the body, profoundly affecting Americans’ thinking and thinking. action. Externally, it is manifested as a strong delusion. In the process of intimidating Americans and the Americans began to intimidate themselves after being intimidated, the mass media played an important role. Faced with serious topics, Moore did not give up humor easily, and kept pursuing excitement. Unexpectedly, he didn't give me the answer at the end. Yes, just show his attitude.

2. About freedom. Moore spoke fiercely at the 2003 oscar awards ceremony, proclaiming: Mr. Bush shame on you. He even wrote a book called "Stupid White Man," in which he scolded Bush as a "thief" and advocated sending troops and launching missiles to expel this thief. He also declared in the book that "the United States has deviated from the path it should take, and is in a state of ignorance and stupidity." Why can Moore publicly attack the president in public? As he himself said, "The greatest thing about this country is that you can say what you want to say. So I said it." Because the right to speak is protected by the Constitution, because speech is a form of freedom of speech. Freedom is a kind of freedom, and freedom is a natural right. According to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is legal for citizens of the United States to hold guns. This is the respect and protection of individual freedom and power. The founding fathers of the United States were aware of the terrible government when they specified the constitution. It is likely to abuse its power and move from democracy to autocracy, thereby hindering the freedom of the people. In Linda's words, "The President is unreliable." Therefore, the United States will have the separation of powers and checks and balances of power. The last line of defense to protect the people’s freedom and power from infringement is the lawfulness of the people’s guns. This means that when the government moves toward autocracy and begins to infringe on the people’s interests, the people have power and can actually use weapons to resist. Moore uses the power of freedom of speech to criticize the foundation of freedom, a paradox?

3. About objectivity. I know that there is a title called "New Documentary Film", which affirms the "fictional" technique used in documentaries that was often denied in the past. Moore’s film has also attracted widespread doubts. He believes that his personal touch is too strong. As a character in the film, Moore leads the audience into the world he wants to show. His voice is full of hints and temptations. In the film, he led Colombian victims to K-MART to seek justice. He kept the pictures of the 6-year-old girl in the chairman's house after the NRA chairman visited, and repeatedly stated his personal position, which undoubtedly made many people's objectivity in the film. Be suspicious. However, this is a chaotic and complicated world. The so-called objective calmness, can you really capture the so-called truth through the cold lens behind the camera? So, what do you know about the row of reporters who report on the spot at the gate of the elementary school? Can their stylized reports really approach the truth of the incident? If documentaries really require absolute objectivity, what position should the film’s author put in? The life and power of documentaries lies in reality, but reality is the so-called "camera style that can't lie", or should I pursue ideological and ideological reality? "Absolute truth" does not exist, which is a potential prerequisite for discussing documentaries. Because it always records the present, lacking historical reference and depth, so it is partial and superficial. In that case, why not use the light of reason to illuminate the unrecognized events? I tend to involve the creator, although at the same time we have to be wary of him using his own ideas to misinterpret the truth.

4. Regarding panic psychology. The spread of rumors and the role of group psychology in this social process are issues that I am currently reading and thinking, and I hope to write a longer and detailed discussion of this issue. I have written a graduate thesis. When we are blaming the media for the morality of the media, should we also review the role and role played by ordinary people in the process of panic and panic creation? "Members are all good people, but the Roman Senate is a beast." Individuals may be rational and wise, but when the atoms of society—individuals aggregate into a collective, the kind of madness should be said to be close to pathology. Moreover, this madness is extremely contagious.

http://bigteeth.blogbus.com/logs/10881515.html

View more about Bowling for Columbine reviews