That is an amazing film, and very powerful. It was rated as a "comedy", and the film jacket promised the viewer would be howling with laughter...wha??? Nothing funny about it, except perhaps for some of Michael Moore's sarcasms when interviewing certain individuals. Shocking was more like it. I admire Moore and agree with many points he was trying to make in the film, although he did draw certain "conclusions" that were probably not entirely on. He did go on about the number of guns in Canada (apparently around 7 million licensed weapons), and pointed out that even with that number, the murder rate was comparatively low. What he did NOT clarify, was that the weapons in Canada are largely hunting rifles or rifles used for target practice; very few Canadians own handguns, and handgun licenses in Canada are VERY restrictive (they need to be transported in a lock box, and cannot be loaded during transport; RCMP clearance etc..). So I think the handgun is the issue here, not the nature of Canadians being happy go lucky non-aggressors, as Moore seemed to be attempting to show.
The issues raised about Americans as a nation being a relatively violent people, the racial inequities, and an undercurrent of what I would call "social hatred", I think are issues worthy of serious discussion in attempting to understand the very high incidence of firearm related murder and mayhem. The film raises questions, but poses few answers, but I did enjoy it, and think it is an important film to see.
I did get the impression that Charleton Heston can be an insensitive pr..ick, but he is entitled to his stance on guns. If he truly did visit both Columbine and Indiana the day after their tragedies, I think that is very callous and hurtful for those people.
Finally, I did think blaming Dick Clark, for the horrendous social problem affecting that family in Indiana, is too much of a stretch, and I can't really blame Dick for "closing the door" on Mr.Moore.
Thoughts anyone? I know there was discussion about this film earlier in the year.
Gene
