NY Times on "Gunfight:" "Doesn't caricature or condescend"

[villager]

<snip>

She doesn’t caricature or condescend to those shown in repeated images of rooms full of white people talking about “the real America,” but they send their own message. And she chose which of their comments made the final cut, of course, including: “Self-defense is a benefit of being able to shoot the government,” and, “It was gun control that contributed to the tragedy at Virginia Tech.” Also: “We must sound reasonable, or we risk alienating the public.”

The narration-free film, which combines interviews and visits to gun fairs and National Rifle Association conventions with news and archival footage, takes no outright position but is clearly cautionary. It’s an implicit warning about the dangers of unregulated gun ownership and the power and increasingly apocalyptic tone of Second Amendment fundamentalists.

<snip>

http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/arts/television/gun-fight-documentary-on-hbo-review.html

Obviously, fundamentalists won't like it. But in being that rigid, they can't.

[LAGC]

1. I find it interesting that the gun control advocates keep retreating...

...and trying to find a more "reasonable" middle ground.

It wasn't too long ago back in the 1990's that they were openly calling for all-out bans on all handguns. That turned off enough people, so now, they are desperately grasping at straws trying to get a foot in the door with banning high-capacity magazines, in hopes that they can build on the momentum to eventually get back to a point where they can openly advocate for banning handguns again.

Shows how weak their political power is. I mean, the only reason the NRA is so powerful is because it has millions of grass-roots members.

Who does the Brady Bunch have besides a few corporate donors and a few urban hoplophobes?

Surely, any undecided observer would have to ask: why is it that the gun rights lobby is so much more powerful than the gun control lobby?

And then some authoritarians wonder why they can't get any new gun controls passed, regardless of which political party is in power, while gun laws are being liberalized and relaxed throughout the nation.

[rl6214]

3. The gun control group in one breath says

how the NRA is such an extremeist fringe group that does not represent the views of mainstream America while and then in the next says how the NRA is heavily funded and pushes it's weight around buying politicians.

If they are so extreme and on the fringe, where are they getting all their money from to throw around and buy politicians, if not from mainstream America?

[villager]

5. Barbar Kopple's a documentary filmmaker, not a gun control advocate

n/t

[LAGC]

8. Right. And so is Michael Moore.

Not like there is any bias in their editing at all.

Most "documentaries" are made with an agenda in mind, to try to sway people's opinion on any given topic.

It's not just what parts make the final cut and which are selectively edited out, but HOW they are presented as well.

From the other thread on this topic, it's pretty clear Kopple makes gun rights advocates out to be extremists, while presenting a "sensible" other side.

[petronius]

2. The author has a strange definition of "liberal advocate"

Anti-rights, anti-Constitution folks may be advocates for something, but it's not liberalism...

[PavePusher]

4. "She doesn’t caricature or condescend..."

in a film over which she had editorial control?

I think I just threw up a little... in my mouth.

[villager]

6. unlike the fundamentalists in this forum -- right

n/t

[RSillsbee]

7. The fundamentalists in this forum

You mean because we believe self defense (and the means there of) is a fundamental human right?