I have to do a film cirtique of the documentary "Bowling for Columbine" that puts political views and situations into a film. I waould like some input as to what you thought about the directors views, and at what angle to approach the subjects presented in the film. The film cirtique needs to be art least 2 pages double-spaced and it supposed to appeal to an educated audience. I am supposed to be writing for a magazine like Time or McCleans.

That's what your teacher is asking you to do.;)

why not 1 page single spaced or better yet ½ a page no space

there are some good threads on "Bowling for columbine" try running a search for them.

I;m not being asked to analyse a character, I have to do a film critique for an educated audience, And yes, i'l search

why not 1 page single spaced or better yet ½ a page no space

Double-spaced is much easier to read, especially if you're grading a lot of papers.

I use 1.5 Spacing it better then 1 and it does not look as far apart and cheating as 2.

Originally posted by Spyke
Double-spaced is much easier to read, especially if you're grading a lot of papers.

The most annoying thing in the world when reading a report or book is flipping the page in mid paragraph, every 30 seconds.

dsdsds,

250-300 words in 30 secs that impressive!

1/ see the documentary

2/ write afterwards whatever comes to your mind, care more for sinciarity (saying what you realy think) than about the structure/niceties of it.

3/ go and see google etc what other people/critics wrote.

4/ Confront/compare your opinion with other opinions.

5/ Write an introduction summing up your opinion and state your basic thesis (eg.: the doc. is about the gun-culture in the US. It oposes this culture by confronting the consequences of using the guns as easy sollution for conflicts between the individual and his surrounds...) use the 2/ point notes.

6/ Argue the opinions you formed: why do you think so. (argue one point in one alinea as mmuch as possible).

7/ Use some differing views from point 3 and explain why you see these points of view as wrong/not getting the point or what ever.

8/ Sum up your argument, eventualy repeat your main point(s).

Good luck with it!

The most annoying thing in the world when reading a report or book is flipping the page in mid paragraph, every 30 seconds.

Yeah, that can be a real bitch when reading a 2 page paper.:rolleyes:

Not too many books I've read are double-spaced.

It shows the sleezy side of corporations and how they would do anything to garner the punblics money.

Makes you wonder what your teacher's agenda and political motives are on impressionable youth.

Originally posted by Spyke
Yeah, that can be a real bitch when reading a 2 page paper.:rolleyes:

Not too many books I've read are double-spaced.

I read several engineering reports almost every day. Some are double or 1 1/2 line spaced. When most pages are filled with tables & charts, .. yeah, it get's annoying. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by truth
Makes you wonder what your teacher's agenda and political motives are on impressionable youth. Um yeah. I hope this school is either A) private or B) not located in the US, because I don't want my tax dollars pushing this nonsense.

I read several engineering reports almost every day. Some are double or 1 1/2 line spaced. When most pages are filled with tables & charts, .. yeah, it get's annoying.

I don't know about tables and charts, you said splitting paragraphs before. I can generally hold my train of thought for the couple of seconds it takes me to flip a page to continue a paragraph. What is annoying though is reading 30-35 papers where they are single spaced. It's murder on concentration.

See the movie for yourself.

It is an eye opener

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/images/booksfilms/dude-top-02.gif
Visit Here (http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/dudewheresmycountry/)

Taht moovy was frigin hilarius! Those stupid canehdians leavin ther doors unloked! we coud invade ther ass's SOOO easily

That movy showed me taht americans are specail becuse of our freedums to kill criminals!

1 thign that relly pist me off on that movy was how he mad fun of taht planut of apes guy

--------------------------------------------

You can steel this little gem if you want!

Originally posted by Chaosin
Taht moovy was frigin hilarius! Those stupid canehdians leavin ther doors unloked! we coud invade ther ass's SOOO easily

That movy showed me taht americans are specail becuse of our freedums to kill criminals!

1 thign that relly pist me off on that movy was how he mad fun of taht planut of apes guy

--------------------------------------------

You can steel this little gem if you want! http://webpages.charter.net/rylandpage/emot-lol.gifhttp://webpages.charter.net/rylandpage/emot-lol.gifhttp://webpages.charter.net/rylandpage/emot-lol.gif

Try to remember the Canadians have more guns they we do per person, so walking into their unlocked house might be a bad idea. The USofA has 7 times the murder by gun rate of canada and canada is second highest in the world.

The low point of the movie for me was exploiting Heston's hospitality and senility: That's like interviewing Reagan to laugh at his Long Goodbye.

Whuuu-huuuu!!!

My state finally passed a law allowing concealed carry permits. Now private, law-abiding citizens have the ability to protect themselves! Michael Moore, I think he is the director of the movie, is an idiot. His pointless, stupid rants have proven that. Liberals, when they speak, you can actually hear air being wasted!:rolleyes:

truth:

<i>My state finally passed a law allowing concealed carry permits. Now private, law-abiding citizens have the ability to protect themselves!</i>

Let me guess. You live in the south, right?

<i>Michael Moore, I think he is the director of the movie, is an idiot.</i>

Do you have any actual reasons for coming to that conclusion, or just prejudice?

<i>Liberals, when they speak, you can actually hear air being wasted!</i>

Let's wait until somebody shoots you with a concealed weapon. Then you might change your mind.

Truth,

Aaah normal conservative speech nothing but Ad Hominems (Yes I just made one to). When your learn proper and logical argument structure people may listen better, if you want to critics liberals you have to prove errors in their ideology rather then make ad hominems about them.

Being a liberal is like buying insurance. Your pay a price(more taxes), but if something bad and unexpected happens you have financial services to help you out. Anyone who says they do it out of an ideology to help others is probably lying, wheteher they realise it or not.

Chaosin,

Is liberalism and socialism the same thing?

Originally posted by James R
Let me guess. You live in the south, right?

I think every Southern state has a "right to carry" law except Alabama.

My guess is that he is in the Midwest; possibly Missouri.

by the way, thank you, the people that inputed information, and I live in Canada, which seems to be one of the central parts of the film because of our gun control... I'm not sure if my teacher is trying to put stuff in the heads "impressionable youth", but I don;t think she is since we all kind of spoke our minds about the issues and so forth. Double spacing is the proper MLA format, although I usually go with 2.3 if it a long assignment (12+ pages). It adds about a half a page or so... anyway thank you, iI think i'l get a good mark.

Let me guess. You live in the south, right?

That's a fairly broad assumption considering that 43 states presently issue concealed weapons permits.

Yes, I live in Missouri. Stinkin' libs hijacked the legislative process again through judicial activism. The legislature passed the bill for concealed carry and imposed a 24 hour waiting period for abortions. The governor vetoed both. The legislature overrode both vetoes. What did the arrogant libs do, run to a like-minded judge, get an injunction, now the courts get to decide if we get to have this. Why have a legislature if every time someone does not like a law, they can just do an end run and stop it? Ironic, you don't have to wait to kill a baby, but you have to wait to purchase a gun and can't carry one concealed. Don't put a murderer to death, but hey, partial birth abortion is no big deal. Freakin' hypocrite libs!

I am in favor of some serious reform as to judicial activism. You have one person or a small cabal making laws or overturning them. That was not the way things were supposed to happen in this country. I don't care if it is lib or conservative judge, if the legislature makes a law, unless it is blatantly wrong, need to stay out of it.

I am disgusted with the legal system, and I am an attorney.

Btw, for all you who are against allowing law abiding citizens from concealed carry, think about this. The criminals are and always will carry weapons, with or without the law. I know, I have defended enough of them. And, as far as I know, every state that has enacted CCW, has had a corresponding decrease in crime. Every police officer I have spoken with is in favor of the CCW laws. But our elite liberal wannabe masters think they know what is best for the plebes. :rolleyes:

Btw, for all you who are against allowing law abiding citizens from concealed carry, think about this...
What I'm thinking about is whether or not you're aware of what this sounds like from the "outside". Odd, that's what it is. Makes the US sound like a real cess pit.

truth:

Considering you claim to be an attorney, it seems strange to me that you don't seem to know what an injunction does. This is not a case of a court overturning a law. It stops action being taken until a matter can be judicially determined. In this case, it means the court will decide whether the proposed laws are invalid for constitutional or other reasons.

This is not judicial activism. The courts cannot stop a legislated law unless it is in conflict with the constitution or other legilative limit.

As an attorney, I would have expected all this to be obvious to you.

Originally posted by James R
truth:

Considering you claim to be an attorney, it seems strange to me that you don't seem to know what an injunction does. This is not a case of a court overturning a law. It stops action being taken until a matter can be judicially determined. In this case, it means the court will decide whether the proposed laws are invalid for constitutional or other reasons.

This is not judicial activism. The courts cannot stop a legislated law unless it is in conflict with the constitution or other legilative limit.

As an attorney, I would have expected all this to be obvious to you.

I know perfectly well what is does. The injunction was used to halt a valid law in order for it to be heard in a case by a court. Either way a valid, Constitutionally correct law ends up being decided by a court through forum shopping.

In conflict with a constitution? When has that stopped a court? Dred Scott, Komatsu, Midkif, Roe, all come to mind.

So my cities busses which I take to and from my university have a no weapons sign up by the driver. Its a black silouet of what looks like a cowboy six shooter with one of those red circles with a line through it. It occured to me to get up and ask the driver "Hey does that sign apply if i have a permit to carry concealed?" and the guy looked at my backpack then at my face and gave me this real dirty look!

Can you believe it? Couldn't he tell I was a college student and not a member of that alternate race "criminals" who are the only ones who can use a gun to poor ends? Its not like a totaly normal person ever lost his cool and used a gun on somone who didnt really deserve it right? I'm sure they are only ever used in ligitimate self defence, not to solve domestic disputes or anything.

That is analogous to saying drunk drivers kill people, so take away cars. There are laws against murder, domestic violence, etc., how about actually enforcing those. The police do not have to protect you, and do you think that criminals would normally act if an officer was standing right there. If they would with an officer there, even more reason to protect yourself.

holy crap, truth, that post was nearly incoherent. Do you even try to think what your NRA rhetoric means so you can use it affectivly in an argument or do you just copy and paste it and hope it makes a readable paragraph?

I think its pretty ironic how any argument with the pro-gun croud eventualy turns anti-cop. It prrobably has something to do with firearms enthusiasts deep seated desire to dispence thier own vigilante justice. Admit it truth, isnt it one of your greatest desires in the world to be able to shoot three or four people and not have to feel guilty of it because you were just defending your property? I'm not saying it would be amoral to do something like that, if you have to defend yourself go ahead, but when I argue with the gun croud it alwayse begins to seem like they are secretly fantasizing and hopeing it happens to them.

Admit it truth, isnt it one of your greatest desires in the world to be able to shoot three or four people and not have to feel guilty of it because you were just defending your property? I'm not saying it would be amoral to do something like that, if you have to defend yourself go ahead, but when I argue with the gun croud it alwayse begins to seem like they are secretly fantasizing and hopeing it happens to them

I don't think that is true as a rule. I don't know how the requirements vary from state to state, but I would assume they are similar. I had to take two days of courses, part of which was actually qualifying, and the rest was in classes where you learn the legal ramifications. And the legalities involved would discourage anyone from actually using their weapon in self defense except as a very last resort. While it might be ruled completely a case of self defense and there be no crminal charges brought against you, you can almost be assured that your attacker (if you didn't kill him/her), or his family (if you did kill him/her), will sue you in civil court. That doesn't necessarily mean they would get anything from you, of course, but just the expenses in lawyer's fees, time lost from work, and just the overall stress (particularly from taking another's life) is enough to discourage anyone from hoping they get attacked for the 'pleasure' of using their weapon.

Moose, not to belittle, but that was one of the most ignorant things I believe I have ever read. I have a lot of friends that are shooting enthusiasts and cops. I have been shooting for over 20 years and have never heard anyone hope they get to shoot someone. Frankly, most shooters and gun owners would rather be left alone. In fact the only shooter, police or otherwise, that I know of to have ever shot anyone was during the Vietnam War.

Sane shooters do not hang around people "that want to shoot someone" because they are dangerous. I have even represented some in court, they are called criminals. I don't even allow my children to point their dart guns at anyone or their cap guns. I have taken them away when they have not listened. My friends do the same. In fact all genuine shooters/gun enthusiasts I have ever met are the most law-abiding and safest people I have ever seen.

To actually suggest that I or any other have some deep seated desire to kill because we are gun owners is completely beneath contempt and utterly stupid. I have never had to even brandish or threaten with a firearm for protection. I pray that I never will, as do the others I know. I don't know any that would shoot over property, but believe me, if my life, my family's lives, or others are threatened, I will not hesitate. If someone attempts to do any of that, my life is worth more than theirs. No one wants to shoot anyone, none of us would ever want to live with that, right or wrong in using deadly force.

Grow up, quit acting like a liberal elitest. What you stated tells me how little you know and understand. There is not a single coherent anti-gun argument that I know of worth anything.

And for vigilante justice, I don't know of any that agree with it. We should use the system as it is the law. Though, I would not mind seeing bin Laden run a gauntlet of angry New Yorkers.

Originally posted by truth
Grow up, quit acting like a liberal elitest.

I'm wondering if you know what either of those words mean because your use of them seems odd.

I stand by my assertion, I believe that many gun enthusiasts desire the oppertunity to shoot a person in self defence.

I also believe its not wrong to shoot somone in self defence, or in some cases in defence of property. But I also believe that people are generly going to be given more oppertunitys to missuse a gun than to defend themselves, and that its likely that people who should least be trusted with gun (criminals and people with power fantacys) are going to be the first and most common to rush to get them.

And for my peace of mind, where did you get your law degree?