A response to Dan

Excellent first post, Dan! Dan has a talent for writing, especially for writing stirring movie critiques. I do have to mention, however, Dan did misuse the word mockumentary. I'm unsure if either Dan didn't understand mockumentary's actual definition or if his mislabeling was used as a satirical writing device. Both movies that Dan labeled as mocumentaries are, in fact, not. Mocumentaries must employ the stylized documentary effect in a fictitious manner to qualify for the genre. Some works that are included in this genre are This is Spinal Tap and loosely The Office (they use interview like segments within the show to have have an appearance of non fiction). Therefor Thank You for Smoking should be considered a political, fictional movie while Bowling for Columbine would be classified as a documentary.

That aside, Dan's post masterfully invokes more than just just reviews of films. I'm unsure where to to begin as his writing was packed full of ideas. I think choosing to review Dan's assessment of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is a good place to start as it segues into my following point fairly well. I can agree with Dan that Michael Moore does present his documentaries with monoscopic viewpoints but that fact can't be used to dismiss his works entirely. From the formally referred movie, I agree with Moore and his thoughts on how absurd it is for anyone to own a fully automatic weapon of any sort. I'm unsure of how the discussion of automatic weapons falls into the second amendment debate, but as for me I'm in favor of having strong gun regulations which still permits people to obtain, carry, and use firearms.

I'm sort of drifting as Dan's post was not centered on gun control. Rather, it was more focused on one major thing: personal responsibility. This is ironic as Moore's Bowling for Columbine was of the same subject. While many left wing nuts understood from his movies that no one should own a gun it was, in fact, not Moore's point. In his movie Moore actually compares gun ownership and gun violence in other countries with gun ownership and gun violence in the United States and concludes that there is no connection between gun ownership and gun violence. Moore's movie asked for the same self accountability which Dan was sought within his post. Moore investigates some of the hypotheses of what would cause two teenagers to go on a killing rampage. People wanted to blame violent video games, Marilyn Manson, or even the violent history of the United States. Moore debunks this when he compares the statistics of America's gun incidents per capita with these other stats only to find that other countries are similar to America yet only have 100 times less incidents. Who is to blame? I believe Moore get's it wrong by assessing the availability of guns and ammunition in the U.S. with too much blame. Still though, his movie starts to examine all of the factors that contribute to the enormous number of deaths to firearms in America and shows that no one is willing to accept blame for their part. Parental supervision? K Mart selling over the counter ammunition? The school bullies? Name one person who stepped forward to admit fault.

Jumping to big corporations continues my thoughts on people wanting to remain faultless. I have no debate with Dan over the purpose of big corporations. I wouldn't think anyone would be so dull to believe that big corporations were made to spread joy throughout the world. I can appreciate that these large companies not only bring a vast number of jobs to our economy but also allow for cheaper prices and technological advances. Dan seems to agree with me that we couldn't live the way we do without them. However, I cannot agree with who Dan blames in the tobacco wars. I'll take Dan's assessment in two parts: are people trying to get free money, and has the tobacco companies "not escaped." First about tobacco not escaping, I'm unsure if I could ever conceive any amount of money to be comparable to losing a loved one to cancer. Nor could I stand the pain of lung or throat cancer for "$276,000,000,000". It's also hard to feel bad for a giant corporation paying out money when they are generating billions of dollars in revenue each year from a product that kills people. The tobacco's killing product leads me to my second point- people smoking to get free money. I'd agree that when someone chooses to start smoking it is a completely personal and independent choice. Not once have the tobacco companies been found to forcibly put a cigarette into someone's mouth and make them smoke it. Yet still it was the tobacco companies who created the smoking culture we have now. They have paid millions to advertisers, and movie producers to make smoking look cool. Now that they have hooked one generation on smoking it has only made it easier to catch the next generation. Even still they have made a product that is already addictive even more entrapping. Here's some quick research that I found of what they add (I've lost the source):

Additives are used to make cigarettes that provide high levels of "free" nicotine, which increases the addictive "kick" of the nicotine. Ammonium compounds can fulfill this role by raising the alkalinity of smoke.

Additives are used to make cigarettes more "attractive" and "palateable"

Sweeteners and chocolate may help make cigarettes more palatable to children and first time users; Eugenol and menthol numb the throat so the smoker cannot feel the smoke's aggravating effects

Additives such as cocoa may be used to dilate the airways allowing the smoke an easier and deeper passage into the lungs exposing the body to more nicotine and higher levels of tar.

Some additives are toxic or addictive in their own right or in combination, and when additives are burned, new products of combustion are formed and these may be toxic or pharmacologically active.

Additives are used to mask the smell and visibility of side stream smoke, making it harder for people to protect themselves and undermining claims that smoking is anti-social.

There's one final point that completely nulls the case of people purposing smoking cigarettes to collect on litigated money- people would be required to spend a large sum of money to buy cigarettes to get to the point of collecting money, effectively making the whole process pointless.

I think what Thank You for Smoking points out, and what one would question after thinking about why the U.S. government would allow for this macabre cycle of tobacco companies profiteering from a lethal product, is the absurdity of lobbyists. It is only through lobbyists and other spin monkeys that such a product as cigarettes are allowed to be sold in the United States. Really, the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement should be taken into the perspective of America being doped into allowing big tobacco to pay $206 billion dollars to remain in a profitable, yet deadly business.

I'd finally like to conclude with my thoughts on regulations of big corporations. I felt as if some of Dan's thoughts in his post touched on this subject and would like to discuss it further. I'm unsure on Dan's official stance on this subject but I presume from what I read in his post he's fairly more conservative than I am. I, however, do not misunderstand people to believe that the only ill will towards large corporations is the of distain of their non charitable profiting. Let me stress that I agree with Dan in that businesses are obviously in the business of making money and those who disagree are those whose companies fail. I can also feel the same resentment, one that I assume Dan feels, of the many frivolous lawsuits where people have claimed money due to their own stupidity (McDonalds making them fat, people getting burned from coffee - who'd have thunk?) However, forming an opinion of the situation based on these minority cases is as silly as those documentaries which paint the world in black in white. Companies have, and will bend, break, and tweak the laws to stretch their income. It is this law modification that cause me to believe in regulations for corporations. My thought is that if one can justify regulating the personal life of the citizens of the United States, why is it so far fetched to do the same for businesses? If the government deems that drugs should be illegal then why is setting regulations for corporations illogical? Regulations are necessary protections for preventing situations of corporations needing to be, "held responsible for the consequences of their actions," and therefor stop the repercussion of big corporation failures before they happen. I'd rather have the stiffened economy caused by regulations than big blowouts like the recent financial crisis or even the tobacco companies settlement. I'd relate this comparison of citizenly/corporation regulations to that of traffic speed laws. I'd rather force citizens to drive a reasonable and safe driving speed while they get to their destinations rather than making them responsible for their actions of driving too fast and killing a family after the fact (just as I'd rather a company earn their profits in a regulated manner rather than causing the economy to bubble and collapse). I am of course not naive to the fact that regulations only work the best in ideal situations. From this belief that there is no perfect system in which corporations can conduct business in a fair manner I become more distraught every time when corporations are not held to the fullest extent of the consequences of their own actions.

Next post: My own move critique! This time it will be about a classic movie: The Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman.