Michael Moore's grandstanding gets mixed reviews from Columbine representatives...

[MORTARDUDE]

http://www.canyoncourier.com/CANYONC...492&PubID=8662 Moore's grandstanding gets mixed reviews
by Keith Miller
LITTLETON - Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" may have taken best documentary honors at the Academy Awards, but not all Columbine representatives who appeared in the film feel he rolled a strike.

The Columbine contingent offered mixed reviews for the man and his award-winning work.

"I am completely against him (Moore). He screwed me over," said Mark Taylor, who with Richard Castaldo was featured in the Kmart segment that resulted in the removal of bullets from the retailer's shelves nationwide.

"He completely used us to make a buck."

Taylor contends Moore wasn't upfront about his intentions when the three visited Kmart's headquarters in Troy, Mich. Taylor said he was led to believe the visit would involve a talk with the chairman about enforcing policies on selling ammunition to youth and improving gun safety.

Even with bullets still lodged in his body from the April 1999 shooting, Taylor remains supportive of gun ownership. Moore made it appear the opposite, Taylor said.

"I had no idea what Moore's agenda was. And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely," Taylor said. "I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves."

Taylor said people are placing the blame on him for Kmart pulling the bullets, and the film burned bridges between him and the National Rifle Association, whose philosophies he supports.

Wheelchair-bound from the incident, Richard Castaldo agreed Moore could have been more upfront about his intentions when visiting Kmart.

"He said he was making a movie, but wasn't too clear on what it was about," Castaldo said.

Unlike Taylor, Castaldo said he didn't feel "used," and felt the pulling of ammunition was a positive outcome.

Speaking to the Courier from his New York office, Moore said he made his agenda well-known to the youths.

"That's very odd to hear that," Moore said. "What part isn't clear? We were there to try and get the bullets off the shelves. That's why we were there. That's why they decided to go."

Moore said that in approaching Kmart he realistically expected only a reinforcement of existing policy. That Kmart removed the bullets did come as a surprise, he said, a point obvious in the film.

Moore's political grandstanding at awards ceremonies, notably calling President Bush a "fictitious president" after winning best documentary at the Academy Awards, also evoked varying views from Columbine participants.

Moore made no mention in his acceptance speech of those who helped put the film together.

The cast and crew knew beforehand that he would not mention people's names, Moore said, allowing him to use the 45 seconds allotted "for the overall good of humanity."

Moore said he got his message out as he wanted.

"I think you get 45 seconds and you go for it. And the response has been incredible," he said. Moore said the speech has resulted in millions of comments of support on his website.

Brooks Brown - wrongly accused by law enforcement in the Columbine incident due to his friendship with gunmen Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris - assisted Moore behind the camera in segments shot in Littleton. An interview in which Brown appeared did not make the film's final cut.

Brown said recognition for the supporting cast and crew would have been nice, but he understood when none was given.

"The truth of the matter is that's Michael Moore," Brown said. "He's doing the political thing. And that's cool. Everybody expected that. We all did."

Moore's politically charged speech was relevant, Brown added.

Columbine was a pinnacle focus of the country's issues at the time the movie was shot, he said. Times have since changed, and Columbine has taken a back seat to more pressing issues of the moment.

"We've moved into a different realm in the world arena, and Michael Moore has followed," Brown said.

In his 2002 book, "No Easy Answers: The Truth behind Death at Columbine," Brown offers a firsthand account of events leading up to, and the aftermath following, the Columbine tragedy. The pages contain heavy criticism of religious leaders who used Columbine to further the church's agenda.

One can't draw parallel criticism against Moore for using the tragedy to further his political views, Brown said. Moore earned the right by showing the greater issues surrounding the shootings, not just using it as a platform in and of itself.

"He did the right thing. He earned the notoriety and the ability to say other things," Brown said.

Tom Mauser lost his son Daniel in the April 1999 tragedy. The film featured Mauser at the state capitol protesting an NRA rally scheduled 10 days after the shooting.

Mauser said it was Moore's prerogative to say what he wanted at the Academy Awards. However, he hoped Moore would have continued his message of speaking out against gun violence.

And the presidential bashing could have been more effectively stated.

"I was a bit disappointed with what he had to say. I prefer that he win people over to that cause," Mauser said. "But Michael Moore is going to do what Michael Moore is going to do."

Castaldo has a similar perspective.

"When he went off on the war and on the president at the Academy Awards, I pretty much agreed with him, but I think he could have done it in a better way to not piss off a whole lot of people," he said.

Moore said his speech was very relevant to ideas expressed in the film, specifically pertaining to statements on President Bush and America as a warmonger.

"I can't think of a more effective way than the way I did it," Moore said. "To go on that stage and talk about the current war we were in was entirely appropriate to the whole point of the film."

Taylor was more outspoken against Moore's acceptance speech, calling Moore an "outsider," making statements based on limited, filtered information relayed through the media.

[Jerry D]

My wife feels very strongly against M.Moores Oscar for a Doc. that was phoney and fictional that she wrote a Letter to the Oscar Commitee to have his Oscar revoked .It may do no good but it will let them know we know that his film was fiction!!