Write an outline of the argumentation of the text
A) A short presentation to attract the attention of your reader and introduce the topic.
B) A presentation of the main points in the review. Use words and phrases such as On the one hand, on the other hand, in conclusion, although, however, in contrast to, generally...
C) A brief conclusion in which you sum up on the points you have focused on in your outline.
Outline from A. Scott's article.
ReplyDeleteMichael Moore is a rabble-rouser, he makes distubing infuriating films which can make anyone go nuts. He has a very slippery logic and sometimes he rides roughshod over obvious doubts. But in the other hand his film creates honest ambivalence because he hits where it hurts. He has a very good confrontational style, and he dares to ask questions when everyone else does not. Sadly he is less interested in arguments rather than in provocation, and he is happy to generalize in the absence of empirical evidence. But still this movie should occasion sober reflection because this is a important subject which needs to be focused on.
Samuel
a) presentation : Michael Mores ’ documentary “ bowling for Columbine” is very interesting. It contains specially two points that i think is relevant to focus on. Number one is the actual theme - why the Americans shoot one other so much often, than the other countries. Number two - is Michael more using a lot of rhetorical ways to manipulate us? The documentary opens up for a lot of political debates - like Michael more had in mind. He is a rabble rouser, and his films to. I will recommend the documentary that it is a good opportunity to discus a lot of important topics.
ReplyDeleteMaja
In 2002, A.O. Scott puplished in New York Times the article "Seeking a Smoking Gun in U.S. Violence", criticizing Michael Moore's documentary film "Bowling for Columbine". His main points of critique is that Moore makes use of, in his words, "slippery logic", oversimplifying matters such as whether or not violent popculture and/or poverty are potential factors in the problem of gun-related violence in the U.S. Scott also claims Moore's documentary of being unreliable in the sense that Moore and the film crew deliberately makes an idiot of people being interviewed, and thereby puts them to shame.
ReplyDeleteContrarily, Scott gives Moore credit for other parts of the film, stating that it is, at least, a film that manifests curiosity, and that is very funny in an often strongly satirical way, while on the other hand having very emotional and touching moments.
¡El Bastiaño!
In 2002 A.O Scott published in New York Times the article "Seeking a Smoking Gun in U.S. Violence".
ReplyDeleteHe is critisizing mr moores movies, saying that he is manipulating people and he are provoking people just by getting his story out. That is some of the main points in the article, and there is plenty more. He think it will be a debat making movie, for people all over the world.
Michael Moore is pointing out some generalising things just to proove his case and change peoples mind. That way he is manipulating with people. He is doing that by pictures, there is a speech by former of ASA where he have taken pictures from more than one speech just see the leader of the guns assocination saying that gun are awesome.
Film review; Seeking a smoking gun in U.S violence by A. O. Scott, from New York Times.
ReplyDeleteScott is talking about Mr. Moore's new documentary, "Bowling for Columbine". In this article he is talking about some good and bad things about Mr. Moore. Some of the bad things are that he is very subjectiv and mabey he is going too far and too wide. His point is the horrific massacere at Columbine. However Scoot hope that the movie will be seen widely and will be debated.
Michelle
FREDERIK!
ReplyDeleteMicahel Moore’s films are honest, the films are over exaturated but they hit where it hurts. He does not care if he crosses the line nor if he steps on the norms of society, he is bold and outrageous, but he gets results! One of his biggest flaws is that he tends to forget about his arguments and provoke instead. On the other hand his movies does seem to annoy, irretate, disturbe or offend the viewers. His arguments are not always valid, but he uses his provocation to win his arguments and get his point across.