This documentary from Wintons Motion Pictures asks and answers the increasingly tough questions regarding gun control in America.This documentary from Wintons Motion Pictures asks and answers the increasingly tough questions regarding gun control in America.This documentary from Wintons Motion Pictures asks and answers the increasingly tough questions regarding gun control in America.
- Director
- Writer
Photos
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaIn February 2017, Writer/Director Jesse Winton wrote a piece on the Medium publishing platform publicly expressing regret for producing Targeted. In the piece, he said: "So, I regret making Targeted. I regret that it was fundamentally biased toward a particular viewpoint. I regret that it lacked empathy towards anyone that wasn't a supporter of the Second Amendment, instead judging their motives as evil. I regret that it was endorsed by someone who said that Rosa Parks' contribution to civil rights was 'absurdly inflated.' I regret that it was endorsed by someone who's sense of class prompted him to compare pictures of Hillary and Chelsea with pictures of Melania and Ivanka with the caption 'Make America Hot Again.' I regret that it lacked any empathy towards people that have lost loved ones to gun violence. I know that facts are facts, but I also know that the fact remains that people die through gun violence every day. I don't understand that experience, and I hope I never will, and while I still think freedom is the best form of government, I can't judge the people like the Sandy Hook parents. Saying all of this doesn't mean that I'm anti-gun, I'm not. It doesn't mean that I hate the NRA, (but I kind of do). It doesn't mean that I don't think that this is an important issue still, all issues of freedom are important. All it means is that I regret this project, and I wish that it wasn't what it was.
I can't change the past, but you can be pro-freedom and still pro-person. Regrettably, I didn't find the right line."
Featured review
A Polemic, Not a Documentary
Please give the title of this documentary full attention when considering whether to watch —the words "targeted" and "agenda" were not chosen lightly. If, by assumption or misguidance, you were expecting a balanced exposition of each side of the gun control debate, this is not the place to look. The filmmaker's sympathies are clear from the outset, and he does little—by which I mean nothing—to challenge them.
Gun ownership is traced back to the time of the American Revolution and the Constitution (and later to other countries), while the movement for gun control is presented as if it materialized in the last decade and not over the last century. Evidence-based argument begins with anecdotes, but even when statistics are presented, they are at lightning speed, without critical context, and of questionable veracity (e.g. no consideration for developed/industrialized vs. non-developed/industrialized nations, vague remarks as to regulatory trends without examples).
The filmmaker exclusively gives voice to those who agree with his own leanings, while the opposition is represented via a montage of carefully-selected, unflattering television clips. "Taking away all guns" rhetoric isn't questioned whilst the filmmaker ponders why the other side seems blind to "facts" and conclusions he believes are "obvious." One interview subject nearly made me quit the film completely due to the twisted rationale of him being an "expert" on the perversion of information, despite his career putting him directly in the class of people the filmmaker wanted him to criticize. (The expert's complete failure to conclude his point due to becoming distracted by self-satisfaction mid-anecdote didn't help, nor did his former position lend credibility.)
The most frustrating moment comes when the filmmaker interviews a veteran police officer whose experience—career and in the context of the story he shares—could easily serve as an illustration for some of the most common proposed gun reforms (e.g. stricter screening, stronger/ongoing training requirements). It seems like a gross lack of insight to not recognize such as a point of weakness in his approach, not that more should be expected given how blind the filmmaker is to any alternate view throughout. The lack of debate weakens the central premise by never presenting a challenge and the result is a 70+ minute polemic.
The number of minds this film will ultimately sway? Likely zero. Not due to closed- mindedness, but due to the fact that it caters shamelessly to an audience that doesn't require convincing.
Gun ownership is traced back to the time of the American Revolution and the Constitution (and later to other countries), while the movement for gun control is presented as if it materialized in the last decade and not over the last century. Evidence-based argument begins with anecdotes, but even when statistics are presented, they are at lightning speed, without critical context, and of questionable veracity (e.g. no consideration for developed/industrialized vs. non-developed/industrialized nations, vague remarks as to regulatory trends without examples).
The filmmaker exclusively gives voice to those who agree with his own leanings, while the opposition is represented via a montage of carefully-selected, unflattering television clips. "Taking away all guns" rhetoric isn't questioned whilst the filmmaker ponders why the other side seems blind to "facts" and conclusions he believes are "obvious." One interview subject nearly made me quit the film completely due to the twisted rationale of him being an "expert" on the perversion of information, despite his career putting him directly in the class of people the filmmaker wanted him to criticize. (The expert's complete failure to conclude his point due to becoming distracted by self-satisfaction mid-anecdote didn't help, nor did his former position lend credibility.)
The most frustrating moment comes when the filmmaker interviews a veteran police officer whose experience—career and in the context of the story he shares—could easily serve as an illustration for some of the most common proposed gun reforms (e.g. stricter screening, stronger/ongoing training requirements). It seems like a gross lack of insight to not recognize such as a point of weakness in his approach, not that more should be expected given how blind the filmmaker is to any alternate view throughout. The lack of debate weakens the central premise by never presenting a challenge and the result is a 70+ minute polemic.
The number of minds this film will ultimately sway? Likely zero. Not due to closed- mindedness, but due to the fact that it caters shamelessly to an audience that doesn't require convincing.
helpful•1313
- kmburc
- Aug 5, 2017
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $250,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 7 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 16:9 HD
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Targeted: Exposing the Gun Control Agenda (2016) officially released in Canada in English?
Answer