Allan crouched over his desk once more, pen in hand and mind blank. He contemplated a story, an outline he had laboriously constructed some time ago. He had filled his pen and raised it, the nib descending towards the paper, before the sound came: the gentle, persistent tapping of the gnarled, primeval willow touching the window with long, insistent fingers. His eyes awoke with a passionate, determined flame, though the only light came from the glutted moon. Allan filled page after page, the words escaping from his mind onto the paper. Where before they had marched in regiments, practiced in ranks and followed their leaders' commands, the words now escaped in their true forms, unhindered by any stricture. He continued long into the night, until the eldritch orb had sunk into the waiting hands of the willow, raised perpetually skyward. Arthur looked up from the results of a night's frenzied labors and looked Allan in the eye. "What is this?" he queried, indicating the pages he held in his left hand. "I decided that since I wasn't having much success with more traditional stories, I might see what sort of work I produced if I let my imagination go freely," Allan replied, somewhat less self-assured than he had been the previous night. "What in G-d's name could have possessed you to do such a thing," cried Arthur, nearly raising his voice. "After all I said the day before, why have you abandoned centuries of literary progress for some self-indulgent fantasy?" He shook the papers at Allan, raising them like a belt above the head of a disobedient son. "This is nothing but a glorified Grimm's tale, a miscarried child of Stoker, a creation less fit to be published than to be told around an open fire at the hovel of some peasant!" He spoke the last word with such heavy intonation that Allan shrank back before the physical wave of sound emanating from Arthur's throat. "Do you hate the modern system of literature? Do you personally despise the works the Enlightenment or the progress made since Shakespeare?" For a moment, Allan could hardly do more than shake his head. "No, of course not I " "Then why," Arthur barreled on, "do you disregard them all and return to this superstitious babble, this morbid, paganistic drivel?

Question: "What awoke the passion in Allan to begin writing that night?"

Answer: "Shakespeare"

Response: no

Dr. Benjamin Stone is a hotshot young surgeon who longs to leave the drudgery of a Washington , D.C. emergency room and finally leaps at his chance at more money and less death as a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills . On his last day , Ben's relationship with his co-workers is presumed to be anything but a warm one . None of his colleagues will join him for a drink and a cake in his honor has an iced portion of the phrase '' Good riddance , asshole '' sliced out . Ben's cross-country drive in a 1956 Porsche 356 Speedster is interrupted when he crashes in the rural hamlet of Grady , South Carolina . The crash damages the fence of local Judge Evans , who sentences him to community service at a nearby hospital . Ben offers to pay for the fence , but the stern judge increases his community service each time he talks back . Defeated , he reports to the hospital , where Nurse Packer humbles him by ordering him to clock in and out , as would a factory worker . Though upset , Ben quickly makes friends with Mayor Nick Nicholson , the town cafe's proprietor/head waitress , and Melvin , the local mechanic tasked with repairing Ben's car . Ben soon finds his clinic work to be much more laid-back than the emergency room . He has simple cases such as spots before the eyes , fishing hook impalings , and even reading mail for a young illiterate couple , whose baby he later delivers . The experience also humbles Ben when he mistreats a case of mitral valve regurgitation leading to late cyanosis in the child .

Question: "What experience humbles Ben?"

Answer: "Fixing the fence"

Response: no

You write: "Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview." No, he doesn't. You accuse Moore so often of changing the chronology, yet you have no problems changing it yourself. The Heston interview is at the very end of the movie. After the Flint rally comes a brief TV interview with Heston, where he is asked about Kayla Rolland (again, clear evidence that the local media in Flint raised questions about the NRA's presence), then an inteview with country prosecutor Arthur Busch, entirely ignored by critics of the film, who also mentions Heston's presence as notable, and refers to the immediate reactions of "people from all over America", gun owners/groups who, according to him, reacted aggressively to warnings of having guns accessible to children, much like spanking advocates react aggressively when anti-spankers point to a case of a child being killed or severely injured by a beating. These people do not feel the need to express sympathy, or to think about ways to avoid such incidents, but they feel the need to assert their "rights" and to look for quick, simple answers -- as Busch states, gun owners wanted to "hang [the child] from the highest tree". This is all not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie, who claim to be objective. Perhaps the best example of the paranoia surrounding Moore's film is your sub-essay "Is the end of the Heston interview itself faked?" Moore answers a simple question -- how could the scene have been filmed -- with a simple answer: two cameras. From this, you construct an obscure conspiracy of "re-enactment": "For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!' to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left." Even if your "re-enactment" theory is true (and I see no evidence that you have actually tried to ask the people involved in the filmmaking for their opinion), this itself is not unethical, and you have no evidence whatsoever that Moore has done anything unethical here, just like you have no evidence that Moore has unethically removed parts of the interview. You use standard filmmaking technique as a basis to construct bizarre conspiracies which sound plausible to the gullible reader, without ever providing any evidence for the implicit or explicit claims of fraud and distortion.

Question: "Name three criticisms of Moore's movie."

Answer: "Re-enactment"

Response:
yes