Review of BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE

[Mark Dujsik]

"On April 20, 1999, two things happened. President Clinton dropped more bombs on Kosovo than ever, and two boys walked through Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, killing twelve students and one teacher and wounding many others before taking their own lives. I remember the latter event with crystal clarity. I watched it unfold on television and feared such a thing happening again—perhaps even hitting close to home the next time. Life after Columbine in America was one of sorrow and constant alarm. We all asked “why?” Some of us pointed fingers. A minority of students took it lightly and called in joke threats (one was made to my high school; that was not a fun day). However, no one, really, remembered what happened earlier that day. Michael Moore wonders why that is, and in his new documentary Bowling for Columbine, he starts off by tackling issues of gun violence but slowly but surely happens upon something even larger. His thesis question is why do other countries have similar gun ownership statistics but show exponentially smaller numbers of gun-related deaths? Are guns really the issue, or is America just a violent society?"

Mark's Full Review (http://mark-reviews-movies.tripod.com/reviews/B/bowlingforcolumbine.htm)

[lrotner]

The following is my review of Bowling for Columbine. It basically seconds Mark's opinion. ***Shameless plug*** You can read both our reviews at: http://youngmorrell.homestead.com/




Film: Bowling for Columbine (2002), MGM/UA
Directed By: Michael Moore
Written By: Michael Moore
Rating: ****, Top 10 of 2002 (#1)

“Are we a nation of gun nuts or are we just nuts?,” reads the tagline of the incendiary new documentary from veteran activist, writer, and filmmaker Michael Moore. Bowling for Columbine is centered on Michael Moore’s three year quest to uncover the baffling and utterly sad obsession America has with gun violence. Does the answer lay in our enormous ownership of guns? Is the media to blame? What about that Marilyn Manson character? To be sure, Michael Moore attacks the issue of gun violence from every angle. The result is one of the most brilliant documentaries I’ve ever seen.
When most think of documentaries, they conjure up treacherous images of sitting in a room somewhere watching obvious and tedious public service announcements about AIDS or alcohol. Bowling for Columbine entirely eliminates this stigma due to its feverish pacing and inspired use of satire. Mr. Moore is the master of blending the macabre and uproarious. This is reflected in his choice for the film’s opening shot. In an effort to increase business, North Country Bank in Michigan has started a promotion. While most banks advertise incentives such as free checking or lower interest rates, this bank is bestowing its customers with free guns when an account is opened. Most directors would approach the subject of death with images of horrific images as to shock the viewer. Herein lays Mr. Moore’s genius. He is able to seamlessly and simultaneously incorporate threads of the hilarious (incompetence, ignorance, and stupidity) with the truly sad (unnecessary death, disregard of humanity, selfish indifference). Bowling for Columbine embodies the cliché “emotional rollercoaster”. Similarly in PT Anderson’s Punch-Drunk Love and Burr Steers’ Igby Goes Down, feelings of disgust and sorrow are replaced by deep bouts of indirect humor. As each frame advances, the viewer will cry, laugh, and gawk (especially at one brilliantly written animated short by South Park creator Matt Stone).
Accessibility is a trait poor documentaries lack. Michael Moore personifies a common man and words things as such. He doesn’t need to use fancy language to convey his point; the facts that grace the screen represent that. After some specific introductory scenes, the staggering number of gun homicides per year is shown; many first world countries with miniscule values whereas America stands with a whopping 12,000. The facts lead his to the film’s guiding question: Why do Americans kill each other in such incredible numbers?
The asking of this question leads Mr. Moore’s adventure to a hilarious sequence on a series of politicians, so-called experts, and fundamentalist religious groups pointing fingers at everything under the sun: Marilyn Manson, South Park, violent movies, video games, the breakdown of the family unit, America’s violent past, etc. The list seems as tedious and needless as a George W. Bush speech regarding the state of the nation. Michael Moore refutes the above usual claims with a simple response that must have eluded the above geniuses: Don’t they have these things in other countries? Germany certainly killed millions in the Holocaust, but doesn’t kill people in epidemic proportions as we Americans do. Moore uses factual history perfectly to support his argument throughout the film. Never does he resort to media dependent propaganda.
In an effort to go right to the source of the excuser and scapegoat, Moore interviews both Marilyn Manson and Charleton Heston, the leader of the NRA. In the first interview, Marilyn Manson is surprisingly coherent and socially conscious. Although I can never understand what he screams, Manson certainly makes sense in this film. When asked what he would do if given the opportunity to speak to the Columbine assasins, he gives a simple and perfect answer: “I would have shut up and listened.” Maybe some politicians and officials should learn a thing or two from the antichrist himself, Mr. Manson.
The other interview is probably the most controversial of the movie. Moore gets to accomplish what he couldn’t in Roger & Me – he is able to challenge the driving figure of the film, Charleton Heston. Moore is able to pin Heston to his seat with the questions he entertains in the whole film. Surprisingly, Heston is shown absolutely devoid of any information regarding his organization or its policies. In order to avoid from sabotaging himself, he decides to not respond to many questions because he hadn’t thought about them in advance. Moore exposes just how rotten the NRA and Heston are.
Many of the detractors of the film have alleged that it is exploitative and Moore isn’t as objective as he seems. In fact in 1989, Film Comment Magazine accused Moore of setting up some scenes in Roger & Me. I have no knowledge of whether this is true or not, and can not say whether the practices in question are present in Bowling for Columbine. Bowling for Columbine creates an atmosphere that renders the above point moot. Most also attribute Mr. Heston’s reluctance in his interview to his Alzheimer’s illness that has been uncovered now. When the interview was filmed, it is safe to say that Mr. Heston’s illness was not advanced enough to cause incompetence. Moore certainly had no knowledge of the illness and Heston was still fulfilling his duty as NRA president, making him competent for an interview. The above arguments appear to me to be frivolous attempts by the conservative right to undermine Bowling for Columbine. (I obtained them from mostly NRA message boards in search of those who disliked the film).
Bowling for Columbine stands as a modern masterpiece. Not since Requiem for a Dream or Schindler’s List have I been so emotionally affected by a film. Bowling for Columbine is the most important film of the year and its accessibility makes it a viable choice for even children as young as 12. Maybe if our youth can comprehend this film, Mr. George W. Bush and fellow “stupid white men” (as Moore refers to them) will. Perhaps American society hangs in the balance.

Conclusion: My pick for best film of the year, Bowling for Columbine stands as the most important film since Schindler’s List.

[seven_of_nine]

Boy, with all the back and forth about this movie just in this forum, I think I absoloutely MUST see this film now! Way to stir up the curious, people!

[Chris Knipp]

I find it impossible to fault this powerful documentary---certainly the most important of the year and of many a year---or to disagree with anything major that has been said in the forum so far. One comment on Mark’s Dujsik’s excellent review: Moore has mellowed in subtle ways, but you may be making him sound like he’s become a bit more passive than he really has. In his interview, Moore asks Heston for an apology: that’s why Heston walks out. He also brings two young male Columbine victims to ask Wal-Mart, which sold ammunition to the killers, for compensation, and the company responds by announcing it will stop selling small arms and ammunition in its stores. These are active steps and they brought active results. But it’s true that Moore has learned to communicate better with his potential adversaries without taming his views. It’s this mellowness, and his lifetime membership in the NRA, that enable him to gain the confidence of militiamen and Charleton Heston.

Nobody is better or more convincing—yes, even if he lives in an expensive New York house now—than Michael Moore as a critic of American government and media policies. His criticisms of America and comparisons with Canada are so effective that I walked out wondering why I shouldn’t move up north over the border—if they’d have me. I would take issue with those print reviewers who are snide about Moore’s appearance or his methods. What he has to say is far too important to justify niggling remarks.

I strongly agree with Irotner about the film’s accessibility and Moore’s skill as a down to earth communicator. Moore’s films work because they grow right out of who he is and how he thinks. He’s our major cinematic gadfly. The proof of the pudding is the debates the film inspires. Before I walked out thinking about moving to Canada, I wanted to stay in the auditorium and have a discussion, right then and there with other audience members, about all the issues “Bowling for Columbine” raises. I think that's the response the film naturally inspires.

The fundamental question `Bowling for Columbine' asks is: What's responsible for the exceptionally high level of killing in America? Not a lot of guns, Moore points out, because other countries have that. Not a violent history, because other countries have that. Not a love of violent movies, toys, and games, because other countries love all that too. Not poverty, unemployment, and ethnic diversity, because lots of countries have more poverty and Canada has as much ethnic diversity as we do---and more unemployment.

Two things, according to Moore, are primary causes: the US media, which, as he shows with many examples, fans up fear constantly among the American populace; and the government in Washington, which solves everything by bombing people somewhere. The third element that emerges is a gun culture, represented by the NRA, which insures the wide availability of guns not just for hunting but for killing people and advocates the insanely counterproductive notion of individual self-defense, perpetuating the violence and the fear and the racism whipped up by the media and the government.

Has anyone got a better analysis and explanation for American gun violence than Moore's ?

[Mark Dujsik]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
One comment on Mark’s Dujsik’s excellent review: Moore has mellowed in subtle ways, but you may be making him sound like he’s become a bit more passive than he really has. In his interview, Moore asks Heston for an apology: that’s why Heston walks out. He also brings two young male Columbine victims to ask Wal-Mart, which sold ammunition to the killers, for compensation, and the company responds by announcing it will stop selling small arms and ammunition in its stores. These are active steps and they brought active results. But it’s true that Moore has learned to communicate better with his potential adversaries without taming his views. It’s this mellowness, and his lifetime membership in the NRA, that enable him to gain the confidence of militiamen and Charleton Heston.

If there's a reason I left those aspects of the film out of my review, it's probably because they didn't strike me as much as the rest. I've seen Moore do that kind of thing before. That and there's just too much going on in the film to accurately summarize the whole thing. as you show in pointing out Moore's media exploration.


Has anyone got a better analysis and explanation for American gun violence than Moore's ?

Nope.

[Chris Knipp]

I agree that there's a tremendous amount going on in Moore's movie and no one short review can cover it all. I was debating a point of his technique rather than his substantive content. But it did seem important to me though, really important, because it has to do with how he was able to make this movie which is on a larger scale than his previous ones and to get some action and it also has to do with his reaching a larger audience without compromising his position.

[Mark Dujsik]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I agree that there's a tremendous amount going on in Moore's movie and no one short review can cover it all. I was debating a point of his technique rather than his substantive content. But it did seem important to me though, really important, because it has to do with how he was able to make this movie which is on a larger scale than his previous ones and to get some action and it also has to do with his reaching a larger audience without compromising his position.

I completely agree.

By the way, I just watched it again. Still incredibly powerful.

[lrotner]

I just saw Bowling For Columbine about a month ago in theatres for a second time.

This film shouldn't be underestimated. It's power and grace are electrifying, and Moore's everyman approach to film-making really inspires.

As Mr. Dujsik can testify, BFC was my #1 of 2002 for a long time. Then, I saw the incredible Polanski film, The Pianist, which blew it out of the water. What an unbelieveable film. I highly recommend it.

[Chris Knipp]

Well, I second you on "The Pianist."

I was never meaning to fault Mark Dujsik's review, by the way, just add something. I may have belabored my point earlier in the course of pursuing the thread.

I'd like to see "Bowling for Columbine" again myself.