Bowling For Columbine

[bix171]

Michael Moore should certainly be commended for confronting the extremely important American topic of gun control and he approaches his subject with enough gravity to empower his trademark literal humor. But Moore also approaches his subject with a chip on his shoulder and much of “Bowling For Columbine” is determined to aggressively portray a country alone in its wrong-headedness, as compared to the rest of the world; it’s as if the current state of global affairs is America’s fault—our bloodlust begins, Moore claims, with the Commander-In-Chief—while the violent tendencies in other countries have been quelled. Unfortunately, Moore makes his argument seem spurious by not offering to substantiate his facts (when listing the number of deaths by shooting per year in various countries—in order to show America’s overwhelming leadership in this category—he fails to identify specific years) and his relentless stock-in-trade of ambushing his subjects seems self-serving and less a product of journalistic intent than the rant of a deeply unhappy attention-grabber. The ironic thing is that when Moore finally effects social change (K-mart decides to discontinue gun sales after he and two Columbine victims protest to management) he seems genuinely non-plussed, as if being co-opted into giving up his contrarian attitude. (This forces him to go even harder at a deserving N.R.A. President Charlton Heston.) Moore is at his best when he exposes television news’ exploitation of society’s fears (the grab for viewers requires shock reporting) and he’s extremely effective in pointing out that black males are consistently singled out as criminal scapegoats. But he carries his points to such an extreme measure (an animated segment paints a simplistically misanthropic history of the United States, filled with the alarming vitriol usually dished by the Far Right) that you find yourself deflecting the anger and hostility while trying to concentrate on the core arguments. Well-worth seeing but not without some apprehension.

[oscar jubis]

Bowling for Columbine made me cry, made me laugh, and made me think. Not only about gun control, but more importantly, about a penchant for violence as part of the American "character", about fear and paranoia as seeds of violence, about how the media fuels the paranoia, about who benefits from the maintenance of the status quo. There are so many truths that nobody but Moore has managed to present to a mainstream audience, that your valid criticisms register as insignificant, to me.

[Chris Knipp]

bix171 says Moore's Columbine is "filled with the alarming vitriol usually dished by the Far Right."

Yes, and energetic, irreverent humor, which are hugely needed -now - precisely to counter the Far Right's monoploy on lively media commentary. An article in the current Harper's (November 2003, Thomas de Zengotita, "Turn On, Tune In: Toward a Progressive Talk Show") discusses this void on the left -It's clearly people like Al Franken and Michael Moore who show the way to fill that void.

Moore was provocative, even at the Oscars. And the whole world admires him for it.

[Johann]

I learned more about americans from Bowling for Columbine than any other doc.

As a canadian, I found these particular points strange:

-students in american high schools take classes on Bowling
Unheard of in these parts..

-you could buy bullets at K-Mart. (I'm glad Mike had them removed with the help of Columbine victims)

-Marilyn Manson actually has a brain. Who knew?

- People keep their doors locked at all times. If that isn't fear, I don't know what is. Did you see all of those people buying weapons and security systems after 9/11?
Y2K ANYONE?


And if it wasn't for the fact that Michael Moore kept it balanced with humour, the sordid exposing of dirty american laundry was at least a reminder to not take yourself too seriously. Those militia forces (weekend warriors) were an absolute embarrassment. Calendars? Loosely run ranges? I became scared watching this movie.

[bix171]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp


...energetic, irreverent humor, which are hugely needed -now - precisely to counter the Far Right's monoploy on lively media commentary. It's clearly people like Al Franken and Michael Moore who show the way to fill that void.



You know, I've always felt it was the Far Right that was the humorless bunch. I don't find Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh particularly funny and I don't think they try to be. The Left, on the other hand, has not only Al Franken and Michael Moore but The Onion and Andy Borowitz (the borowitzreport.com is hysterical).

I think when people say the Left is humorless, I think they refer to the term "political correctness" which frowns upon certain humor as well as referring to people in certain ways ("mentally challegend", "Native American", etc.). I think that this is more of a result of special interest groups than "the Left" and just shows what a specialized world we live in.

[bix171]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Bowling for Columbine made me cry, made me laugh, and made me think. Not only about gun control, but more importantly, about a penchant for violence as part of the American "character", about fear and paranoia as seeds of violence, about how the media fuels the paranoia, about who benefits from the maintenance of the status quo. There are so many truths that nobody but Moore has managed to present to a mainstream audience, that your valid criticisms register as insignificant, to me.

Oscar,

I appreciate your comment about the validity of my criticisms but I think we should draw a distinction at this point between an entertainment and a documentary. If we are to excuse the lack of substantiation because the film serves the role of presenting ideas (you call them "truths") to a mainstream audience, then we have to call "Bowling For Columbine" an entertainment. (Nothing wrong with that.) A documentary, to me, presents both sides of a story evenly (even though it may favor a certain point of view) and I'm not convinced Michael Moore has any real interest in doing that. (Again, nothing wrong with that.)

So, yes, if the need to get in front of an audience means entertaining, then some of my qualms are probably insignificant. But I think many people expect a certain amount of fair play in a non-fiction film and much of what Moore is driving at seems like spin to me and I couldn't get past a lot of that. In my opinion, there's too much spin in the media already.

[Chris Knipp]

to bix171:

Not your fault, maybe more mine, but you may have misinterpreted my statements about humor, radio shows, the left, and the right. Again I refer you to the Harper's magazine article (November 2003, Thomas de Zengotita, "Turn On, Tune In: Toward a Progressive Talk Show." Unfortunately this is not available online: you have to find a copy of the magazine.). As this article points out, the right has the entertaining talk shows. I was not asserting that the left is humorless. I was saying that entertaining, irreverant, and lively commentators of the left like Michael Moore and Al Franken need to have more media platforms. That's all. Franken and Moore often point out that the right wing talk show hosts are in fact humorless crybabies. But those right wing talk show hosts, Rush Limbaugh et al., have the public ear, and the junk they purvey is entertaining to those who buy their biases and provocative to those who don't.

As for your objection that Moore's Bowling for Columbine is biased, I'd just say this: it's openly biased. Biased against the gun lobby; biased against a policy of preemptive strikes and endless war; biased against fear mongering by the media and by the US government. Very strongly and very openly so biased.

The mass media propaganda we're fed in this country poses as unbiased. It's not. Further, I'd say this: there is no such thing as unbiased reporting. We delude ourselves to think so. The question to me that matters is not, is this coverage biased, but, is it true? The truth about big corporations will always be called biased by the corporations. To find the ugly truth about the powers that be, we have to find the coverage that's biased against them. "Unbiased" just means mealy mouthed; neutralized; and thus ultimatedly in favor of the status quo.

Clear and open expression of bias is not a fault but a sign of honest reporting, and Moore's film may be entertaining, but it's still a documentary. That said, I would grant you that Moore is wild and over the top sometimes. That's what has grabbed him a wide audience such as the right wing talk show hosts have. Hence his enormous value at a time of repression.

[oscar jubis]

Bravo Chris! Thanks to your post I can go back to my Treasure of the Sierra Madre dvd.

[cinemabon]

If you want objective journalism, you might have to go to Sweden. Nothing has been objective in this country for years, perhaps it never was. Not even the so-called government dependent sources like C-Span, NPR and PBS are far from their agendas. It's not that filmmakers are "left winged"; I would liken them to wanting to right an injustice; one that is well articulated by Michael Moore. Get the medium and the massage... read Marshall McLuhan, i. e., about how film is meant to get under our skin and enliven the "global" discussion. If it doesn't elicit response, it must be boring. There is nothing boring about Michael Moore.

[Chris Knipp]

Thank you very much, but I don't think I want "objective journalism" (which doesnt' exist) and if I have to go to Sweden for it, then I know I don't want it.
Nothing has been objective in this country for years, perhaps it never was. Not even the so-called government dependent sources like C-Span, NPR and PBS are far from their agendas.

"Not even"?! Least of all them. Had you not noticed?

[Raoul]

Ah yes. Bowling for Columbine.
I found it to be one of the most pertinent documentaries of our time and I'm excited to see more films of its nature. Mr. Moore is a better film maker than he is a writer.
I felt that the underlying message behind the film was that Americans have created a Culture of Fear that has begun to snowball uncontrollably. Guns and their availability are an instrument of this destructive mentality.
What the film failed to address was some valid freedom and liberty issues that the NRA consistently brings up.
I don't live in America. Here in Canada, despite having twice as many guns per capita than The States, our gun crime rate is disproportionately low. We are a country that has demonstrated responsibility with our firearms. In '99 the fedral gov't initialized a fedral gun registry program. One must wonder why citizens of a country that has no major gun problems are required to tell the gov't how many firearms they own, where they keep them, what they use them for, etc. and pay for it. It reeks of facism.

Raoul