Bowling for Columbine Documentary Analysis

Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine

Michael Moore's motion picture Bowling for Columbine provides insight into the Columbine High School Massacre Event in 1999 and into a series of incidents such as the U.S.' tendency to promote weapons and conflict. This film attempts to provide information with regard to the background of gun use in the U.S. And the consequences associated with this respective enterprise. The film is meant to generate controversy as a result of the delicate topics it addresses and most viewers are likely to be left with the feeling that there are a lot of questions that the authorities and the U.S. As a whole refuse to acknowledge.

Moore's characteristic attitudes are definitely present in Bowling for Columbine, as it becomes obvious that the film is meant to impress from the very first scenes. The typical American morning contains a series of disturbing references to a presumably peaceful nation's tendency to embrace conflict as a means to achieve progress.

It is only safe to say that the film provides information regarding the gun culture present in the U.S. The motion picture uses footage showing people's appreciation of this respective culture as a means to justify its existence. Documentaries have been seeing a steady rise in market share during recent decades and Moore exploited this concept with the purpose of presenting the public with exactly what it had been looking for. One of the reasons why Moore chose to design his work in the form of a documentary film is that this type of motion picture typically involves lower budgets and its popularity during recent years has lead to a series of documentaries to see significant earnings. "The controversial documentary, which examines the roots and consequences of American violence and obsession with guns, cost roughly $10 million to make and by early 2003 had grossed over $30 million, surpassing Roger and Me and Hoop Dreams to become the highest grossing documentary of all time." (Sachleben & Yenerall 152)

Moore released this film during a critical period for the U.S. As a whole, as people were confused with the benefits that gun laws provided them with and with the fact that some individuals could easily get their hands on guns. This contributed to the film's success, taking into account that numerous individuals perceived it as an instructional motion picture meant to provide more information with regard to why it would be wrong to continue to support a gun culture.

Bowling for Columbine basically arrived at a time when the world needed it, thus making it possible for Moore to experience success by introducing his perspective concerning gun laws in the U.S. Editing was an essential part of production, as the film involves editing scenes showing some of history's most controversial events involving guns and conflict. Archival footage is used throughout the film with the purpose to emphasize Moore's point-of-view and to have viewers better acquainted with a concept that can be considered largely responsible for problems in the U.S.

What is intriguing about the film's production is that many of the individuals involved in this process were interns who concentrated on gaining experience in the field. "Production ran smoothly and most described it as a learning experience." (Schultz 180) One of the persons involved in production claimed that Moore had producers watch Gillo Pontecorvo's 1966 film The Battle of Algiers in order to gain a more complex understanding concerning the truthiness that he wanted in Bowling for Columbine. Moore wanted his film to put across a feeling of a "performance of truth," as he knew that this was the most effective way to reach out to audiences.

According to Geivett and Spiegel (157), Moore wanted his film to relate to the nature of American people in general, not just to the condition of gun violence in the U.S. The director practically uses this concept with the purpose of having American audiences feel that they are directly involved in the film. The intense feelings the film put across are directed toward individuals who are yet to make up their minds about the gun situation in the country and need incentive in order to be able to play an active role in installing harsher legislations. Moore practically brings on the 'guns don't kill people -- people kill people' expression with the purpose of having Americans realize that the problems is rooted in the American way of life rather than in a few laws that are permissive with regard to guns. "Addmitedly surprised by his own conclusion, in Bowling for Columbine Moore suggests that the problem of violence in America is really rooted in the American people." (Geivett & Spiegel 157)

Moore took things further than most documentarians by making it personal in hope that this is going to generate a range of emotions and that it would eventually raise public awareness concerning the imminent dangers associated with permissive gun laws. "In place of many arguments against forms of factual television, a species of 'popular culturalist' argument endorses the forms as popular and popularist programming which invites viewers 'to rethink and possibly revalue' their attitudes to ethical, social, and political issues." (Beattie 183)

Bowling for Columbine is, as a whole, an event-centered documentary film, taking into account that its very title is eponymous. The director concentrated on portraying the Columbine Massacre from a more general point-of-view in order to enable viewers to observe events leading to this episode and to comprehend that it would be wrong for someone to simply blame the persons involved in the conflict for the catastrophe.

Michael Rabiger's article "Directing the Documentary" emphasize the importance of discussing an event's background when relating to the respective occurrence. The fact that he regards an event-centered documentary as a film that requires more than one cameras contributes to understanding why Moore wanted to present archives and to consult a series of people with regard to the film's topic. The persons he interviews are not necessarily among the most qualified to relate to gun control. Even with this, the fact that individuals like Chris Rock and Marilyn Manson express their perspective on the event actually emphasizes the importance of listening to the masses. These people simply provide points-of-view characteristic to simple people. While the U.S. acts as a whole when it promotes gun laws as beneficial for the community, it sometimes fails to acknowledge that it would also be important to take a more individual-centered approach at discussing the subject. Simple people are more likely to express honest ideas and to attempt to explain why they believe permissive gun laws to be one of the main reasons why the country is experiencing problems.

While it has a completely different subject when compared to Juan Francico Urrusti's A Long Journey to Guadalupe, Bowling for Columbine contains most of the ingredients required for it to be identified as an event-centered documentary film (Rabiger 337). It too discusses the historical and cultural perspective of gun laws in the U.S. And on how people in the country feel with regard to guns. Individuals in the U.S. are deeply connected by their country's history and guns have come to represent an essential part of their background. This made it difficult for them to understand the consequences of having permissive gun laws and Moore's documentary is aimed at opening their eyes.

As previously mentioned, Bowling for Columbine is, in addition to being an informative material, the director's attempt to put across his personal feelings with regard to gun laws in the U.S. Moore wants the film to send a message related to individuals in the country and their tendency to ignore the threat within their community on account of thinking that this is part of who they are. The film "is the voice of a filmmaker setting out to take a position regarding an aspect of this historical world and to convince us of its merits." (Nichols 49)

Moore resorts to addressing Americans by making it possible for them to see that matters are more complex than they might be inclined to see. While the film refers to the Columbine incident, it is also meant to address a more general issue concerning guns. This is purposed to have viewers understand that they too play a role in keeping gun culture an important part of American culture.

The film promotes the idea that guns are currently responsible for a great deal of crimes occurring throughout the U.S. And also tries to get viewers to step in and do something about this. Moore does not hesitate to acknowledge that he, just as everyone else, is equally responsible for the American gun culture. Just as he wants to make people in the U.S. feel guilty for crimes involving guns, he emphasizes that he too is responsible for these problems. "Again, Moore opens the film by situating himself in relation to his topic with footage of him receiving his first gun as a youth accompanied by "I was born in Michigan" on the soundtrack. We learn that at 15 Moore won an NRA marksman award and has been a lifelong hunter and rifle owner." (Kellner 142) Many viewers are practically persuaded to identify with Moore and to attempt to follow his lead by doing something with regard to the issue.

In the beginning of the film Moore visits a Michigan bank that provides customers with a rifle if they open an account following a series of terms. This demonstrates the ease with which individuals can come in possession of a gun in the U.S., as this respective bank treated the gun topic as if guns were no different than objects that people use on a daily basis. The director brings together ideas like hilarity and horror with the purpose of expressing his point-of-view. It is really intriguing to observe how bank operators shown in the film seem happy to be there and are unable to realize that they might incriminate themselves by being in this position. This actually proves that simple Americans such as the people working for the bank see nothing wrong with associating concepts like a bank account and a rifle, this proving that the gun culture pervaded every aspect of the American culture up to the point where public institutions give out deadly weapons to their customers as if they were kitchen appliances.

This scene generated much controversy however, with critics pointing out that Moore staged the moment when he was given the gun and that one would apparently have to meet certain requirements such as a thorough background check to see if the respective person was entitled to own a gun (Schultz 181). Regardless of whether the scene was staged or not, it is certainly horrifying to see how some people use guns with the purpose of attracting customers. This is obviously done with the intention of making audiences angry and thus to make them take action in order to remedy things.

The presence of unlikely role-models in the film further highlights the degree to which the social order has reached in terms of cultural values. While many are probable to blame Marilyn Manson for the violent messages he puts across through his songs, his interview actually proves that the problem is not with music just as it is not with bowling. Manson proves to have a humane personality and he too seems to be outraged with the fact that U.S. culture produces incidents like the Columbine High School Massacre. The rock star further underlines how the U.S. society is especially supportive with regard to fear and consumption and to how it even supports the connection between these two concepts. People are practically taught that it would be impossible for them to live in harmony as long as they fail to act in agreement with a strict set of principles. They thus come to do everything in their power in order to keep these respective principles alive and they seem to be happy with ignoring the numerous problems that such attitudes cause instead of addressing them directly.

Many aspects of the film are exaggerated in order to intensify the message it is meant to put across. "The charges against Bowling for Columbine are essentially the same as for Roger and Me: factual errors and inaccuracies, exacerbated by manipulative editing using cut and paste for satirical purposes, at the expense of serious exposition of content and substantial, fair, political argument." (Chapman 151) While Moore's purposes are admirable, it is nonetheless disturbing to acknowledge that many viewers are probable to get the wrong idea as a result of seeing the film. It would be perfectly normal to stand up and criticize the contemporary gun culture in the U.S., but this needs to be done using calculated strategies and simply accusing third-parties is unlikely to generate positive results.