Gun Violence and American Culture in Film: Bowling for Columbine and American Beauty

Introduction: Violence as an American Theme in Film

Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is a documentary that illustrates what might be called a most American of cultural pathologies: violence, and gun violence in particular. Moore utilizes the documentary format to incorporate a wide variety of disparate scenes and characters that collectively argue that America's obsession with guns — and the violent deaths they produce — is a fatal folly. Because the film is a documentary, Moore enjoys considerably more license than traditional narrative films allow. He incorporates multiple mediums including cartoons, video surveillance footage, and the ever-present eye of his own camera crew. In this respect, he is able to manipulate the conventional mechanisms for conveying a film's theme — lighting, camera angles, sound and scoring, dialogue, and others — more pointedly and directly than most fiction films can. The overall effect is that his film reinforces its theme of America's preoccupation with gun violence with something more powerful than typical filmmaking techniques: a dose of realism that no viewer can deny.

Sam Mendes's American Beauty approaches the same cultural preoccupation from a different direction. Rather than documentary exposure, Mendes constructs a fictional suburb populated by affluent characters whose lives are saturated with violent impulse. An analysis of the cinematic devices employed in both films — narration, plot, shot selection, characterization, mise en scène, and others — reveals that America's preoccupation with violence, and with gun violence in particular, is a theme that transcends genre and filmmaking style.

Bowling for Columbine: Documentary Techniques and Gun Culture

The central element of Moore's film is that he is not simply depicting another story about American violence or re-enacting a piece of American history. Instead, he is directly interacting with the principal players — some still living, some not — who were involved in a senseless tragedy. The narration is handled primarily by the filmmaker himself, who is also the film's most prominent character. He conducts interviews with and interacts with individuals who either influenced, or were influenced by, the murders committed by two teenagers at Columbine High School in April 1999.

Because of this approach, Moore both experiences and projects all of the emotions he intends his audience to feel as he reconstructs the motives and circumstances surrounding the massacre. This filmmaking technique is particularly effective in a documentary, as it ensures the director's emotional investment is visible and reinforces his theme throughout. For instance, when Moore interviews NRA president and former actor Charlton Heston regarding a gun rally Heston held in the Columbine area less than two weeks after the massacre, the audacity and intended indignation that the audience is meant to feel come across clearly in Moore's voice, actions, and overall demeanor. The dialogue editing in this scene is convincing and deliberate.

The Heston interview is the final scene on which the film closes. At one point, Heston dismisses Moore and orders him out of his home. Undeterred, the filmmaker continues asking questions and attempting to gain some acknowledgment of accountability from Heston regarding his indirect role in the shooting as president of one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the country. While Moore is still speaking, the camera cuts to Heston — unconcerned about the shooting or any culpability on his or the NRA's part — simply walking away. The emptiness with which he leaves the frame, reflected in the now-vacant room, reinforces the emptiness of a violent gun culture in which there are merely dead bodies, not answers.

Statistics, Shot Selection, and the Canada Comparison

Another way in which Moore dominates as the film's central character is to use his narration as a vehicle for delivering statistical information that underpins the film's theme. The viewer is informed that despite a 20% decrease in the murder rate during the period in which the film was shot, television media coverage of violent crime increased by 600%. There are over 11,000 shooting deaths per year in the United States, compared to Canada, where — despite 7 out of every 10 households owning firearms — there are only approximately 160 shooting deaths annually. The effectiveness of the documentary format in stressing a film's theme is never more apparent than when Moore presents these facts. One of the most telling moments in the movie follows this statistical revelation: Moore notes that most Canadians do not even lock their doors at night.

To demonstrate this, the filmmaker travels to Canada and walks directly through the unlocked front door of a random house. In doing so, he employs a shot selection that not only highlights the contrast between gun violence in the U.S. and Canada, but also maintains the documentary's character as an amalgam of different styles and cinematic techniques. For this particular shot, the camera rushes headlong into the doorway as Moore stumbles upon unsuspecting residents. The shot is reminiscent of the camera work used in television programs such as COPS, in which crews barge into houses during police sweeps. The rush of breaking through the door generates a sense of excitement that is immediately contrasted by the calm, relaxed people Moore encounters inside. Although the household contains weapons and the front door was left unlocked, the residents are far from alarmed. The implications are clear: despite Canada having nearly as many guns per capita as the United States, its citizens are neither frightened nor trigger-happy in the same way.