Bowling For Columbine
***
Review by Jon Waterman
Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore is back and he’s out for answers. Normally, he likes to go after the large corporations and the “Stupid White Men” that run this country. This time around, he’s still after “Stupid White Men.” He just wants to go after a different group of them. Instead of picking on Senators or CEOs, he’s going after the NRA and the pro-gun lobbyists.
In the film, he poses the question, “Why does the United States have so many more murders by gun than any other super power country?” We have somewhere around 11,000 plus per year, whereas most major countries such as Germany, Japan and Canada have less than 1,000 and usually less than 100. Mr. Moore wants to find out what makes our country so much different from the rest of the civilized world.
On his journey, he focuses on two school shootings: Littleton, CO and near Flint, MI. How did the kids get the guns? How far down the chain should we carry the responsibility? Is it the parent’s fault for living in the area they live in or not being there? Is it the government’s fault for sending the parents so far away to work, even though the parents still can’t make enough to pay the bills? Is it Dick Clark’s fault for lending his name to the restaurant the parent works at?
Yes, we get to see Dick Clark…briefly. Moore seems to think it’s a good idea to confront Dick about the Michigan shooting, due to the chain of reasoning mentioned above. To be fair, he doesn’t expect Clark to take responsibility. He’s not asking him to do so. He wants Dick to help change the system around so that history doesn’t need to be repeated. However, D.C. drives off, because a normal visit from Michael Moore is an attack towards you and your business practices. To me, his confrontation with Clark’s vehicle was nothing more than a pathetic attempt at getting a celebrity into the film.
Another celebrity encounter that could have been handled better is the one with Charleton Heston. I would call the meeting utterly pointless to capture on film were he not the head of the National Rifle Association. For no good reason, Moore verbally attacks Heston. He starts by asking Heston the question he’s been asking everyone: Why is America so different? Why so many murders with guns? Heston thinks it over and gives an answer he feels is adequate. Michael persists. What makes him think he can get a more solid answer from Heston than from any other person in the film is beyond me. Moore’s only viable line of questioning concerns the NRA holding meetings days after the school shootings occur in the same town. Michael gets a political answer and doesn’t back away. His tactics were childish and rude and the situation was poor. Moore tries to wrench your heart, but the sequence essentially shows him cranking the vise.
Not all the celebrity appearances are as malicious. Matt Stone (co-creator of South Park, from the Columbine area) and Marilyn Manson (singer/songwriter/scapegoat) get ample screen time to speak their piece and relay anything that may aide Michael Moore’s position. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. What they have to say makes perfect sense and we are better off hearing it. However, had they tried to argue with Moore, they wouldn’t get as much screen time.
His intentions are also quite transparent when he shows the history of U.S. “relations” (read: bombings/executions) in foreign lands to the song, “What a Wonderful World.” Had a less obviously oxymoron-ish song been chosen, the sequence may have been more effective. The images with the captions and pure silence could have made watching that part strikingly moving.
Speaking of emotional content, the film contains some graphic and disturbing images worth showing. In order to report on the horror of these kids getting guns, one needs to demonstrate the destructive power of the weapons. Foreign assassination pictures and security footage from inside Columbine High School during the rampage are brilliantly juxtaposed with stock footage of classic commercials for toy guns that look just like the real thing.
The film isn’t all horrific imagery. We are treated to a specially made cartoon detailing the history of the United States. It, like the rest of the film, deals with the notion of Americans acting out of fear. It is insightful and hilarious. However, the funniest part of the film does not belong to Moore himself, but to footage of a Chris Rock comedy concert in which he tells jokes about raising the cost of bullets to combat crime.
Now, the film is not bad, despite what I’ve made it out to be so far. The film is poignant, thought provoking, discussion starting, entertaining and enlightening. In an age full of people getting their news from “The Daily Show,” it’s good to see someone bring important issues to the surface in a relatively mainstream way. Moore honestly tries to discover what makes this country different from the rest. His problem lies within thinking it is one specific factor. If all the elements of the film are put together to form the argument, then the whole piece accomplishes his quest nicely.
***
Review by Jon Waterman
Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore is back and he’s out for answers. Normally, he likes to go after the large corporations and the “Stupid White Men” that run this country. This time around, he’s still after “Stupid White Men.” He just wants to go after a different group of them. Instead of picking on Senators or CEOs, he’s going after the NRA and the pro-gun lobbyists.
In the film, he poses the question, “Why does the United States have so many more murders by gun than any other super power country?” We have somewhere around 11,000 plus per year, whereas most major countries such as Germany, Japan and Canada have less than 1,000 and usually less than 100. Mr. Moore wants to find out what makes our country so much different from the rest of the civilized world.
On his journey, he focuses on two school shootings: Littleton, CO and near Flint, MI. How did the kids get the guns? How far down the chain should we carry the responsibility? Is it the parent’s fault for living in the area they live in or not being there? Is it the government’s fault for sending the parents so far away to work, even though the parents still can’t make enough to pay the bills? Is it Dick Clark’s fault for lending his name to the restaurant the parent works at?
Yes, we get to see Dick Clark…briefly. Moore seems to think it’s a good idea to confront Dick about the Michigan shooting, due to the chain of reasoning mentioned above. To be fair, he doesn’t expect Clark to take responsibility. He’s not asking him to do so. He wants Dick to help change the system around so that history doesn’t need to be repeated. However, D.C. drives off, because a normal visit from Michael Moore is an attack towards you and your business practices. To me, his confrontation with Clark’s vehicle was nothing more than a pathetic attempt at getting a celebrity into the film.
Another celebrity encounter that could have been handled better is the one with Charleton Heston. I would call the meeting utterly pointless to capture on film were he not the head of the National Rifle Association. For no good reason, Moore verbally attacks Heston. He starts by asking Heston the question he’s been asking everyone: Why is America so different? Why so many murders with guns? Heston thinks it over and gives an answer he feels is adequate. Michael persists. What makes him think he can get a more solid answer from Heston than from any other person in the film is beyond me. Moore’s only viable line of questioning concerns the NRA holding meetings days after the school shootings occur in the same town. Michael gets a political answer and doesn’t back away. His tactics were childish and rude and the situation was poor. Moore tries to wrench your heart, but the sequence essentially shows him cranking the vise.
Not all the celebrity appearances are as malicious. Matt Stone (co-creator of South Park, from the Columbine area) and Marilyn Manson (singer/songwriter/scapegoat) get ample screen time to speak their piece and relay anything that may aide Michael Moore’s position. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. What they have to say makes perfect sense and we are better off hearing it. However, had they tried to argue with Moore, they wouldn’t get as much screen time.
His intentions are also quite transparent when he shows the history of U.S. “relations” (read: bombings/executions) in foreign lands to the song, “What a Wonderful World.” Had a less obviously oxymoron-ish song been chosen, the sequence may have been more effective. The images with the captions and pure silence could have made watching that part strikingly moving.
Speaking of emotional content, the film contains some graphic and disturbing images worth showing. In order to report on the horror of these kids getting guns, one needs to demonstrate the destructive power of the weapons. Foreign assassination pictures and security footage from inside Columbine High School during the rampage are brilliantly juxtaposed with stock footage of classic commercials for toy guns that look just like the real thing.
The film isn’t all horrific imagery. We are treated to a specially made cartoon detailing the history of the United States. It, like the rest of the film, deals with the notion of Americans acting out of fear. It is insightful and hilarious. However, the funniest part of the film does not belong to Moore himself, but to footage of a Chris Rock comedy concert in which he tells jokes about raising the cost of bullets to combat crime.
Now, the film is not bad, despite what I’ve made it out to be so far. The film is poignant, thought provoking, discussion starting, entertaining and enlightening. In an age full of people getting their news from “The Daily Show,” it’s good to see someone bring important issues to the surface in a relatively mainstream way. Moore honestly tries to discover what makes this country different from the rest. His problem lies within thinking it is one specific factor. If all the elements of the film are put together to form the argument, then the whole piece accomplishes his quest nicely.
<< Home