i cringed when the audience i sat with clapped their hands at the end of the film. the part where mm leaves the picture of kayla on the floor was just so naff and unnecc.
Comment by azura on Tuesday 17 June 2003 at 13:16.
"I use the pen because the pen is mightier than the sword. But you must always keep a sword handy... for when the pen fails."
I watched Michael Moore's film Bowling For Columbine this evening. It had roughly the same effect on me as his book Stupid White Men, in that it mostly appalled me, frequently left me open-mouthed in amazement, caused me to laugh out loud on several occasions and occasionally irritated the hell out of me.
It starts off with an attention-grabbing parade of mad-eyed, pro-gun Americans explaining in increasingly more bizarre terms exactly why they feel that gun ownership is a good thing. The recurring circular logic seems to be that Americans should own guns because that's what Americans do. One demonstrates his lack of concern for the issue by pointing a cocked pistol at his head and assuring us that it's alright because "the bullet is in the gun".
Then it looks at the Columbine school shootings in some detail, adopting a more reflective tone. The PR person for Lockheed Martin, a major weapons manufacturer based in Columbine, proudly describes his company's programme to sponsor anger management sessions for the town's teenagers. When it is suggested to him that there might be some contradiction between this and the company's core business, he looks completely baffled.
The most interesting part of the film for me was Moore's attempt to understand why America has such a notably high homicide rate compared to other similar countries. He dispels the myth that it stems from gun ownership, violence in popular entertainment, a bloody history and/or social poverty. The comparison with Canada seems to be the most illuminating. Moore believes that Canadians lack fear to such an extent that they do not automatically spring to violence when threatened.
One Canadian explains how he feels that Americans lock their house doors to keep the world out, whereas Canadians generally keep them open to avoid being locked in. Moore wanders round a Windsor, Ontario neighbourhood testing this theory and is bemused to find that almost every single door that he tries is unlocked. Canadian interviewees smile philosophically as they describe burglaries and bedroom intruders as minor irritations. These scenes are amongst the most effective in the film, supporting its assertion that contemporary USA exists in a culture of fear.
There are several sites (like this one) that cover alleged factual inaccuracies in Moore's film, some of which are serious and some trivial. Certainly Moore does play his viewers "like a violin". Of course - he has a point to make and he's going to make it like everyone else. When faced with hard statistical information, a responsible viewer has to verify, always bearing in mind that there are lies, damned lies and the product of several years of exhaustive research.
The thing that most irritated me about the film was its ending. I have no problem with the humiliation of Charlton Heston - any doubts that I might have had about manipulation of his image by Moore were quelled by his thoughts on why gun ownership was a necessity in contemporary America. "We have a history of violence," he announced, attempting to justify the existence of the National Rifle Association. When Moore suggested that Germany's history was bloodier, Heston muttered something about the USA having greater ethnic diversity before retracting this statement and repeating his initial vague assertion. Despicable.
Yet the image of Moore wandering after a shuffling Heston, brandishing a picture of Kayla Rolland (the six year-old fatally wounded at Buell Elementary School by a fellow pupil in February 2000) repeating "Look at her, Mr Heston," was too much for me. Its melodrama undermined the apparent seriousness of his approach thus far (including the noble achievement of getting firearm ammunition sales banned by K-Mart). It's a prime example of what infuriates me about Michael Moore.
I have a lot of respect for the guy and I think his heart is in the right place, but when he gets it wrong, he gets it wrong big-time. For example, in his book Stupid White Men there is an eloquent section where he suggests that the Palestinians should adopt a Gandhi-like strategy of non-violence in order to end conflict in the Middle East. It's passionate and well argued, but it's preceeded (or followed, I forget) by a section on how all the Protestants in Northern Ireland should convert to Catholicism so there would be no reason to fight. Kind of misses the point.
Nevertheless, Bowling For Columbine deserves your attention and your respect if for no reason other than the fact that it's a film with a social conscience that seeks to investigate rather than simply to entertain. Michael Moore might not have all the answers, but he's asking the right questions in a way that is all too rare in the contemporary "infotainment" world of the Western media.
[At the bottom of the IMDB review, with a wry chuckle, I spotted this: "If you like this title, we also recommend... RoboCop (1987)." I suspect that Moore would appreciate the irony.].
Posted by Hg on Tuesday 17 June 2003 at 00:02.
Received 6 comments so far.
Comments
I have to admit that, whilst I applaud his questioning on this issues, I just find the man hugely irritating. But then I like Louis Theroux. Still to see Bowling for Columbine, and have still to read his recent book (received as a present from a friend), you may just have spurred me on to do so.
<pontificate>
In the end, it almost doesn't matter whether Moore's right, wrong, or an interesting blend of both. No one man, woman, or group thereof will ever have all, not even a significant portion of, the answers. I'm sure Moore starts a project reciting to himself, under his breath, "Can the slapstick, man. Just tell the story." Then he gets bored, and realizes that no one's gonna watch a dry, purely factual account of things, at least no one who needs to.
Here we are, talking about the topic (sort of—I realize we're digressing), and that's what counts.
</pontificate>
I too found the northern Ireland section of "Stupid White Men" a sad blip in what was otherwise a good, if ranting, book.
As you say, when he gets it wrong....
I've yet to see the film. Must give it a go one day.
One of the things that struck in that film was all these people, who looked perfectly ordinary, but came out with some well disturbing things. Whereas the one guy who looked plain wierd, Marilyn Manson, was by far the most sensible in what he said.
Post a comment
Trackback
http://www.hydragenic.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hydragen/mt/mt-tb.cgi/955
Navigation
The previous post was Welsh Wizardry.
The next post is Microthought.
Copyright
All original material on this site is © Hydragenic, 2002-2008. Extracts of other people's work are used for the purpose of criticism, review or news reporting, in line with the "fair dealing" (or "fair use") principle.