Bowling for Columbine
The wife and I finally went to see Michael Moore's latest documentary,
Bowling for Columbine last night, and it is every bit as hard-hitting, depressing and occassionally funny as everybody says it is.
The film is a stream-of-consciousness examination of violence, gun control, racism, fear and the media in the United States, as well as the ways each of these have played into one another over the years. The film definitely raises more questions than it answers, and I suppose that's kind of the point: to provoke thought. I recommend the film wholeheartedly, but nonetheless, I thought there were a few problems with the way the subject matter was treated in the film.
Moore is liberal and wears his ideology on his sleeve in every film or TV program that he makes. For the most part, I agree with his views, and I think he should be commended for using his power as a filmmaker to try to bring about change in America, whether it be on the level of social consciousness or convincing large corporations and government to make concrete, policy-based changes. Moore understands what the press is
supposed to be and sadly
isn't for the most part, at least in America: a forum for people whose voices are seldom heard or largely ignored.
That said, he doesn't always present the most well-rounded examinations of a certain topic, and I thought this to be the case with
Bowling for Columbine. If Moore's mission is to bring about education, understanding and -- ultimately -- change, he needs to make his films more palatable to the right wing. Of course the liberal contingent will agree with the message he brings forth in the film; he's essentially preaching to the choir. But these aren't the people he needs to convince or enlighten, and therein lies the problem. Because of his obvious political slant and his tendency to portray all Republicans as heartless, idiotic, greedy old white guys, the messages of his films can easily -- and somewhat understandibly -- be ignored and dismissed as left-wing, bleeding-heart-liberal propaganda by the people he needs to convince the most. It's enough of a struggle to get the right people to watch his films, and he's setting himself up with one more obstacle than necessary. People don't just need to watch the movie, they need to believe that the message actually holds water.
When Moore's agenda doesn't overwhelm a scene, his own presence often does. During one segment of
Columbine, he brings two victims of the Columbine High School shootings to the K-Mart headquarters in a (successful) attempt to convice the retail giant to pull handgun ammunition off its store shelves; although the gesture works, it smacks of exploitation -- Moore seems much more interested in causing a scene and using the two relatively disinterested teenagers as pawns to accomplish that. Throughout the film, Moore eschews subtlety in favor of getting in the frame and explicitly trying to make his point, when in most cases subtlety would have worked a whole lot better.
I think everyone should see
Bowling for Columbine, but don't expect Republicans, gun freaks, TV executives and racists to "see the light" after viewing the film. Moore doesn't take enough of an unbiased, well-rounded approach to accomplish that. But it's impossible for anyone to deny the film's power, and it brings awareness, insight and attention to a set of issues that needs it immediately.
