Love him or hate him, you can’t talk about 21st century documentaries without discussing Michael Moore. This week’s film, Bowling for Columbine (2002), is the first documentary we’re watching together that was completed after September 11th. Moore’s film raises many of the issues that are addressed in Trembling Before G-d (albeit from a different perspective), such as the tension between the public and the private, and the relationship between the filmmaker and the film subjects. Bowling For Columbine also seems particularly relevant at the moment, given the contemporary debates regarding gun control in light of the shootings in Tucson, Arizona and the attack on U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords a few weeks ago.
When thinking about Bowling for Columbine, consider the following questions:
- How does Moore present the events of the Columbine High School massacre?
- How does one find a balance between the Constitutional right for each citizen to own guns and protect oneself, and concerns regarding public safety?
- What is the role of media in our society, according to Moore? How do his ideas about the media fit in with what Moore thinks about freedom of speech in our country, as presented in the film?
- How does Moore present history in the documentary (both U.S. history and the U.S. role within global politics)?
- According to Moore, what is the link between violence and economics in our society?
- What is Moore’s relationship with the victims of the Columbine shooting? Do you think he’s exploiting his film subjects? Why or why not? When (if ever) do “the ends justify the means” within the realm of social activism cinema?
- What are the effects of the past on the present, according to the film?
- Do you think that the events of 9/11 have changed the ways nonfiction media “represents reality”? If so, how? Do you agree with Christian Christensen when he writes in one of our assigned articles that “the events of 9/11 provided a starting point for an interesting phase in documentary film-making”? What do you think about the criticisms that he addresses, such as the emphasis of the events of 9/11 “as some type of milestone for documentary film was to place the United States (yet again) at the centre of our understanding of popular culture and media in general, and documentary film specifically [...]”?
I’m very curious to hear your thoughts on these issues...
Having watched several of Moore's films I was hardly unaccustomed to his style. I did feel, however, that he presented a solid argument in Bowling For Columbine. Rather than attacking the obvious, Moore generates an idea that it is simply the American psyche to blame for the obscene number of annual murders. As a member of the NRA, and a seemingly empathetic individual, Moore does a good job at presenting his ideas in a fair playing field. He clearly believes in guns, judging by his membership, yet his sequence with the Michigan Militia hardly advocates their use. It was this sort of "objectivity" that helped me, as a viewer, appreciate his argument.
ReplyDeleteMoore attributes much of the U.S. murder numbers on mass media. No, he doesn't believe heavy metal or video games desensitizes and prompts emulation. Instead he believes our news programs and their subjective coverage instill fear - a fear that warrants gun protection.
This, I believe is where Moore's argument struck a chord. Fear. Juxtapose this notion with Canadians who fear not to leave their houses unlocked, and well, you've made me a believer Mr. Moore. America does seem to be a place of deep rooted anxiety, a believable cause for such a record with guns.
It seems to me that although Moore introduces an interesting and compelling tale on America's obsession and/or need for violence, he often through the film strays far from the subject matter at hand, that of the two shooters of the Columbine school killings. To me, he neglects the voice of students and how they deal with their problems and focuses on larger issues such as gun sales, wars in America, and racism. Though these more general topics might have an affect on school shootings, it just doesn't make sense to criticize those who sell guns, or protect our rights to own them, as opposed to criticizing those who use guns without restriction. Even though he goes as far as to get a local Walmart to stop selling bullets to the community, that doesn't mean that a person with a mental imbalance won't find another way to kill or harm others if he/she feels so determined to do so. Bullets and guns aren't what are at question when it comes to school shootings but why teenagers, and children in some cases, find the need to kill their fellow classmates.
ReplyDeleteSomething that was addressed in the Stuart Klawans article, "Moore's Dystopia," is that Bowling for Columbine does not have a strong enough focus on any one issue and instead covers a vast amount of information in a scope that's too big to give a clear, focused message. Of course, Klawans concludes his article saying: "When you're playing for the pennant and the umpire thinks the ball has sailed over the fence, you don't ask for a do-over in better lighting conditions." In other words, the success (both critical and financial) of Bowling for Columbine outweighs the lack of focus. Moore's film is entertaining and moving, and even though he doesn't manage to tie all of his thought threads together at the end, he gets close enough to a message that he essentially "gets away with it." I think if there is any real flaw with Bowling for Columbine, that is where it lies: in Moore's inability to really decide what he wants to make the film about. He deals with issues of shame and fear of the "other", he questions gun laws, he tries to assign blame both on the aforementioned fear but also on figureheads such as Charlton Heston and corporations like K-Mart, and on top of all this he attempts to exhibit an emotional portrayal of the human affects of the tragic school shootings that he calls attention to in the film. In essence, he has too much going on. I believe that Bowling for Columbine is one of the most personal films that Moore has made to date. I think that the film's lack of focus is representative of Moore's own emotional state as he searches for a place to lay blame. The scattered state of the film is indicative of his own scattered thoughts on responsibility. He feels culpable and he wants the entire nation to understand its part and take its share of the blame but he also wants someone to crucify. Despite this flaw, Moore does manage to bring up a lot of powerful questions about blame, responsibility, fear, shame, and how this all relates to guns in America.
ReplyDeleteNot having previously seen this film, but always having heard that it's about "the shootings at Columbine", I had certain expectations of what "Bowling for Columbine" would be like. I was surprised to find its focus a bit scattered. I guess the overall message of the film is that fear is widespread in America. From Flint, Michigan to Littleton Colorado, even our efforts to protect our freedom through the right to bear arms contributes to this fear.
ReplyDeleteThis is where I think the idea of post 9/11 documentary filmmaking and the way it has impacted our understanding of media in general. 9/11 is when America's fears had come true and had to be dealt with. I think that since that time it has been a lot easier for people to see and to be able to understand the questions about our society that are brought up in films such as Moore's.
I do feel that the issues that Moore presented with gun sales, ownership, and the idea of the 'American Psyche' are valid contributors to the murder rates in America and are very substantially related to the events that Moore covers in his film, and I also feel as though his presentation of these issues are fairly balanced with his NRA membership and history with and beliefs on gun ownership. However, I feel as though the issues that are presented in the film are common contributors to all of the shootings addressed in the film, but aren't the most important issues relating to the Columbine shooting specifically. This isn't necessarily a negative observation, however. When addressing the Columbine shooting, the media at the time mainly focused on teen depression, violence in music and games, and bullying, bullying, bullying. I feel like by taking a different approach, Moore brought up a separate issue to be discussed, which is, as we talked about in class, probably the strongest point of Moore's films. Rather than giving fully fleshed out, fully supported facts, he brings new ideas to the table to be discussed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(John-R)
ReplyDeleteI feel that "Moore" himself dominated the discussion yesterday, and I understand why and all but I thought it would have been nice if we had discussed more about what the film was trying to address... school shootings, and why they occur so frequently in American schools.
Moore really did need to bring all aspects of American culture, especially "gun" culture into his examination. He did use a bit of "over the top" bits... in his montages and the like, but is not "shock value" what gets peoples attention?
Moore himself did dominate the discussion John, you are right, and I apologize insofar as I had anything to do with dwelling on him.
ReplyDeleteTo remedy:
It is interesting how quickly the gun control debate petered out after the most recent shooting in Tucson. It was blamed much more on inflammatory Tea Party and shock-jock rhetoric, as well as Loughner being medically insane, all of which are plausible. But these explanations skirt the fact that he was using a semi-automatic weapon, readily available for purchase.
Certainly domestic political violence is no stranger to the States in modern times - the Kennedy's, MLK Jr., etc. - but it would be much less easy to 'water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots'- as well as innocents - if semi-automatic weapons were forbidden on the domestic market. Hunters can and should have their deer and their turkey, but fringe loners should not be allowed aim at our children in schools or grocery stores. The son-less father in Bowling for Columbine comes immediately to mind.
One of the most interesting things I observed in this documentary is Michael Moore's commentary on the role of the media.
ReplyDeleteIn one part of the film, Moore interview Marilyn Manson, for after Columbine, many believed messages of hate found in the lyrics of Manson and others were to blame for the Columbine shootings. While not explicitly stated, it seems that Moore disagrees with the anti-Manson community(his interview acts to disprove this claim). At this part in the film, Moore seems to advocate the media, regardless of its message.
Later in the film, however, Moore shifts focus to affiliate and network news. He claims that the news broadcasts an overly-violent and sensationalized view of the public. Moore shows one news photographer saying "If it bleeds, it leads." Here Moore makes the connection between violent 11:00 news stories and an ingrained sense of fear in the American public (which necessitates the need to own guns).
As I watched the film, I found myself wondering why Moore believes it's acceptable for Manson to sing about violence but the news must filter itself. Perhaps the answer lies in our classroom discussion regarding the "responsibility" of media outlets. Where some of my personal interest lies is that I work for WHDH-7 News here in Boston. Personally, I don't think anyone at the station I work for is trying to mislead anyone. We all have a job to do, and yes, flashy graphics, alliterative headlines, and vivid description do attract viewers. But so what if the news opens with a violent crime instead of an almost-drowned baby? Both stories happened, the media isn't making up events to deceive the public, and stories about violent crimes need to be told just like stories about drowning babies.
Katie - You make an interesting point about the media's role in creating and disseminating news, and I think, contrary to the obvious, that you and Moore may agree. You state that at your news station, nobody is trying to deceive the public, you and your colleagues are simply trying to report the stories that people want to hear, and report them accurately, with the exciting flourishes that make television the visual medium it is (becoming). Moore's argument is not that you should change what you are doing, literally, but that television news is a PRODUCT OF as well as a CONTRIBUTOR TO the addiction to fear of the American people. If we didn't want it, you wouldn't give it to us - if we wanted an in depth, 20-minute report on the finances of the MBTA, you and 7 news would give it to us, but we don't, and you don't.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to see this American addiction to fear as a crucial element in Moore's portrayal of 9/11 in the film. While Christian Christensen argues that 9/11 changed everything in documentary film, Bowling for Columbine is hardly representative of that. 9/11 is used as a vehicle to explore exactly what Katie is discussing above - our truly unique addiction to fear, addiction to fighting an "other." In a way, Moore makes the (admittedly weak and informal) argument that we were simply trying to hard before 9/11 to find an other to blame, nebulously shifting from Manson, to Doom, to bullying. 9/11 gave Americans an outlet, in a sense - it gave us a defined "other" that in turn gave us an excuse to bulk-up, buy some guns, and kick some far-away brown-people in the ass. Moore, throughout the film, and quite convincingly (in addition to the less-cohesive Lockheed Martin = violent thoughts line of argument) wonders why THAT - the American addiction to fear, and our primary, violent modes of dealing with that fear - is not mentioned as a plausible cause for Columbine.
I think the general idea Moore is putting out there, as explained elsewhere here in other comments, is that beyond the legislative issue of gun violence there is also a cultural problem as well. Race is a part of that, but I think it's a multi-faceted issue and the factor that I believe is more intrinsically involved is economics.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I also think it's important to address the issue of the media as well. I remember when I first saw the movie, I thought he had been a little unfair to the COPS producer, because the producer couldn't control the race of the people being arrested. Nonetheless, I think there is still something to be said about the sensationalistic nature of journalism in general.
My own beliefs on this are pretty extreme. I believe that consciousness determines reality, in a metaphorical sense and in a literal sense. (This idea may seem like a flaky concept theoretically, but there is a lot of research being done in the field of quantum physics on this) Following that line of thinking, I am always wary of what a particular source is attempting to persuade me to feel. With news, it is almost 100% about fear. It's how they get the ratings, but I wonder what effects that has on the psyche of millions of people?
I know I'm treading pseudo-scientific ground here, but regardless of whether or not you actually believe in any of that, when one is governed by strong negative emotions like fear and anger, our ability to think clearly and make informed decisions is diminished. That's why I stopped watching the news. (except for pbs and bbc, non-profits)
Thinking about Michael Moore, I keep coming back to the idea of his responsibility as the film maker. Should he be held to the same standards as journalists? Should he be evaluated differently because he is a documentarian?
ReplyDeleteMy feeling is yes. He is presenting an argument with calculated intent. His intent, in Bowling For Columbine, is to make his audience aware of gun control issues in the United States. Many people will take his arguments very seriously. They may come out of watching his film thinking that what he professes is truth. Yet, he strings his arguments to curtail to his opinions. OPINIONS. He uses facts to back up his thought and opinions, never playing his own devils advocate.
It reminds me of the theory of "unsane consumers". The idea that people already have their minds made up when they go to buy something, and they only look at the facts that will support their preexiting beliefs. Moore, in a sense, does this in his films. He has already made up his mind about his argument. So, he only presents the facts that will support his ideas. This is glaringly evident in "Sicko", where he villianizes U.S. healthcare and presents other countries systems as if there are no flaws.
Moore's film could be viewed as little more than propaganda. Most people might not think that because most of what he talks about seems to make sense. He already has a majority of people on his side. 'Murder is wrong' 'Proper gun control' etc. But as everyone has referred to, he uses fear as his number one persuasive device.
ReplyDeleteBut do the ends justify the means? Possibly. His message is just, and his beliefs come from a good place, I think. He just wants what we all want, which is a safer place to live. As with other documentary filmmakers, he has something he wants to say, and this is his way of saying it.