|
|
The audience at the Hamburg film festival, bored with the 'Bush is like Hitler' fiasco and angered by the US's refusal to conform to international ecological standards, were keyed up to watch this latest instalment from Michael Moore. Undeterred by the goofy title, which doesn't in any way suggest its subject matter - America's love affair with guns - the audience lapped up the film's profound criticism of the US. The US Government, police, media, crime shows and gun laws, even chain stores like K Mart, came under fire. Most of all they applauded the film's most profound sentiment, "Why are Amercians so stupid?", a charge the director himself, ambling around in a shapeless T shirt and baseball cap, was not entirely free from.
Moore's deeply personal and unconsciously ambivalent approach (he is both American and a member of the National Rifle Association) manages to examine the possible reasons for the Columbine High School Massacre of 1999, where two students killed 13 people with guns at their school, without delving into the background of the perpetrators. Instead, he makes a fetish of the details which have transparently captured his interest, the availability and accessibility of guns and weapons, and the fact that in the area where the school is, they also make missles and weapons of mass destruction.
Moore achieved the distinction of creating the first feature length 'documentary' in 46 years to be selected for competition in the Cannes Film Festival, although by rights, this hugely entertaining film is no such thing. This tirade that asks 'Are we a nation of gun nuts - or are we just nuts?' never even goes through the motions of offering an 'objective view' one might expect of a documentary. Moore films odd facts (it opens with him opening an account at a bank whose free gift is a gun) and assorted oddballs from the militia "if you're not armed, you're in dereliction of duty", and anyone with an different point of view, like Charlton Heston and an unwitting K Mart PR Executive, are captured on film either unwittingly or under false pretences for ridicule. The Moore strategy of 'no issue is too small or too sacred' also allows him to promote too much of himself. Without troubling to ask experts on criminology or psychology why America has become one of the most violent societies in the world, it becomes more of a homage to Moore's talent at asking confrontational questions, the uncanny knack he has for creating melodrama as the weird kid-grown-up's 'voice of the people'.
What started out as a quirky reflection upon events in Columbine found wider resonance when events in the news forced Moore to widen the net. First there was the shooting in Michigan of 6 year old Kayla Rolland by another 6 year old boy, which he decided to incorporate. Then after the film was edited, along came September 11th. Taking advantage of the soaring gun sales and fear of violence after the attack, Moore added extra elements and reedited the footage. Now with the current crisis with Iraq, the film attains an extra-diegetic resonance that Moore could scarcely have dreamt of achieving at the outset. This enjoyable tirade that offers some interesting points of view, in view of its topicality, becomes instantly the most explosive critique of US culture in circulation. Watch and enjoy, unless of course you happen to be one of the 7 million Americans who own a gun.
Reviewed by Marcelle Perks
Reader comments about Bowling for Columbine
Ian Haydn Smith (ihsmith@yahoo.co.uk) writes:
In light of the sniper attacks around the Washington DC area since 2 October, 'Bowling for Columbine' could hardly be more relevant. Marcelle Perks' review entirely misses the point of Michael Moore's film.
Her claim that the film's 'goofy' title in no way suggests its subject matter is wrong. Columbine has become synonymous with and central to the gun control debate. That school has also become a symbol of much that is wrong in America.
If the film's personal tone is seen as the antithesis of what a documentary should be, then the films of Agnes Varda, Errol Morris, Nick Broomfield and even work by Claude Lanzmann are hardly deserving of the title of documentary. That the film is personal and heartfelt does not detract from its analysis of contemporary American culture. I for one was glad that Moore eschewed the fallacy of objective distance in favour of an emotive response to the issues tackled.
I do not know how much the film was restructured following the events of 11 September, but the suggestion that Moore widened his net due to unfolding events, tackling more than just gun control, strikes me as unfair. Moore's previous work, though certainly entertaining and informative, has often been marred by its scattershot approach. 'Bowling for Columbine' is a well structured film whose inclusion of the shooting of Kayla Rowland and tackling the arms trade could hardly have been carried out as an afterthought. Columbine was a logical starting point, and the most incendiary example of where and how America may have gone wrong.
The film is certainly far from flawless. Moore could have offered an explanation as to why he has maintained his membership with the National Rifle Association; although his aim is not for guns to be banned, his association with such a politically dubious organisation needed some word. And his own emotional responses could be questioned in the same way he doubts the sincerity of other reporters. Was the scene where he places the photograph of Kayla Rowland outside Charlton Heston's house the first or the fifth take?
However, I wonder why issue should be taken with Moore's nationality and dress sense. Moore loves his country and sees ordinary people not so much as stupid, but as pawns in a game played by bigots whose ignorance about where their actions will take their country, leaves no doubt as to who the truly stupid people are. That Moore presents his argument dressed casually, rather than in a suit might offer an indication of where his feelings lie. It may even be that that is how he dresses all the time. However, point taken. I will ask Kamera to send a French Connection voucher to Moore as a Christmas present. Who knows, by the time of his next film, we may see the director dressed in Versace.
At a time when dissention is seen as un-American, when Toby Keith's terrifying 'Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)' dominates the airwaves while Steve Earl's articulate 'John Walker's Blues' is denied playtime, when the President in office is the very definition of an electoral dictatorship, and when, to those in power, personal politics is fattening your wallet while the majority watch on and suffer, 'Bowling for Columbine' is deserving of all the accolades it has received. Less an endword than a valuable entry to an ongoing debate, I only hope that Moore's film reaches the widest possible audience.
Philip Adamek (terrette3@yahoo.com) writes:
I find Ian Haydn Smith's reaction to both the film and Marcelle Perk's review of it to be convincing and even-handed. Perk's haughty, high-handed approach is, by contrast, in evidence in every line that she writes. Writing of the Hamburg film festival goers, she grossly simplifies and distorts the film's intent by offering a curiously self-certain interpretation of hand-clapping: "Most of all they applauded the film's most profound sentiment, "Why are Amercians so stupid?", a charge the director himself, ambling around in a shapeless T shirt and baseball cap, was not entirely free from." This statement leaves us with the impression that Miss Perk's must consider herself and perhaps the citizens of Hamburg to be very SMART dressers, but it leaves wholly unsubstantiated its vicious and irrelevant claim about Moore's dress style, whose more likely relevance (however little relevant it may be) Mr. Haydn Smith explores more convincingly.
I think Moore's distancing himself in "Bowling for Columbine" from the overt pretence of info-gathering documentation in the manner of bland major network reporting, brings his work closer to art and literature, while maintaining its potential for social criticism. Another important consequence of his doing so is that his film is not easily criticizable on grounds that it "distorts" certain issues, or fails to fully inform itself with the help of socioligists, philosophers, economists, etc. Undoubtedly, the mass of weak interpretations likely to confront this film will swing between these two extremes: superficial and high-handed, in the manner of Ms. Perk's reaction, which approaches the film as a failed documentary; or politically oriented and dogmatic, as in the NRA's response--made well before the film's release-- that the film is "politically irrelevant."
David Gordon (Email address withheld) writes:
It looks like it's not just Americans who live in an Orwellian culture of force-fed mainstream drivel. I am desperate to see Bowling for Columbine but, even though it was released five days ago, it doesn't look like any of the six cinemas in Leeds have any plans to show it for at least a month! And yet somehow it's still made it into number 10 on the box office charts.
What are they protecting us from?
Natasha (tasha_collins99@yahoo.co.uk) writes:
Having read "Stupid White Men" I am now very frustrated that no cinema near me seems to be showing this film, despite it being a best selling book and obvious box office success already. Anyone no where I can see it in the North-East?
Palash R. Ghosh (palash7@hotmail.com) writes:
Although I admire Michael Moore for his non-commerical, maverick, semi-comical approach to documentary filmmaking, this movie is a hodge-podge of pointless, left-wing propaganda that doesn't offer any coherent or logical arguments about the prevalence of gun violence in the U.S. Moore is a funny (and probably intelligent) man, but he makes the most absurd accusations and blanket indictments! For example, he ties the bombing of Kosovo to the massacre at Columbine High school! He also makes idiotic simple-minded statements (i.e., "There is no racism in Canada," "the media exaggerates the amount of urban crime," etc.). Most disturbing was how Moore humiliated Charlton Heston after the NRA President
has graciously invited him into his home! I just can't see how Mr. Heston (now a doddering old man) is to blame for gun violence. Moore seems to attribute all the horrors of US crime to Heston! Moore is a big, fat phony.
David Linneweh (Davetk421@aol.com) writes:
First I want to say that maybe his film might get people to wonder why kids do things like this outside of the media driven attack on music or movies, etc.. Maybe thats all he wanted to do was pose questions, it made me wonder. As far as Kosovo and Columbine, i think he was just saying that its interesting that whlie we were all paying attention to what happened in Colorado, we werent paying attention to what was going on in the world. And all he says is that that day we dropped more bombs than during the whole campaign. And I think all he wanted out of Heston was a sincere look at these issues, not to mention that cant someone admit to screwing up or at least saying yea i didnt know what was going on and that maybe it wasnt a good idea after all. And saying that the whole point of the movie was that Moore put all of U.S. Crimes problems on Heston is silly, he never makes any claims. He just wanted a guy who is such a public figure to think about what he stands for and wonder if hes helping. Try watching the movie again.
Jordan Bell (Email address withheld) writes:
Most intelligent film I've seen in ages. I love how Moore actually listens. Oh, and I love how Marilyn Manson offers a more intelligent interview than Charleton Heston. And yes, it's ok to interview Heston even if he is old, because he is head of the NRA. Unless he wants to resign today, he is responsible for handling hostile interviews, just like any other official in any other organization.
Peter Robertson (Email address withheld) writes:
I really loved this movie, not only for its entertainment value, but because it finally shows that 'guns do kill people'. Charlton Heston's 'cold dead hands' speech was particularly amusing as if he continues waving his rifle around so flippantly he could be dead sooner than he hoped. The gun-cradling percentage (and I must state that this is a small percentage)of Americans are all too eager to blame nusic or computer games for the random gun killings, yet the answer to their problems is in their 'cold dead hands'. Maybe some of them will actually watch the film and come to their senses... In fact, they won't.
Phillip (Email address withheld) writes:
This movie presents what is a very serious issue in a kind of light hearted way and it at times is very funny.
It takes on what is a very sticky issue with little finsesse, but does get to the point and exposes alot of problems within the USA.
The interviews with various people are all interesting. It's a good movie and is well worth seeing even if you don't happen to agree with Moore.
Matilda Burrows (Matilda_text_me@hotmail.com) writes:
The first thoughts to enter my head after viewing the film are.....provoking, disturbing,honest, interesting, realistic, tragically and morally wrong(how greedy for money people are). I agree on everything that Michael Moore said even though i am a seventeen year old. My whole class seen the film and it certainly had a large effect. Good on him for bringin the truth to people that the government lies to.
matthew reichstein (29670@twgs.qld.edu.au) writes:
I really enjoyed the film.
Moore expresses his opinion well and has a valid point of view, gun control seems to be essential. This film is well done by micheal moore, and thoroughly deserved his award:
I would like to have correspondence, with anyone who shares my view
Scott P (Email address withheld) writes:
This is by a distance, the best documentary on America I have ever seen. It's serious despite the genious that is Michael Moore's humour. Having read 'Stupid white men' I was looking forward to this. And with good cause. Of anybody wanted to take Moore's well earned Oscar like I heard, They can go and live in a slum for a week, It's powerful stuff, And a light at the end of the tunnel: There are still good people in this world.
Harry (Email address withheld) writes:
This is without doubt one of the most important films of the year. It attacks all the issues that are in the forefront of peoples minds at the moment. I went to it not expecting very much from it as a documentary but it totally gripped me. I thought that it explored the issues with a fair amount of finesse, I think the people who call it heavy handed or too biased are just too conservative or conformist to face people attacking their societies or way of life. I find it very hard to dispute the evidence and arguments this film makes. I cant see what evidence you could put against his arguments or what other viewpoints he could have explored that would have come to a different conclusion. If People look stupid in the documentary it's not through clever editing it's because they spouted stupid quotes or didn't think things through properly. Like the guy who wanted to be No.1 on the bomb threat list just so he could be the best at somthing. I think people attack this because they're quite threatened by the conclusions it comes to about the most powerful government in the world.
Maybe Palosh R. Ghosh is one of these people. I think he misses the point of this film altogether. He accuses Moore of making blanket statements but I think Moore is careful not to do this. The fact that he uses speech marks for somthing Michael Moore never actually said shows what an open mind he had going into the cinema. Michael Moore never said there was no racism in Canada. If this was even hinted at it can only be the section where he actually interviews black people in Canada, and it's these people, not him who say they feel less prejudice in Canada. And I think their'e the experts on the subject. You also say that it's absurd to suggest that the media exagerates urban crime. But I think he proves that quite conclusively when he gives you figures like violent crime reportage has gone up by 600% in the media while in reality actual incidents have dropped. Anyway the very phrase 'the media' which you used is a blanket statement in itself. Lastly Moore didn't humiliate Heston, the aging actor was perfectly good at doing that himself. His cold dead hands speech was truly worthy of other great babblers like Rumsfeld or Bush. His pompousness and arrogance "You want ME, Charlton Heston to apologise?!'Set himself up for the fall without any help from others.
Personally I think it's Heston and not Moore who is the big fat phony.
Jack (Email address withheld) writes:
i am from new zealand, in the south pacific and i must say that i can speak for many of my fellow " kiwis " by saying that i cannot relate to the apparently disturbing availability of firearms in the us. i found the moore's docu to be highly entertaining and informative, even though it did not develop any opinions that contrasted his.
Amélie (Email address withheld) writes:
I thinks this movie is very powerful and really shows how America is a dangerous place to live in. Especially compared to Canada. Moore does not humiliate people as has been written, he just asks the right questions. I now take another look at charlton heston, although he is an old man he still is a psycho.
However, my opinion cannot be subjective since I am french and we despise Bush and dont understand americans agressive attitude towards us. So before watching the film I was sure I would totally agree with Moore and that's why some could find my opinion is not fair
Lauren (Email address withheld) writes:
I haven't yet seen the movie, but as a Colorado native I LIVED the movie. It was a very horrific time, most people walked around Denver depressed for weeks. Domestic Terrorism is still Terrorism! I speak for many, many friends who AGREE with Moore, that there are too many guns in this country, that there isn't enough regulation/registration of guns. The NRA is a trully evil organization. The fact is that my opinion seems to be more the norm than the exception here! I don't have any friends who own a handgun - and very few who own a hunting rifle - and I live in the middle of the Wild, Wild West!!
Amelie - PLEASE DO NOT LISTEN TO THE PRESS - this anti-French attitude is rare. Except for the occational complaint of a rude Parisian garcon, Americans love the French and all things that are French. We are each others oldest allies - let's not forget it. I'm working pretty hard to get John Kerry elected president and restore some of the respect that we've lost around the world - especially my beloved France.
Regarding the comment that "America is a dangerous place to live". I've really never felt unsafe in any of the (numerous) American cities and town where I've resided - except in NYC. It is more violent than Europe, but it's for the most part a very peaceful, lovely place, filled with peaceful, lovely people.
Ellie (Email address withheld) writes:
I can only agree with many of the eloquent reviewers.
'Bowling For Columbine' was an inspired title. As said by David above, the media often look to blame violent films or music, these killers started their spree after an innocuous bowling session. The answer 'why?', is not simple.
Moore is damning of the gun lobby and the fact the bullets were bought in a supermarket, certainly.
But he does pose interesting questions over how Canada can have similar levels of gun ownership, yet not the same level of violent result.
Yes, he wears a baseball cap, looks the 'typical American', and even in his appearance he challenges us. Americans can be American without guns, without an agressive foreign policy. American identity does not have to be that way, it can change.
Wilfred (Email address withheld) writes:
People do not "normally" change, it is proffessional to like change. The notion that if you love your country you are prepared to change is debateable. Traditionally speaking, it is childish to ask "why" I would add that it is oppressive not to give information freely. It's a wild world! and Bowling for Columbine is a brave film. Hmm baseball hat, nice observation!
Ellie (Email address withheld) writes:
I would add, if enough citizens want 'change' it would happen. I would agree, that if they do not, it never will.
I find it profoundly sad that some Americans define their national identity through the right to bear arms.
Wilfred (Email address withheld) writes:
"I find it profoundly sad that some Americans define their national identity through the right to bear arms."
Agreed, brave comment.
It could also be said that guns make America look unprofessional.
People don't change, a reason to promote change could be that change is good for the economy...
Wilfred (Email address withheld) writes:
Moving to the Soviet Union, of course, is always an option.
Excellent movie and review, really got me thinking!!
Add your comments about Bowling for Columbine [About]
|
