Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore, Charlton Heston) 1/2
The people chronicled in the documentary Bowling for Columbine come from all walks of life. Some are high school students, some are members of small communities, some are corporate lackeys for huge conglomerates, some are celebrities. Each of these people has something to say about guns, gun control and gun-related deaths. Some are staunchly supportive of the constitutional right to own guns, some vehemently protest the widespread availability of firearms, and some -- and here is the most telling aspect of the film -- have yet to give the issue any serious thought until they are put on camera and must explain, defend or justify their position.
Michael Moore's shenanigans have always intrigued me. His documentary Roger and Me, about the unjust downsizing going on in his hometown of Flint, Michigan by General Motors, was an extreme case of David versus Goliath as he continued to probe and harrass executives like a kid who won't stop pulling at your sleeve to get your attention. Since then, I've tried to catch his TV series The Awful Truth when I can but I think it's either been cancelled or has changed timeslots. I have yet to read any of his novels. All the same, he is a whirlwind to watch, pouncing on prey in his unsuspecting baseball cap and casual attire.
We hear Moore's docile voice narrating the film, opening with his semi-sincere confession to being a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. The title Bowling for Columbine is a reference to the two boys who committed the tragedy at Columbine High School in April of 1999. Hours before the murders of 10 students and 1 teacher, the killers had been bowling at a nearby alley on school grounds. Between the lines, Moore asks what can be going on in a shooter's mind if he is able to bowl just before taking a person's life; the motivations as to why Americans specifically seem to want to shoot each other becomes the thesis of his cinematic essay.
Arguments can be made as to the legitimacy of the facts that are presented. Moore suggests links between genocides in other countries and America's potential involvement in them. Some of these play like fallacy while others linger with a whiff of authenticity. Despite the questionable veracity of what has or has not happened historically or factually, the movie primarily focuses on following its leads on a human level. Change can only really take place when people talk about serious problems and that's exactly what Moore gives his subjects the chance to do. Among them are James Nichols, brother of one of the suspects from the Oklahoma City bombing; a youth from Oscoda, Michigan, who, despite confessing to having made many bombs, laments that he was not the number one suspect with the authorities when they were looking for suspects of potential domestic threats; and goth rock singer Marilyn Manson who, having been accused of being a contributing factor to the Columbine shootings, possibly provides the most intelligent and articulate argument in the film.
Some of the more colourful portions involve Moore wandering up north to Canada, where there are an average of 160 or so shootings a year (compared to over 10,000 in the United States). Even considering the difference in population numbers, it is still a very low percentage of murders. Every possible explanation Moore investigates seems to lead him to a dead end. He finds that access to guns is just as easy (according to his research, there are 7 million of them in Canada), there are just as many violent films and TV shows being watched, and the ethnic mix is comparable to the United States. In a clumsy scene, the bushy documentarian goes door-to-door, testing to see whether Ontarians even bother to keep their doors locked.
Moore is normally an instigator rather than a quiet listener, so I started to wonder at about the halfway mark of the film if he was going to try to put the squeeze on any of his subjects. When he finally does, it's a doozie. He decides to take two of the living students who were shot at Columbine to the head offices of K-Mart with the intention of asking the company for a refund for the bullets that are still lodged inside the boys' bodies. PR person after PR person hedges with Moore until his third visit, at which time the corporation announces it will discontinue the sale of ammunition at its chains. It's an emotional moment, and proof that sometimes three regular people can actually make a big difference.
The movie sets itself up to offer a climactic confrontation in the form of an interview with NRA president Charlton Heston, but we kind of already suspect what is going to happen. Heston hedges and huffs until he wanders away in a daze, unable to come to terms with an unwinnable argument, as Moore waves a photo of a 6-year old girl who was shot dead in Flint. At one point in the interview, Heston claims he was oblivious to the scheduling conflicts when he appeared at NRA conventions mere days after the Columbine and Flint tragedies. With footage of protesters converging outside of the conventions, Heston is clearly lying and it plays out as one of the most awkward and pathetic lies I've ever seen.
One of Michael Moore's greatest strengths as a filmmaker is to show where he himself stands on a specific issue, but nevertheless gives his audience -- and his target victims -- the choice to draw their own conclusions. Although he sometimes orchestrates people into very difficult situations, Moore never assumes or expects people to agree with him. He only strives to encourage healthy debate and genuine thought, which are crucial elements if we as a society are to ever hope to resolve and understand some of the tragedies that have transpired. In Bowling for Columbine, many of the questions asked seem to lead only to more questions. Somehow though, Moore manages to link possible root causes together, implying that perhaps some of the causes are extensions or results of other ones. We are left with the impression that, regardless of what our beliefs on guns and gun control are prior to watching the film, these beliefs necessarily require even further examination immediately afterwards.
