 |
|
Photo courtesy of MGM and United Artists
|
Michael Moore takes aim at Dick Clark, Charlton Heston and the National Rifle Association in his new documentary titled "Bowling for Columbine."
|
|
By Lindsay Utz & Mark Betancourt
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Thursday November 7, 2002
Utz: "Bowling for Columbine" is a documentary by Michael Moore, the man who brought us the popular "Roger and Me." Instead of exposing corporate moguls, this time he's pulling the blanket off of American society, revealing the insincere government we live under and the almost perverse media-saturated, gun-loving society that, sadly enough, defines us. Michael Moore's film primarily explores the big American gun question: Why do we as Americans kill each other with guns in such large numbers? And why are our children killing each other? Moore takes us on a sometimes hilarious and sometimes despairing journey that provides no one answer to the question, and leaves us with a whole lot to think about.
Betancourt: In the first scene, Moore takes his camera into a bank in Michigan and asks if they're still giving out free guns when you open a new account. The uncanny, surreal, horrifying, hilarious pride with which the nerdy mid-western teller nods "yes" is only the beginning. Moore goes on to interview John Nichols, brother of the man who, along with Timothy McVeigh, was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing. Nichols, like many of Moore's other interviewees, is a total nutcase. The point is, he's a nutcase with an entire arsenal stashed beneath his bed.
Utz: Under his pillow!
Betancourt: That was just the handgun he curled up with every night.
Utz: Anyway, the bank scene is shocking and pretty darn funny. However, Moore is taking this scene out of context to further his argument. We don't know where the town is or if perhaps it's a community built around pheasant hunting or whatever, and in that case, giving guns away at the bank wouldn't be that strange. But it's still pretty weird. Moore is a great documentarian because he has a big strong voice that convinces everyone watching that he is right, and in many ways, he is; but it's still just one opinion, right? The documentary is upheld in the film world as the supreme truth, so many people may leave the theater not asking any questions because what they just saw was constructed so well and seems so "true" that to question it would be wrong. Moore is a master of the form, and the king of convincing us he's right. That's what makes it such a great film, because we like the person who can convince us of anything.
Betancourt: Well, that subjectivity is impossible to avoid in a documentary. Of course, Moore has his own agenda in the way he chooses to put the film together, but I think his desire to find the truth about why America has more gun murders than most other countries by orders of magnitude is as genuine as possible. Yes, he already knows what he thinks going into an interview, but he forces people to tell the truth about themselves. He asks questions that can't be responded to truthfully without revealing the hypocrisy of the answer. He never states his own opinion; in fact, he deliberately leaves the obvious unsaid in the end. My only qualm is that, with an issue as important as gun regulation, it might have been better to sacrifice that artistic subtlety for a more direct statement. What it boils down to is that gun legislation is influenced by people who've misinterpreted their right to freedom at the expense of innocent people who die from bullet wounds. For instance, the sniper in D.C. could have been found much faster had the gun been registered; but it's not required by law. I just wish the film had discussed that more thoroughly. But in fact, actual gun laws are never even mentioned.
Utz: I think Moore tries to avoid such technicalities and focus instead on the ideology of our most sacred institutions and suggest that these, perhaps, are the problem. High school, for example, is supposed to be four really special years in an adolescent's life. Yet, what I remember from high school is a bunch of assholes, a whole lot of rules and a head full of confusion and anger. When Columbine happened, no one questioned that maybe it was the institution of high school itself that was to blame for the killings. Instead, people pointed fingers, but in all the wrong directions. He interviews Marilyn Manson, who became the prime suspect after the Columbine shootings. In a very down-to-earth conversation with Manson, we see he is sincere and insightful, which is wonderfully contradictory to the way we thought we knew him. Matt Stone, creator of "South Park" and another suspect in the shootings, is interviewed by Moore and calls his hometown of Littleton a "painfully normal town." A town that, Moore shows us, is home to the nation's largest weapon maker, Lockheed Martin. Moore goes on to suggest that perhaps our government's obsession with weapons of mass destruction is to blame. This seems a much fairer place to lay the blame than with rock music or some cartoon show.
Betancourt: But I think what Moore is really trying to do is debunk what everyone keeps saying about how American culture and a history of violence somehow cause things like Columbine. In the end that's silly, because people in Britain watch violent movies and listen to Marilyn Manson and have a history of raping most of the planet with whatever weapons were available. Guns are illegal there, and murder rates are lower. The film points out that the murder rate is hundreds of times lower in Canada, even though they have three-quarters as many guns as families. Like 35 people a year die there from gun inflicted wounds. So Moore asks what's going on. The real problem is goddamn Charleton Heston. His interview is pure horror.
Utz: Yeah, he looks pretty bad, but I'd be interested to see what parts of the interview Moore decided to leave on the floor of the editing room. I don't know much about Heston's character, but there's no question the most implicating footage of him is used in the film.
Betancourt: Well, it's not like Moore turned the camera off right before Heston was like, "Just playing, guys, I think guns should be illegal." The man's a very, very powerful wacko.
Utz: Yes, good point. So the best thing about this movie is what has just unfolded in this article: a conversation. What's a good film if you can't go and talk about it for hours afterwards? "Bowling for Columbine" may feel like a punch in the stomach, leaving you either breathless or just really pissed off. But that's the point; that you feel something.
