Bowling for Columbine (2002)

[Phil Florian]

Title: Bowling for Columbine

Tagline: One nation under the gun

Genre: Documentary

Director: Michael Moore

Cast: Michael Moore, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Charlton Heston, Jacobo Árbenz, Mike Bradley, Dick Clark, Arthur A. Busch, Michael Caldwell, Richard Castaldo, Bill Clinton, Steve Davis, Ngo Dinh Diem, Mike Epstein, Joe Farmer, Matt Stone, Brooks Brown, Dick Herlan, Marilyn Manson, Chris Rock, Salvador Allende, Prince Andrew, Prince Charles of Edinburgh

Release: 2002-10-09

Runtime: 120

Plot: This is not a film about gun control. It is a film about the fearful heart and soul of the United States, and the 280 million Americans lucky enough to have the right to a constitutionally protected Uzi. From a look at the Columbine High School security camera tapes to the home of Oscar-winning NRA President Charlton Heston, from a young man who makes homemade napalm with The Anarchist's Cookbook to the murder of a six-year-old girl by another six-year-old. Bowling for Columbine is a journey through the US, through our past, hoping to discover why our pursuit of happiness is so riddled with violence.

Apparently the discussion of Bowling for Columbine was nixed while the movie was still in release. Unprecedented? I guess it is hard to discuss rationally a movie that was created to provoke that sort of discussion. I know the HTF wants to focus more on aspect ratios or DTS sound but one would expect a discussion thread about a film that needs to be discussed (god only knows one would think more could be said about it than, oh, Harry Potter) would be given a bit more freedom to air those kinds of thoughts. Isn't there some forum on here that could be opened where people entering will know they are in fact entering a heated discussion? This film begs that question as it is not only political, but calls into question the role of filmmakers in documentaries, the potential role of film in society, the effect of the media on culture (which has a potential impact in all HTF discussions, one would think).
So if not here, where can one find moderated and intelligent conversation about difficult and controversial films like this?
I hate to look elsewhere for intelligent film conversation, but if not here, where?
Phil

 

[Angela_S]

You've found it!
Sociopranos wants you... why? Because we want that sort of conversation. Bowling for Columbine is actually mentioned on the front page at the moment as a source of social commentary, noones started a thread for it as yet so perhaps you'd like to?
I haven't seen it yet (thought i DO want to) as it only got a sparse release! :frowning: Typical, give all the theatre space to brainless crap.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Phil,
We had a discussion thread about this documentary, but unfortunately, political rhetoric came into play which caused that thread with 136 replies to be closed. I believe this thread will also find the same fate, but in my hope that intelligent film discussion can take place without it resorting to prohibited political talk, I will allow this thread to stay open for now. This thread will be intensely moderated by the Moderator Staff due to the subject matter.



Crawdaddy

 

[Jack Briggs]

And I closed that thread, much against my own wishes. If, as Robert Crawford notes, you can discuss the film without invective and without interjecting your personal political leanings, it would be nice to see this important documentary discussed here.

Good luck.

 

[Mitty]

From the rules page:

is not allowed on this forum.

[emphasis mine]
The policy, as you can see, isn't as rigid as some seem to think. It doesn't prohibit discussion of the movie, or any movie for that matter (even highly political ones). It's people's related tangents that cause threads to be closed. It's a fine line, but to most, a discernable one. Of course, it only really takes one...

 

[Robert Crawford]

Mitty,
You hit the nail on the head! Discussing Moore's film message is one thing, but to interject your political leanings in the discussion by either supporting Moore's viewpoint or not is where the discussion get's in trouble. One person makes one political statement then another replies to it and before long the thread is done.



Crawdaddy

 

[Angela_S]

Aww man I REALLY want to see this film, any film that gets people talking about political issues is good in my eyes, so long as it stays polite obviously. Here in the uk it seems to have gotten a really crap release in the sense that it's not even being shown in the city I live in.
:frowning:

 

[Josh Lowe]

Moore's one of those elitists who preaches from his pulpit - he barely educates himself on a topic enough to fool the uneducated, but to someone familiar with the subject its obvious he knows nothing. But since he's the guy with the camera, he'll make sure to edit things to portray them precisely in the manner he needs to to make himself look good and anyone else look bad.

It's sensationalism, low rent stuff. Entertaining, I guess..

 

[Phil Florian]

It's hard not to discuss the film without giving away one's own political leanings. One of the discussions I enjoyed from the first thread was the very definition of "documentary" and it's ability to be "objective." I think the result I most agreed with is that the moment a camera is pointed at someone or something about a particular story, objectivity goes out the window. The person shooting the film chooses the subjects, not the viewer, so objectivity never really enters into it. Moore doesn't try to play objective, as some filmmakers do. He has a mission and isn't afraid to play it big. Why this is offensive is beyond me. The left has lacked a loud and obnoxious voice for quite some time. The more conservative self-promoters have an entire network to themselves (Fox News). The left has been traditionally soft in its politics on film. They are afraid to offend and say certain things. Rush Limbaugh or Reilly can put down every single racial group, gender type, left-leaning ideal and get kudos but someone decides to come out and take similar sorts of pot-shots towards more right-leaning folks and there is a cry of "unfair!" or the favored "elitist." Stymies me.

Claims that Hollywood is some left-leaning utopia makes me laugh. The very point Moore is making in his film can be found in the halls of the very studios who would shudder to print his film (and thus the Candian backing). Hollywood sells guns, fear, paranoia, abuse, etc. every weekend to a willing audience. While not as bad as the news media (the "year of the shark" syndome pointed in the film was poignant) Hollywood perpetuates the very world that Moore has problems with.

I challenge people to point out how this film is anti-Second Amendment. Moore clearly states he is pro-second amendment. I think his point is that it isn't the guns, but that seems to gather the most attention.

Who knew that Marilyn Manson was so well spoken? And that Charleton Heston wasn't? Kudos also to the well spoken sheriff and prosecutor from up in Flynt. The echo what many law-enforcment agencies have been saying about what kinds of guns should be in the hands or not in the hand of the population.

[/random rant]



Phil

 

[Matt Stone]

Moore's one of those elitists who preaches from his pulpit - he barely educates himself on a topic enough to fool the uneducated, but to someone familiar with the subject its obvious he knows nothing. But since he's the guy with the camera, he'll make sure to edit things to portray them precisely in the manner he needs to to make himself look good and anyone else look bad.

Do you think he's trying to make a film in order to disprove his own points?? Of course he is going to edit the film to make him look right.

 

[Phil Florian]

I always look for someone to point out the contrary when folks say "...trying to make themselves look good." Please point out a movie like this where the filmmaker is trying not to make a point or make themselves look good?

Phil

 

[John Thomas]

Who knew that Marilyn Manson was so well spoken? And that Charleton Heston wasn't? Kudos also to the well spoken sheriff and prosecutor from up in Flynt. The echo what many law-enforcment agencies have been saying about what kinds of guns should be in the hands or not in the hand of the population.

True, Manson did impress me in his short bit but to say that Heston isn't well-spoken is a bit tacky. I don't believe it is as tacky as Moore's leaving the photo at Heston's home. Also, figuring the man has Alzheimer's and the manner in which Moore put him on the spot didn't justify the scene for me. It was definitely the weakest part of the documentary.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

As others pointed out in the original thread, Mr. Heston's symptons (and they remain only that, no official disease was declared) was not announced until very recently. Furthermore, since he is the leader of an organization, then his should have the ability to represent the organization. I agree that Moore's leaving the picture was more of a sensationalism act, but the conversation itself is immensely engaging, and surprising, too.

What I find most interesting in Bowling is that despite Moore's obvious ideologies, he is at lost for much of the movie. He cannot provide an answer as to why America has such high shooting rates. To answer his own question, he seems to be suggesting that the actions of American governments have provided a culture vastly different from others. Yet, even this is not conclusive. Because of this open ended question, the film becomes more stirring in discussion than most politically driven pictures.

 

[Evan Case]

Whatever one's views of Moore's film (I liked it immensely in spite of its scattershot and far from conclusive nature), on one thing it should be agreed: that the pro-school uniform video was one of the most hilarious bits of footage ever seen in a movie theater.

Evan

 

[BrianShort]

When will this be coming out on DVD? The only Moore I've really seen is a couple episodes of The Awful Truth. Some of his comments about the Bush/Gore election sort of turned me off to him, but I will admit most of the stuff I did see on The Awful Truth was pretty funny. After reading some of the discussion on this film, I'm quite eager to see it now, but it's not a film that will make it to the theater here.

What did Manson have to say about violence?

Brian

 

[Joe Hsu]

Being someone that is relatively young, and not so concerned with politics, I don't have so much insight to the movie as others might. However, I did enjoy the film, nonetheless. I think that regardless of your political standings, you should recognize that he is making an effort to publish his opinions, and point out to the generally ignorant public some of the problems in the US today. For me, the movie was about gun control, and "why are there so many gun related homocides", but it was also nice to see that he focused on how the media plays a part in every aspect of our lives today. It was also interesting to see him in my hometown of Troy, MI, where the K-Mart headquarters are...the actual store that they went to is literally across the street from the house that I grew up in. Spooky. Flint's not too far either.
I agree that the movie was too...scattered and chopped up. But I think it kind of blends with the tone of the movie, as he wasn't getting too dark at any point. I think that by making the movie somewhat more light-hearted, thus easier to enjoy for the average viewer, and yet still addressing important issues, it lends itself to discussions better than a head-on politically-oriented film may.
If I sound pretentious or flat out stupid at any point in this reply, please note that it's 3:36AM and I'm in the midst of an all-nighter.

 

[Josh Lowe]

Do you think he's trying to make a film in order to disprove his own points?? Of course he is going to edit the film to make him look right.

Are his films editorial commentary or documentary?

 

[Josh Lowe]

I always look for someone to point out the contrary when folks say "...trying to make themselves look good." Please point out a movie like this where the filmmaker is trying not to make a point or make themselves look good?

Again, what are his films about? Are they documentary pieces on certain subjects, or are they films about Michael Moore and his personal ideologies, with things like unbiased journalism taking a back seat?

I've seen many documentaries where the director does not focus the story on himself and goes far out of his way to present multiple sides of a subject without any obvious lean.

Moore does not even come remotely close to doing that, which is one of the many reasons why I can't take him seriously.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Are his films editorial commentary or documentary?

Yes. You needn't get so caught up in what genre of film it is or if YOU believe that Moore is full of crap. It is Moore's opinion, as is everything he has even done. Some agree with him and some don't.




BTW, for those who haven't seen BFC yet, don't give up hope. Its coming to my town in January.

 

[Nick_Scott]

Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter

He doesnt satify any of these requirements, and the professors that taught my documentary film class considered hims films "smart fictional propaganda". (Their words, not mine). They compared them to militia recruitment videos, though Moores films remind me more of the segments on the "Daily Show".

But, I'll have to admit that alot of great documentaries are not objective- I would argue that objectivety is not important, AS LONG AS the directors goals and point-of-view are obvious, and Moores goals definetly are obvious.

The problem that most documentarians have is that he is not honest. All of his films contain interviews that have been edited to change the meaning. Certaintly, all of his films contain Moores infamous "chronological errors", important scenes left out to change the meaning. Nearly all of his figures are incorrect, or come from dubious sources. It would be an understatment to say that "everything in the film is taken out of context".

When the "Daily Show" does this, it is funny because it is obvious they are doing it- So you take everything with a grain of salt, and view it as fictional entertainment.
When Moore does this, I get the same reaction. I don't take him seriously because some things are obviously out of context and misleading, so I have to assume everything is.

So no.... I don't think he will nominated for an oscar, but I was entertained nonetheless.