Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Michael Moore is possibly America's
most interesting documentarian (eat your heart out
Errol Morris) and definitely America's most celebrated
guerilla filmmaker. What Moore does so stunningly
is cut through the bullshit on issues and get to the
heart of the matter. But even more amazingly, he then
turns whatever it is he is investigating on its ear
by skewing the issue in he most absurdist way possible.
In other words, Moore turns the bullshit of important
issues into completely new and unexpected bullshit.
It's near genius. His latest "documentary," "Bowling
for Columbine," is a perfect example of this process.
For its subject matter, Moore chooses no less than
the greatest hot- button issue facing America in the
new millenium: Gun control.
Moore sets up his story by allowing
us to see that he knows much of what he is talking
about. As a youth, Moore was an avid hunter and to
this day is a card-carrying member of the National
Rifle Association, the NRA. But don't let this sway
you to believe that he is a conservative (as Charleton
Heston mistakenly does here).
Much in the way that his mere citizenship
of Flynt, Michigan established him as a valid commentator
on the decline of the American auto industry in "Roger
and Me," his personal history as a gun enthusiast
substantiates his relevance as a commentator here.
Moore knows quite well what he is talking about.
Moore doesn't just focus on Columbine,
the now-famous high school in Colorado where 2 young
and confused students opened fire on their classmates
and teachers before sadly killing themselves. Although
that is the seeming focus according to the title of
the film, Moore has a much broader theme to cover.
And while he discusses the violent history of America,
the predominance and omnipresence of firearms in the
country, the supposed race division issues, the poverty
issues, violence in the media and other topics here,
he also leaves many untouched.
Before we look at what's missing,
let's look at what is here. Three of the main points
of interest in the film are large chunks of the documentary.
Moore interviews Marilyn Manson, the much demonized
rock star who supposedly entices many members of today's
youth to violence with his music and lyrics. Manson's
thoughts on violence in America are his typical rhetoric,
but Moore certainly gives him a nice platform to express
them and the singer utilizes it adequately. Perhaps
the most profound statement in the film comes when
Moore asks Manson what he would say to the people
of Littleton, Colorado, where Columbine High School
is located and the shock-rocker replies, "I wouldn't
say anything. I would listen to what they have to
say, which nobody has done." Cutting yet profound
in its honesty and poignancy.
Moore also manages to get a private
interview with actor Charleton Heston, the elder statesman
of the NRA. This is an amazing coup. Moore doesn't
get Heston to make a fool of himself, he barely manages
to ask an important question before Heston ends the
interview, but he does show Heston as the aging, docile,
senior citizen that he truly is. A lion and a staunch
hero when fronting for the NRA or acting, here the
thespian is reduced to looking merely as an antiquated,
crumbling, paid figurehead. "Pay no attention to that
man behind the curtain" is our lasting impression
after his appearance here. This film symbolically
castrates him as any sort of cinematic icon.
The best and most humorous moment
in the film is a wonderful little animated film, much
in the style of "South Park," that explains the history
of "white fear" ingeniously and simply. Running the
gamut from when pilgrims left England to flee religious
persecution to when white folks fled to the suburbs
to escape the terror of supposed urban plight, the
short cartoon is one of the most amusing (albeit askew)
history lessons ever told. It is funny because its
blunt and seems fairly reasonable.
But Moore misses the point on two
issues. One is social programs. Moore demonizes a
welfare program that actually puts people to work.
This is Moore's absurdist logic at play and it doesn't
quite work. Here's the story: A woman who rides a
bus 80 miles a day to work in a predominantly white
area of town, at a mall, leaves her small son with
her brother. While at the uncle's home, the 6-year-old
boy finds a gun, takes it to school and shoots a young
female classmate to death. Moore blames the mother's
absence from the home on the job program and by extension,
he blames the girl's death on the job program. And
since she works at a "theme" restaurant fronted by
Dick Clark (a sort-of Hard Rock Café knock-off), Moore
tracks the "world's oldest teenager" down at a TV
shoot and harangues him about the situation. Clark
is right to close the door to his minivan in Moore's
face and drive away. The logic here is ridiculous.
And blaming a government program that puts people
to work is just missing the point.
But the biggest flaw here is Moore's
inability to address the single most important issue
in the Columbine shootings, that of the responsibility
of the parents. To blame a social program which takes
an African-American mother out of the home is one
thing, but to not address the lack of interest in
their teenage children that white, middle-class, suburban
parents seem to express is quite another. In my mind,
this is the heart of the matter and Moore ignores
it almost completely. He doesn't even delve into the
topic with Manson.
Moore also neglects the predominance
of violent rap music in our modern society, surely
an issue with relevance to this topic. Perhaps he
saw that there was absolutely no way to address this
issue without calling into question the fault that
lies with the African-American community. This seems
like something Moore, a bleeding-heart liberal, is
hesitant to do. Is there a difference between rap
and the kind of violent shock-rock Marilyn Manson
and others put out? As racist as it may be for me
to say this, Yes, I think there is. Shock-rock and
predominantly white punk rock is often more introspective
and inwardly violent than rap. The object of derision
may be society as a whole but punk seems more aimed
at whining than taking on any violent action. Rap
is specific in its violence and call to action. While
I am fully for freedom of speech and may be speaking
from feelings based on my own "white fear," I still
feel this music bears some responsibility for its
input into the minds of teenagers.
Yet again, this issue, like violence
in the media, violence in movies, and violence in
video games, resoundingly revolves back squarely onto
the shoulders of the parents. Where are the discussions
between parents and their teenagers about these subjects?
Moore does not bother to ask.
Still, with its biased logic, "Bowling
for Columbine" is still the first film ever to discuss
one of the most important issues facing American families
and American society today. And Moore hits several
important notes and introduces several important topics
with this film. Take your teenagers to see it and
watch it with them. Much of what Moore shows here
is quite humorous in its logic and in the presentation
of gun enthusiasts as fools. (Teens will laugh at
the paradoxical hypocrisy as much as adults do). Like
the black comedian that he is, Moore will make many
laugh with his pointed questions and his absurdist
take on the issue. But the film will make teenagers
think as well. The harrowing images of the security
videos from Columbine High will stun them. This film
moves from humorous to poignant to touching to thought
provoking and does so with an amazing skill and grace.
Moore will open your children's eyes not only to the
topic at hand but also in convex thought and intelligent
questioning of authority. But he can move you
as well. I defy anyone, even the most jaded and cynical
teenager, to watch the real time video of the Columbine
security videos and not be moved.
Like Linda Richmond on "SNL's "Coffee
Talk," Michael Moore has given us a topic.
Discuss.
Notes:
Also with John Nichols (brother
of convicted Oklahoma bomber - or whatever he is -
Terry Nichols), Matt Stone (of "South Park" fame)
and two of the boys who were shot at Columbine High
School.
The jury at Cannes in 2002 (headed
by David Lynch) unanimously awarded Michael Moore
with a special award for the film. This was the first
documentary to be invited to Cannes in 46 years.
Moore had tried to get an interview
with Heston for two years and had no luck. On the
way to the airport, one of his crew suggested getting
a star map, locating his house and just showing up.
It worked.
Pop songs by Teenage Fanclub, Beatles,
REM, and Offspring among others. Also, the song "What
a Wonderful World" is performed by both Louis Armstrong
and Joey Ramone on the soundtrack.
A clip from "South Park" is shown
along with several news clips and segments of Heston
speaking at NRA rallies. A segment of a Chris Rock
concert is also utilized.
The "South Park"-esque animation
is by Harold Moss.
Viewed at The Dobie in Austin in
November 2002 on a Saturday afternoon with nearly
a packed house during its second week of release there.
The girl cashier who always recognizes me from "Lube
TV" waited on me.
