Bowling For Columbine Essay

today’s society, there will always be some element of truth amongst the lies, from horror films based on “true stories” to documentaries that present opinion as fact. Award-winning documentary maker, Michael Moore uses a twisted version of the truth to bowl a strike and manipulate viewers into barracking for his team.

Moore’s 2002 film, Bowling For Columbine, successfully manipulates facts to convey only a single side of the American attitude towards gun related crime.

He convinced audiences across the globe that strict gun control was the only way to stop the extreme violence in the States. And why shouldn’t he? The issues he brings to light in this film are ones often swept under the rug by American society. .

Is it really so bad that

Moore shows a little bias? To me it seems that people are simply too caught up in trying to expose Moore’s biased methods to appreciate the change he is trying to instigate.
Conversely, it isn’t only Bowling For Columbine that exposes the vast number of immense problems faced by the US.

Within his repertoire of films, the same message is continuously displayed throughout. Fahrenheit 911, and Capitalism: A Love Story, though nowhere near as successful as Bowling For Columbine, reiterate Moore’s distaste for the American government and ultimately promote his outlook on the current state of America.

In the most recent 2009 film, Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore was condemned for producing a “scornful, rambling, [and] repetitive,” film, in the eyes of Wall Street Journal film critic, Joe

Morgen1.
Likewise, 2004 documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, was heavily criticised for its heated abhorrence for the American government and its portrayal of September 11 as nothing more than fear mongering attempt.
So, why should Bowling For Columbine be any different?
Comparable to the previously mentioned films, Bowling For Columbine portrays is a one-sided truth that unswervingly aligns with Michael Moore’s opinion. Although the arguments made in the film hold strong ties to the truth, his manipulation of the interviews, clips, and archival footage combine to make a downright prejudiced film. Yet, it still manages to convey a strong message.
However, unlike many other partisan documentaries, Moore doesn’t fully silence the opposing opinion. Instead, he juxtaposes gun-fanatic, and president of the National Rifle Association, Charlton Heston alongside grieving families in order to shock the audience into believing his viewpoint. .
In between pleas from mourning families to rid America of its gun problem, the audience is stunned by footage of Heston proudly holding a gun above his head, proclaiming, “From my cold dead hands.”
This footage has been taken out of context in order to shoot any sense of rationality from the viewers out of the water.
By portraying Heston as a callous maniac, Moore is able to effortlessly drill his belief into the minds of his audience, who, by this point, have already begun to agree that guns are an unnecessary tradition of the United States.
Conversely, audiences are comforted by the reasoning and logic of a mourning father. He holds a poster of his son’s face to the crowd and declares that, “something is wrong in this country when a child can grab a gun… so easily, and shoot a bullet into the middle of a child's face, as my son experienced. Something is wrong. But the time has come to understand that a Tech-9 semi-automatic bullet weapon like that, that killed my son, is not used to kill deer. It has no useful purpose. It is time to address this problem.”
While I can’t say I disagree with Moore’s notion that guns are wholly evil, we must be aware that we are being manipulated by the filmmaker, and this scene is not the only case.
In the second scene of the movie, we see Moore visit North Country Bank after spotting a promotion in the local newspaper, entitled, “More Bang for your Buck,” which promises a free gun upon opening an account with them.
This scene, meant to shock viewers at the ease of accessibility to guns was a highly effective move on Moore’s behalf despite the questionable way information was manipulated throughout this scene.
Similarly to the footage of Charlton Heston, Moore has pulled the wool over our eyes to convince us that his point of view is the only one worth listening to.
Since the release of Moore’s film, employees from the branch have come forward in a documentary directed by Michael Wilson, called, Michael Moore Hates America, to state that they were misled during the filming of this segment. They stated that the bank’s policy was to mail the rifles to the recipients after a background check was conducted, but Moore’s agents insisted that the rifle was instead presented to him on camera the morning after opening the account.

In addition to these scheming, though thoroughly convincing, techniques Moore’s narration throughout the film creates yet another layer of fabricated truth that continues to sway audiences into accepting his opinion as the truth. His tone, though often cynical and satirical at times, positions the audience to accept his perception of reality without doubt.
In a montage of clips of war, shootings, and America’s “foreign policy decisions”, Moore narrates a total of 17 unjustified attacks against foreign countries and citizens alike, accompanied by the haunting lyrics of Louis Armstrong’s “What a Wonderful World.” The montage ends with the shaky camera phone footage of United Airlines Flight 175 crashing into the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.

During this montage, Moore again throws us into an uncomfortable position, wherein we feel obligated to accept his perception of the truth as he has smothered us in real-life footage of a disaster that shook the world. By drawing both sympathy and empathy from his audience, Moore calls on the fresh pain of the event to strengthen his argument that the US is a fear-driven country driven by the constant and crippling need for weaponry.

It was a cunning yet unscrupulous choice to place footage of the 2001 bombing in a film made only a year later. The shaky footage creates an aura of fear and compassion from us, the viewers, as it is relatable and most of all real.

This poses the question: should we be so critical of Moore’s manipulative techniques and substantial amounts of prejudice as to disregard his films? Or should we accept his version of the truth on the grounds that Michael Moore’s films aim to change America for the

better?
Personally, the latter sounds like a considerably better idea.
Moore may have a longstanding reputation of excessively opinionated films, but that’s not to say that he makes a completely ridiculous argument in any of them, especially Bowling For Columbine.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to shoot down filmmakers like Michael Moore. The truth he is presenting in his films stands for change. Without bias, Bowling For Columbine would never have stirred half the positive outcome that it did.