Bowling for Columbine

As most of the world knows, in April 1999, two Columbine High School students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, took guns to school and shot thirteen students and one teacher dead. How did they get the guns? What does bowling have to do with anything? Those looking for an in-depth look at the two shooters will be disappointed. Although Mr Moore does record that Harris and Klebold went bowling on the morning of the shooting and later takes two of the wounded students, now recovered, to buy bullets at Kmart, this is not really about Eric and Dylan. Rather, it is more of an examination of the "gun culture" of the USA. The National Rifle Association, in this film headed by Charlton Heston, has ensured that getting a gun and ammunition is as easy as filling a prescription. Moore notes that we are unique among countries in that our rate of gun shootings and killings far surpasses that of Canada, our nearest neighbor, and other Western civilizations. Some have blamed violent video games, some singers like Marilyn Manson (interviewed in this film as a favorite singer of Harris), still others that "family department" stores like Kmart and Walmart have the weapons and the ammo. Interestingly, Moore also takes a look at Work-to-Welfare programs like the one near his hometown of Flint, Michigan. A young single mother was forced to work at a casino, 90 minutes away, to satisfy the welfare requirements but still couldn't pay the bills. When she was forced to move in with an uncle and had to leave her six year old son in his care, the young lad found his uncle's gun and took it to class, only to shoot a fellow student dead. what a tragedy! In short, anyone wanting to talk about the Second Amendment and gun control would do well to begin with this film. Those seeking in- depth information on the Columbine shooting should look elsewhere.

The scenes shot in Sarnia, Windsor and Toronto, Canada have provoked much conversation in Canada. These scenes epitomize both the problem and the strength of BFC, that is, the sense is correct but the details often exaggerated. While the received notion that Canada is less violent than the US is accurate, we are catching up in a hurry. And people do lock their doors, at night anyway. In Toronto's current (Nov. 2003) mayoralty election, increasing street violence and crime is a major issue. When Moore asks Heston, "Why do other countries have so much less gun violence than the US?" Did you catch his brief answer? He says, "They will". Whatever is causing the problem, the U.S. is on the leading edge of the curve, but other countries are catching up.

That said, I give Moore credit for provoking conversation, for his humour (in spots). His lack of balance doesn't concern me. I can find my own balance, thank goodness for dissent and free speech. I also think that Moore is restrained in drawing conclusions in the film, which is a great strength of the film, in provoking discussion, and allowing people to express their own opinions.

Finally, Moore is way off on Marilyn Manson. Moore is careful to say that there is no direct causal relationship between Lockheed and the Columbine assassins - it's a mentality thing. Isn't the connection between Manson and teenage suicide/ violence much more palpable than Moore's connection of Lockheed & Columbine.

** UPDATE in Nov. 2005 - regarding Toronto, the score is Heston 1 Moore 0.

This movie makes me feel that it is the first time i just remotely understand the American society. Michael Moore explores the darkest side of America - the society built on fear. Fear of terrorists, fear of the coloureds fear of your neighbor. It appears that americans have lost perspective, not noticing the real dangers of life: pollution, traffic, e.t.c. With TV-channels telling stories only about violence and terrorism and populistic politicians scaring people to vote for them Americans trust only in themselves.

Michael Moore tries with this movie to make the Americans consider and think for themselves being rationals, and to tell the rest of the world how the American society works. Really something to think about... See it, its necessary

What has become of the United States? Is there any difference from the United States that was formed by Puritans and tried to escape from persecution under the British flag? Has there always been a different mentality for the American than that of any other nationality of individual? After September 11th Michael Moore the director and writer set out to make a documentary that addressed these and other embedded questions that are addressed everyday in our news media, school systems, homes, stores and street corners. Attempting to address all sides of the issues as a person of the media Moore used not only his own experiences, his connection to the NRA, but also other persons opinions that ranged from Charlton Hesston, the well known president of the NRA and famous actor, to the average American that was confronted with the violent acts that resulted from the accessibility of fire arms. This documentary took a new approach to the display of information. Not only was animation used to explain history, American's imbedded fear of their own neighbors, but it also used rock music ( gave a beat or a pulse to the film that progress from slow to fast as the intensity of the issues progressed), sarcasm, interviews, and casual conversations. Moore traveled the country to talk to all those that make up the spectrum of the American society, he traveled to the scenes of some of the more recent American tragedies, made impromptu stops in corporations such as Kmart (where the boys from Columbine bought the ammunition used in the shooting), and traveled to Canada to get an outside or foreign opinion. The idea was to move away from the documentary style of `talking heads'; he wanted a film that would not only touch a chord with the American people but one that would also be readily watched. This idea also made the documentary, that there was too much influence placed on the `words of the professional' or the ` findings of the expert'; that these findings and misleadings flooded the news at night to increase the amount of fear that the average American has as it looked for a scape-goat to blame. The information that Moor presented in his documentary did not technically follow a pre-described narrative, but followed more of a form where the audience was left areas to think and to breakdown the information. Elements of the circular narrative were the foundation of the film, where similar elements in opinions and the common American we continually addressed. Yet, the only problem that could be addressed is one of the ways in which Moore collected some of his data. Some might see a use of trickery or manipulation was used on his part to get the responses and such passion-filled opinions stated. While others would see the same information in the light that no instigation was needed, that people have these strong beliefs, opinions and are willing to talk about them but they lack the examples or understanding of the topic to take a well informed stand on one side or the other. Such a problem is not new in the world of documentaries when controversial data is presented to the public. Moore did a great job of presenting a delicate subject to the American people and was deserving of the Academy Award for the project.

I like Michael Moore's documentaries. Bowling for Columbine seems a little successful than Fahrenheit 9/11 for me. The background is the shooting violence affair in Columbia High School. Michael figured it out through different attitude of US citizens about this violence affair. He made issues of guns as the original problem in US violence.

In my personal opinion, this movie revealed that people transit a mood of insecurity. And all these bad things came from guns. Due to the idea throughout seemed to be the inherent evil with guns it was obvious from the questions asked that this isn't really true. Maybe there is a possibility, which shows American gun culture that people have their right and freedom to protect themselves, even they have power to fight against government in order to press somebody powerful. As a Chinese, I think if this gun-allowed policy was used in China, it will be a worse trouble, since Chinese government was controlled by only one party, their policy serviced for themselves, there are a lot of unstable things in society. If people have right to use guns, killing will happen everywhere.