On "Bowling For Columbine"

On Bowling For Columbine

The main theme of Michael Moore’s “documentary” Bowling for Columbine is that American society is one dominated by an unhealthy obsession with guns and violence, as well as a society gripped with irrational fear. Moore makes the case that this obsession is at least partly responsible for the tragedy that occurred at Columbine High School, in Littleton, CO, on April 20, 1999, as well as for the United States “military machine,” and America’s supposed “trigger happy” foreign policy. Using interviews with gun enthusiasts and others, Moore attempts to make this connection during the film.

Bowling for Columbine begins his film by opening a banking account and receiving a complimentary gun. He then proceeds to interview a diverse assortment of characters, including Tim McVeigh’s brother, a Lockheed Martin employee, and members of the Michigan Militia. It then details the shootings at Columbine, including tearful interviews with survivors, obviously an emotional appeal. Then it begins its larger goal: to demonize the NRA in general, and former NRA president Charlton Heston in particular. It blasts the “insensitivity” of the NRA for holding a meeting in Denver shortly after the shootings.

Unfortunately, Moore’s depiction of the NRA meeting in Denver is misleading at best, and downright dishonest at worse. The fact is that the NRA cancelled all other events it had planned in Denver, and that Moore’s favorite quote from Heston (“Cold, dead hands”) actually happened in North Carolina a year later. For some reason, Moore neglects to mention these facts. He also implies the NRA is affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, despite the NRA’s anti-slavery history.

Moore also argues that we dumb Americans are terrified, and this drives the need to own guns. This is especially true of white Americans, who are supposedly afraid of black Americans, as well as anything associated with Africa, including even Killer Bees (which happen to be Africanized bees – I always thought we were afraid of them because of their aggression, but apparently not). He conspiratorially argues that politicians and the media seek to keep us in fear at all times. Methinks someone needs to switch to decaf (and low carbs).

Moore then chronicles what a wonderful place Canada is, and the lack of crime that country boasts. The fact that Canada has only a fraction of the population of the United States is, of course, not cited as a possible reason for this. He also compares gun deaths to those in Britain. He chose these countries because they make the point he likes. He doesn’t mention certain other countries, like Israel or Finland. As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, “Gun control zealots compare the United States and England to show that murder rates are lower where restrictions on ownership of firearms are more severe. But you could just as easily compare Switzerland and Germany, the Swiss having lower murder rates than the Germans, even though gun ownership is three times higher in Switzerland. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand and Finland.”

I find Moore’s portrait of contemporary America to be completely fallacious. I don’t know what kind of society he grew up in, but I have not lived my life in fear. I grew up in a fairly typical middle class Southern town, attended a public school system ranked in the bottom 5 statewide, where a majority of the students were below the poverty line, yet I have not been terrified by the news or by political leaders. Though I believe that Americans have a right to own firearms if they so desire, I’ve never owned one. I’ve never even fired one! I’m not sure why Michael Moore is so out of touch with reality, but perhaps he should step down from his ivory tower and talk to average Americans. Maybe the he’d have more respect for us.

Michael Moore seems to believe Americans are nothing more than a bunch of dumb yokels incapable of taking care of themselves. He simply doesn’t trust us. “… A public that’s this out of control with fear should not have a lot of guns or ammo laying around,” according to Moore. Just because Moore himself is an incompetent buffoon, doesn’t mean all Americans are.

The scene where a paralyzed shooting victim attempts to “return the merchandise” (the bullets used in the shooting) to K-Mart, where they were purchased, is particularly silly. If I were to get injured in a car wreck, I wonder if I could coerce Detroit to stop producing automobiles? Even sillier is the fact that K-Mart bowed to this emotional propaganda.

The apparent climax is Moore’s interview with Charlton Heston, one of the chief villains of the film. Moore questions Heston’s decision to own fire arms, since he obviously doesn’t need them for protection. What business any of this is of Moore’s is anyone’s guess. In typical ambush “journalism,” Moore misrepresented himself to get the interview. He then yammers on incessantly about gun crimes and other sob stories. Clearly, Moore values emotion far more than logic.

As someone who believes that liberty should include the freedom to own fire arms, I expected to be offended by this film. I was not. Instead, I was simply bored by it. It drags on and on, pointlessly, attempting to make us laugh at the “funny” parts, and cry at the sad ones. For a film designed to be provocative, it isn’t particularly moving either way. Though you can certainly feel sympathy for the families of shooting victims, that sympathy begins to diminish when you realize that these people are only pawns, being pimped out by Michael Moore in order to sell movie tickets. For a guy who complains about the rich possessing too much money, he sure doesn’t seem to mind raking in the money himself. Perhaps he should try practicing what he preaches.

In conclusion, I found Bowling for Columbine to be a poor attempt at propaganda. It fails to be at all enthralling, instead it drags on and on until you want to use one of those oh-so-evil guns on your television. As it is well known that some scenes in the film were staged, I do not see how it can be considered a “documentary.” Additionally, it spends far too much time trying to tug at our heartstrings. Moore comes across as an arrogant elitist with little regard for the average American, and little respect for his country. Which is ironic, given that the American people have made him very wealthy, and the American system allows him to produce such nonsense.

- John Brown (www.johnnorrisbrown.com) is a senior studying political science and history at the University of Tennessee @ Knoxville. This column was originally written in June, 2004.