News
Briefly
Calendar of Events
Commentary
Opinions
Sports
Diversions
World News
Login
Letter Submission
Search
Archive
Publishing Policy
Classifieds
Mail Subscriptions
St. Cloud State University
College Publisher
Home
>
Diversions
'Bowling' inspires laughter, controversy
By John Behling
Published:
Monday, January 20, 2003
"He's so completely right!"
I remember the words just exploding from a friend of mine as we were just getting settled in the car preparing to leave the parking lot.
After this comment she burst out on a rant which spun through such important contemporary issues as gun control, gun violence, American aggression in foreign affairs, American race relations, terrorism, 9-11, Columbine, the breakup of the American family structure, violence in entertainment, the prominence of fear in the American news media and the list went on.
On hearing this, one might assume that the "he" in question was a candidate for political office, and that the parking lot we were leaving was at a convention center or a hotel where a rally had been held.
But, in actuality the "he" was liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, the parking lot was that of a movie theatre and the film was "Bowling for Columbine."
The first thing that intrigued me about this film was its title. What is the connection between bowling and the monumental issues discussed in this film?
It appears to explain the title with an understated point made near the end of the film: "The last thing that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did before committing the massacre at Columbine high school was attend their 6:30 a.m. bowling class, therefore, why isn't anyone blaming bowling as a cause of this horrible crime?"
Bowling, is of course, not the main focus of "Bowling For Columbine."
The film's prominent, focal and ultimately unanswered question is, "why do Americans kill each other with guns?"
In his search for the answer Moore presents us with: a bank in Michigan where you can receive a free gun for opening an account, an interview with Littleton, Colo. native Matt Stone, an attempted interview with Dick Clark, a montage of images depicting American Aggression in foreign countries culminating with a video of the 9-11 attack titled with the message "On September 11th, 2001 Osama Bin Laden used his expert CIA training to kill over 3,000 Americans." and climaxing with a short-lived interview with NRA president Charlton Heston.
It shouldn't be hard by this point to decipher that Michael Moore's film isn't a simple documentary. In fact, during a recent discussion I participated in, the genre of "Bowling for Columbine" seemed to be most accurately classified "a Michael Moore film." This style of raw, agenda-driven, comedy-laced social commentary appears to be unique to the filmmaker. His other films have dealt the closing of the General Motors plant in Flint, Michigan and the greed of big business.
"Bowling for Columbine" blames American news media for instilling a climate of fear on the public in order to capitalize on it. He vilifies reporters in the same way he does politicians, government leaders and ignorant guncrazy Americans.
On the other side Michael Moore places himself. He is shown as the unshaven baseball cap wearing common man walking boldly into the fray to capture how things really are. With him are fellow entertainers, rock star Marilyn Manson and South Park creator Matt Stone. In his interviews with these individuals we see educated, well-spoken individuals having their say with gentle encouragement from Moore. On the other hand we see Moore's heavily-edited interview with James Nichols, brother of Terry Nichols who is currently serving a life sentence for his involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing. Here we see a different side of Moore, one that is aggressive, manipulative and ultimately in control of what the final message will be.
One particularly troubling moment comes when after Nichols makes a quip which sounds a little over the edge, a cut is made to Moore sitting, stone- faced, and silent; the typical comic strait man. The result is a laugh from the audience. But what stays in my mind is the fact that there is only one camera being used and Michael Moore's "reaction" must have been taken out of context and edited in to achieve the intended comedic effect.
Another interesting point is to identify to whom Moore wants us to listen. He's saying 'Don't listen to government leaders, politicians, the media, and right-wing extremists. Instead his film is saying 'listen to entertainers'. And in the context of the film, entertainers Michael Moore, Matt Stone, and Marilyn Manson seem much more reasonable than President Bush, Dick Clark, James Nichols and the news media.
This of course is the desired effect. In the end we are left sitting in our cars after the movie, thinking about some of the disturbing images we've seen, thinking about some of the parts we laughed at and thinking about the parts where our own personal opinions were amplified by those of the film.
I personally was left thinking about its generalizations, and about it's agenda. It was during this cautious examination when I heard "he is so completely right," blast back at me from the front seat and it left me with a tight feeling in my stomach. It left me wondering about the effect of this film in an age where we worship celebrities, watch more MTV than CNN, and prefer to get our knowledge from television rather from books. It's a tight feeling that still lingers today as the current political climate heats up and people with no opinions are becoming more and more scarce.
If you're looking for an opinion, you'll definitely find one in "Bowling for Columbine," if nothing else it'll leave you thinking, which is never an entirely bad thing.
Privacy Policy
Network Advertising
Article Syndication
