Bowling for Columbine: a Fictional Truth

Bowling for Columbine is a documentary directed, written and produced by filmmaker Michael Moore, with the purpose being to open the eyes of people to the issue of gun control. The documentary is centred around the villainous 1999 Columbine High School shooting where two former students cold-heartedly killed 16 people and injured 21. The movie investigates gun regulations in the United States and the lack of law relating to gun ownership. Throughout Bowling for Columbine, what is displayed is an anti-political, critical and persuasive perspective that repeatedly ‘lies to tell the truth’ to help spread awareness of the issue that pollutes modern day America.

As with most films exploring sensitive subjects, viewers have various controversial views on the documentary. More specifically, views relating to exactly how much of the documentary is supported by true facts. The film positions the audience through the use of persuasive techniques to accept the ‘truth’ set forth in the film, although these issues are still veryireal inithe US. Bowling for Columbine investigates several exaggerated depictions of its nation’s people, as well as informing the audience of the problems associated with the current gun regulations. Moore is continually superficial with the questions that he points; the use of juxtaposition as well as his witty comments are used to Moore’s advantage in order to lighten the fact that the movie is based off the issue of people killing other people.

Right from the start of the movie, Moore begins his routine bias. The film opens with Moore at a bank opening a new account that upon establishment gifts him a gun. He asks several questions to mock the employees, like “don’t you think it’s a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?”, and doesn’t let the employees reply on video. These techniques are used to make fun of the workers - aiding Moore in achieving his intentions to incompetently demonstrate the ‘truth’ by deceiving viewers. On top of his derisive debriefings, Moore uses songs and music to impact viewers through emotion. One truly upsetting and unsettling part ofithe movie isithe ‘What a Wonderful World’ montage, in which theifamous Louis Armstrong song is played over the top of flashed photos and videos of America’s past decisions relating to war and violence. The use of the song is essentially ridiculing the American government, which suggests how the world we live in ironically isn’t a ‘wonderful world’, but rather quite the opposite thanks to violence and murder. The videos of people dying, getting shot and foreigners carrying American made weaponry gives off the feeling of a mismanaged and broken government. The filmmaker does this to turn his audience away from political leaders to instead his personal views by making the audienceid straught.

During the film, Moore uses several techniques to make the viewers feel unsettled and to reinforce his point that gun control is a problem. This is demonstrated in the scene with the 911 emergency calls playing over the slow motion video recording of the corridors of Columbine High. Deliberately done to positionithe audience as a student, this scene gives off an uneasy emotion due to the viewers feeling sorrow and grief for the students who were shot and killed the day of the massacre. The video then switches to CCTV footage from the cafeteria onithe day of the shooting - showcasing shots being fired, bombs exploding, studentsiin fear and panic while hiding underithe lunch tables, fires starting and students running for their lives. This crucial scene in the film directs the audience to feel distraught, scared and angry, reinforcing the issue of gun control in the US.

Following this chilling scene, the film changes to a clip of ex NRA president Charlton Heston yelling “from my cold dead hands”, whilst holding up a gun to a packed crowd. Moore narrates over this clip, explaining how just ten days afteri he shooting, the NRA held a pro-gun demonstration in Denver despite the pleas of the locals in mourning. The filmmaker shines a false, negative light on the National Rifle Association as Charlton Heston did not yell those five words on this occasion, but instead an entire year later during a separate event. Additionally, “NRA meeting after the flint shootings” happened over half a year after. The filmmaker uses his position and depicts Hestonias a villain through using illusion of reality to convert the audience’s perspective, instead of using real facts to explain the issue of gun control.

The scene that follows shows the filmmaker venturing to Charlton Heston’s home for an interview. Moore lies his way to an interview and poses as a keen, eager “lifetime member of the NRA”, then proceeds to criticize Heston off-guard. In the meeting, Heston oftenidoesn’t even giveian answer to the questions posed by Moore. Moore used this to his advantage to silence Heston’s opinion while adding relentless remarks. People view Moore as a cowardifor takingiadvantage of Charlton - a man withiearly stage Alzheimer’siDisease. By the end, Heston announces the interview is over by getting up and leaving Moore. The filmmaker uses this misapprehension of real life and shows his negative NRA viewpoint. He incorporates it into the concluding act leaving the audience to reflect.

Bowling for Columbine targets people all over the world. Moore aimed to educate those who don’t have a clear knowledge of why there is so much gun violence in the US. The director used numerous techniques to grab the audience’s attention and trust. This is designed to keep the attention and confuse the audience. Shocking and explosive newsflashes, strange circumstances, frustrated interviewees, sardonic twists, and animations all joined together into an hour and fifty-seven minutes, the movie is best described as a documentary for the new generation, to spread awareness of just how damaged gun control and ownership regulations is in the United States. Furthermore, Moore uses analytical features and prejudicial techniques, which position the audience to accept his point of view over the NRA and Charlton Heston. Moore has been ridiculed for editing the film to suit his aim, which isn’t exactly following the documentary genre – but nonetheless still supports his perspective and raises awareness of the seriousness of the issue.

Moore correspondingly marginalises to suit his aim. The film is focused on an anti-gun stance, but Moore gives minimal time for pro-gun enthusiasts to voice their opinion. Moore repetitively edits out responses to his questions so that it doesn’t affect the state of mind he wants his viewers to feel, also mocking people through his voiceovers. Although his techniques are arguable, the issues of which he discusses are of significance. While he shows more opinions antigun related, he still allows viewers to put together their own opinions. He uses rhetorical questions to let the audience think about what they are watching.

Does Moore portray American society accurately? Did he draw the viewer in as he intended through his persuasive cinematography, editing and narration? Does he deserve to receive backlash for his film techniques? Perhaps, but one thing is for sure… Bowling for Columbine is a very well-organised documentary that helps raise issues in a political controlled society. In the end it lets viewers reflect, which is a feature a lot of modern day documentaries lack.