First of all, let me point out where I think this film is flawed. BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE almost exclusively focuses on gun violence in America as it stems from or relates to "white" America -- with very few exceptions. That means there is nothing in this film about drug violence, gang violence and the gun culture within urban, "non-white" America. Much of the firearms murders during the mean drug wars of the 80s, 90s and today are/were "black on black" homicides and other homicides within the context of urban (and suburban) organized crime. BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE never once touches on this subject, which is unfortunate. And it leads me to believe that Michael Moore is rather uncomfortable relating examples and statistics of firearms murders committed by anyone other than Caucasian Americans (there is a funny scene early in the film where Moore has to write the word "Caucasian") -- as though it were somehow politically incorrect or mildly reactionary to touch on the subject of the very obvious gun culture within the cultures of American organized crime as well as in the culture of non-white ethnic groups (in other words, the gun culture that is far removed from the likes of Columbine and the Michigan Militia).
I think Moore stayed away from the subject of non-white gun violence because it could perhaps undermine his quasi-thesis that all or most gun violence in American is somehow the result of a deep racially-motivated psychological fear that can be traced from the pilgrims, to the slave holders, to the westward pioneers, etc. He seemingly arrives at his semi-theory through process of elimination. But to imply that there is a separate problem (though perhaps related in certain ways) of firearms violence in America that does not involve white people scared to death of non-whites or other types of strangers would perhaps challenge Moore's semi-theory more than he would like. Michael Moore is well known for wearing his left of center views on his sleeve, which is of course why it's rather surprising to learn from the film that Moore is a member of the NRA. He does a remarkable job at building a case that it's a culture of fear of the non-white man that creates this obsession with guns and over-abundance of killing, yet clearly there are thousands of murders in the U.S. every year that are committed by non-middle America, non-rural, non-suburban, non-whites. So why do black criminals, Hispanic criminals, or criminals from other non-white populations kill with guns? What "fear" do they suffer from? Do they fear other non-white homicidal criminals? Moore, as fearless as he is, seems to fear touching on this issue. Could it be that there is a culture of greed that arises from the business of organized crime that also parallels this culture of fear that perhaps is not really part of organized crime? I think so. I think Moore had more than just an opportunity to explore the gun violence in urban, organized crime; I think he had somewhat of a responsibility to explore this too. But he doesn't. And I can only guess it's because this issue somewhat challenges his quasi-thesis of "white fear."
But despite my criticism that I have offered so far, I have to say that this is a great film -- easily one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. It's debatable as to what kind of documentary this is. Is Moore some kind of "satirical documentarian?" His skill at interviews, his pithy observations, his wit and his desire to confront and shock are tremendously on the money. And Moore's skill at getting just about any human being to be candid and say what's really on their mind is amazing. This film is not only hilarious and disturbing, but it is also tremendously moving. I was practically in tears when the film showed the miserable poverty in Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan. He is tremendously skilled and passionate when it comes to shining the spotlight on the underclasses, the forgotten, the downtrodden and those people and problems in America most of us wish would just go away. Moore refuses to let us ignore these problems, and he relates them with such a genuine compassion that it is impossible not to be moved. And he exposes the selfishness and the disinterestedness of the privileged (and well armed) with such effortlessness that it is impossible not be amazed, shocked and outraged.
The film works partly because it shows Moore exploring and struggling to come up with the reason or reasons why Americans are so homicidal with firearms (as opposed to our well armed, but less murderous, Canadian neighbors to the north). Moore tries to find an answer or answers -- and he does come up with a theory -- but he implies that his theory may not be the only theory or that it may not be absolutely correct. As Moore irreverently points out in the film, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold liked to bowl, and bowling was the last thing they did before they murdered a dozen or so students and teachers at Columbine High School. So could bowling have been the cause of the Columbine massacre -- any more than Marilyn Manson or easy access to guns? Hence the title BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE.
But the film is also a kind of a broader expose on the culture of violence and misery that is unique to American culture. Interestingly, the film briefly essays the culture of violence in American foreign policy -- and how from time to time the U.S. government has, openly and secretly, had a policy of military aggression in many troubled spots around the world. Moore does not explore the history of these conflicts at all, but instead implies that culture of violence within everyday America and the culture of violence used by the American political establishment overseas is related. It isn't complete (nothing about this film is) but it is effective, informative and revealing.
But, as I stated already, I think this film is somewhat flawed -- because it does not explore or reveal quite enough. Well, actually, I think it's incomplete. Now Moore needs to go out and make the sequel: BOWLING FOR THE MAC DADDY or BOWLING FOR GANG BANGIN'. He could start with my neighborhoods here in LA and Venice Beach.
I think Moore stayed away from the subject of non-white gun violence because it could perhaps undermine his quasi-thesis that all or most gun violence in American is somehow the result of a deep racially-motivated psychological fear that can be traced from the pilgrims, to the slave holders, to the westward pioneers, etc. He seemingly arrives at his semi-theory through process of elimination. But to imply that there is a separate problem (though perhaps related in certain ways) of firearms violence in America that does not involve white people scared to death of non-whites or other types of strangers would perhaps challenge Moore's semi-theory more than he would like. Michael Moore is well known for wearing his left of center views on his sleeve, which is of course why it's rather surprising to learn from the film that Moore is a member of the NRA. He does a remarkable job at building a case that it's a culture of fear of the non-white man that creates this obsession with guns and over-abundance of killing, yet clearly there are thousands of murders in the U.S. every year that are committed by non-middle America, non-rural, non-suburban, non-whites. So why do black criminals, Hispanic criminals, or criminals from other non-white populations kill with guns? What "fear" do they suffer from? Do they fear other non-white homicidal criminals? Moore, as fearless as he is, seems to fear touching on this issue. Could it be that there is a culture of greed that arises from the business of organized crime that also parallels this culture of fear that perhaps is not really part of organized crime? I think so. I think Moore had more than just an opportunity to explore the gun violence in urban, organized crime; I think he had somewhat of a responsibility to explore this too. But he doesn't. And I can only guess it's because this issue somewhat challenges his quasi-thesis of "white fear."
But despite my criticism that I have offered so far, I have to say that this is a great film -- easily one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. It's debatable as to what kind of documentary this is. Is Moore some kind of "satirical documentarian?" His skill at interviews, his pithy observations, his wit and his desire to confront and shock are tremendously on the money. And Moore's skill at getting just about any human being to be candid and say what's really on their mind is amazing. This film is not only hilarious and disturbing, but it is also tremendously moving. I was practically in tears when the film showed the miserable poverty in Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan. He is tremendously skilled and passionate when it comes to shining the spotlight on the underclasses, the forgotten, the downtrodden and those people and problems in America most of us wish would just go away. Moore refuses to let us ignore these problems, and he relates them with such a genuine compassion that it is impossible not to be moved. And he exposes the selfishness and the disinterestedness of the privileged (and well armed) with such effortlessness that it is impossible not be amazed, shocked and outraged.
The film works partly because it shows Moore exploring and struggling to come up with the reason or reasons why Americans are so homicidal with firearms (as opposed to our well armed, but less murderous, Canadian neighbors to the north). Moore tries to find an answer or answers -- and he does come up with a theory -- but he implies that his theory may not be the only theory or that it may not be absolutely correct. As Moore irreverently points out in the film, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold liked to bowl, and bowling was the last thing they did before they murdered a dozen or so students and teachers at Columbine High School. So could bowling have been the cause of the Columbine massacre -- any more than Marilyn Manson or easy access to guns? Hence the title BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE.
But the film is also a kind of a broader expose on the culture of violence and misery that is unique to American culture. Interestingly, the film briefly essays the culture of violence in American foreign policy -- and how from time to time the U.S. government has, openly and secretly, had a policy of military aggression in many troubled spots around the world. Moore does not explore the history of these conflicts at all, but instead implies that culture of violence within everyday America and the culture of violence used by the American political establishment overseas is related. It isn't complete (nothing about this film is) but it is effective, informative and revealing.
But, as I stated already, I think this film is somewhat flawed -- because it does not explore or reveal quite enough. Well, actually, I think it's incomplete. Now Moore needs to go out and make the sequel: BOWLING FOR THE MAC DADDY or BOWLING FOR GANG BANGIN'. He could start with my neighborhoods here in LA and Venice Beach.