Being the cliche college leftist that I am (well, really, I am too apathetic anymore to have any true political standing), I should gladly embrace Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. I have seen it before, but many years ago, yet I liked it then. I still like it now, but my feelings are definitely mixed.
Moore essentially takes the horrific Columbine tragedy, but doesn't really focus on it, and instead uses it as a branching point to explore America's gun-violence problems, giving him the opportunity to rant about media-indoctrination, corporatism, and of course FEAR MONGERING. You know, his favorite stuff. And that's okay, but it does get a bit redundant during the film. I imagine there are other good documentaries which strictly cover the tragedy in Colorado that I might prefer more, because while I do enjoy the rather large scope of the film, I have to say that its focus (to me anyway) seems to wander at times.
And of course any time you see a Michael Moore film you have to deal with Moore himself. The way he imprints himself on his films gives it most of its style, for better or worse. I can see this being better on personal projects, but here he can obviously be quite of intrusive, and he a lot of times overshadows the film's content, no surprise. I suppose it comes down to what style of documentary filmmaking do you prefer or find more effective? The one where the filmmaker puts his or herself out in the spotlight with the subject; or films like Hoop Dreams and Harlan County USA where the filmmakers work quietly in the background, letting their subjects tell the story? I think both have their place, and I have to give credit to Moore, because "Bowling for Columbine" is entertaining and well-made, and the satirical approach is fun. However, you could argue that he puts entertainment in front of insights and true journalism.
It seems that Moore always nukes himself in the final stretches of his films -- where he basically does something that is just too sensational. It's like he lacks confidence in what he is presenting, so he has to bring out the sledge-hammer to make his "point" across. Instead of just making a documentary to explore a subject, he has to provide an artificial climax. It's like the point I made about him putting entertainment in front of journalism. In Fahrenheit 9/11 you have the horrendous scene that essentially exploits a distraught, grieving mother of a fallen soldier; in Sicko you have a ridiculous scene in Cuba, where Moore laughably paints it as some paradise; and here in Bowling for Columbine you have a nasty final scene with Charleston Heston, where Moore becomes an outright bully.
In fact, Moore spends the bulk of the film hammering away at the point that it's FEAR which drives the country to be so violent, stating how in Canada they own as many guns, yet there are no gun-murders to speak of. Yet, then at the end, why go after Heston and the NRA? What's the point if we know that simply owning a lot of guns isn't the cause? Moore sees Heston as an easy target to start a fight with and he ends up essentially bullying him. The whole interview was pointless to begin with, and it ended disgracefully. Sure, Heston and the NRA can be insensitive, as rightfully pointed out by Moore throughout the film, but going after them served no other purpose other than to create some theater. Moore is just needlessly confrontational at times, often with it going nowhere. Some of it was successful, like the amazing turn-out with the two poor guys who were wounded from the Kaymart bullets -- while some of it was pointless. I often don't feel an angst or passion within these films, but rather a childish, mean-spiritedness -- Fahrenheit 9/11 especially, but also here in this film as well.
That said, there are some really outstanding interviews, two big highlights for me are the ones with Matt Stone (co-creator of South Park) and Marilyn Manson. There are some great sequences, and there are definitely things in the film which I could get behind. I wonder just how cosy the portrait of Canada truly is, but it wouldn;t surprise me, and the statistics of murder in the US is still appalling shocking, regardless.
So I suppose I am pretty indifferent to the film, but I wouldn't say it wasn't enjoyable, nor was it a waste of time. Moore has a talent as a filmmaker, but unfortunately his egotism and drive for needless sensationalism overshadows genuine journalism which is what is truly needed.
6/10
No comments:
Post a Comment